@MrAlienlovechild Your limited knowledge of how society works is quite evident. Just like every other left-wind fanatic, you regress to insults that have no intellectual value. It was a pleasure talking to you, and I wish you the best.
@MrAlienlovechild Next, I know this might be hard for someone like you to understand, but Libertarian (European or otherwise) thought clearly expresses the freedom of the individual. Socialism sacrifices the freedom of the individual for the welfare of the collective. How could the two possibly coincide with each other?
Want to read Tocqueville? Classical liberal thinker... he put freedom above everything else and do you know what he had to say about economic hierarchy? That they could be what would bring men back to aristocracy. He's the guy who said "as the art advances, the artisan declines" meaning that as you get more focused on a simple task and get good at it, you diminish your humanity. And as you read Tocqueville, you almost feel he's disgusted at that kind of economic system.
Capitalism was argued by Adam Smith and he argued it in a similar position than Tocqueville. His position was totally conditional to the performances it would yield and I can give you the exact conditions in which laissez-faire capitalism is sustainable: perfect competition, perfect information, perfectly rational individuals. Even if you argue the first is plausible, the last two aren't.
So what it does is instituting an authority that is illegitimate.
The power you grant to anyone must be justified and to be justified it must be to the greater benefit of those who are ruled. If it is instituted to favor the people in position of authority, we call that exploitation. Getting a job is not bad: it's being reduced to a tool that is rented that is.
The distortion is a product of the American society. You don't have a choice between social justice and freedom: you either get both or you loose both.
There may be conditions wherein unequal shares are granted and in which we indeed work for owners and that are acceptable. But it can't be taken for granted and, as far as I can tell, the argument the US Libertarian applies to the government applies to workplaces and any relation of authority: it's not because you can change the ruler every once in a while that you are free. Same with your boss: changing job doesn't make you free.
@KrugmanTheKing Your reference to Tocqueville, I assume is Alexis de Toqueville? Clearly you never read his book "Democracy in America," circa 1835 wrote:
"In America the aristocratic element has always been feeble from its birth; and if at the present day it is not actually destroyed, it is at any rate so completely disabled, that we can scarcely assign to it any degree of influence on the course of affairs...(cont.)
@KrugmanTheKing "...(cont.) America, then exhibits in her social state a most extraordinary phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of fortune and intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their strength, than in any other country of the world, or in any age of which history has preserved the remembrance."
Now that said, I ask you in which society that has moved toward forced social responsibilty (welfare) are people more free or equal?
@KrugmanTheKing I can see that it is hard for you to understand the concept of true capitalism, since you believe that there has to be a class of elites that rules over the masses. These kinds of ideas only exist in societies that embrace equality of outcome over equality of opportunity (China, USSR, N. Korea, etc.). The problem is that societies that value latter over the former end up with a greater degree of each.
@KrugmanTheKing To address your other point (over labor), you create the fallacy that I hear so much of a person "forced to work." That may be the case in places like N. Korea, China, etc., where the government coerces its citizens into such industries, but in the United States, and other freer countries, the classical argument of Adam Smith applies; "if an exchange between 2 parties is voluntary, it will not happen unless both believe they benefit from it."
@KrugmanTheKing Therefore, no person, in a voluntary application of employment, will agree unless they benefit from their contribution of work as well. Long ago this was accomplished by bartering goods for services, or today, by paying a monetary wage.
I do not understand where the idea of a boss is equivalent to the idea of a ruler of authority. A boss can not legally coerce his/her employees into a type of work, unless he/she is granted that authority by a government entity.
@LiberalBohemian Yeah, probably more so than you have. I have worked for a movie theatre, as a bag goy in a grocery store, as a janitor, a math tutor, a computer tech (on my own and for a University library), as a teaching assistant, and as a Graduate Research Assistant. What was the point of your question?
@heavym3tal Not entirely. In the 19th century there came a popular term 'wage slave'. While slaves don't receive wages, they are provided food and shelter whereas workers aren't provided food and shelter, but instead receive a wage. So depending on the wage, it may provide a quality of life that is functionally equivalent to slavery, whereby the individual simply can't afford anything other than subsistence and has nothing to look forward to but meek servitude.
@TechnomancerMorhion But slaves also are bound to work through force (coercion). This is different from workers in a free market, since they can choose where they work, what wage they receive, and how much they work. Besides, the more employers there are (competition), the better off the worker since employers will be trying to make better offers such that they get the most workers, and can therefore outproduce their competition.
@heavym3tal The difference is philosophical, not practical. When the choice is 'do as I say or starve', it's not really a choice. As a business owner, I wield power over my employees that they can't match. Certainly they can leave my employ, but there's no shortage of unemployed people who are desperate for me to choose from to fill that gap, so it's no loss to me except for some annoying paper work. My employees do not choose their wage. I dictate it to them.
@heavym3tal Continued: I dictate it to them. They either accept it, or they don't. Either way, it's irrelevant to me. I have a big pile of applications from people who need income. They're not exactly in any position to negotiate with me. Now, that's not to say I endorse such practices, but many people like me do. It's not right. Taking advantage of peoples financial situations to coerce them (and that's exactly what it is) into working for subsistence wages is effective slavery.
@TechnomancerMorhion You should examine the poorest in England and the United States before and after the Industrial Revolution. Did the poor receive the greatest benefit, or did the rich? How so?
@MrAlienlovechild For the third time now, I AM NOT JUSTIFYING THE ACTIONS OF AUGUSTO PINOCHET!!! Start using that brain of yours for a second. A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government because there comes a point when a majority of voters discover they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury. Now pay attention to my next statement; Capitalism does not equal Totalitarian Government! If you can show evidence to the contrary, then show it, don't B.S. with me.
Horrible dictator of Chili, he overthrown the democratically instituted government of a statist socialist party by means of force. He then implemented a far right-end government which was also an aggressive form of authoritarianism.
He well timed his death because he was about to be sent to an international tribunal to be judged for crime against humanity. I'm not sure, but I suspect as most of other Latin dictator, he had the US supporting him to stop the communist threat.
@MrAlienlovechild You do realize that the truth is still there, right? Also in no way am I justifying Pinochet's actions. But if you want to compare deaths, considering that there is no confimed number of death's from Pinochet, try the number of those that were executed by the National Socialist German Workers' Party, you know, Nazi's. Perhaps you can tell me the number of deaths from any of the various implementations of socialism? Implementation of socialism in any form is an epic fail.
@MrAlienlovechild "By 1990, Chile had fulfilled Hayek's prediction by transitioning to a democratic state as established in the 1980 Constitution approved during the Pinochet regime." via wikipedia
Why should Pinochet's actions be viewed any differently than those of Lenin, Stalin, or even Che Guevara? As Mitlon Friedman has said, and I concur, that shock therapy is never the solution to such a problem. However, Chile has better living conditions than Cuba or the former USSR.
As grand as socialism sounds, when you look at Europe, where they are carrying out social programs like public healthcare, they're running up debts. Even their healthcare is dreadful seeing as so many die from curable diseases just because the line was too long for treatment and their body wouldn't wait. I'd rather have very few taxes so I have the money to buy whatever healthcare I want, to to be as charitable as I'd like to be.
@rhinnawi95 I'm sorry to contradict you but this idea you have that people in Europe are dying because our healthcare is dreadful is insane and our debts are not because of healthcare plans its because of Capitalist extremes. i personally would rather pay a little more so everybody, "especially" those who can't get taken care of
@rhinnawi95 Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth and some people fall victim to misfortune even though they work really hard. My wife fell at work, workman's comp paid 5k shy of what we spent just to make ends meet. And that didn't include some fancy new house or cars. Both vehicles are paid for and the house payment is less than most rent in this town. Your point of view is obviously from a perspective of sheer selfishness and I hope some day you will find compassion.
I'm suprised that after you watched this video you still decided to make a post that argues against a mythical form of socialism. Last time I checked europe still has large scale governments.
@rictorn Socialist equality is man made equality. It is constructed equality. It becomes nothing more than positive discrimination thus destroying the beauty of equality.
@STOPTHEEU you ware not talking about equality, you are talking about meritocracy i assume? in which case it dosent, it works best under a socialdemocratic goveremnet and hardly at all under a neoliberal(thaturite) one, sorry to put words in your mouth please explain if i have missed teh point, sorry
@heavym3tal yes limits on freedom are bad,inequality is bad,the point as made in "equality" rh tawny & "the future of socialism" tony crossland without aproching equality we can't be a society at ease with itself, u can not be free if you are poor because of all the anziaty which generaly go's with it, statistics from the oecd & any studies which look into it show the more equall a society is the better it is by all social measures, even the rich are better on these measures when we are more =
@rictorn I know you made this comment quite a long time ago, but in your definition of equality, do you refer to equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
@heavym3tal hello equality of opertunity is a bit of a pointless phrase as those who use it advocate policies which reduce teh very equality ofr opertunity they advocate, ui advocate teh persute of equality of outcome as its teh only way to increase ecquality of opertunity as well as making society better for evryone, i am asumeing as you have had ages since we chatted you have at least the read the spirit level or some of the data which proves this stuff?
@heavym3tal spell cheacked so on the substantive points what do you think? equality of opportunity is a bit of a pointless phrase as those who use it advocate policies which reduce the very equality of opportunity they advocate, i advocate the pursute of equality of outcome as its the only way to increase equality of opportunity as well as making society better for everyone, I am assuming as you've had ages you have at least the read the spirit level or some of the data which proves this stuff?
@rictorn Personally I think the best position is between left and right libertarianism. We libertarians need to join forces and quit fucking around. What is so hard about that?
Hey all you silly youtubers! I can wright comments that do nothing to further my intelligence aswell!!! My ego has now ben fed by my wacky antics and my perfect world of "me" has ben kept intact! :D
Referring to workers as "coerced tools" is utterly insulting. This concept he's describing sounds less like anarchy and a lot more like socialism, which is hardly what the world needs more of.
@nocturnezero That's true, but none the less we're already suffering a surplus of socialism in the world today without a need for more. Socialists are free to go live in their little communes while the rest of us pursue freedom by our own means.
@Hostile I'm sure there are Socialists saying Capitalists are free to live in their little corporate sponsored housing or whatever while the rest of us pursue freedom by our own means. How about we tolerate the viewpoints and political aspirations of others, eh?
@nocturnezero Well I agree with that entirely nocturne, except that socialism inherently requires the redistribution of wealth which is hardly tolerant of a freedom-based society. I'm arguing that there need be no state, in which case you are perfectly free to establish a socialist commune in any space that belongs to you, but the socialism advocated by Chomsky is still a form of aggressive statism under which anarchist living would be impossible. So we're hardly the ones causing the conflict...
@nocturnezero And how would this balanced job complex be achieved without a state? Because if it's by peaceful agreement then okay with that, so long as you don't try to stop me from doing what I want with my business.
@Hostile Right, Continue to ignore my point and hammer away with your null point that we could all just become hermits and hide from society. This to me is akin like saying you want to argue philosphy and then your argument is nihilistic. Sure we could all quit our jobs, but what does it matter if we're slaves because life is meaningless and death is ineviatable? If you don't understand the allegory I've been attempting to make for 5 posts, go ahead repeat yourself.
@Seregnaug I understand the allegory in spite of your poor explanations, I merely reject it because it's far too simplistic and without any moral understanding. Everybody has a choice to work or not to work, and your inability to recognise this leaves this conversation with nowhere further to go. I'm not gonna stand to be insulted if you've nothing interesting or challenging to offer me.
@Hostile rofl oh they were terrible, lol plz. Similar to by "inability" to "recognize" right. That's it, keep pointing that finger without addressing my point. Because hey moron my point not only recognized but pointed out how meaningless your point was. Of course we could not work. How can you claim I don't have the ability to recognize this? ROFL!!!! How about i'm just trying to make my point on how false of a choice that is. Sure! We could ALSO STARVE OURSELVES TO DEATH Stop attacking me jerk
@Hostile LOL "I'm not gonna stand to be insulted if you've nothing interesting or challenging to offer me" ROFL Yes, We all go on youtube to debate for the challenge of it! LOL GET A LIFE. I was simply reading the comments on here and simply wanted to make a subtle point on a topic being discussed, because you want to ignore the subtleties i surrender OMG YOU WIN YOU MASSIVE HERO OMG OMG OMG OMG I LOVE YOU lolololol
@Hostile rofl yes because Socialism is far more dangerous than all other forms of govt. Arguing between the means when the ends are the same if what you're doing. Just because you're not familiar with life in a socialist society and just because American propaganda slates all socialism like communism, that doesn't mean you know what your talking about. Socialism is no better than Democracy.
@TheElMoIsEviL If a foreign worker is prepared to do the same job just as well for less wages, who are you to complain? You're not the new employee and you're not the employer, so surely it's none of your business?
@TheElMoIsEviL No, they aren't. Libertarian Socialists still believe in collective ownership of the means of production. We just don't believe that the government in a worker union state/city/municipality/country etc should infringe any personal rights. Marxism and Libertarian Socialism are quite similar.
@nocturnezero How do you reconcile a belief that the government shouldn't interfere with personal rights, and the personal right of capitalists to own a factory? Lets say I'm an individual in your libertarian socialist society: do I have a right to buy property? Do I have a right to buy industrial machinery? If not, do I have a right to construct it myself using materials I bought? Do I have a right to hire other people to work in my factory? At what point does "society" get to take it's cut?
@Hostile I believe in the principles of solidarity, equity, democracy, and self-management. I don't think you have any intrinsic to own a factory or to take a cut of the labor of others or to be free from restrictions placed on your factory by the community.
By property, you mean... just, anything? If there are no externalities (i.e. buying a fossil fuel burning car) then knock yourself out.
@nocturnezero You just said the state shouldn't infringe on personal rights, yet you're advocating refusing me my right to buy property and turn it into whatever I want. If there's a person who owns property, and another who owns machinery, and I have money, by what right do you stop me from going about my business? I'm not hurting anyone, nobody is being refused any of their rights in the process, and I'm providing jobs, products and general economic benefits to all.
@Hostile By property, if there are no externalities like environmental damage or workers being subjected to subpar conditions or pay then, I say again, knock yourself out. I'm not against the existence of trade without externalities or false advertising, just against the market as the grand arbiter of an economy.
@nocturnezero Nobody is ever "subjected" to sub-par pay; if an employee doesn't like their wage, they're free to quit. Ultimately the decision on wages is between me and the employee; if a man is willing to sign that contract with me, then it's exclusively OUR business. Would you interfere if you felt the man wasn't being paid enough? Would you refuse me my right to hire, and him his right to choose employment?
@Hostile Until monopolies and oligopolies form and workers have little to no choice in where they work, how much they are paid, and how empowering or disempowering their job is.
Me, as a person? Under the society we have, I don't think it would make much difference and in any case there are few alternatives in many towns. I've seen cities across the country that consist ONLY of strip malls with massive corporate sales outlets that pay workers below the minimum wage.
@nocturnezero Monopolies form as a result of government and quickly become inefficient without the market dynamic to force excellence, meaning that competition springs up quickly in a free market, so your "no choice" scenario isn't very realistic in a free market.
Would you personally refuse me my right to hire, and my employee his right to choose his employment? I don't mean that as a matter of practicality but rather of morality. Do you consider it morally right to intervene in our business?
@Hostile They do indeed, but what's to stop them in a free market? What about Standard Oil?
Again, I don't think you have some intrinsic right to hire. I believe in self-management and think private ownership subverts that. I don't believe in the few - you, as an owner - having power over the many - your employees - any more than I don't believe in state authorities having power over the masses. That said, in your idealist free market, if he decides of his own accord, then no, I wouldn't.
@nocturnezero If Standard Oil had a monopoly then it was only because they offered the best product at the best prices; this is called a natural monopoly, and is perfectly harmless. If standard drops and price increases, competition will appear to challenge them. True monopolies only occur via statism, i.e. East India Company.
I don't need the "right to hire" specifically, only the general right to administer my own business. Hiring a person doesn't give me "power" over them; they can leave.
@Hostile Again, buy industrial machinery all you want, but if you hire any others to work in your factory, you will concede ownership to them, you will acquire a balanced job complex to both empower your workers and get the rote jobs done, you will allow the workers to democratically run your factory with each having a say proportional to how decisions affect them, you will pay them based on effort and sacrifice, and you will work with consumer councils on how much to produce.
@nocturnezero re: second response... wait wait wait, what? Why would I concede ownership of something I own to strangers? That's absurd, I'm the one who spent money on it, it's my entrepreneurial scheme.
This hypothetical business is my individual property, nocturne, so what gives you the hypothetical right to tell me what I can and cannot do?
@Hostile Then you certainly COULD own the business, but I doubt anybody would work for you because cooperatives and syndicates allow people to be empowered and paid by effort sacrifice instead of output. If you can get people to work there, then go for it, but I can't conceive of people willing to be bossed around rather then to govern a business themselves with their coworkers. It's not a scenario that I'm going to stop, it's just an inconceivable one.
@nocturnezero If my scenario is so awful and yours so optimal, then why aren't people setting up cooperative shops and factories all over the country?
The idea of governing a business cooperatively is mind-boggling. Surely the point of having market research departments in corporations is because THEY know what products consumer wants, not the man on the factory floor?
@Hostile While I think this argument is silly as cooperatives aren't exactly a popular idea, I've seen a handful in my town and the more indie towns around my country i.e. Asheville, Seattle, Madison.
Surely the point of having a central planning committee in State Communist countries is because THEY know what products the consumer needs, not the man in the market research department? I don't believe in centralized planning, so I don't believe in either of these things.
@nocturnezero Well the obvious difference is that the communists forcefully monopolise the creation of their product, while capitalists in a market research dept. are reliant entirely on the whims of consumer opinion, and constantly under pressure from competition. So the former is a master while the latter is a slave to the market, which by no means constitutes central planning.
@Hostile But because the company is driven by the profit motive, their goal is certainly to monopolize their industry as well, at which point they certainly would constitute central planning. And there are other aversions I have to markets, not the least of which being they reward genetic talents instead of effort and sacrifice.
@nocturnezero at any point, consumers can stop buying the dominant product, so the capitalists are ever subject to the whims of the consumer/market. Any monopoly occurring is only because WE choose to support it, and if the monopoly tries to increase prices we'll find a competitor. So there's no central planning at ANY point, it's all down to several billion individuals making their personal decision.
How do markets reward genetic talents? Don't hard workers rise in the workplace?
@Hostile I see holding most of those rights dear is like complaining that there isn't a right to speed on a road or beat your pets.
With no government to fund and society based around participatory democratic councils, I'm not sure what cut you're talking about. Perhaps you mean the funding to build things like public roads, fund sanitation, provide health care, in which case...
@nocturnezero You're comparing reckless endangerment and cruelty to animals to the mere act of buying property? Well if I can't own the property, who does own it? If the answer is "the community", and I am part of the community, at what point did I do something to deserve/earn a part of this property?
This society is sounding increasingly hostile and anti-libertarian. I have no personal right to trade with others? I've no property ownership without your permission? "Back in the USSR" huh...
@Hostile No, I'm just saying not every conceivable act is automatically a right.
The community isn't just some magical, innate being. The community is an actual group of people, of which you are a small part. Those working at a given factory and the residents of area in which the factory resides own a small, variable part of it.
You have the personal right to trade with others. I don't know where you got this idea. So long as there are no externalities, go ahead and trade all you want.
@nocturnezero I'd say the only conceivable acts that aren't rights are the ones which infringe on the rights of others, so I have the right to sell property but not the right to sell YOUR property. Likewise, you have no right to exercise any power over my property. Who has the power to define "externalities", and by what right do they get to exercise their definition over my right to trade?
@Hostile So the worker has a right to earn a trillion dollars a year because it doesn't infringe on anybody else's, and it's not your right to refuse him that because refusing him his rights infringes upon his rights?
No, but I believe that hiring workers infringes upon their rights to solidarity and self-management, which infringe upon your rights to ownership, which infringe upon theirs to solidarity and self-mangement, ad nauseum. Maybe your definition of rights just isn't a very strong one.
@nocturnezero If a person earns a trillion dollars a year, that's their business and not mine. So long as they're not forcefully taking money from somebody else, I have no concern either way. I wouldn't dream on infringing on ANYONE'S rights, whether they earn one dollar or a trillion.
That second part is crazy, zero. If a worker willingly enters my employ, I can't possibly be infringing on their rights since it's their decision. Perhaps they just don't agree with the solidarity philosophy?
@Hostile No, I mean by your definition of rights, they can arbitrarily be claimed by a worker unto an owner i.e. "you owe me a trillion dollars a year because it's my right to have a trillion dollars and that doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights."
Ah. The whole idea of Libertarian Socialism is based around the notion that workers don't want to work under an owner, but if he did, then you two could certainly have your exchange of labor for wages.
@nocturnezero Whoa whoa whoa, "have" and "earn" are two extremely different things! C'mon, that's obvious. You have a right to "have a trillion dollars", but not to steal since that infringes on the rights of others; you have to earn a trillion dollars.
I'm okay with that. LibSoc can believe anything it likes so long as it doesn't interfere with individual behaviour. Personally I'm happy to work for another person; I do labour, I get wages... I like it and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
@Hostile If a decision affects a third party, that's an externality. It's not really a subjective thing. A fossil fuel burning car harms the local environment which affects all of us, so buying it has externalities and those who benefit from the environment should have a say in that exchange. Buying a t-shirt has no externalities, so it's between you and the seller.
@nocturnezero Every act, from driving cars to breathing, can be claimed to have externalities by your definition. The environment doesn't belong to anybody, not even "the community", so claiming to have a right to regulate it is immoral. If you don't like pollution, perhaps you can buy a car which pollutes less, or boycott polluting industries? You needn't control others to achieve your goal.
How is the seller going to produce a t-shirt without producing waste/externalities?
@Hostile I guess every act could have externalities. So?
No, it doesn't, but in harming the environment you also harm people, so those people being harmed by your decision to by a pollutant car should have a vote on whether you can harm them.
Waste isn't an externality because no one's being harmed by it. Unless they are, in which case it does have externalities. I'm still confused as to why you think third parties who are being harmed by a decision shouldn't have a say in it.
@nocturnezero If externalities give you the right to use force against others (e.g. banning pollution) then you can use this mentality to apply force against anyone for any act. Do you see the problem?
People harm themselves by being in polluted environments. Some environments are more harmful than others as a result of human behaviour but that it is not direct harm to you, any more than passive smoking is a form of attack.
Waste is a form of pollution which you claim is a form of harm.
@Hostile Because in this society the entire group would be participating in decisions and everybody having a small say in communal choices, funding the councils would be something to get excited about. You're putting in the money that supports your channel to make your opinions heard and benefits your community. I guess you could call it voluntary taxation, where all members and companies pay if they want and happily reap the benefits if they do pay.
@nocturnezero re: 3rd response, you can't say "the entire group" since people like myself would refuse to partake on moral grounds. In that case, am I subject to any taxes I haven't volunteered to? Is the rest of the group allowed to make decisions that will result in me being taxed, criminalised or otherwise plied with force? Or am I free to simply refuse? Why wouldn't EVERYONE refuse?
There is no "community", nocturne, that's just something they told us so they could steal our money.
@Hostile Why would you refuse talking with your community and making decisions? Fine, some would not volunteer taxes and then they couldn't take advantage of communal roads, medicine, water, electricity, or sanitation. I don't care.
If you aren't paying taxes and aren't participating in any council, then what sort of decision could affect you in any way, including force?
So my neighborhood is just imaginary? What about my workplace? My union? My city? My state? My country?
@nocturnezero So long as I can build my own roads, hospitals and supply lines and charge for their use, I'll gladly refuse. Communal decision making has only produced misery in my country and I've no interest in encouraging more of it.
What if the community decided to ban weed?
Which of those is the community? Why not say "the universe"? If the community is a real thing, tell me exactly what it is. How many people, rights, boundaries, etc. A neighborhood is physical, a community is a fantasy.
@Hostile And there will always be ones built with funding from voluntary taxation that those who pay taxes can use for free to choose over yours.
Weed has no externalites. That decision would be made among the people who smoke it because they're the only ones being affected. Unless the smoke is harmful to others, in which case I don't see how it's bad to ban it.
I believe there are different levels of community. Yes, a neighborhood is a physical conglomerate of people.
@nocturnezero So which will be more efficient? The centrally planned economy of East Germany, or the free market competition of the west? I think history demonstrates that workers/consumers will favour my approach.
So it's okay to ban smoking in public places? What if the owner of an establishment wants to allow smoking, but "the community" votes to ban all public smoking? Whose right in your eyes?
If there's different levels of community then how can you define "THE community"?
@Hostile They aren't the only options, as I've said. I favor your approach to that of central planning as well, but, alongside decentralized markets and central planning, there is also decentralized planning.
Smoking tobacco harms parties other than the smoker and the seller of cigarettes, so it's perfectly okay for those people suffering as third parties to take a vote on whether you are allowed to harm them or not.
You can't, but "the commu." implies whichever you're referring to in context.
@nocturnezero The mentality behind centralised and decentralised planning is the same: that the majority knows what's best. If we were a community of three, and two of you decided to ban smoking, I would still have a right to smoke! If you decide to be in a harmful environment, that's your own fault and nobody else's.
The idea of "community" rule is based on nothing of matter if you can't clearly define what "the community" is. Should I be subject to the rule of street, city, state or nation?
@Hostile Your say in the group is proportional to how decisions affect you. If they tried to force you into anything and, instead of giving a deciding vote of "no" and ending the conflict you just refused to answer, then presumably the decision could not go through.
I'm still confused as to why you'd refuse. If a decision affects you a certain amount, you have a vote on it proportional to how much it affects you.
@nocturnezero So if I understand this correctly, the group can't make any decision involving me without my express consent? Well that's fine then. I'll assume that this extends to my ownership of the means of production...
Voting is the act of begging your masters for permission to be free. I'm an anarchist, I have no masters, so I don't vote or beg. If collectivism is your thing then that's fine but I'll have none of it, ever.
Thank you for responding btw, very informative posts.
@Hostile The problem with private ownership is that you can make decisions that affect others without their consent. I believe anyone affected by a decision should have a say in it proportional to how much they're being affected. It obstructs solidarity as workers compete for the affection and wages of their owners. If we disagree on that point, then maybe we can stop here, as I don't know that we can go any further back and forth.
@nocturnezero I don't see that as a problem. I think you're ignoring the fact that we are separate entities: if you should choose to leave this conversation, I'd be affected with disappointment but I'd have no right to "have a say" on it, as it's your decision. Isn't that fair?
"The community" is a form of mastery if it makes decisions over others, e.g. banning harmful smoke.
You've taught me more about lib. socialism than this video ever did. I disagree with you but love your POV.
Capitalist domination and the control by a democratic socialist government are not as bad as eachother. I would prefer none of the first and as little as possible of the latter, but it is not possible to uphold universal human rights, or to have policies that free people from wage-slavery without having some sort of justice or state bureaucracy. Under this system the member of a locality could decide to shut-out, exclude members of a minority and theres nothing anyone could do about it.
@HolyCows154 What about the question of consent, HC? In a capitalist society, as a worker I consent to take a job and work. I don't consider that "domination"; if I don't like it, I'm free to leave. In a democratic socialist society, I am involuntarily subject to the will of the majority (as with all democracies) and can be taxed to fund all manner of things I don't believe in. So surely as an individual, worker or otherwise, I'm more free and have more human rights in capitalist society?
@Hostile "In a democratic socialist society..." i.e. Norway, with the Socialist Red-Green Coalition holding a majority of seats in their Parliament, with a high progressive tax rate, and with numerous public services including transportation, health care, and education, alongside the massive state-owned (majority shareholder is the state) oil company Statoil.
@nocturnezero Those are two different sentences nocturne, one was demonstrating how capitalism is voluntary and not a form of domination, and the other sentence demonstrated how democratic society (socialist or otherwise) was involuntary as I was a subject of majority rule and taxed against my will. Neither of these suggest that you can't leave your job in Norway.
Democracy has many manifestations i.e. consensus, majority rule, representative, so on, and in my ideal LibSoc society the most effective form would be used where it was most efficient. It's better than being subject to a minority having control over a majority i.e. a hierarchical company.
@nocturnezero Democracy is awful though. Why should the majority know better than the minority? Why should Citizen A be subject to the will of Citizens B and C? I'd be interested to hear your version of democracy because my experience of it so far has only been war, loss of liberty and hefty taxation.
@Hostile Why should the owners (a minority) know better than the majority (the workers)? If these are the two choices, then I see only democracy as reasonable.
Looking at the US, none of those things are the result of democracy. They are, as I said, the result of politicians - a minority - exercising power over everyone else - a majority.
Democracy is most efficient as majority rule in large scale cases and consensus (which I've seen work at small Quaker schools) in small scale cases.
@nocturnezero Why should the hawks (a majority), know better than a minority (pacifists)? How about prohibitionist majority VS libertarian minority? Slavers VS abolitionists? Christians VS abortionists? Nobody NEEDS to be ruled, there need not be any form of rule, majority, minority or otherwise.
Those politicians are democratically elected, the US today is a result of democracy. The will of "the people" is made manifest in all the world crimes of the US. Americans chose Obama; they chose war.
@Hostile And why should the individuals know better than their peers in decisions that affect those peers? And, I say again, democracy is not just a majority rules process. There is consensus that works on small scales.
Not through direct democracy, but through representative democracy. No, it's not. Politics is a game of lies and deceit to gain power at which point you abandon promises and morals to impose your own will on the people and the world. See Oba... oh, you've already got me covered.
@nocturnezero The individual knows what's best for the individual; peers can do whatever they want for themselves, but they've no *right* to interfere with an individual.
We could never come to a consensus on this. How would any "small scale" community manage consensus if 2 people can't agree?
We might find a common enemy in Obama (corporatist socialist scum that he is), but his reign IS democratic.If you realise politics is that bad, why advocate even small scale democracy? It's ALL power.
@Hostile You have a narrow view on what liberty actually is. It's not just your right to have no taxation. Liberty doesn't mean freedom from social obligations. I believe in Positive Liberty, where there is a a social agreement between all citizens based on equal participation and access. This is where your freedom to reject work falls down. People cannot reject work otherwise they will starve. You cannot ignore the issue of power in contractual relationships because it distorts them massively.
@HolyCows154 I think my view on liberty is narrow because I follow the precise definition, without allowing for works of fantasy like "social agreement". Where is this so-called social agreement? Did you sign it? Because I didn't, and if I didn't sign it then I never consented to it, which brings us back to my question: what about consent?
You are free to reject work because you can say "no" and go learn to fish, or steal. Just because it's your best choice doesn't mean it's not a choice!
@Hostile Your view on liberty is narrow because it represents your solitary interests. Whether you like it or not, we live in a society in which people depend on each other for every possible basic necessity. Your property rights are only as solid as the consent from the rest of those people. If you don't want to recognise that social arrangement then they can quite legitimately take away everything you own and send you into the wilderness to 'fish' and 'steal' in the wild. That's your choice.
@HolyCows154 That's patently incorrect: I'm arguing for universal HUMAN rights, meaning individual rights for every person, so if anything I'm representing the interests of EVERY person. As for your dependency theory, that's also false since dependency means subordination to another. I work hard all day, and then I use the money I earn to buy the things I need from other people. These are mutual exchanges, not charity: neither party is subordinate to the other. So your argument is null.
@Hostile That is a profoundly narcissistic ideology. We live in a system where there is a specialised division of labor. You are totally dependent on other people providing you what you need to live. You rely on the security of the state, the rule of law, the guarantee of protection from enemies and access to justice. Society, civilisation itself, exists as a constant negotiation between all people about those things. You can't just ignore other people and behave completely selfishly.
@HolyCows154 As I explained, that's not dependence, since you are exchanging value for value rather than receiving charity. A child is dependent because it can't produce: I, on the other hand, produce and trade in exchange for the things I require. THIS IS NOT DEPENDENCE, by definition since dependence means being subordinate and yet my importance to other humans is entirely equal.
YOU rely on the security of the state, and you rely on people like me to pay for your addiction to state violence.
@Hostile If somebody rapes your daughter, you need justice (sorry state violence). You cannot exist without community, or without ground rules established by all in a democratic process. The thing about dependence is all semantics. The problem is that peoples contributions have never been valued correctly and so the exchange of value idea is wrong. "Value" is as much a power exchange as it is a market one. People with lots of capital determine values and wages. That's why there is inequality.
@HolyCows154 State violence isn't justice. Justice is a crucial service but can be provided via a free market, just google "Dispute Resolution Organisations".
"Semantics"? You mean accuracy. As for "community", there's no such thing.
People's contributions are valued by two parties: the contributor and the recipient. Capitalists don't "decide" the wages; wages are decided by employer AND employee. Same for exchange value. If those parties can't decide value, then who can? Mao? Stalin? Hitler?
@Hostile That is just wilful blindness. If one party, or class in general has much more power than another then they do determine wages. That is why the average male salary in America has not changed since 1980, since the disappearance of the labour movement and the predominance of the kinds of contracts you describe. Powerless people in the slums of Karachi cannot negotiate for less than a 16 hour work day or for more than 18 cents an hour, they are expendable, capital has the power.
@HolyCows154 No, wages are determined by both parties. One makes an offer, the other accepts or declines.
The Karachi slum hell has a million problems with it, none of them being capitalism. Are you aware of the bulldozing of residential slums by the Pakistani government? Of-course the workers have no power when the state can arbitrarily destroy their homes. If you want the wages higher, you want MORE capitalism: more employers means more wage bidding. So blame the state, not capitalism.
@Hostile No, only a shortage of labour drives up wages. There are always more people than jobs and so the price of labour is always cheaper than its real value. If all the slum dwellers organise and campaign for a better deal, and pressure their governments to help them then they will get better pay and conditions - that is what happened in all western countries for a while at least.
@HolyCows154 "real value"? Again, YOU can't define "real value", it's defined by the transaction between employee and employer. If people in Karachi will work for $.18, EVERY big corporation should go to Karachi and set up shop, creating enough jobs to meet demand
If the slum dwellers use the government to force corporations to raise pay, they'll hire less people, creating more unemployment, and if you force them enough they'll just leave for another 3rd world country. It'd be economic suicide.
@Hostile There you are just reiterating the power that capital has over people, and even over states. National governments can't even regulate their greed. As soon as you attempt to make them behave ethically, they move out. What would be even better is if the slum dweller workers reclaimed those factories and took the profits of their labor for themselves, as has happened in South America in places. There has to be an international system that regulates global capitalism.
@HolyCows154 Capital doesn't have power, it's just property. You don't seem to understand this mechanism: if you force wages up, employers leave, which means the money leaves, which means MORE PEOPLE STARVE. You NEED billions in western money to build huge factories, pay for import/export, bribe local governments, etc.
We've got world government already, how much more do you want? It's not helping! You need to stop relying on force and try something new if you ever want to help people.
@HolyCows154 While we're accepting social arrangements perhaps I should accept monarchy too? Or aristocracy? I mean if I'm going to be subservient enough to accept the institutionalised theft you call tax, why not accept every other form of abuse? Why draw the line at simply letting the majority abuse you?
I have property rights no matter the beliefs of those around me or of those in power. Whether or not my rights are respected is a different matter, but theft is theft, no matter the excuse.
@Hostile Just invert what your saying. Fifty percent of people on this planet live on less that $2.50 a day. One billion people are malnourished with 25000 dying of starvation everyday. Why the hell should they submit to being dominated by rich plutocratic minority. They have a right to resist a system which allows the minority to exploit and leaves them to die. Humanity, human rights, demands a fairer system. The rights of poor people to life and dignity outweighs your property rights.
@HolyCows154 You COMPLETELY misunderstand me, HC. We have the same basic beliefs, that of sympathy and equality, but I think your approach to the problem is far more harmful than helpful and I think you don't understand my approach AT ALL.
When 40 million peasants starved to death in China's great famine, was capitalism to blame? No, communism killed those people. State violence murdered them. If they'd been allowed to capitalise on their agricultural property rights, they'd have survived.
@Hostile There is an interesting dichotomy there that we are dancing around. There is active violence, and there is passive violence. Mao's policies, but maybe more Stalin's and Hitler's were active kinds. Similar to if i went out and stabbed someone. If I watch someone run over in the street and don't lift a finger to help then i am committing passive violence. Letting 25000 people who cannot afford to live starve to death everyday is as bad as Mao and Stalin's actions.
@HolyCows154 Well I think passive violence is a bollocks theory, but ignoring that for a second, what's your solution to stop 25000 people starving to death every day? Because I believe capitalism is a solution in itself.
When does a person become responsible for all the passive violence in the world? When they're born? Is a newborn child responsible for 25000 deaths on it's first day of life?
@Hostile That is a nice attempt at reductio ad absurdem, but it is very easy to see that the criteria is whether you have the means to do something and whether you go out and do it. Capitalism has not worked for these people, the bottom 50% earn the same as they did in 1980, the same number are malnourished. It would actually not cost us that much to stop the worst things, but capitalism makes that impossible as it squeezes every last dollar out of the poor.
@HolyCows154 So a baby is innocent? What about a disabled person? What about a broke person? What amount of money do I need before I am morally forced to help? Should I stow aboard a boat to Cuba with £5 to fight the dictator, or should I earn a £1mil in industry and then use THAT to fight dictatorship? Does the amount of money I have change my inherent nature as a moral creature?
Capitalism doesn't "squeeze" anything, it's free exchange; nobody gives up a penny without agreeing to it.
@Hostile You have some moral intelligence, stop being so helpless and try and work out for yourself what the best thing to do is. No, babies and disabled people who can't look after their own welfare are not responsible obviously, we are. The free exchange idea is bollocks and i've already refuted it. Your going to have to do a more detailed critique than declaring the opposite of what i say if you want a real argument about it.
@HolyCows154 I KNOW what the best thing is, I'm trying to work out what YOU think it is since you so clearly know what we all should do. As for "helpless", I'm not the one who claims that obedience to law is a moral obligation, like some brainwashed slave to the state.
You refuted it, I refuted your refutation... you've proven nothing. The "free exchange idea" is the only reason we HAVE a society, without it we'd be truly dependent on the state. Why is it that YOU believe capitalism squeezes?
@Hostile I don't think obedience to the law in all cases is moral, that is a misunderstanding. Mandela broke the law to resist apartheid, and Gandhi broke the law to end colonialism in India. The law is a collective agreement, but is only fully moral when it is made between equals democratically. At the moment the law is determined by wealthy corporate interests. Civil disobedience to that is totally justified. On the other hand, you are a brainwashed slave of those interests which exploit you.
@MrAlienlovechild Your limited knowledge of how society works is quite evident. Just like every other left-wind fanatic, you regress to insults that have no intellectual value. It was a pleasure talking to you, and I wish you the best.
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@MrAlienlovechild Next, I know this might be hard for someone like you to understand, but Libertarian (European or otherwise) thought clearly expresses the freedom of the individual. Socialism sacrifices the freedom of the individual for the welfare of the collective. How could the two possibly coincide with each other?
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@heavym3tal
Want to read Tocqueville? Classical liberal thinker... he put freedom above everything else and do you know what he had to say about economic hierarchy? That they could be what would bring men back to aristocracy. He's the guy who said "as the art advances, the artisan declines" meaning that as you get more focused on a simple task and get good at it, you diminish your humanity. And as you read Tocqueville, you almost feel he's disgusted at that kind of economic system.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@heavym3tal
Capitalism was argued by Adam Smith and he argued it in a similar position than Tocqueville. His position was totally conditional to the performances it would yield and I can give you the exact conditions in which laissez-faire capitalism is sustainable: perfect competition, perfect information, perfectly rational individuals. Even if you argue the first is plausible, the last two aren't.
So what it does is instituting an authority that is illegitimate.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@heavym3tal
The power you grant to anyone must be justified and to be justified it must be to the greater benefit of those who are ruled. If it is instituted to favor the people in position of authority, we call that exploitation. Getting a job is not bad: it's being reduced to a tool that is rented that is.
The distortion is a product of the American society. You don't have a choice between social justice and freedom: you either get both or you loose both.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@heavym3tal
There may be conditions wherein unequal shares are granted and in which we indeed work for owners and that are acceptable. But it can't be taken for granted and, as far as I can tell, the argument the US Libertarian applies to the government applies to workplaces and any relation of authority: it's not because you can change the ruler every once in a while that you are free. Same with your boss: changing job doesn't make you free.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing Your reference to Tocqueville, I assume is Alexis de Toqueville? Clearly you never read his book "Democracy in America," circa 1835 wrote:
"In America the aristocratic element has always been feeble from its birth; and if at the present day it is not actually destroyed, it is at any rate so completely disabled, that we can scarcely assign to it any degree of influence on the course of affairs...(cont.)
heavym3tal 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing "...(cont.) America, then exhibits in her social state a most extraordinary phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of fortune and intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their strength, than in any other country of the world, or in any age of which history has preserved the remembrance."
Now that said, I ask you in which society that has moved toward forced social responsibilty (welfare) are people more free or equal?
heavym3tal 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing I can see that it is hard for you to understand the concept of true capitalism, since you believe that there has to be a class of elites that rules over the masses. These kinds of ideas only exist in societies that embrace equality of outcome over equality of opportunity (China, USSR, N. Korea, etc.). The problem is that societies that value latter over the former end up with a greater degree of each.
heavym3tal 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing To address your other point (over labor), you create the fallacy that I hear so much of a person "forced to work." That may be the case in places like N. Korea, China, etc., where the government coerces its citizens into such industries, but in the United States, and other freer countries, the classical argument of Adam Smith applies; "if an exchange between 2 parties is voluntary, it will not happen unless both believe they benefit from it."
heavym3tal 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing Therefore, no person, in a voluntary application of employment, will agree unless they benefit from their contribution of work as well. Long ago this was accomplished by bartering goods for services, or today, by paying a monetary wage.
I do not understand where the idea of a boss is equivalent to the idea of a ruler of authority. A boss can not legally coerce his/her employees into a type of work, unless he/she is granted that authority by a government entity.
heavym3tal 1 month ago
@heavym3tal Have you ever had a job?
LiberalBohemian 3 weeks ago
@LiberalBohemian Yeah, probably more so than you have. I have worked for a movie theatre, as a bag goy in a grocery store, as a janitor, a math tutor, a computer tech (on my own and for a University library), as a teaching assistant, and as a Graduate Research Assistant. What was the point of your question?
heavym3tal 3 weeks ago
@heavym3tal Maybe you should have asked that before you assaulted me. Moron.
LiberalBohemian 3 weeks ago
@LiberalBohemian Try not asking a stupid question next time ;^)
heavym3tal 3 weeks ago
@heavym3tal You're an idiot.
LiberalBohemian 3 weeks ago
@LiberalBohemian Please take your trolling somewhere else please.
heavym3tal 3 weeks ago
@heavym3tal Puhlease, takey your fwee mwarket capitwalizm to yohr swave mastah.
LiberalBohemian 3 weeks ago
@LiberalBohemian If you are going to use the big kids computer, please use big kids words.
Besides, free market capitalism is incongruent with slavery. Slaves don't get paid wages.
heavym3tal 3 weeks ago
@heavym3tal Not entirely. In the 19th century there came a popular term 'wage slave'. While slaves don't receive wages, they are provided food and shelter whereas workers aren't provided food and shelter, but instead receive a wage. So depending on the wage, it may provide a quality of life that is functionally equivalent to slavery, whereby the individual simply can't afford anything other than subsistence and has nothing to look forward to but meek servitude.
TechnomancerMorhion 5 days ago
@TechnomancerMorhion But slaves also are bound to work through force (coercion). This is different from workers in a free market, since they can choose where they work, what wage they receive, and how much they work. Besides, the more employers there are (competition), the better off the worker since employers will be trying to make better offers such that they get the most workers, and can therefore outproduce their competition.
heavym3tal 4 days ago
@heavym3tal The difference is philosophical, not practical. When the choice is 'do as I say or starve', it's not really a choice. As a business owner, I wield power over my employees that they can't match. Certainly they can leave my employ, but there's no shortage of unemployed people who are desperate for me to choose from to fill that gap, so it's no loss to me except for some annoying paper work. My employees do not choose their wage. I dictate it to them.
TechnomancerMorhion 4 hours ago
@heavym3tal Continued: I dictate it to them. They either accept it, or they don't. Either way, it's irrelevant to me. I have a big pile of applications from people who need income. They're not exactly in any position to negotiate with me. Now, that's not to say I endorse such practices, but many people like me do. It's not right. Taking advantage of peoples financial situations to coerce them (and that's exactly what it is) into working for subsistence wages is effective slavery.
TechnomancerMorhion 4 hours ago
@TechnomancerMorhion You should examine the poorest in England and the United States before and after the Industrial Revolution. Did the poor receive the greatest benefit, or did the rich? How so?
heavym3tal 4 days ago
@MrAlienlovechild For the third time now, I AM NOT JUSTIFYING THE ACTIONS OF AUGUSTO PINOCHET!!! Start using that brain of yours for a second. A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government because there comes a point when a majority of voters discover they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury. Now pay attention to my next statement; Capitalism does not equal Totalitarian Government! If you can show evidence to the contrary, then show it, don't B.S. with me.
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@heavym3tal
Who was Augusto Pinochet and what did he do?
ChampanzeeKO 2 months ago
@ChampanzeeKO
Horrible dictator of Chili, he overthrown the democratically instituted government of a statist socialist party by means of force. He then implemented a far right-end government which was also an aggressive form of authoritarianism.
He well timed his death because he was about to be sent to an international tribunal to be judged for crime against humanity. I'm not sure, but I suspect as most of other Latin dictator, he had the US supporting him to stop the communist threat.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@MrAlienlovechild You do realize that the truth is still there, right? Also in no way am I justifying Pinochet's actions. But if you want to compare deaths, considering that there is no confimed number of death's from Pinochet, try the number of those that were executed by the National Socialist German Workers' Party, you know, Nazi's. Perhaps you can tell me the number of deaths from any of the various implementations of socialism? Implementation of socialism in any form is an epic fail.
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@MrAlienlovechild "By 1990, Chile had fulfilled Hayek's prediction by transitioning to a democratic state as established in the 1980 Constitution approved during the Pinochet regime." via wikipedia
Why should Pinochet's actions be viewed any differently than those of Lenin, Stalin, or even Che Guevara? As Mitlon Friedman has said, and I concur, that shock therapy is never the solution to such a problem. However, Chile has better living conditions than Cuba or the former USSR.
heavym3tal 6 months ago
As grand as socialism sounds, when you look at Europe, where they are carrying out social programs like public healthcare, they're running up debts. Even their healthcare is dreadful seeing as so many die from curable diseases just because the line was too long for treatment and their body wouldn't wait. I'd rather have very few taxes so I have the money to buy whatever healthcare I want, to to be as charitable as I'd like to be.
rhinnawi95 7 months ago
@rhinnawi95 Believe me when I say, none of them would give it up without a fight. Same here in Canada. Also, have you looked at Scandinavia lately?
nomantis1 7 months ago
@rhinnawi95 I'm sorry to contradict you but this idea you have that people in Europe are dying because our healthcare is dreadful is insane and our debts are not because of healthcare plans its because of Capitalist extremes. i personally would rather pay a little more so everybody, "especially" those who can't get taken care of
MotorSoundsRecords 6 months ago
@rhinnawi95 Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth and some people fall victim to misfortune even though they work really hard. My wife fell at work, workman's comp paid 5k shy of what we spent just to make ends meet. And that didn't include some fancy new house or cars. Both vehicles are paid for and the house payment is less than most rent in this town. Your point of view is obviously from a perspective of sheer selfishness and I hope some day you will find compassion.
SilencingTheMachine 6 months ago
@rhinnawi95
I'm suprised that after you watched this video you still decided to make a post that argues against a mythical form of socialism. Last time I checked europe still has large scale governments.
catbuffalo 3 months ago
you can't be a libatarian without being a socialist because freedom withoout equality is no freedoom at all
rictorn 1 year ago 33
@rictorn Socialist equality is man made equality. It is constructed equality. It becomes nothing more than positive discrimination thus destroying the beauty of equality.
STOPTHEEU 8 months ago
@STOPTHEEU what do you advocate ? no equality at all is not the answer
rictorn 8 months ago
@rictorn Equality occurs naturally and we should allow it to flourish. This way it retains its beauty.
STOPTHEEU 8 months ago
@STOPTHEEU you ware not talking about equality, you are talking about meritocracy i assume? in which case it dosent, it works best under a socialdemocratic goveremnet and hardly at all under a neoliberal(thaturite) one, sorry to put words in your mouth please explain if i have missed teh point, sorry
rictorn 8 months ago
Comment removed
heavym3tal 8 months ago
@rictorn limits on freedom at the cost of equality reduces freedom for all. Read "The Road to Serfdom."
heavym3tal 8 months ago
@heavym3tal yes limits on freedom are bad,inequality is bad,the point as made in "equality" rh tawny & "the future of socialism" tony crossland without aproching equality we can't be a society at ease with itself, u can not be free if you are poor because of all the anziaty which generaly go's with it, statistics from the oecd & any studies which look into it show the more equall a society is the better it is by all social measures, even the rich are better on these measures when we are more =
rictorn 8 months ago
@rictorn socialism does not mean equality
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@rictorn I know you made this comment quite a long time ago, but in your definition of equality, do you refer to equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
heavym3tal 1 month ago
@heavym3tal hello equality of opertunity is a bit of a pointless phrase as those who use it advocate policies which reduce teh very equality ofr opertunity they advocate, ui advocate teh persute of equality of outcome as its teh only way to increase ecquality of opertunity as well as making society better for evryone, i am asumeing as you have had ages since we chatted you have at least the read the spirit level or some of the data which proves this stuff?
rictorn 1 month ago
Comment removed
heavym3tal 1 month ago
@rictorn I am sorry, but due to your spelling, I am having trouble understanding your response.
heavym3tal 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heavym3tal spell cheacked so on the substantive points what do you think? equality of opportunity is a bit of a pointless phrase as those who use it advocate policies which reduce the very equality of opportunity they advocate, i advocate the pursute of equality of outcome as its the only way to increase equality of opportunity as well as making society better for everyone, I am assuming as you've had ages you have at least the read the spirit level or some of the data which proves this stuff?
rictorn 1 month ago
@rictorn Personally I think the best position is between left and right libertarianism. We libertarians need to join forces and quit fucking around. What is so hard about that?
tstruss912 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Soviet Socialism - Stalin
National Socialism - Hitler
Ba'ath Socialism - Hussein
Fascist Socialism - Soros (getting his cock sucked by Chomsky)
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill Maybe you should go learn what socialism is before you criticize it.
DraconianKindness 10 months ago
@DraconianKindness And I suppose your an expert on socialism?
STOPTHEEU 8 months ago
Naom Chomsky is a fascist.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill For someone with your handle to call anyone a fascist is particularly ironic.
dsmelsergmailcom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dsmelsergmailcom
For someone with yours it is particularly moronic...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill ,Sir Winston Churchhill calling someone a fascist. You can't be serious.
knowthetruth1492 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill
stupid troll
elsargente 1 year ago
Comment removed
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill i hope this is a joke, ur most likely a troll anyways
bubbathenaslover 1 year ago
Hey all you silly youtubers! I can wright comments that do nothing to further my intelligence aswell!!! My ego has now ben fed by my wacky antics and my perfect world of "me" has ben kept intact! :D
ParadoxEarth 1 year ago 6
Does anyone else see the ufo @ 4:10 on the left side of the screen?
Dwrek2 1 year ago
@Dwrek2 ,They call those planes.
knowthetruth1492 1 year ago
Comment removed
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Referring to workers as "coerced tools" is utterly insulting. This concept he's describing sounds less like anarchy and a lot more like socialism, which is hardly what the world needs more of.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile They aren't mutually exclusive.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero That's true, but none the less we're already suffering a surplus of socialism in the world today without a need for more. Socialists are free to go live in their little communes while the rest of us pursue freedom by our own means.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile I'm sure there are Socialists saying Capitalists are free to live in their little corporate sponsored housing or whatever while the rest of us pursue freedom by our own means. How about we tolerate the viewpoints and political aspirations of others, eh?
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Well I agree with that entirely nocturne, except that socialism inherently requires the redistribution of wealth which is hardly tolerant of a freedom-based society. I'm arguing that there need be no state, in which case you are perfectly free to establish a socialist commune in any space that belongs to you, but the socialism advocated by Chomsky is still a form of aggressive statism under which anarchist living would be impossible. So we're hardly the ones causing the conflict...
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile The redistribution of wealth would manifest itself through a balanced job complex, not through coercive taxation.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero And how would this balanced job complex be achieved without a state? Because if it's by peaceful agreement then okay with that, so long as you don't try to stop me from doing what I want with my business.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Right, Continue to ignore my point and hammer away with your null point that we could all just become hermits and hide from society. This to me is akin like saying you want to argue philosphy and then your argument is nihilistic. Sure we could all quit our jobs, but what does it matter if we're slaves because life is meaningless and death is ineviatable? If you don't understand the allegory I've been attempting to make for 5 posts, go ahead repeat yourself.
Seregnaug 1 year ago
@Seregnaug I understand the allegory in spite of your poor explanations, I merely reject it because it's far too simplistic and without any moral understanding. Everybody has a choice to work or not to work, and your inability to recognise this leaves this conversation with nowhere further to go. I'm not gonna stand to be insulted if you've nothing interesting or challenging to offer me.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile rofl oh they were terrible, lol plz. Similar to by "inability" to "recognize" right. That's it, keep pointing that finger without addressing my point. Because hey moron my point not only recognized but pointed out how meaningless your point was. Of course we could not work. How can you claim I don't have the ability to recognize this? ROFL!!!! How about i'm just trying to make my point on how false of a choice that is. Sure! We could ALSO STARVE OURSELVES TO DEATH Stop attacking me jerk
Seregnaug 1 year ago
@Hostile LOL "I'm not gonna stand to be insulted if you've nothing interesting or challenging to offer me" ROFL Yes, We all go on youtube to debate for the challenge of it! LOL GET A LIFE. I was simply reading the comments on here and simply wanted to make a subtle point on a topic being discussed, because you want to ignore the subtleties i surrender OMG YOU WIN YOU MASSIVE HERO OMG OMG OMG OMG I LOVE YOU lolololol
Seregnaug 1 year ago
@Hostile LOL "too simplistic and without any moral understanding" ROFL You:"Everyone has the ability to not work, it's a choice"
Me: "Yea, but that's not really a choice, unless your nihilistic you want to sustain your life"
Let's see here, where is the simplicity derived from? and Morals? ROFL What are you a creationist, GTFO
Seregnaug 1 year ago
@Hostile rofl yes because Socialism is far more dangerous than all other forms of govt. Arguing between the means when the ends are the same if what you're doing. Just because you're not familiar with life in a socialist society and just because American propaganda slates all socialism like communism, that doesn't mean you know what your talking about. Socialism is no better than Democracy.
Seregnaug 1 year ago
@Seregnaug and no worse ^_^
Seregnaug 1 year ago
@TheElMoIsEviL If a foreign worker is prepared to do the same job just as well for less wages, who are you to complain? You're not the new employee and you're not the employer, so surely it's none of your business?
Hostile 1 year ago
@TheElMoIsEviL No, they aren't. Libertarian Socialists still believe in collective ownership of the means of production. We just don't believe that the government in a worker union state/city/municipality/country etc should infringe any personal rights. Marxism and Libertarian Socialism are quite similar.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero How do you reconcile a belief that the government shouldn't interfere with personal rights, and the personal right of capitalists to own a factory? Lets say I'm an individual in your libertarian socialist society: do I have a right to buy property? Do I have a right to buy industrial machinery? If not, do I have a right to construct it myself using materials I bought? Do I have a right to hire other people to work in my factory? At what point does "society" get to take it's cut?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile I believe in the principles of solidarity, equity, democracy, and self-management. I don't think you have any intrinsic to own a factory or to take a cut of the labor of others or to be free from restrictions placed on your factory by the community.
By property, you mean... just, anything? If there are no externalities (i.e. buying a fossil fuel burning car) then knock yourself out.
Continued...
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero You just said the state shouldn't infringe on personal rights, yet you're advocating refusing me my right to buy property and turn it into whatever I want. If there's a person who owns property, and another who owns machinery, and I have money, by what right do you stop me from going about my business? I'm not hurting anyone, nobody is being refused any of their rights in the process, and I'm providing jobs, products and general economic benefits to all.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile By property, if there are no externalities like environmental damage or workers being subjected to subpar conditions or pay then, I say again, knock yourself out. I'm not against the existence of trade without externalities or false advertising, just against the market as the grand arbiter of an economy.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Nobody is ever "subjected" to sub-par pay; if an employee doesn't like their wage, they're free to quit. Ultimately the decision on wages is between me and the employee; if a man is willing to sign that contract with me, then it's exclusively OUR business. Would you interfere if you felt the man wasn't being paid enough? Would you refuse me my right to hire, and him his right to choose employment?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Until monopolies and oligopolies form and workers have little to no choice in where they work, how much they are paid, and how empowering or disempowering their job is.
Me, as a person? Under the society we have, I don't think it would make much difference and in any case there are few alternatives in many towns. I've seen cities across the country that consist ONLY of strip malls with massive corporate sales outlets that pay workers below the minimum wage.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Monopolies form as a result of government and quickly become inefficient without the market dynamic to force excellence, meaning that competition springs up quickly in a free market, so your "no choice" scenario isn't very realistic in a free market.
Would you personally refuse me my right to hire, and my employee his right to choose his employment? I don't mean that as a matter of practicality but rather of morality. Do you consider it morally right to intervene in our business?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile They do indeed, but what's to stop them in a free market? What about Standard Oil?
Again, I don't think you have some intrinsic right to hire. I believe in self-management and think private ownership subverts that. I don't believe in the few - you, as an owner - having power over the many - your employees - any more than I don't believe in state authorities having power over the masses. That said, in your idealist free market, if he decides of his own accord, then no, I wouldn't.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero If Standard Oil had a monopoly then it was only because they offered the best product at the best prices; this is called a natural monopoly, and is perfectly harmless. If standard drops and price increases, competition will appear to challenge them. True monopolies only occur via statism, i.e. East India Company.
I don't need the "right to hire" specifically, only the general right to administer my own business. Hiring a person doesn't give me "power" over them; they can leave.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Again, buy industrial machinery all you want, but if you hire any others to work in your factory, you will concede ownership to them, you will acquire a balanced job complex to both empower your workers and get the rote jobs done, you will allow the workers to democratically run your factory with each having a say proportional to how decisions affect them, you will pay them based on effort and sacrifice, and you will work with consumer councils on how much to produce.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero re: second response... wait wait wait, what? Why would I concede ownership of something I own to strangers? That's absurd, I'm the one who spent money on it, it's my entrepreneurial scheme.
This hypothetical business is my individual property, nocturne, so what gives you the hypothetical right to tell me what I can and cannot do?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Then you certainly COULD own the business, but I doubt anybody would work for you because cooperatives and syndicates allow people to be empowered and paid by effort sacrifice instead of output. If you can get people to work there, then go for it, but I can't conceive of people willing to be bossed around rather then to govern a business themselves with their coworkers. It's not a scenario that I'm going to stop, it's just an inconceivable one.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero If my scenario is so awful and yours so optimal, then why aren't people setting up cooperative shops and factories all over the country?
The idea of governing a business cooperatively is mind-boggling. Surely the point of having market research departments in corporations is because THEY know what products consumer wants, not the man on the factory floor?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile While I think this argument is silly as cooperatives aren't exactly a popular idea, I've seen a handful in my town and the more indie towns around my country i.e. Asheville, Seattle, Madison.
Surely the point of having a central planning committee in State Communist countries is because THEY know what products the consumer needs, not the man in the market research department? I don't believe in centralized planning, so I don't believe in either of these things.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Well the obvious difference is that the communists forcefully monopolise the creation of their product, while capitalists in a market research dept. are reliant entirely on the whims of consumer opinion, and constantly under pressure from competition. So the former is a master while the latter is a slave to the market, which by no means constitutes central planning.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile But because the company is driven by the profit motive, their goal is certainly to monopolize their industry as well, at which point they certainly would constitute central planning. And there are other aversions I have to markets, not the least of which being they reward genetic talents instead of effort and sacrifice.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero at any point, consumers can stop buying the dominant product, so the capitalists are ever subject to the whims of the consumer/market. Any monopoly occurring is only because WE choose to support it, and if the monopoly tries to increase prices we'll find a competitor. So there's no central planning at ANY point, it's all down to several billion individuals making their personal decision.
How do markets reward genetic talents? Don't hard workers rise in the workplace?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile I see holding most of those rights dear is like complaining that there isn't a right to speed on a road or beat your pets.
With no government to fund and society based around participatory democratic councils, I'm not sure what cut you're talking about. Perhaps you mean the funding to build things like public roads, fund sanitation, provide health care, in which case...
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero You're comparing reckless endangerment and cruelty to animals to the mere act of buying property? Well if I can't own the property, who does own it? If the answer is "the community", and I am part of the community, at what point did I do something to deserve/earn a part of this property?
This society is sounding increasingly hostile and anti-libertarian. I have no personal right to trade with others? I've no property ownership without your permission? "Back in the USSR" huh...
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile No, I'm just saying not every conceivable act is automatically a right.
The community isn't just some magical, innate being. The community is an actual group of people, of which you are a small part. Those working at a given factory and the residents of area in which the factory resides own a small, variable part of it.
You have the personal right to trade with others. I don't know where you got this idea. So long as there are no externalities, go ahead and trade all you want.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero I'd say the only conceivable acts that aren't rights are the ones which infringe on the rights of others, so I have the right to sell property but not the right to sell YOUR property. Likewise, you have no right to exercise any power over my property. Who has the power to define "externalities", and by what right do they get to exercise their definition over my right to trade?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile So the worker has a right to earn a trillion dollars a year because it doesn't infringe on anybody else's, and it's not your right to refuse him that because refusing him his rights infringes upon his rights?
No, but I believe that hiring workers infringes upon their rights to solidarity and self-management, which infringe upon your rights to ownership, which infringe upon theirs to solidarity and self-mangement, ad nauseum. Maybe your definition of rights just isn't a very strong one.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero If a person earns a trillion dollars a year, that's their business and not mine. So long as they're not forcefully taking money from somebody else, I have no concern either way. I wouldn't dream on infringing on ANYONE'S rights, whether they earn one dollar or a trillion.
That second part is crazy, zero. If a worker willingly enters my employ, I can't possibly be infringing on their rights since it's their decision. Perhaps they just don't agree with the solidarity philosophy?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile No, I mean by your definition of rights, they can arbitrarily be claimed by a worker unto an owner i.e. "you owe me a trillion dollars a year because it's my right to have a trillion dollars and that doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights."
Ah. The whole idea of Libertarian Socialism is based around the notion that workers don't want to work under an owner, but if he did, then you two could certainly have your exchange of labor for wages.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Whoa whoa whoa, "have" and "earn" are two extremely different things! C'mon, that's obvious. You have a right to "have a trillion dollars", but not to steal since that infringes on the rights of others; you have to earn a trillion dollars.
I'm okay with that. LibSoc can believe anything it likes so long as it doesn't interfere with individual behaviour. Personally I'm happy to work for another person; I do labour, I get wages... I like it and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile If a decision affects a third party, that's an externality. It's not really a subjective thing. A fossil fuel burning car harms the local environment which affects all of us, so buying it has externalities and those who benefit from the environment should have a say in that exchange. Buying a t-shirt has no externalities, so it's between you and the seller.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Every act, from driving cars to breathing, can be claimed to have externalities by your definition. The environment doesn't belong to anybody, not even "the community", so claiming to have a right to regulate it is immoral. If you don't like pollution, perhaps you can buy a car which pollutes less, or boycott polluting industries? You needn't control others to achieve your goal.
How is the seller going to produce a t-shirt without producing waste/externalities?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile I guess every act could have externalities. So?
No, it doesn't, but in harming the environment you also harm people, so those people being harmed by your decision to by a pollutant car should have a vote on whether you can harm them.
Waste isn't an externality because no one's being harmed by it. Unless they are, in which case it does have externalities. I'm still confused as to why you think third parties who are being harmed by a decision shouldn't have a say in it.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero If externalities give you the right to use force against others (e.g. banning pollution) then you can use this mentality to apply force against anyone for any act. Do you see the problem?
People harm themselves by being in polluted environments. Some environments are more harmful than others as a result of human behaviour but that it is not direct harm to you, any more than passive smoking is a form of attack.
Waste is a form of pollution which you claim is a form of harm.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Because in this society the entire group would be participating in decisions and everybody having a small say in communal choices, funding the councils would be something to get excited about. You're putting in the money that supports your channel to make your opinions heard and benefits your community. I guess you could call it voluntary taxation, where all members and companies pay if they want and happily reap the benefits if they do pay.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero re: 3rd response, you can't say "the entire group" since people like myself would refuse to partake on moral grounds. In that case, am I subject to any taxes I haven't volunteered to? Is the rest of the group allowed to make decisions that will result in me being taxed, criminalised or otherwise plied with force? Or am I free to simply refuse? Why wouldn't EVERYONE refuse?
There is no "community", nocturne, that's just something they told us so they could steal our money.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Why would you refuse talking with your community and making decisions? Fine, some would not volunteer taxes and then they couldn't take advantage of communal roads, medicine, water, electricity, or sanitation. I don't care.
If you aren't paying taxes and aren't participating in any council, then what sort of decision could affect you in any way, including force?
So my neighborhood is just imaginary? What about my workplace? My union? My city? My state? My country?
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero So long as I can build my own roads, hospitals and supply lines and charge for their use, I'll gladly refuse. Communal decision making has only produced misery in my country and I've no interest in encouraging more of it.
What if the community decided to ban weed?
Which of those is the community? Why not say "the universe"? If the community is a real thing, tell me exactly what it is. How many people, rights, boundaries, etc. A neighborhood is physical, a community is a fantasy.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile And there will always be ones built with funding from voluntary taxation that those who pay taxes can use for free to choose over yours.
Weed has no externalites. That decision would be made among the people who smoke it because they're the only ones being affected. Unless the smoke is harmful to others, in which case I don't see how it's bad to ban it.
I believe there are different levels of community. Yes, a neighborhood is a physical conglomerate of people.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero So which will be more efficient? The centrally planned economy of East Germany, or the free market competition of the west? I think history demonstrates that workers/consumers will favour my approach.
So it's okay to ban smoking in public places? What if the owner of an establishment wants to allow smoking, but "the community" votes to ban all public smoking? Whose right in your eyes?
If there's different levels of community then how can you define "THE community"?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile They aren't the only options, as I've said. I favor your approach to that of central planning as well, but, alongside decentralized markets and central planning, there is also decentralized planning.
Smoking tobacco harms parties other than the smoker and the seller of cigarettes, so it's perfectly okay for those people suffering as third parties to take a vote on whether you are allowed to harm them or not.
You can't, but "the commu." implies whichever you're referring to in context.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero The mentality behind centralised and decentralised planning is the same: that the majority knows what's best. If we were a community of three, and two of you decided to ban smoking, I would still have a right to smoke! If you decide to be in a harmful environment, that's your own fault and nobody else's.
The idea of "community" rule is based on nothing of matter if you can't clearly define what "the community" is. Should I be subject to the rule of street, city, state or nation?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Your say in the group is proportional to how decisions affect you. If they tried to force you into anything and, instead of giving a deciding vote of "no" and ending the conflict you just refused to answer, then presumably the decision could not go through.
I'm still confused as to why you'd refuse. If a decision affects you a certain amount, you have a vote on it proportional to how much it affects you.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero So if I understand this correctly, the group can't make any decision involving me without my express consent? Well that's fine then. I'll assume that this extends to my ownership of the means of production...
Voting is the act of begging your masters for permission to be free. I'm an anarchist, I have no masters, so I don't vote or beg. If collectivism is your thing then that's fine but I'll have none of it, ever.
Thank you for responding btw, very informative posts.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile The problem with private ownership is that you can make decisions that affect others without their consent. I believe anyone affected by a decision should have a say in it proportional to how much they're being affected. It obstructs solidarity as workers compete for the affection and wages of their owners. If we disagree on that point, then maybe we can stop here, as I don't know that we can go any further back and forth.
What masters would exist?
You too.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero I don't see that as a problem. I think you're ignoring the fact that we are separate entities: if you should choose to leave this conversation, I'd be affected with disappointment but I'd have no right to "have a say" on it, as it's your decision. Isn't that fair?
"The community" is a form of mastery if it makes decisions over others, e.g. banning harmful smoke.
You've taught me more about lib. socialism than this video ever did. I disagree with you but love your POV.
Hostile 1 year ago
I'm still curious about Libertarian Socialists positions on income/local/sales/property tax. Really just any taxation. Anyone wanna help me out/
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero ?*
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Capitalist domination and the control by a democratic socialist government are not as bad as eachother. I would prefer none of the first and as little as possible of the latter, but it is not possible to uphold universal human rights, or to have policies that free people from wage-slavery without having some sort of justice or state bureaucracy. Under this system the member of a locality could decide to shut-out, exclude members of a minority and theres nothing anyone could do about it.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 What about the question of consent, HC? In a capitalist society, as a worker I consent to take a job and work. I don't consider that "domination"; if I don't like it, I'm free to leave. In a democratic socialist society, I am involuntarily subject to the will of the majority (as with all democracies) and can be taxed to fund all manner of things I don't believe in. So surely as an individual, worker or otherwise, I'm more free and have more human rights in capitalist society?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Are you implying that in Norway, you can't leave your job?
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero ... who mentioned Norway?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile "In a democratic socialist society..." i.e. Norway, with the Socialist Red-Green Coalition holding a majority of seats in their Parliament, with a high progressive tax rate, and with numerous public services including transportation, health care, and education, alongside the massive state-owned (majority shareholder is the state) oil company Statoil.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Those are two different sentences nocturne, one was demonstrating how capitalism is voluntary and not a form of domination, and the other sentence demonstrated how democratic society (socialist or otherwise) was involuntary as I was a subject of majority rule and taxed against my will. Neither of these suggest that you can't leave your job in Norway.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Ah.
Democracy has many manifestations i.e. consensus, majority rule, representative, so on, and in my ideal LibSoc society the most effective form would be used where it was most efficient. It's better than being subject to a minority having control over a majority i.e. a hierarchical company.
Democracy does not equal taxation.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Democracy is awful though. Why should the majority know better than the minority? Why should Citizen A be subject to the will of Citizens B and C? I'd be interested to hear your version of democracy because my experience of it so far has only been war, loss of liberty and hefty taxation.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Why should the owners (a minority) know better than the majority (the workers)? If these are the two choices, then I see only democracy as reasonable.
Looking at the US, none of those things are the result of democracy. They are, as I said, the result of politicians - a minority - exercising power over everyone else - a majority.
Democracy is most efficient as majority rule in large scale cases and consensus (which I've seen work at small Quaker schools) in small scale cases.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Why should the hawks (a majority), know better than a minority (pacifists)? How about prohibitionist majority VS libertarian minority? Slavers VS abolitionists? Christians VS abortionists? Nobody NEEDS to be ruled, there need not be any form of rule, majority, minority or otherwise.
Those politicians are democratically elected, the US today is a result of democracy. The will of "the people" is made manifest in all the world crimes of the US. Americans chose Obama; they chose war.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile And why should the individuals know better than their peers in decisions that affect those peers? And, I say again, democracy is not just a majority rules process. There is consensus that works on small scales.
Not through direct democracy, but through representative democracy. No, it's not. Politics is a game of lies and deceit to gain power at which point you abandon promises and morals to impose your own will on the people and the world. See Oba... oh, you've already got me covered.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero The individual knows what's best for the individual; peers can do whatever they want for themselves, but they've no *right* to interfere with an individual.
We could never come to a consensus on this. How would any "small scale" community manage consensus if 2 people can't agree?
We might find a common enemy in Obama (corporatist socialist scum that he is), but his reign IS democratic.If you realise politics is that bad, why advocate even small scale democracy? It's ALL power.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile You have a narrow view on what liberty actually is. It's not just your right to have no taxation. Liberty doesn't mean freedom from social obligations. I believe in Positive Liberty, where there is a a social agreement between all citizens based on equal participation and access. This is where your freedom to reject work falls down. People cannot reject work otherwise they will starve. You cannot ignore the issue of power in contractual relationships because it distorts them massively.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 I think my view on liberty is narrow because I follow the precise definition, without allowing for works of fantasy like "social agreement". Where is this so-called social agreement? Did you sign it? Because I didn't, and if I didn't sign it then I never consented to it, which brings us back to my question: what about consent?
You are free to reject work because you can say "no" and go learn to fish, or steal. Just because it's your best choice doesn't mean it's not a choice!
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Your view on liberty is narrow because it represents your solitary interests. Whether you like it or not, we live in a society in which people depend on each other for every possible basic necessity. Your property rights are only as solid as the consent from the rest of those people. If you don't want to recognise that social arrangement then they can quite legitimately take away everything you own and send you into the wilderness to 'fish' and 'steal' in the wild. That's your choice.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 That's patently incorrect: I'm arguing for universal HUMAN rights, meaning individual rights for every person, so if anything I'm representing the interests of EVERY person. As for your dependency theory, that's also false since dependency means subordination to another. I work hard all day, and then I use the money I earn to buy the things I need from other people. These are mutual exchanges, not charity: neither party is subordinate to the other. So your argument is null.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile That is a profoundly narcissistic ideology. We live in a system where there is a specialised division of labor. You are totally dependent on other people providing you what you need to live. You rely on the security of the state, the rule of law, the guarantee of protection from enemies and access to justice. Society, civilisation itself, exists as a constant negotiation between all people about those things. You can't just ignore other people and behave completely selfishly.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 As I explained, that's not dependence, since you are exchanging value for value rather than receiving charity. A child is dependent because it can't produce: I, on the other hand, produce and trade in exchange for the things I require. THIS IS NOT DEPENDENCE, by definition since dependence means being subordinate and yet my importance to other humans is entirely equal.
YOU rely on the security of the state, and you rely on people like me to pay for your addiction to state violence.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile If somebody rapes your daughter, you need justice (sorry state violence). You cannot exist without community, or without ground rules established by all in a democratic process. The thing about dependence is all semantics. The problem is that peoples contributions have never been valued correctly and so the exchange of value idea is wrong. "Value" is as much a power exchange as it is a market one. People with lots of capital determine values and wages. That's why there is inequality.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 State violence isn't justice. Justice is a crucial service but can be provided via a free market, just google "Dispute Resolution Organisations".
"Semantics"? You mean accuracy. As for "community", there's no such thing.
People's contributions are valued by two parties: the contributor and the recipient. Capitalists don't "decide" the wages; wages are decided by employer AND employee. Same for exchange value. If those parties can't decide value, then who can? Mao? Stalin? Hitler?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile That is just wilful blindness. If one party, or class in general has much more power than another then they do determine wages. That is why the average male salary in America has not changed since 1980, since the disappearance of the labour movement and the predominance of the kinds of contracts you describe. Powerless people in the slums of Karachi cannot negotiate for less than a 16 hour work day or for more than 18 cents an hour, they are expendable, capital has the power.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 No, wages are determined by both parties. One makes an offer, the other accepts or declines.
The Karachi slum hell has a million problems with it, none of them being capitalism. Are you aware of the bulldozing of residential slums by the Pakistani government? Of-course the workers have no power when the state can arbitrarily destroy their homes. If you want the wages higher, you want MORE capitalism: more employers means more wage bidding. So blame the state, not capitalism.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile No, only a shortage of labour drives up wages. There are always more people than jobs and so the price of labour is always cheaper than its real value. If all the slum dwellers organise and campaign for a better deal, and pressure their governments to help them then they will get better pay and conditions - that is what happened in all western countries for a while at least.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 "real value"? Again, YOU can't define "real value", it's defined by the transaction between employee and employer. If people in Karachi will work for $.18, EVERY big corporation should go to Karachi and set up shop, creating enough jobs to meet demand
If the slum dwellers use the government to force corporations to raise pay, they'll hire less people, creating more unemployment, and if you force them enough they'll just leave for another 3rd world country. It'd be economic suicide.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile There you are just reiterating the power that capital has over people, and even over states. National governments can't even regulate their greed. As soon as you attempt to make them behave ethically, they move out. What would be even better is if the slum dweller workers reclaimed those factories and took the profits of their labor for themselves, as has happened in South America in places. There has to be an international system that regulates global capitalism.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 Capital doesn't have power, it's just property. You don't seem to understand this mechanism: if you force wages up, employers leave, which means the money leaves, which means MORE PEOPLE STARVE. You NEED billions in western money to build huge factories, pay for import/export, bribe local governments, etc.
We've got world government already, how much more do you want? It's not helping! You need to stop relying on force and try something new if you ever want to help people.
Hostile 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 While we're accepting social arrangements perhaps I should accept monarchy too? Or aristocracy? I mean if I'm going to be subservient enough to accept the institutionalised theft you call tax, why not accept every other form of abuse? Why draw the line at simply letting the majority abuse you?
I have property rights no matter the beliefs of those around me or of those in power. Whether or not my rights are respected is a different matter, but theft is theft, no matter the excuse.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Just invert what your saying. Fifty percent of people on this planet live on less that $2.50 a day. One billion people are malnourished with 25000 dying of starvation everyday. Why the hell should they submit to being dominated by rich plutocratic minority. They have a right to resist a system which allows the minority to exploit and leaves them to die. Humanity, human rights, demands a fairer system. The rights of poor people to life and dignity outweighs your property rights.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 You COMPLETELY misunderstand me, HC. We have the same basic beliefs, that of sympathy and equality, but I think your approach to the problem is far more harmful than helpful and I think you don't understand my approach AT ALL.
When 40 million peasants starved to death in China's great famine, was capitalism to blame? No, communism killed those people. State violence murdered them. If they'd been allowed to capitalise on their agricultural property rights, they'd have survived.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile There is an interesting dichotomy there that we are dancing around. There is active violence, and there is passive violence. Mao's policies, but maybe more Stalin's and Hitler's were active kinds. Similar to if i went out and stabbed someone. If I watch someone run over in the street and don't lift a finger to help then i am committing passive violence. Letting 25000 people who cannot afford to live starve to death everyday is as bad as Mao and Stalin's actions.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 Well I think passive violence is a bollocks theory, but ignoring that for a second, what's your solution to stop 25000 people starving to death every day? Because I believe capitalism is a solution in itself.
When does a person become responsible for all the passive violence in the world? When they're born? Is a newborn child responsible for 25000 deaths on it's first day of life?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile That is a nice attempt at reductio ad absurdem, but it is very easy to see that the criteria is whether you have the means to do something and whether you go out and do it. Capitalism has not worked for these people, the bottom 50% earn the same as they did in 1980, the same number are malnourished. It would actually not cost us that much to stop the worst things, but capitalism makes that impossible as it squeezes every last dollar out of the poor.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 So a baby is innocent? What about a disabled person? What about a broke person? What amount of money do I need before I am morally forced to help? Should I stow aboard a boat to Cuba with £5 to fight the dictator, or should I earn a £1mil in industry and then use THAT to fight dictatorship? Does the amount of money I have change my inherent nature as a moral creature?
Capitalism doesn't "squeeze" anything, it's free exchange; nobody gives up a penny without agreeing to it.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile You have some moral intelligence, stop being so helpless and try and work out for yourself what the best thing to do is. No, babies and disabled people who can't look after their own welfare are not responsible obviously, we are. The free exchange idea is bollocks and i've already refuted it. Your going to have to do a more detailed critique than declaring the opposite of what i say if you want a real argument about it.
HolyCows154 1 year ago
@HolyCows154 I KNOW what the best thing is, I'm trying to work out what YOU think it is since you so clearly know what we all should do. As for "helpless", I'm not the one who claims that obedience to law is a moral obligation, like some brainwashed slave to the state.
You refuted it, I refuted your refutation... you've proven nothing. The "free exchange idea" is the only reason we HAVE a society, without it we'd be truly dependent on the state. Why is it that YOU believe capitalism squeezes?
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile I don't think obedience to the law in all cases is moral, that is a misunderstanding. Mandela broke the law to resist apartheid, and Gandhi broke the law to end colonialism in India. The law is a collective agreement, but is only fully moral when it is made between equals democratically. At the moment the law is determined by wealthy corporate interests. Civil disobedience to that is totally justified. On the other hand, you are a brainwashed slave of those interests which exploit you.
HolyCows154 1 year ago