[anarchism101]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Well no, depending on how you term them, they are not. If you accept that a market is 'free' insofar as transactions can be made without penalty, then that is a 'free' market.

Not at all. You can make transactions without the existence of a market economy. Even exchanges don't automatically mean markets (for example, if they're one-off exchanges).

Even within market economies, there are exchanges made without penalty but that some state action or external situation has rendered unfree.

Thats the point, you CAN argue anything is deserved. The justification for the current system and those who 'deserve' its benefits relies on the thought of thinkers like Hayek, Smith and arguably even Keynes.

But at least until I raised the point, people in this thread weren't arguing it, just asserting it.

I'd say that out of those three, only Hayek actually argued that capitalism was moral and just. Keynes and Smith just said it was preferable to alternatives (Smith's a particularly interesting one because his vision of a market economy is totally unlike any that has ever existed).

Except Philosophical justifications are what spawn the institutionalised force and power in the first place...

Not at all. As we discussed earlier, these justifications are subjective. Rulers or potential rulers simply select a 'justification' that suits whatever it is they already want.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ThisIsTheLife)
I'm not saying they should be productive for someone else - I'm saying they should be productive for themselves.

If they're having to live a hand-to-mouth existence (which prior to the welfare state, was widespread among British workers) and the only alternative is starvation, then they're effectively serfs.

Taxing the rich to pay for the lifestyle's of the poor - THAT'S an example of people being forced to be productive exclusively for somebody else's benefit.

No, because the rich are largely not productive, but earn their money off the backs of their workers' labour.

And yes, I do believe people should have to live like that. Although, let's remember, they don't HAVE to live like that - they'd be choosing to live like that, for the most part.

Choosing in the sense that the other choice is not to live at all.....

If the alternative is that people are having their property stolen in order to fund the non-productive and completely dependent lifestyles of these people, then yes, that's the alternative I'd prefer.

Of course, human quality of life must be sacrificed before the religion of property....

People should be incentivised to be independent.

Then end capitalism and capitalists leeching off the labour of workers.

And let's face it, the only reason governments have any interest in providing welfare for the poor is because they have votes. If they didn't, the government wouldn't care about them either.

Nah, governments don't really give a damn about the poor, they never have. The reason the Western countries introduced welfare states was that they feared revolution if they didn't.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Xhotas)
Without the person at the head to make the decisions and create the product, there would be no product.

Why not? And they don't create the product.

It's like saying "Oh well done for creating this product, that millions of people use, but you didn't make all one million of these units so you don't deserve more money."

Again, they don't make the product.

I work in McDonalds, I probably make £800-£1200 worth of food in a 10 hour shift. But do I deserve that much for my work? I'd like to say yes because it is hard work, but all I'm doing is cooking some basic things together, to get that product. No, I don't deserve more than what I get because it is a low skilled job, anyone can do it. There is no "niche" for people who make Big Macs, as it's a skill easily learnt and therefore not valuable.

Why shouldn't you get that much? OK, maybe dock a bit because you didn't pay for the ingredients, but if you added £X of value, why shouldn't you be paid that much?

But without the owner, there would be no workers as there would be no product and therefore no jobs.

Why not?

It's like saying who's more important, the construction workers who know how put the building together or the structural engineer who makes sure it stays up right? The engineer knows more than the workers, knows how to keep it up, the workers just put A to B and build it. But the workers don't have the knowledge to keep it up, hence why they need engineers. So please don't say that the workers are more important than those who keep it moving, they are low-paid jobs for a reason, they are low-skill. Higher skill will mean higher pay.

It's nothing like that at all. A structural engineer is also a worker. A better analogy would be that they are all employed by someone who takes the vast majority of the profits because he provided the machines or something like that.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by anarchism101)



Not at all. As we discussed earlier, these justifications are subjective. Rulers or potential rulers simply select a 'justification' that suits whatever it is they already want.

But are our wants not defined by our philosophical outlook?

You, an Anarchist, want a society without a state or a formal hierarchy. You want this based upon your own rationalisation surely?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Ocassus)
But are our wants not defined by our philosophical outlook?

I wouldn't say so. They can be determined by the culture we live in though.

You, an Anarchist, want a society without a state or a formal hierarchy. You want this based upon your own rationalisation surely?

But I don't expect everyone else to share the exact same view. At the root I think it's simply a more desirable society.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Ocassus)
This is going to get a bit circuitous at this rate.
Are our philosophical outlooks not determined by the culture we live in which in turn determines what we believe our ideal society to be?

If that was the case then there would never be any social change. I was probably wrong to say they were determined by it, influenced by it would be a better way of putting it. For example, what is perceived as 'mainstream' or 'extreme' changes depending on what society you live in.

But obviously your belief is not simply linked into sheer desire? I assume you have actually rationalised and considered the merits of such a society aswell as the mechanics of it both on a macro scale and a micro scale.

Yes, but I don't see a contradiction in these two premises.

[Xhotas]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Why not? And they don't create the product.

Yes. Yes they did. I don't get why you don't see this, that one person created the ORIGINAL product that NO ONE else did. Without that person, there WOULDN'T be a product. The workers didn't make the product to begin with, only after a gifted individual gave them a livlihood by creating it before them.

Again, they don't make the product.

Missing my point completely like before. How can you get a job creating something if that something hasn't even been created before?

Why shouldn't you get that much? OK, maybe dock a bit because you didn't pay for the ingredients, but if you added £X of value, why shouldn't you be paid that much?

Because if they wanted to, they could easily get machines to do it for me. I put pieces together. It is a low skilled job, I am not special for being able to do it. Plus I don't deserve that much, since that's not how business works. You can't pay the workers huge amounts of money when they don't necessarily have that skilled a job. Plus there are so many different jobs in McDonalds (or any business) should I be paid more because I made twice as much food as the guy opposite me who had to spend twice as long making the same priced food?

If you honestly believe that's how it should work you will fail any business venture you ever find yourself in.

Why not?

I think you're just trolling at this point because no one can seriously be this silly.

It's nothing like that at all. A structural engineer is also a worker. A better analogy would be that they are all employed by someone who takes the vast majority of the profits because he provided the machines or something like that.

He is, but he is a more skilled worker. He has the knowledge that architects and workers do not have, to know what keeps a building together. Without him, the building falls. There are only a few in his field whereas there is an thousands upon thousands of workers. The engineer has a rare skill and a very important one, he cannot easily be replaced unlike a worker. So surely, he should be paid more because he is more important than one single worker.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Xhotas)
Yes. Yes they did. I don't get why you don't see this, that one person created the ORIGINAL product that NO ONE else did. Without that person, there WOULDN'T be a product. The workers didn't make the product to begin with, only after a gifted individual gave them a livlihood by creating it before them.

What 'original product'? What on earth are you on about?

Missing my point completely like before. How can you get a job creating something if that something hasn't even been created before?

I don't see exactly what you're getting at here, but what does seem to be clear is that you're conflating inventors and business owners. The latter are usually not the former.

Because if they wanted to, they could easily get machines to do it for me.

No they couldn't, at least with technology as it is now. And this is self-evident from the fact that they don't anywhere (since wages vary, you'd expect them to be used somewhere if they were viable)

I put pieces together. It is a low skilled job, I am not special for being able to do it. Plus I don't deserve that much, since that's not how business works. You can't pay the workers huge amounts of money when they don't necessarily have that skilled a job.

Who said anything about huge amounts of money? It wouldn't be that much, but it would be the full value of what you produce.

Plus there are so many different jobs in McDonalds (or any business) should I be paid more because I made twice as much food as the guy opposite me who had to spend twice as long making the same priced food?

If it's the same price, in what sense have you made twice as much?

If you honestly believe that's how it should work you will fail any business venture you ever find yourself in.

Wow, I won't become a capitalist. Strangely enough, considering I'm anti-capitalist I don't want to be one anyway.

I think you're just trolling at this point because no one can seriously be this silly.

Suppose there's a business that produces cars. The business has an owner, and then the workers using the machines in the factory to produce the cars and then sell them. What exactly do the workers need the owner for? If he suddenly disappeared, would they suddenly be unable to work the machines and make cars?

He is, but he is a more skilled worker. He has the knowledge that architects and workers do not have, to know what keeps a building together. Without him, the building falls. There are only a few in his field whereas there is an thousands upon thousands of workers. The engineer has a rare skill and a very important one, he cannot easily be replaced unlike a worker. So surely, he should be paid more because he is more important than one single worker.

Probably true, yes. I'm not saying all workers should be paid the same, but that the workers, individually or collectively (this probably depends on the nature of the enterprise), should receive the full value of what they produce, rather than the owner taking a chunk.

[LarrikinLibertine]

Where's the option for keep it as it is?