Capitalist "self-ownership" & "being left alone"

[briankofke]

Ayn Rand is pronaounced " I=yand-Rand". I hate to correct you, but being an Ayn Rand advocate, I have no other choice . I am John Gault. The waste you employ over this type of interpretation steals away from the life you and your family could peruse. I wish you well in your endevours to enlighten yourself, your family, and humanity in the direction you deem fit. Thank you for your post. Signed, Mr. J. Gault.

[Anarchy00094]

This whole video is a strawman fallacy. If you dont like your employer you can find a different employer so the abuse of employees is not likely. Why shouldnt you be able sell you labour to those who wish to purchase it? No one is forcing you to be employed be a bum see if I care just dont ask for handouts.

[juliaisafilmbuff123]

@Anarchy00094 Being able to escape oppression (i.e. get a different boss) does nothing to change the system that causes oppression.

[Anarchy00094]

@juliaisafilmbuff123 Really opressed by whom? If an employer acts like a d-bag to the employees they leave and he is left with no one to work. At that point his options are quit acting like a douche or shut down his business. For opression someone needs to have an authoritative power over you, your employer does not have that power you are free to leave whenever.

[canaan1967]

Good refutation. I do find it a little curious that you seem to quote people like Chomsky and Bakunin in many of your videos more than Marx. Do you have issues with Marx?

[Ilikenuman]

@canaan1967 thats because hes an anarchist not a marxist.

[rnecas]

Everyone's enslaved by something, whether it's the harshness of nature, an employer, customers, even loved ones. It just so happens that employers are usually much gentler than nature. Have you ever tried surviving out in the wild? It's a lot rougher than filling out spreadsheets and being able to go to a grocery with reliable food supply. Capitalism, in practice, minimizes human suffering.

[canaan1967]

@rnecas

You need to read Michael Parenti's article entitled Self Inflicted Apocalypse. It's viewable online. Just how many casualties of capitalism are living out in the wild and subject to the whims of nature.

The alternative of wage slavery is not living unsheltered in the wild.

[canaan1967]

@rnecas

Correction: Capitalism's Self-Inflicted Apocalypse by Michael Parenti

[rnecas]

@canaan1967 Don't just refer me to some book. There are a few arguments against capitalism that get recycled over and over again. Which one would you like to use? Let's start with an easier question though: Should everyone be forced to practice the same religion? If your answer to that is "yes", then we have no common ground to argue on. But if your answer is "no", then I would argue you logically have to accept free capitalism.

[rnecas]

Laborers may be dominated by bosses, but bosses are dominated by millions of customers. Bosses can lose their shirts if their company is sued; employees are shielded from this and keep their wages. Laborers carry less risk and less pressure, and in exchange for this they accept a lower pay than the bosses. People can be their own boss, and there's a good reason not everyone goes down that path.

[magnumsynderella]

@rnecas great argument. this blew my mind. So by the logic of mr1001nights, if we extend this idea, bosses are the slaves of the customer and the customer is the slavemaster. And in this sense this is why i favor capitalism. the only way a boss can get profit is to serve the consumer.

[rnecas]

Every human alive has property: their life. Any human should be allowed to sell their rights if and when it's advantageous to them. Do you want to take that weapon away from them? "Slavery" would imply people have no opportunity to quit their job, grow their own food, start a business, etc. Slavery means no choice in your path through life. If you don't like the job you have, find a better one. If there were a better situation available, people will go to it.

[crud4]

Capitalist self ownership means the capitalist should have the '"liberty" to exploit others. If they actually lived by their motto to "swear by their life and their love of it to never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for theirs" then they wouldn't promote wage slavery. They're frauds. Intellectual quacks. They promote tyranny not liberty. They promote FORCING other men to live for the sake of a capitalist under threat of starvation or violence. Private property.

[oneandy2]

I don't believe you understand what the words "force," "exploit," or "slavery" mean.

[crud4]

I don't believe you know what anarchism means.

[1337melee]

If you impose health and safety standards upon people you will deprive them of the right to make that decision themselves. All human life entails some level of risk, who are you to say there is one level which everyone will find acceptable?

By what right does any collective interfere with the private, voluntary interaction between two parties.

And it is voluntary, because if they don't choose one particular job, they are not forcibly held down to starve, they can choose another job.

[GuiMarquito]

LoL «If you impose health and safety standards upon people you will deprive them of the right to make that decision themselves». yeah right, health and safety is something not everybody will want. Some poeple will just be masochist and deprive themselves of those things voluntarily.

[1337melee]

But how much safety. People take risks every day. Cars can crash, earthquakes can collapse buildings, floods can strike, electric wires can fray and cause fires, the sun can cause skin cancer. The level of risk for all these things varies, and only a market can set the right standard for an acceptable risk.

[GuiMarquito]

Who says it has got to be a capitalist market? And from what I've heard, costs are only there if it's mutualism or colectivism (not in the stupid sense stopandlook has made up).

[1337melee]

What other standard is there other than how much safety people are willing to produce? how much safety people are willing to pay for and earn money for the sake of paying for it. There is no other standard, because the safety features/standards, must be produced by someone. They should be willing to produce them.

[GuiMarquito]

Nobody is opposing selling, but things that affect the community have to be taken in consideration when there is a transaction. Oh really? That just *kind of* depends on the condition of the person... Many times he or she can't find another job at all.

[1337melee]

Are you saying that if no one wants to provide a particular individual with a job, someone should be forced to give them one?

By what right?

Seriously, I cant argue further until you give me a particular moral principle to form an argument against.

You are talking about taking away things that someone has earned by their own effort. This idea is an attack on the whole idea of property and ownership.

[GuiMarquito]

Nope, i'm saying that jobs shouldn't be conditioned according to the social position of a person, and i'm also saying that people should not be forced to work for a boss. Instead they should control the workplace.

Oh really? I think it's more like you who is talking about that, as a boss basically steals from his employees. Like every rich man deserved his money... look at what you are saying. Even if he did, his effort is no greater than that of the workers.

[GuiMarquito]

*they could

[1337melee]

We are not talking about effort, we are talking about production, which is the only thing which maters if you want to live on earth. Obviously everyone has to put forth effort in order to produce things, but some people whether it was because of an educational opportunity, or because they found a field they had a passion for, produce more than others.

as individuals, we should compensate them for the added value they provide for our lives.

[GuiMarquito]

yeah right, if I have a passion for torturing people, then I really should go to that area!! You can't justify something because of the passion people put onto it. And that's exactly what i'm talking about. Educational opurtunity. Is it fair that some people get to do all the managing and take the biggest slice of the production just because their parents are rich? yeah, what about compensating the working class?

[1337melee]

I am saying that the extra productivity of those individuals can be explained by passion. Many rich people grow up to get jobs of little consequence, if they get jobs at all. others become CEO's. That takes more than just an educational opportunity, not everyone has it in them.

[1337melee]

It doesn't make sense to think of the economy in terms of a static pie to be divided amongst society. CEO's engage in economic production, and they produce more economic value than an average worker. You can't say they have taken money that would have gone to the working class. The "money" in the sense of increase economic wealth which they have created, would not exist if it weren't for their production.

[oneandy2]

Um... it isn't justified by him. Their job's existence and the salary they get paid for doing it is justified by the people who are willing to PAY that salary. In the case of CEO's, that's the SHAREHOLDERS. And in many cases, those shareholders are WORKERS in the company!

No one said life is fair. If you want to be one of the managers, then be one of the managers. If you can do the job. If you can't, then stop whining and do something else.

[GuiMarquito]

Whatever, that still doesn't entitle them to control the workplace, pay everyone elses' salaries and taking the majority of the social product produced.

I don't oppose managers, I just consider them a part of the workforce, so why should they receive more?

[1337melee]

what exactly are the "conditions" you refer to which "force" people to work for a boss. Plenty of people don't work for a boss, and many people choose to work for a boss.

How do you propose to achieve this goal of people being forced not to work for bosses?

[GuiMarquito]

Yes but even if some are forced, that's bad. The capitalist market needs those forced workers, otherwise how would it function? And when you say people choose to work for a boss, I hardly think anyone would choose to work for a boss for a reason other than obligation. of course, if people want to work for bosses, go ahead and make your stupid capitalist system, but don't expect much support.

[GuiMarquito]

that would be of course, in an anarchist society. Of course, if that society is ever going to exist in a modern large scale is something difficult to say.

[1337melee]

When you quote what other people say, you should understand what they actually mean, not just take the words and make whatever conclusions you care to.

[djboony]

as far as im concerned everything i heard here is right on!

[Jonasinc1]

Hey Rothschild,

this is a great illustration of intellectual laziness. It is not involuntary. You have the choice to starve or maybe you could convince your parents or some other idiot to feed you. You could start up a commune if you prefer that economic system.

[johnnondrowsyd]

statist's always confuse libertarianism with corporatism. such a shame. this all rests on the idea that people can't do things for themselves, while all the while championing people working together. so you get stupid claims like, if you don't work for the first person you come across, you starve to death. well yeah, if you stop there, don't have any community, don't want to do anything for yourself,yes, you can go starve. are you supposed to be given everything? that's utopia? bupkis.

[patrickhenry1774]

In a free market capitalist society the worker has the Liberty to form their own capital venture, therefore the only entity they work for is the government thru taxation. Bottom line is tell me where the money comes from in the system you advocate. Do you think that laptop of yours would be around under anything other than capitalism?

[kingaa9818]

The right to life is primary over the right to property. Your "boss" cannot tell you what to do, as you have a choice to leave and find a new job. You views are flawed because you do not realize that the exchange of wages and labor are voluntary. No person is a "slave" because they're selling their labor.

[mr1001nights]

The still gotta work for a boss or starve. That's involuntary. That's coercion. What's the difference between living in 1 dictatorship and being able to choose between a few dictatorships? Read the wikipedia article on wage slavery,

[1andy2]

No. You do not. You don't HAVE to work for ANYONE. But barring theft, charity, inheritance, or socialism, you probably will have to work in some form or fashion.

And if you're counting on socialism, then you're basically relying on the government to take the products of labor of another individual and give them to you.

TANSTAAFL

[mr1001nights]

wage slavery does not refer to the unavoidable subjection of man to nature (having to work to gain one's sustenance), but to the avoidable subjection of man to man (having to work for a boss)

[1andy2]

You do not have to work for a boss. No boss can compel you to work for him. The only rebuttal to this you've offered is "Oh, but if I don't work for a boss I'll starve!"

How? Why MUST you work for a boss? Is he holding a gun to your head? You say not working for someone vs starving is coercion.

Sure, thats coercion. That's coercion by NATURE to work to eat. NOT coercion by any person. You've still yet to show how capitalism = coercion by a boss.

[canaan1967]

@mr1001nights

It's funny though. There are people who are subsisting on their own without renting themselves out to a boss yet are still contributing to the dominant paradigm that is capitalism and exploiting others and the environment and concentrating wealth into fewer hands.

[Svetlozarov]

@mr1001nights Nature says "Work or starve.", and the boss gives that message farther to the worker, why would a commune do something else? The commune still has control over the individual. Why can't a busyness and a commune coexist, even not for a short period until the workers figure out where they want to be? If a slave can free him self just by crossing a line wouldn't he do so, so if wage laborers are slaves they will go to the commune in a mater of seconds. To be continued.

[Svetlozarov]

@mr1001nights Part 2 no workers -> no busyness, but no workers -> no commune is equally true. Almost every anarcho-capitalist is ready to have anarcho-capitalist-communist coexistence, but almost no anarcho-communist is ready for this. Why is this? No, I know it's not because you want total central plannig SO bad. Central planning isn't an end is a means, it the answer to the question "How are you going to replace the supply and demand system?"

[djboony]

"Your "boss" cannot tell you what to do, as you have a choice to leave and find a new job."

yeah go find a new boss! lol hell tell you what to do in a slightly different way!

[1andy2]

The choice is not "Work for a boss or starve." The choice is whatever you want it to be. Work for any number of bosses, start your own business, be a farmer, etc...

The choice still lies with the individual whose labor/time are in question.

The slaver's choice is "do as I say or receive punishment." Employers don't starve people. Nature starves people, unless they overcome it by their own talents/labor.

The alternative is government directed labor. Another "Do as I say or punishment" choice.

[fjfjvmvm]

Well said. It is really depressing how prevalent so-called (i.e. American Libertarian Party style) "libertarianism" is on the internet. Their solution to widespread tyranny from an only somewhat accountable state is total tyranny from a few capitalist who own everything.

I really think it has to do with offering a worldview simple enough for people to understand. These people never have any knowledge of history apart from a small set of fraudulently concocted generalizations.

[motina10]

It is not like people will want to work for a slaver today. We have other means and any company that uses such things will not be succesful because people will boycot it, and it will fail or stay so small as to be unimportant, and that person who sold themselves to become a slave must have been desperate or stupid.

[motina10]

Workers have a choice where to work! If you want to sell yourself, take accountibility. It is your responsibilty. Contracts are important. Make up and sell contracts. Any breach can be taken to court, or depending on the situation someone else will. And there will be other, because people actually care about others. Should we care about people who are stupid enough to sell themelves. Today, no. Yesterday when things were not so good, yes.

[savatag]

shut the fuck up fag

[hawker445]

fag

[maczimms]

passerby is absolutely correct.

[mr1001nights]

yeah, the worker can work for a boss or starve

[SuperFinGuy]

Or you forgot, work for someone else or for himself. But if he is property of the government (as you are) he is not able to do that.

How taking someone's free will and life provide liberty?! Your argument is a complete rhetorical nonsense.

[Guncriminal]

It matters not whether you're working for a boss or for some ill-defined common good. We all have to work to stay alive. That's a fact.

What you posit isn't so much a criticism of capitalism, as a criticism of reality.

[mr1001nights]

wage slavery does not refer to the unavoidable subjection of man to nature (having to work to gain one's sustenance), but to the avoidable subjection of man to man (having to work for a boss)

[Guncriminal]

Avoidable? You don't sound like you want to avoid it; you're not against subjucation on principle, as you support socialised services. I don't have a choice whether to pay taxes that are spent on these services, however, I do have a choice whether to work for a boss or not; I choose to do so because its easier than working for myself.

Okay, so let's imagine we don't have to work for a boss. Who do we have to work for? Well, it's going to be very hard going proving everything yourself.

[Guncriminal]

continued.

So let's involve other people. If we want the benefits of their labour, skills and resources to make our lives easier, we'll have to do something for them in exchange for these things (demanding them for free and on the basis of need wouldn't be a good idea).

Hello (again) "bosses".

Hello (again) "wage slavery".

There's no getting away from it.

[passerby23]

What's up with all the air quotes? And where are you getting the idea that property rights theory was used to justify denying other people's liberty? Moreover, this argument that, once one consents to wage labor at the behest of their employer they become some indentured slave, is nonsense. It's not a denial of autonomy, it's a consensual relationship. If the worker doesn't like it, he can work elsewhere, start his own business, or do nothing.

[Terilien]

It seems that all you do is take stuff out of the anarchist faq...

[DackBev]

In fact, the very fact that a person is able to rent themselves out is proof that they own themselves.

[DackBev]

You've got it wrong. Self ownership allows a person to RENT himself out, not sell himself. A prostitute charges men to have sex with her. She still owns herself during the act. She simply rents herself out for a limited time. She continues to own herself.

[themonkeywrench]

Buying something is just a permanent form of that. So a person could, to survive, sign a contract that states that instead of, e.g, having 1 year of Mon-Fri 9 to 5 of working by the contract's terms (usually doing what your boss says), you can sign a contract that says you will give up the rest of your life to the person specified in the contract (theoretically they could sell you to someone else).

[themonkeywrench]

What those against the wage system say is that the first case is exactly the same as the second only for less time. They reject slave contracts of all kinds.

[VeritasEtLibertas82]

Your argument is built on a false dichotomy. There are more then just the options, work for a boss or starve. One could start a business, or do odd jobs for ones community, or teach for a fee, or grow and sell vegetables, or buy and sell junk on e-bay, or countless other options. The laborer can walk away from his job at any point. Your argument is nonsense.

[mr1001nights]

Most people have to work for a boss under threat of starvation & social mobility doesn't justify that. In colonial Brazil some slaves could buy their own freedom & become self-employed or slave owners themselves. Did that social mobility justify the "work for a boss or get beaten" status quo of chattel slavery? so why should it justify the "work for a boss or starve" status quo of wage slavery?

[VeritasEtLibertas82]

Again, nonsense for the same reason. Most people choose to work for a boss because it's easier and far less economically risky then being a boss.

[DackBev]

Precisely. It's easier to let someone else tell you what to do 8 hours a day. Being self-employed requires that person take responsibilty for directing himself, which most people aren't willing to do.

[passerby23]

I would also add that slavery was a legal institution which empowered employers to do as much. There is nothing free-market about that. In a free market, if an employer is beating an employee, he will almost certainly go out of business because nobody will work for him or a competitor will outdo him. And I agree, most people choose employment because it is less risky and bears far less personal responsibility.

[mariasman100]

You provided a quote at 2:45: "The worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time under capitalism." You later refer to this process as a "contract" at 3:30. So, it seems that your argument is equivalent to saying that any agreement between two individuals is tantamount to slavery.(?) Now, this seems pretty silly, but I don't mean to caricature your position. Could you help me to see where my misunderstanding lies?

[buddhagem]

I'd really encourage you to read the Wikipedia article that Mr1001 nights has written from Wikipedia. I think you'll find a very good answer to your question there.

[mariasman100]

Ok, I'll check it out.

[mariasman100]

Sorry, it didn't help much. I left feeling a little like Alice in Wonderland, where everything is, yet apparently isn't, simultaneously. Seriously, the concept seems self-contradictory to me. BTW, we had a discussion going last week in the comments section of your "Wage Slave" video from which you rather abruptly dropped out. We should continue if for no other reason than to figure out precisely where we disagree. I may not understand your position, but I suspect you do not understand mine.

[braxton427]

i feel you dude. what's the solution? what is your ideal system of government? no government at all? i've asked you before, please describe what you would consider the ideal civilization.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

Well, that's why he's an anarchist.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

You're saying that human rights and labor cannot be sold, but that implies that they aren't worth anything.

[buddhagem]

That seems absurd to me. What "price" do you put on a human life? Humanity has, it seems, come to some near universal consensus that buying humans is wrong. So why would renting a person be any better? You're essentially "buying" that person for a specific amount of time. Instead of being owned 24 hours a day you are owned 8 hours a day. An improvement, perhaps, but fundamentally the same system of control adapted to new circumstances.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

I think as long as you can opt out it's fine. If the terms are unfair and you feel it's an aggression then you're justified in your resentment of the "renter" then you can react in whatever way feels best. If the renter is being coercive then I think you should react. If both participants in the contract feel good about the transaction then what is the harm?

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

Also the universal consensus seems as though it stems from any ownership of a human that isn't self-ownership. Even if you're doing labor for someone else, it doesn't mean that you can't break this contract if the circumstances are unfair. If you did not have the choice to quit with a gun pointed at your head, then it would be coercive. The "work for a boss or starve" situations can only be enforced with a gun.

[Pananarchist]

Property beyond use can only be enforced with a gun. Otherwise, wage slaves and impoverished people would be more inclined to take what they need from the vast resources of capitalists.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

That's essentially what I'm saying.