Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

recent "trend" of Libertarianism

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    Labour do earn all the profit. Managers, accountants and others help to maximize the profit, but capitalist, who is only owning the capital, is often doing nothing.
    Capital you will agree is very valuable. It allows us to produce more with the same amount of labour.

    Now the question is where does capital come from?

    It comes from saving. It comes from somebody forgoing consumption in the now. Using what was saved to create something useful. Like a spear or a machine. That is capital formation. You suffer in the short term when you create capital. But you get the benefits later when that capital is put to use.

    The worker on the other hand does not experience this temporary suffering to create capital. Instead they do not take those risks. They take fixed wages instead.

    I expressing my freedom of speech. But I can't apply for LSE, Kings universities, because in my home country education level is not worth enough for LSE and they will reject me without consideration.
    Ohhhh dear. I got rejected from some universities. What is your point? What has that got to do with freedom?

    Hole is hole, diamond is diamond. Diamond is worth insofar as for the average member of society takes to process a diamond.
    If the average socially necessary labour for the Diamond is x. And if the average socially necessary labour for the Holes is x. Then the diamond and holes have the same value.

    That's the difference between socialist planning and companies planning? - Central planning will not have constant crises.
    Nahhh, central planning is a constant crisis. It is always rubbish.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    That's the difference between socialist planning and companies planning? - Central planning will not have constant crises.
    Uh? No, the actual difference is that company planning is so decentralised. It takes into account specific information and market expertise in each sector, and this information is conveyed through the price signal. So individuals being selfish means we produce what the consumer wants. Priceless.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Capital you will agree is very valuable. It allows us to produce more with the same amount of labour.

    Now the question is where does capital come from?

    It comes from saving. It comes from somebody forgoing consumption in the now. Using what was saved to create something useful. Like a spear or a machine. That is capital formation. You suffer in the short term when you create capital. But you get the benefits later when that capital is put to use.

    The worker on the other hand does not experience this temporary suffering to create capital. Instead they do not take those risks. They take fixed wages instead.
    So how classical liberalism will solve inherited capital problem? If someone inherit the capital, does it is not against free market? Why somebody has advantages?

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Ohhhh dear. I got rejected from some universities. What is your point? What has that got to do with freedom?
    I was talking about self expression. I can’t get into good university in UK, because „I am guilty“ for being born in country where education is not good enough. And I mean literally, If I get the highest marks and take many activities I still wont even get an offer. It is written in their website.

    In capitalism people can‘t express themselves because they are enchained by the lack of money.

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    If the average socially necessary labour for the Diamond is x. And if the average socially necessary labour for the Holes is x. Then the diamond and holes have the same value.
    Lol. Troll at it best. Once again, please read what I write.

    “If you dig hole for 2 hours, value of that hole is insofar as for the average member of society it takes to dig a hole (let’s say 3 hours). "

    I was talking about hours. „Diamond is worth insofar as for the average member of society takes to process a diamond.”. By trying to mix everything you just showed how ignorant you are.

    If average member of society takes 20 hours to find and process diamond, it is worth 20 hours work of processing and finding. If average member of society takes 2 hours to dig a hole it is worth 2 hours work of digging. You can dig it for days, but it still will be worth only 2 hours of work.

    By saying that hole and diamonds have the same value is typical pro-capitalism statement who thinks of money, or what you can get for it. Since, in socialism everything will be according to need, the capitalist idea that 10 holes equal 1 diamond is not needed.

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Nahhh, central planning is a constant crisis. It is always rubbish.
    Captain classic liberalism strikes again! At least try to prove by giving arguments, but not by writing abstract „arguments“.

    Even not my favorite, social statist country Soviet Union‘s central planning was really a success. But like I said, it was a statist country and all capitalism laws still applied, while technological disadvantage caused deficit. That is why I always advocating need for technological perfection in order to change capitalism with socialism.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    If the average socially necessary labour for the Diamond is x. And if the average socially necessary labour for the Holes is x. Then the diamond and holes have the same value.
    Only if the holes have use-value for consumers.
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Only if the holes have use-value for consumers.
    And what defined 'use value'

    Holes are useful. You can fill them up with stuff.

    Diamonds are just a piece of rock. Surely they have no 'use value'.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    And what defined 'use value'
    Whether the consumers consider them to or not.
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Whether the consumers consider them to or not.
    So that value derives from the opinion of the consumers?

    You know where this road leads.......
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Troll Toll)
    Your friends are late to the party. The trend started in late 07 or early 08 when Ron Paul got popular on the internet.
    Except the thing with Ron Paul is, he is only popular on the internet; his primary performance has been nothing short of abysmal, even by his deflated expectations.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    The only part of Ron Paul's (and any other presidential candidate for that matter) that really matters is their foreign policy views. This is the only policy area where the president has near absolute discretion, and doesn't need to hurdle over Congress to effect serious change.
    Yes, but to be elected President or even be nominated for the position, one has to have at least a modicum of support from the general public; which Ron Paul, does not.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    So that value derives from the opinion of the consumers?

    You know where this road leads.......
    Couple of things.

    Firstly, it's the use-value, not the exchange value here.

    Secondly, evaluation and creation are different. To use a topical example, I saw The Hunger Games recently, and I thought it was a great film, i.e. it had a use-value for me. But that use-value isn't created from me, but by the actors/directors/scriptwriters/etc who made the film. What determined whether I was going to enjoy the film or not was the process of making it.
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Couple of things.

    Firstly, it's the use-value, not the exchange value here.

    Secondly, evaluation and creation are different. To use a topical example, I saw The Hunger Games recently, and I thought it was a great film, i.e. it had a use-value for me. But that use-value isn't created from me, but by the actors/directors/scriptwriters/etc who made the film. What determined whether I was going to enjoy the film or not was the process of making it.
    I went to the see the Hunger games. Thought it was pretty poor. Hardly worth my time.

    I guess I must have valued it differently from you..............
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    I miss being Libertarian. Everything seemed so much simpler back then. Leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, the market will resolve the rest. Great times.
    My thoughts exactly! Libertarianism is politics for people with autistic tenancies.

    I miss it.
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    So how classical liberalism will solve inherited capital problem? If someone inherit the capital, does it is not against free market? Why somebody has advantages?
    The market mechanism will take capital away from people who make inefficient use of it. If you inherit capital and do a poor job with it. You will lose money. And eventually lose the capital to somebody else who will make better use of it.

    Obviously there is the initial problem of capital being inherited but for the most part it is not a big deal and solutions to the problem would likely have worse consequences than if you just left it alone. There is no such thing a utopia in reality.



    I was talking about self expression. I can’t get into good university in UK, because „I am guilty“ for being born in country where education is not good enough. And I mean literally, If I get the highest marks and take many activities I still wont even get an offer. It is written in their website.
    It their freedom to tell you to clear off. If they could not do this, how free do you think the university faculty would be.

    In capitalism people can‘t express themselves because they are enchained by the lack of money.
    Have you noticed how much choice people have to express themselves today with. All sorts of sport, clothes entertainment. There is something for everybody in capitalist nations. Unlike the communist nations where people do wierd as group dancing and marching about in uniform.

    If you want to be free to express yourself you would be a ****ing idiot to not live in a capitalist nation.


    Lol. Troll at it best. Once again, please read what I write.

    “If you dig hole for 2 hours, value of that hole is insofar as for the average member of society it takes to dig a hole (let’s say 3 hours). "

    I was talking about hours. „Diamond is worth insofar as for the average member of society takes to process a diamond.”. By trying to mix everything you just showed how ignorant you are.

    If average member of society takes 20 hours to find and process diamond, it is worth 20 hours work of processing and finding. If average member of society takes 2 hours to dig a hole it is worth 2 hours work of digging. You can dig it for days, but it still will be worth only 2 hours of work.

    By saying that hole and diamonds have the same value is typical pro-capitalism statement who thinks of money, or what you can get for it. Since, in socialism everything will be according to need, the capitalist idea that 10 holes equal 1 diamond is not needed.
    Whatever, even if you tried to get into LSE or whatever you should not get in on the basis of this nonsense. Guess its not your fault, it is probably the state education you got that has done this to you.


    Captain classic liberalism strikes again! At least try to prove by giving arguments, but not by writing abstract „arguments“.
    How about evidence then. The only nations throughout history where the lot of the ordinary man has improved is in nations of largely free enterprise and trade. All the nations where the poor do best, are capitalist nations.

    Even not my favorite, social statist country Soviet Union‘s central planning was really a success. But like I said, it was a statist country and all capitalism laws still applied, while technological disadvantage caused deficit. That is why I always advocating need for technological perfection in order to change capitalism with socialism.
    Yeah, thats what the Bolsheviks said. And their ideas were a complete and utter disaster. It is the same bull**** the Venus project proposes.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    I went to the see the Hunger games. Thought it was pretty poor. Hardly worth my time.

    I guess I must have valued it differently from you..............
    And therefore it didn't have a use-value to you (well, arguably it did, because technically what you're buying is the oppurtunity to see the film and so it has a use-value to anyone buying a ticket, but we'll ignore that for the sake of argument), but it had a use value to some people, and therefore an exchange value.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    It their freedom to tell you to clear off. If they could not do this, how free do you think the university faculty would be.
    Their freedom. Don’t you think everyone should have the best education? You are mixing the idea with reality. Now, they have to do that, because education in other countires is not good enough for them. But if everyone would have the best education possible, everyone would have an OPPORTUNITY to get in their chosen university.

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Have you noticed how much choice people have to express themselves today with. All sorts of sport, clothes entertainment. There is something for everybody in capitalist nations. Unlike the communist nations where people do wierd as group dancing and marching about in uniform.

    If you want to be free to express yourself you would be a ****ing idiot to not live in a capitalist nation.
    Clothes, sports cost money. When I was young, I wanted to take ice-hockey, but the equipment costed too much and my family could not afford it.

    I can’t believe how stubborn you are. Totalitarian state is not communist or socialist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ Worth watching if you want to improve you understanding.

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Whatever, even if you tried to get into LSE or whatever you should not get in on the basis of this nonsense. Guess its not your fault, it is probably the state education you got that has done this to you.
    Wow. Just by saying this is nonsense it does not prove you are right.

    But well, what can pro-capitalist say, which can only analyse only surface of capitalism and does not understand capitalism inside objections, problems.

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    How about evidence then. The only nations throughout history where the lot of the ordinary man has improved is in nations of largely free enterprise and trade. All the nations where the poor do best, are capitalist nations.
    I’m afraid you don’t understand what I’m writing to you. Well, I’m not surprised.

    Socialism can’t come in force now and today. There have to be circumstances such as technological advance, people consciousness. For example, in medieval times capitalism was not possible due to lack of technologies, weak economy ties.

    Soviet Union was poor country because then Bolsheviks came in power, it was a third world country with feudal ties. And I agree that Bolsheviks project was terrible, simply because they tried to skip capitalism and go to socialism directly.

    Of course, since you are not trying to understand what I say, I will make it clearer. Planning was never been done by advanced nations. South Korea, Taiwan is an example how to plan heavy industry, but in order to reach technological advance, everyone have to undergo capitalism.
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And therefore it didn't have a use-value to you (well, arguably it did, because technically what you're buying is the oppurtunity to see the film and so it has a use-value to anyone buying a ticket, but we'll ignore that for the sake of argument), but it had a use value to some people, and therefore an exchange value.
    The bottom line is that the value of the Hunger Games to any given person has nothing to do with the amount of labour that created it. The value is determined in peoples minds. It is entirely subjective.

    If half the labour had created precisely the same thing, then I would have still thought it was ****. And you would have still enjoyed it the same amount.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Would any Libertarian's be interested in joining the Libertarian Party on TSR's very own Model House of Commons? PM me if interested
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    Their freedom. Don’t you think everyone should have the best education? You are mixing the idea with reality. Now, they have to do that, because education in other countires is not good enough for them. But if everyone would have the best education possible, everyone would have an OPPORTUNITY to get in their chosen university.
    I would like everybody to have a flying car and have great sex every night. But that does not mean it is attainable. In practice we have to make trade offs.

    It is all very well and good you saying, everybody should have a great education, but you have no route to get there or any standard as to what a great education is (which is an entirely subjective judgment).

    And indeed, which nations have the best education? You guessed it, capitalist nations.

    Clothes, sports cost money. When I was young, I wanted to take ice-hockey, but the equipment costed too much and my family could not afford it.
    Nothing costs money really. Things cost resources. To make clothes it costs natural resources and labour. Money is not the cost itself, it is the measurement of cost. If you think, well get rid of money and we get rid of cost, then you have made a massive error.

    I could not afford to take up polo, what is your point. We would all like things but we have to earn them somehow. We have to produce something of value to get the things we want. That is the magic of capitalism. You want the money to play ice hockey. Better go and get a job and serve somebody else to get the money. That way you make yourself happy and somebody else happy.

    I can’t believe how stubborn you are. Totalitarian state is not communist or socialist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ Worth watching if you want to improve you understanding.
    Socialism in its true form is totalitarianism. Socialism and communism are not the same thing. Communism has no government. Socialism is total government.

    Socialism can’t come in force now and today. There have to be circumstances such as technological advance, people consciousness. For example, in medieval times capitalism was not possible due to lack of technologies, weak economy ties.
    As long as you have private property and the law, you can have capitalism.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    The bottom line is that the value of the Hunger Games to any given person has nothing to do with the amount of labour that created it.
    But the LTV isn't concerned with the use-values to 'any given person'. The only relevance of use-values is that they are there for some people, because then there will be consumers for the product in question. The exchange value will be roughly proportional to the amount of labour involved in production.

    The value is determined in peoples minds. It is entirely subjective.
    Use value =/= exchange value, for millionth time. My opinion of a product doesn't determine the price, but whether or not I'm willing to pay the price.

    If half the labour had created precisely the same thing, then I would have still thought it was ****. And you would have still enjoyed it the same amount.
    But (at least theoretically on a free market) the prices would be roughly half.
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Use value =/= exchange value, for millionth time.
    I never said that. Exchange value = price. Use value = utility (roughly). I always say price is not value. Price is a measure of cost not value.

    My opinion of a product doesn't determine the price,
    In direct barter it does, to a large extent. At least the seller and the buyer influence price. In a market with multiple buyers and sellers, the price is determined by the all of the valuations of the participants. That is why markets are the best voting machines.

    But (at least theoretically on a free market) the prices would be roughly half.
    Kinda, if the demand for either item was the same.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 14, 2012
New on TSR

A-level results day

Is it about making your parents proud?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.