Wouldn't a libertarian society just turn into a conservative one? Watch

RAFecon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 7 years ago
#41
forgive me for being ignorant
How would you describe the UK? Liberal / libertarian / socialist
I would say a mixture of the 3, but mainly Liberal?
0
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#42
Report 7 years ago
#42
Oops. If you are employed by somebody you are coerced via duress into working for them given that the only other practical choice (especially in a libertarian society) is to starve to death. Then they pretty much control you during your hours of work. So yes, the rich have maximum freedom in that they are at the top of the hierarchy. Just suppose that you are a worker in a plant or a mill in a libertarian society: do you have the real, practical freedom to criticise your owner? Can you resist any of his demands during the ten hours that you are at work for him?
You confuse cooperation with coercian.

If you are not willing to work and you would rather die than that is your own choice. That is freedom. It turns out most people would rather work than die

You do not understand labour economics. If a worker does not like their conditions whether it be wages, hours then they can negoitate different terms. The worker can use threats like I will move to a different job. Indeed it is the freedom to threaten to move job that actually secures your rights. Your rights are threatened when you can no longer use rational incentives to improve your life because government intervenes. An example would be not being allowed to work more than a certain amount of hours or a certain wage. Minimum wage laws directly contradict freedom.
0
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#43
Report 7 years ago
#43
(Original post by Oswy)
Libertarians apply their own particular concept of 'freedom' (yeah, there are libraries full of argument about what 'freedom' can or should mean, your libertarian dictionary isn't going to cut it). This libertarian concept pays no attention to how far an individual can make use of their putative condition of 'being free'. This is a neat trick because it means the libertarian can make an abstract claim to defend everyone's freedom equally while in fact defending it only insofar as any individual has the wherewithal to do things. For us non-libertarians the 'freedom' to starve isn't worthy of the term, not by a long way. If we want the term 'freedom' to have any substantive meaning then we need to recognise the extent to which it relates to power, the power to do X or to not do X.
Negative liberty then.

You can pursure your own interests assuming you do not intefere with liberties of others.

Socialists also pull of a neat trick reffering to equality. Equality is a far more loosely defined term than liberty when it comes to policy.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#44
Report 7 years ago
#44
(Original post by turn and fall)
You confuse cooperation with coercian.

If you are not willing to work and you would rather die than that is your own choice. That is freedom. It turns out most people would rather work than die

You do not understand labour economics. If a worker does not like their conditions whether it be wages, hours then they can negoitate different terms. The worker can use threats like I will move to a different job. Indeed it is the freedom to threaten to move job that actually secures your rights. Your rights are threatened when you can no longer use rational incentives to improve your life because government intervenes. An example would be not being allowed to work more than a certain amount of hours or a certain wage. Minimum wage laws directly contradict freedom.
If I hold a gun to your head and say 'gimmi all your money', you have the freedom of choice to say 'no' (and get your head blown off), or you can say reluctantly say 'yes'. If the situational factors force you to accept the lesser of two evils, how exactly are you free? Capitalism limits the choices you have, forcing people into wage slavery or starvation. Obviously, the dichotomy is a little less extreme in our society but the principle remains true.

You can negotiate terms, but capitalism drives unemployment, ensuring that those who demand higher pay are replaced by those who would accept your current pay. This maintains the low status of the workers as they are in constant competition.
0
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#45
Report 7 years ago
#45
(Original post by Oswy)
I would ask you to question the moral legitimacy of a system which can see a desperately hard-working and honest peasant in Africa, China or wherever, struggle to feed their family because the market 'deems' their inability to compete with super-financed agro-business their own problem. Where's the humanity dude? Where is the peasant's 'liberty'? A system is not legitimate just because it is a system and those who have larger shares of pies in capitalism simply use them to consolidate and expand their advantages, hard-work and humanity easily having little to do with that cycle.
I think you are either exposing your ignorance or your illusion.

The market deems nothing in the places you reffer to. People in China struggle to feed their families because of central planning. It is an interesting thought experiment to work out how in a free market many people could starve (I have not come up with a mechanism for that result yet. I do try though)

In Africa famers cannot compete with EU farmers that are protected. If we had free trade there would be a lot less farmers in the EU and far more in Africa. The world would maximise the use of comparative advantage and thus the world would be richer.

These arguments are some of the key reasons I am a free marketeer. I am compasionate and hate the suffering of others. I see the worlds poor not trapped by the market but powerful government. The route out of poverty is trade.
1
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#46
Report 7 years ago
#46
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
If I hold a gun to your head and say 'gimmi all your money', you have the freedom of choice to say 'no' (and get your head blown off), or you can say reluctantly say 'yes'. If the situational factors force you to accept the lesser of two evils, how exactly are you free? Capitalism limits the choices you have, forcing people into wage slavery or starvation. Obviously, the dichotomy is a little less extreme in our society but the principle remains true.

You can negotiate terms, but capitalism drives unemployment, ensuring that those who demand higher pay are replaced by those who would accept your current pay. This maintains the low status of the workers as they are in constant competition.
Libertarians belive in the rule of law. Apposed to anarchists. So your first point is not relevant. Stop using strawmen ffs.

If the situational factors force you to accept the lesser of two evils, how exactly are you free?
You were still free to choose what you think would maximise utility.
Capitalism limits the choices you have, forcing people into wage slavery or starvation.
That is a trully phenominal statement. Capitalism forces nothing. Instead spontaneous order emerges. Capitalism is the most powerful mechanism to deal with starvation. If people are desperate for food they will be willing to pay a large amount for it. Then there is a profit motive for people to farm. You would see people turning the land into farms very quickly under such circumstance. As more people enter the farming market supply increases. This brings down the price and suddenly people have enough food. That is the brilliant dynamism of price signalling.
Obviously, the dichotomy is a little less extreme in our society but the principle remains true.
The principle and the logic were wrong.

You can negotiate terms, but capitalism drives unemployment, ensuring that those who demand higher pay are replaced by those who would accept your current pay. This maintains the low status of the workers as they are in constant competition.
So your would prefer no compeition. That would just cause higher wages. Increase input costs. Cause inflation. And nobody would have gained. Competitive labour markets reduce unemployment. If you are not willing to work for the going wage that is your choice. It is your freedom to not work or undercut. Freedom is a scary thing sometimes but it gives you the chance to pick the best choice for you. Not somebody else.

Jobs are a means not an end. People work to live better.
0
reply
AdzD
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#47
Report 7 years ago
#47
(Original post by turn and fall)
That is a trully phenominal statement. Capitalism forces nothing. Instead spontaneous order emerges. Capitalism is the most powerful mechanism to deal with starvation. If people are desperate for food they will be willing to pay a large amount for it. Then there is a profit motive for people to farm. You would see people turning the land into farms very quickly under such circumstance. As more people enter the farming market supply increases. This brings down the price and suddenly people have enough food. That is the brilliant dynamism of price signalling.
This would be all well and good if the market was perfect, the problem i find with your example is that their is a time delay in people switching from what they are currently producing to farming. They would have to find suitable fertile land that could produce vast amounts of crops that would make money that what they currently producing, they'd have to plough the fields, grow the crops and then get their products to market all of which takes a very long time, the crops may even fail!

So while on the surface yes it looks like the market may have a solution its a vastly more complex issue.
0
reply
Ramses II
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#48
Report 7 years ago
#48
(Original post by AdzD)
This would be all well and good if the market was perfect, the problem i find with your example is that their is a time delay in people switching from what they are currently producing to farming. They would have to find suitable fertile land that could produce vast amounts of crops that would make money that what they currently producing, they'd have to plough the fields, grow the crops and then get their products to market all of which takes a very long time, the crops may even fail!

So while on the surface yes it looks like the market may have a solution its a vastly more complex issue.
This slow adjustment period would only be a problem if the starvation was a sudden, dramatic change. In which case you would presumably be screwed whatever economic system was in place.
2
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#49
Report 7 years ago
#49
(Original post by turn and fall)
Libertarians belive in the rule of law. Apposed to anarchists. So your first point is not relevant. Stop using strawmen ffs.
It's a thought experiment to show the ridiculousness of negative freedom. Whether something is legal or not changes nothing about the concept of negative freedom. Whether it's a gunman saying: 'gimmi all your money or die' or your boss saying: 'gimmi all your labour or die', forcing dichotomy by limiting alternatives isn’t justified by saying: ‘he’s got a choice’ or ‘it’s allowed by law’.


(Original post by turn and fall)
You were still free to choose what you think would maximise utility.
Surely a system that forces people to choose between suffering and more suffering doesn’t maximise utility. The uneven distribution of wealth is completely apposed to the maximisation of utility.

(Original post by turn and fall)
That is a trully phenominal statement. Capitalism forces nothing. Instead spontaneous order emerges. Capitalism is the most powerful mechanism to deal with starvation. If people are desperate for food they will be willing to pay a large amount for it. Then there is a profit motive for people to farm. You would see people turning the land into farms very quickly under such circumstance. As more people enter the farming market supply increases. This brings down the price and suddenly people have enough food. That is the brilliant dynamism of price signalling.
You mean if people are desperate for food because of their place in the hierarchal ladder, they are forced to do what the can to get food. The capitalist, who is granted a life of liberty and luxury, then seeks to make a profit. He gives the starving people a small wage so that they can live. The workers then increase the supply of food and this brings down the price. The capitalist pays the workers a wage lower than the value of the produce they make which drives his profits.

Is utility maximised here? Wouldn’t the people have been better off producing the food as they needed it and distributing it as they required? Obviously, this wouldn’t be possibly in a capitalist economic - all tools and materials are held by the capitalist. But if all tools and materials where made according to need by other workers, then they could produce the food themselves, cutting out the capitalist who takes their produce for his profit.



(Original post by turn and fall)
So your would prefer no compeition. That would just cause higher wages. Increase input costs. Cause inflation. And nobody would have gained. Competitive labour markets reduce unemployment.
Capitalism is based upon competition, so saying: ‘I don’t want competition’ is analogous to not wanting capitalism.

(Original post by turn and fall)
If you are not willing to work for the going wage that is your choice. It is your freedom to not work or undercut. Freedom is a scary thing sometimes but it gives you the chance to pick the best choice for you. Not somebody else.
If you’re not willing to work you will starve, thus the system gives you a dichotomy. You are not free by any definition other than the narrow and negative one provided by liberationists.

A society in which all labour and produce is evenly distributed according to need would still maintain negative freedom but greatly increase positive freedom.
2
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#50
Report 7 years ago
#50
(Original post by AdzD)
This would be all well and good if the market was perfect, the problem i find with your example is that their is a time delay in people switching from what they are currently producing to farming. They would have to find suitable fertile land that could produce vast amounts of crops that would make money that what they currently producing, they'd have to plough the fields, grow the crops and then get their products to market all of which takes a very long time, the crops may even fail!

So while on the surface yes it looks like the market may have a solution its a vastly more complex issue.
You make a valid point. The market does lag. It does react proportionally to changes in conditions. If market A exerts a force on market B market A will extert an equal and opposite force on market B. Hayek 3. (I just made that Newtonian reference up).

The point is that the market does not just suddenly change unless government intervenes. Lets take food again. Population grows a little bit all the time. The demand for food goes up a little bit all the time. The market responds a little bit all the time. This is the self directing system Hayek reffered to.

Secondly food is a very contestable market (the reason why farmers do not make much profit). Anybody could go and grow some potatos. The UK have a huge expansion in the supple of food if there was more demand.
the crops may even fail!
This is an astute observation I think but it actually refinforces the free market philosophy. If you have a free market you can buy food from anywhere in the world. If your crops fail you can buy aboud. A closed economy that would protect workers (eg farmers) would leave the population vulnerable to crop failure.

So while on the surface yes it looks like the market may have a solution its a vastly more complex issue.
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. The problems of society are too complex for government to solve them.
0
reply
daemongreen
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 7 years ago
#51
Im seeing the same people day after day owning up the politic threads lol
0
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#52
Report 7 years ago
#52
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
It's a thought experiment to show the ridiculousness of negative freedom. Whether something is legal or not changes nothing about the concept of negative freedom. Whether it's a gunman saying: 'gimmi all your money or die' or your boss saying: 'gimmi all your labour or die', forcing dichotomy by limiting alternatives isn’t justified by saying: ‘he’s got a choice’ or ‘it’s allowed by law’.



Surely a system that forces people to choose between suffering and more suffering doesn’t maximise utility. The uneven distribution of wealth is completely apposed to the maximisation of utility.


You mean if people are desperate for food because of their place in the hierarchal ladder, they are forced to do what the can to get food. The capitalist, who is granted a life of liberty and luxury, then seeks to make a profit. He gives the starving people a small wage so that they can live. The workers then increase the supply of food and this brings down the price. The capitalist pays the workers a wage lower than the value of the produce they make which drives his profits.

Is utility maximised here? Wouldn’t the people have been better off producing the food as they needed it and distributing it as they required? Obviously, this wouldn’t be possibly in a capitalist economic - all tools and materials are held by the capitalist. But if all tools and materials where made according to need by other workers, then they could produce the food themselves, cutting out the capitalist who takes their produce for his profit.




Capitalism is based upon competition, so saying: ‘I don’t want competition’ is analogous to not wanting capitalism.



If you’re not willing to work you will starve, thus the system gives you a dichotomy. You are not free by any definition other than the narrow and negative one provided by liberationists.

A society in which all labour and produce is evenly distributed according to need would still maintain negative freedom but greatly increase positive freedom.
It's a thought experiment to show the ridiculousness of negative freedom. Whether something is legal or not changes nothing about the concept of negative freedom. Whether it's a gunman saying: 'gimmi all your money or die' or your boss saying: 'gimmi all your labour or die', forcing dichotomy by limiting alternatives isn’t justified by saying: ‘he’s got a choice’ or ‘it’s allowed by law’.
It is a thought experiment that bears no resemblence to reality. Atleast mine are real. Anyway you are completely wrong. Isiah Berlin wanted to avoid coercian like the plague. This is the point of negative liberty. The role of government to to ensure that one part does not impinge on the liberties of another. Positive liberty can have this result. If you do not step in to line and serve the greater good we wil force you. History tells a damming sory for your idealogy.
Surely a system that forces people to choose between suffering and more suffering doesn’t maximise utility. The uneven distribution of wealth is completely apposed to the maximisation of utility.
I was a little carless there. I should not have given you imaginary ammunition. Capitalism does not result in choosing between bad choices because firms will step in to supply goods that actually have a net gain to the buyer.

The uneven distribution of wealth is not completely apposed to ultilty maximisation. If you are productive and can serve others you will make a lot of money. The impostant is on serving others. I am in favour of progressive taxation on property not income. Property in unproductive stock (yet government protects it like there is no tommorow) and taxing it liberally would not have a severe effect on the profit motive.

Secondly uneven distributition of wealth in the world (not the country, naturally being a libertariann I care about Africans as much as the Welsh. Free marketeers are citizens of the earth not the state) is a product of government regulation such as immigration laws and protectionism.

You mean if people are desperate for food because of their place in the hierarchal ladder, they are forced to do what the can to get food. The capitalist, who is granted a life of liberty and luxury, then seeks to make a profit. He gives the starving people a small wage so that they can live. The workers then increase the supply of food and this brings down the price. The capitalist pays the workers a wage lower than the value of the produce they make which drives his profits.
Let us rewrite this so it makes sense

You mean if people are desperate for food because of their productive ability to serve tothers, they are forced to do what the can to get food. The free individua are, who are granted a life of liberty and pursuit of property, then seeks to make a profit. He gives the starving people a wage that equates to their production to society so that they can live. The workers then increase the supply of food and this brings down the price. The capitalist pays the workers a wage lower because the value of what they produce dropped they make which may or may not increase profit - but society has cheaper food. Faced with lower wages free individuals use the market to find a job that pays more.

Sorted out that sloppy economics for you

Is utility maximised here? Wouldn’t the people have been better off producing the food as they needed it and distributing it as they required? Obviously, this wouldn’t be possibly in a capitalist economic - all tools and materials are held by the capitalist. But if all tools and materials where made according to need by other workers, then they could produce the food themselves, cutting out the capitalist who takes their produce for his profit.
Marx was a great man but his works on labour economics prove that he was not an intellectual god.

Utility is maximised. The food that is demanded is produced because it is profitable (if something is profitable the benefit to society exceeds the costs). The capitalist you refer to does not exist. I think you mean an entrepruener. Those people who give us what we want. And they do not have all the tools. They do not have enough labour so they have to pay for it and they have competitors.

then they could produce the food themselves
You need to read the wealth of nations. It is far better for society if labour specialises. Far more goods and servies are produced. Everybody is wealthier. But god for bid there may be inequality.

Capitalism is based upon competition, so saying: ‘I don’t want competition’ is analogous to not wanting capitalism.
I agree. That was not a good point.
If you’re not willing to work you will starve, thus the system gives you a dichotomy. You are not free by any definition other than the narrow and negative one provided by liberationists.
If you are not willing to serve others you will die. You are free to serve others if you wish and free to serve your own interests as you see them. Not as anybody else does. If you would ather die than serve others then so be it. Freedom is universal.
A society in which all labour and produce is evenly distributed according to need would still maintain negative freedom but greatly increase positive freedom.
Who defines need? I guess that you being so smart know what people need? And I guess you know all the costs of producing goods? It is an idea I would like to believe but on an intellectual level it no sense even if it does on a compasionate level. The market is able to work out what people want. Real growth is the production of what people demand.

Positive freedom is your idealogy that you want to impose on others. I am sure you have your idea for a utopia but your thinking is lazy. You do not see the ultimate conclusion of your ideal. I know this because I used to think just like you. I used to love the idea of postive liberty but after consideration negative liberty is better.
0
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#53
Report 7 years ago
#53
(Original post by RAFecon)
forgive me for being ignorant
How would you describe the UK? Liberal / libertarian / socialist
I would say a mixture of the 3, but mainly Liberal?
It is socially liberal but it is not libertal in its classical sense.

I would argue with the size of the state that it more socialist than capitalist on the economic front.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#54
Report 7 years ago
#54
(Original post by turn and fall)
It is a thought experiment that bears no resemblence to reality. Atleast mine are real. Anyway you are completely wrong. Isiah Berlin wanted to avoid coercian like the plague. This is the point of negative liberty. The role of government to to ensure that one part does not impinge on the liberties of another.
If governments only purpose is to enforce negative freedom, then there is nothing to stop the coercion of the capitalist upon the proletariat. Being forced to work for a wage because the only alternative is starvation is not how I would define liberty.

I do not want to do X or Y, but if I do X I will die, so I am forced to do Y.

(Original post by turn and fall)
Positive liberty can have this result. If you do not step in to line and serve the greater good we wil force you. History tells a damming sory for your idealogy.
I'm talking about a libertarian socialist society, so there is no physical force making you contribute to the mass production of goods. Thus maximizing both positive and negative freedom.

(Original post by turn and fall)
I was a little carless there. I should not have given you imaginary ammunition. Capitalism does not result in choosing between bad choices because firms will step in to supply goods that actually have a net gain to the buyer.

The uneven distribution of wealth is not completely apposed to ultilty maximisation. If you are productive and can serve others you will make a lot of money. The impostant is on serving others. I am in favour of progressive taxation on property not income. Property in unproductive stock (yet government protects it like there is no tommorow) and taxing it liberally would not have a severe effect on the profit motive.
The overall increase in profits may increase the strength of the economy, but the natural uneven distribution of this profit does not maximize utility. Utility is defined as the 'maximization of wellbeing'. If the minority hold most of the money then the wellbeing of everyone else isn't maximized, compared with sharing of goods.

(Original post by turn and fall)
Secondly uneven distributition of wealth in the world (not the country, naturally being a libertariann I care about Africans as much as the Welsh. Free marketeers are citizens of the earth not the state) is a product of government regulation such as immigration laws and protectionism.
If we lived in a worldwide libertarian society we would still have an uneven distribution of wealth. If we had a worldwide libertarian socialist society we wouldn't. I was simply commenting on the wellbeing of everyone in the system.


(Original post by turn and fall)
Let us rewrite this so it makes sense

You mean if people are desperate for food because of their productive ability to serve tothers, they are forced to do what the can to get food. The free individua are, who are granted a life of liberty and pursuit of property, then seeks to make a profit. He gives the starving people a wage that equates to their production to society so that they can live. The workers then increase the supply of food and this brings down the price. The capitalist pays the workers a wage lower because the value of what they produce dropped they make which may or may not increase profit - but society has cheaper food. Faced with lower wages free individuals use the market to find a job that pays more.

Sorted out that sloppy economics for you .
Your productive ability is determined by your education and upbringing, which is determined (mostly) by your class position. The rest of this didn't make sense.

- I am a worker I make 10 shoes, the value of each shoe is £10
- The capitalist pays me £20 for my work
- He takes the £80 profit

That's what I meant by: "The capitalist pays the workers a wage lower than the value of the produce they make which drives his profits."

(Original post by turn and fall)
Marx was a great man but his works on labour economics prove that he was not an intellectual god.

Utility is maximised. The food that is demanded is produced because it is profitable (if something is profitable the benefit to society exceeds the costs). The capitalist you refer to does not exist. I think you mean an entrepruener. Those people who give us what we want. And they do not have all the tools. They do not have enough labour so they have to pay for it and they have competitors.


You need to read the wealth of nations. It is far better for society if labour specialises. Far more goods and servies are produced. Everybody is wealthier. But god for bid there may be inequality.
Nobody is defining utility in terms of 'what's good for the economy'. Utility is not maximized because the increased amount goods that are produced aren't evenly distributed.


(Original post by turn and fall)
If you are not willing to serve others you will die. You are free to serve others if you wish and free to serve your own interests as you see them. Not as anybody else does. If you would ather die than serve others then so be it. Freedom is universal.
You don't see anything wrong with 'serve others or die'? Especially when the main people who will benefit from your service, are the ones forcing you to make the decision?

(Original post by turn and fall)
Who defines need? I guess that you being so smart know what people need? And I guess you know all the costs of producing goods? It is an idea I would like to believe but on an intellectual level it no sense even if it does on a compasionate level. The market is able to work out what people want. Real growth is the production of what people demand.
Distribution would be managed by those in the society. No leaders, no state, no property. Production by mutual aid. It's not that abstract, in fact, it's how altruism in evolution works.

(Original post by turn and fall)
Positive freedom is your idealogy that you want to impose on others. I am sure you have your idea for a utopia but your thinking is lazy. You do not see the ultimate conclusion of your ideal. I know this because I used to think just like you. I used to love the idea of postive liberty but after consideration negative liberty is better.
The whole 'I'm a down to earth realist and you're a silly hippy' line gets annoying. The ultimate conclusion of capitalism is wealth held by a minority, who force the majority to work for them under fear of starvation. They tell them that 'to work is to serve others' but essentially, then only serve the minority.

If to work was to directly increase the collective wealth of the society that would be shared according to need then you can tell me to work would be to serve others.
0
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#55
Report 7 years ago
#55
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
If governments only purpose is to enforce negative freedom, then there is nothing to stop the coercion of the capitalist upon the proletariat. Being forced to work for a wage because the only alternative is starvation is not how I would define liberty.

I do not want to do X or Y, but if I do X I will die, so I am forced to do Y.


I'm talking about a libertarian socialist society, so there is no physical force making you contribute to the mass production of goods. Thus maximizing both positive and negative freedom.


The overall increase in profits may increase the strength of the economy, but the natural uneven distribution of this profit does not maximize utility. Utility is defined as the 'maximization of wellbeing'. If the minority hold most of the money then the wellbeing of everyone else isn't maximized, compared with sharing of goods.


If we lived in a worldwide libertarian society we would still have an uneven distribution of wealth. If we had a worldwide libertarian socialist society we wouldn't. I was simply commenting on the wellbeing of everyone in the system.



Your productive ability is determined by your education and upbringing, which is determined (mostly) by your class position. The rest of this didn't make sense.

- I am a worker I make 10 shoes, the value of each shoe is £10
- The capitalist pays me £20 for my work
- He takes the £80 profit

That's what I meant by: "The capitalist pays the workers a wage lower than the value of the produce they make which drives his profits."


Nobody is defining utility in terms of 'what's good for the economy'. Utility is not maximized because the increased amount goods that are produced aren't evenly distributed.



You don't see anything wrong with 'serve others or die'? Especially when the main people who will benefit from your service, are the ones forcing you to make the decision?


Distribution would be managed by those in the society. No leaders, no state, no property. Production by mutual aid. It's not that abstract, in fact, it's how altruism in evolution works.


The whole 'I'm a down to earth realist and you're a silly hippy' line gets annoying. The ultimate conclusion of capitalism is wealth held by a minority, who force the majority to work for them under fear of starvation. They tell them that 'to work is to serve others' but essentially, then only serve the minority.

If to work was to directly increase the collective wealth of the society that would be shared according to need then you can tell me to work would be to serve others.
If governments only purpose is to enforce negative freedom, then there is nothing to stop the coercion of the capitalist upon the proletariat. Being forced to work for a wage because the only alternative is starvation is not how I would define liberty.
Freedom is the choice to starve because you would rather do something else with your money and time. You may not have much choice but you do have the freedom to choose.

The overall increase in profits may increase the strength of the economy, but the natural uneven distribution of this profit does not maximize utility. Utility is defined as the 'maximization of wellbeing'. If the minority hold most of the money then the wellbeing of everyone else isn't maximized, compared with sharing of goods.
Sure your society would be more equal but mine would be more prosperous and thus utility is maximised in mine.

- I am a worker I make 10 shoes, the value of each shoe is £10
- The capitalist pays me £20 for my work
- He takes the £80 profit

That's what I meant by: "The capitalist pays the workers a wage lower than the value of the produce they make which drives his profits."
You really are a sloppy thinker. First the worker is willing to work for that wage. He will have alternatives but this worker deems this choice is best. Anyway in the situation other firms would see the profit this 'capitalist' (why are you using that emotive terminology it makes no sense) is making and enter the market. This will increase the demand for this workers skills and his wage will rise. You need to study economics before you make these assertions.

Distribution would be managed by those in the society. No leaders, no state, no property. Production by mutual aid. It's not that abstract, in fact, it's how altruism in evolution works.
Interesting because that is precisely what I am saying. I want free individuals to decide. However I actually take the realistic view that people are self interested and I am using their selfishness to serve others. Evolution is all about self interest. I want more food. My genes want to spread. All of the self interests of the species regulate one another and they serve the interests of all. Indeed evolution is a great example of the spontaneous order I want.

Production by mutual aid sounds a lot like trade to me.

Your idealogy is fantasy. It is a noble cause but I do not think you have really thought it through.
The whole 'I'm a down to earth realist and you're a silly hippy' line gets annoying. The ultimate conclusion of capitalism is wealth held by a minority, who force the majority to work for them under fear of starvation. They tell them that 'to work is to serve others' but essentially, then only serve the minority.

If to work was to directly increase the collective wealth of the society that would be shared according to need then you can tell me to work would be to serve others.
People tend to get annoyed when they can't take argument.

The ultimate conclusion of capitalism is everybody is wealthier. You see the world in black and white. You see the rich and you see the poor who cannot compete. This just do not exist. Infact I think like many left wingers you think the poor are too weak of mind to liberate themselves. Society is full of different people and nobody controls another unless government is used.

Working is to increase the colletive wealth of society. If I produce ten windows society now has ten windows. Society has gained.

What mechanism do you propose to distribute wealth? Surely you need the state? But you want stateless society? Logical contradiction methinks.

How do you define need? Who judges who needs want? Do I plan for myself or do I leave it to you?

The freemarket does not judge directly by need. It judges by demand. Demand in many cases is derivd by need.
0
reply
Planar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#56
Report 7 years ago
#56
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
- I am a worker I make 10 shoes, the value of each shoe is £10
- The capitalist pays me £20 for my work
- He takes the £80 profit

That's what I meant by: "The capitalist pays the workers a wage lower than the value of the produce they make which drives his profits."
And if the worker doesn't like the ****ty wages and hard work, the worker can start his/her own business, and keep all profits. If the worker doesn't want to take on the risk of starting a business, then tough.
0
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#57
Report 7 years ago
#57
(Original post by Bagration)
...
(Original post by Oswy)
...
This thread has gotten rather out of control. Anyway, it's quite interesting that you [Bagration] have changed your views, quite recently another user [AnarchistNutter] also changed their views, only in the opposite direction. I'm starting to think socialists and libertarians have a lot in common, which would also, strangely, explain the natural aversion they seem to have for each other.

Because the thread has ballooned rather wildly, I'm not sure which of your points I should respond to, so I'm just going to browse through the thread and pick up things that seem like interesting points of discussion.

Yes, it is natural in libertarian economy because libertarian economy is based on economic hierarchy. You justify this hierarchy by saying that more 'productive' people come to the top of the hierarchy. Is this not what you said? If this is indeed what you said, why not apply it to races?

You didn't say anything about political power, but that doesn't mean it's not part of the ideology. Who owns the mass media in a libertarian society? I don't know your precise libertarian politics but I have seen many Austrians or other Libs argue that security should be provided by insurance companies. Who owns the insurance companies (and concomitantly the military power)? Well, it's not the working class, I'll tell you that much.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean about the 'top of society', but again, the example of race is just a massive strawman which presumes that there are clear differences between races, genetically, and that these are the sole reason why there are differences in the economic 'well-being', as it were, between these so-called races. Which is something I don't agree with. There is no genetic disposition towards productivity or otherwise, so far as I know.

I don't know if you study economics, but if you used to be a libertarian, you should know very well what my response to the 'Who owns the mass media...' question would be: in modern society - thanks to the internet - you are seeing an increasing democratisation of the access and ownership of information, so whether some guy owns loads of channels is, in my opinion, irrelevant. You should also know why the media is so centralised: because of regulatory measures and state intervention which creates barriers of entry for new entrants to the market. And, Libertarianism is not the same thing as political anarchism, it's just normative view of the world.

...question the moral legitimacy of a system which can see a desperately hard-working and honest peasant in Africa, China or wherever, struggle to feed their family because the market 'deems' their inability to compete with super-financed agro-business their own problem... Where is the peasant's 'liberty'?
I'm not sure exactly how you define the word liberty, but they have their liberty. It's their choice to keep farming, when they are not very good at it, and attempt to compete with a provider who is both cheaper (for the customer) and more efficient than them. 'The market' isn't a machine, it's society - people. People want to their food now, not tomorrow; they want it at a good price; they want it to be good. If the 'honest peasants' (only God knows how you know this) are willing to compete with a provider who is better than them, then that's how their problem - that's how they chose to exercise their liberty.

The moral legitimacy stems from them making an independent choice, no other person is forcing them, so I'm cool with that.

...suppose that you are a worker in a plant or a mill in a libertarian society: do you have the real, practical freedom to criticise your owner? Can you resist any of his demands during the ten hours that you are at work for him?
Do you have the freedom to insult me in my house? No one is forcing the guy to work there, so if he chooses, out of his own volition to contract themselves to work 10 hours under certain conditions, then why are is he even thinking of resisting my demands? It's not like I'm asking to fist him or anything.

fyi - duress voids any contract.

Only libertarians believe that a choice between working for a dollar a day and starving cannot be anything other than a 'free' choice...
What would you call it then? Coercion or force can only happen when two agents are involved, specifically two people; tell me then, in this scenario, which person is coercing the other? Which person is offering an opportunity to the other?
1
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#58
Report 7 years ago
#58
(Original post by D.R.E)
This thread has gotten rather out of control. Anyway, it's quite interesting that you [Bagration] have changed your views, quite recently another user [AnarchistNutter] also changed their views, only in the opposite direction. I'm starting to think socialists and libertarians have a lot in common, which would also, strangely, explain the natural aversion they seem to have for each other.
There is really only one question of ethics which seperates left and right libertarianism, which is whether people have a right to own private property. Right-libertarianism, however, doesn't seem to have class analysis in that it doesn't care at all about sociology or class relations. That's ultimately one reason that I've strayed away from it, because I think it just flat-out ignores some fundamentals of the society it wants to create.

(Original post by D.R.E)
I don't know if you study economics, but if you used to be a libertarian, you should know very well what my response to the 'Who owns the mass media...' question would be: in modern society - thanks to the internet - you are seeing an increasing democratisation of the access and ownership of information, so whether some guy owns loads of channels is, in my opinion, irrelevant. You should also know why the media is so centralised: because of regulatory measures and state intervention which creates barriers of entry for new entrants to the market. And, Libertarianism is not the same thing as political anarchism, it's just normative view of the world.
Right, but that democratisation is not really down to capitalism. Praxeologically, I suppose you could say that it is down to individualism, but I mean - things like twitter and facebook and whatever are just down to individuals having ideas, and they're not initiatives by big business. But I don't think you are right, because while we are seeing a trend towards decentralisation of information, which is obviously a good thing, most people do still rely on TV news, big internet sites like BBC, and the press print. And that's where the relevance of my question comes in. Which is more likely: that big business directs information away from events outside of their interests, or towards their interests?

How many people, in other words, know about the Chiapas revolt in Mexico? Few, I suspect. But Cuba is often on the front-line news because the regime is collapsing which is a "victory for capitalism" so it is broadcast everywhere. I mean this is maybe a slightly specious example, but I think the point is made. This is, I feel, one of the flaws in libertarian ideology: it does no analysis of class action. The people who own the news tell you the news. They happen to be in a class above you and happen to have vast immaterial wealth which they want to preserve at all costs.

(Original post by D.R.E)
Do you have the freedom to insult me in my house? No one is forcing the guy to work there, so if he chooses, out of his own volition to contract themselves to work 10 hours under certain conditions, then why are is he even thinking of resisting my demands? It's not like I'm asking to fist him or anything.
Well, again, this is true only nominally. Detached from the situation, yes, you have the freedom not to work. But really, you don't, do you? People don't choose to work out of their own volition, they do it because the alternative is in almost all circumstances to starve to death because, at the most very basic level, you're not producing anything to eat or drink.

So here's the choice - starve to death or work for capital. You have already accepted implicitly that people are not free to act in the workplace by comparing the workplace, i.e. 'private property' to a house, i,e, 'personal property.' The workplace is run as a dictatorship, so no, I don't have any right to do anything in another's property. There you are: the relationship is immediately dictatorial. It grants control of one man over another, one class over another. So it is illegitimate, in my view, whether or not it is claimed as private property or not.

Btw, with regards to fisting, you'll be surprised. Sexual harassment in the work place has been and is a serious thing for many people.

(Original post by D.R.E)
fyi - duress voids any contract.
Well, yes, I mean duress in terms of normative ethics and not law. Since law is really made by capital, it is no surprise that "sign my contract or starve" is not seen as duress.

(Original post by D.R.E)
What would you call it then? Coercion or force can only happen when two agents are involved, specifically two people; tell me then, in this scenario, which person is coercing the other? Which person is offering an opportunity to the other?
That he is offering an opportunity is really not relevant given that, as I said, the alternative to working is starvation. "Sleep with me and I'll give you a raise." At face value that is a great opportunity, but it is really just an assault on human dignity. Prostitution by another name.

You are quite right in saying that coercion exists with only two agents, but you take for granted some things. The use of force to defend property is an action of coercion. Libertarians don't deny this, they don't assert that it's a justified act of force because people have a right to own property. So if you have a loaf of bread and I am literally about to starve to death, am I really using coercion to take it from you?

I am using force, yes. But by resisting you are using force, too, except only you are using it in a defensive manner. Nonetheless you are using force to defend your property. This is another hierarchical relationship because I become dependent on your whims to eat. So we have another hierarchical relationship between two human beigns that is illegitimate, property or not.

To clarify, what is it that we believe? That relationships of domination, of control and of hierarchy and of coercion can not be assumed to be justified. The burden of proof is on them to show their legitimacy.

Is it legitimate to use force to prevent other people from eating?

Is it legitimate to use force to control property and achieve domination over other men? Well, more legitimate than the previous question, but still no.

I hope I've replied fluently; I am of course new to this Socialist lark.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#59
Report 7 years ago
#59
(Original post by turn and fall)
Freedom is the choice to starve because you would rather do something else with your money and time. You may not have much choice but you do have the freedom to choose.
It's pretty obvious we define freedom in different ways. I suppose it's a subjective concept so I don't think I can say anything I haven't already said.


(Original post by turn and fall)
Sure your society would be more equal but mine would be more prosperous and thus utility is maximised in mine.
Prosperity of the economy =/= utility. If this increased prosperity is held mostly by a minority, then the wellbeing of everyone in the society isn't maximised. If wealth was evenly distributed you could make a claim for less economic growth. But the overall increase in utility of the majority would surley be maximised, even if the prospertity of the econemy decreases.

(Original post by turn and fall)
You really are a sloppy thinker. First the worker is willing to work for that wage. He will have alternatives but this worker deems this choice is best. Anyway in the situation other firms would see the profit this 'capitalist' (why are you using that emotive terminology it makes no sense) is making and enter the market. This will increase the demand for this workers skills and his wage will rise. You need to study economics before you make these assertions.
His wage may rise, but it will never represent the true value of his labour (otherwise there would be no profit). When I say 'value' I mean the price of his labour when sold by the ‘entrepreneur’, excluding any materials or advertising. That’s the only point I was making. He is coerced (by threat of starvation) to accept these terms.



(Original post by turn and fall)
Interesting because that is precisely what I am saying. I want free individuals to decide. However I actually take the realistic view that people are self interested and I am using their selfishness to serve others. Evolution is all about self interest. I want more food. My genes want to spread. All of the self interests of the species regulate one another and they serve the interests of all. Indeed evolution is a great example of the spontaneous order I want.
This completely ignores the existence of altruism in nature. Behaviour will be selected for if it (directly or indirectly) increases the chances of your genes being reproduced. If we lived in a society in which helping others directly helps you (by increasing the collective wealth) then people would have a strong selfish incentive to work.

Capitalism creates divisions of interests between classes; due to the selfish nature of most people, the lower classes are exploited to fuel the profits of the upper classes. If interests where equal, selfishness becomes altruism.

(Original post by turn and fall)
The ultimate conclusion of capitalism is everybody is wealthier. You see the world in black and white. You see the rich and you see the poor who cannot compete. This just do not exist. Infact I think like many left wingers you think the poor are too weak of mind to liberate themselves. Society is full of different people and nobody controls another unless government is used.
No. You see economic prosperity as the ‘be all and end all’ of society, forgetting that most people wont see hardly any of the wealth that they slave to create. The poor stay poor because they can’t match the productive upbringing of the rich. If they were united in their interests there would be no capitalism. Unfortunately everything about the society in which they live, tells them that capitalism is freedom and prosperity.

But for whom? Certainly not themselves.

(Original post by turn and fall)
Working is to increase the colletive wealth of society. If I produce ten windows society now has ten windows. Society has gained.
Has society really gained if 1 person owns 9 of the windows? In economic terms perhaps, but not using any definition of utility.

(Original post by turn and fall)
What mechanism do you propose to distribute wealth? Surely you need the state? But you want stateless society? Logical contradiction methinks.

How do you define need? Who judges who needs want? Do I plan for myself or do I leave it to you?
Wealth would be distributed in whatever way the people decided via direct democracy. Everyone has an equal say so nobody is coerced. Need is also judged by those involved in the community. You and everyone else in the society plans for themselves and everyone else - Democracy.
0
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#60
Report 7 years ago
#60
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
It's pretty obvious we define freedom in different ways. I suppose it's a subjective concept so I don't think I can say anything I haven't already said.



Prosperity of the economy =/= utility. If this increased prosperity is held mostly by a minority, then the wellbeing of everyone in the society isn't maximised. If wealth was evenly distributed you could make a claim for less economic growth. But the overall increase in utility of the majority would surley be maximised, even if the prospertity of the econemy decreases.


His wage may rise, but it will never represent the true value of his labour (otherwise there would be no profit). When I say 'value' I mean the price of his labour when sold by the ‘entrepreneur’, excluding any materials or advertising. That’s the only point I was making. He is coerced (by threat of starvation) to accept these terms.




This completely ignores the existence of altruism in nature. Behaviour will be selected for if it (directly or indirectly) increases the chances of your genes being reproduced. If we lived in a society in which helping others directly helps you (by increasing the collective wealth) then people would have a strong selfish incentive to work.

Capitalism creates divisions of interests between classes; due to the selfish nature of most people, the lower classes are exploited to fuel the profits of the upper classes. If interests where equal, selfishness becomes altruism.


No. You see economic prosperity as the ‘be all and end all’ of society, forgetting that most people wont see hardly any of the wealth that they slave to create. The poor stay poor because they can’t match the productive upbringing of the rich. If they were united in their interests there would be no capitalism. Unfortunately everything about the society in which they live, tells them that capitalism is freedom and prosperity.

But for whom? Certainly not themselves.


Has society really gained if 1 person owns 9 of the windows? In economic terms perhaps, but not using any definition of utility.


Wealth would be distributed in whatever way the people decided via direct democracy. Everyone has an equal say so nobody is coerced. Need is also judged by those involved in the community. You and everyone else in the society plans for themselves and everyone else - Democracy.
It's pretty obvious we define freedom in different ways. I suppose it's a subjective concept so I don't think I can say anything I haven't already said.
My definition is pretty clear. You have all the freedom to pursure your own gain unless you infringe on the freedom of others. I dont think you actually have a definition. You are just using a word that sounds good. I actually have a principle :cool:


His wage may rise, but it will never represent the true value of his labour (otherwise there would be no profit). When I say 'value' I mean the price of his labour when sold by the ‘entrepreneur’, excluding any materials or advertising. That’s the only point I was making. He is coerced (by threat of starvation) to accept these terms.
You are always paid less than the value of of what you produce otherwise therw would be no trade. You say that the worker is coerced which is nonsense. What is actually coercian is when government takes the money of individuals and gives it to others. That is the use of force that you seem to be a proponent of. The threat of starvation is natural. It is not coercian from one human being on another.


This completely ignores the existence of altruism in nature. Behaviour will be selected for if it (directly or indirectly) increases the chances of your genes being reproduced. If we lived in a society in which helping others directly helps you (by increasing the collective wealth) then people would have a strong selfish incentive to work.
In a society where we do not actually know who we produce for and who we buy from alturism is nonsense. In tiny little communities alturism you refer to could exist. But then we would have a lot worse living conditions as less could be produced. The extended order of the market defaults to self interest. And by pursuing self interest you benefit society to the greatest extent.

''We will benefit out fellow man most if we are guided solely by the striving for gain'' F.A Hayek

Capitalism creates divisions of interests between classes; due to the selfish nature of most people, the lower classes are exploited to fuel the profits of the upper classes. If interests where equal, selfishness becomes altruism.
Complete fallacy. The rich are not rich at the expense of the poor. They are the rich at the benefit of the poor. Bill Gates is phenominally rich but he has served the world far more than and politician. Until you realise that the wealthy are actually god people. They create jobs and goods that people want.

In reality exploitation occurs when the political elite use government to oppress the poor.

Do you really think employers are evil? Should we kill anybody that offers a job because they are coercive?

No. You see economic prosperity as the ‘be all and end all’ of society, forgetting that most people wont see hardly any of the wealth that they slave to create. The poor stay poor because they can’t match the productive upbringing of the rich. If they were united in their interests there would be no capitalism. Unfortunately everything about the society in which they live, tells them that capitalism is freedom and prosperity.

But for whom? Certainly not themselves.
I see personal freedom as the be all and end all. That is my principle. Deriving from this freedom the world will be more equitable, more prosperours and more stable.

Wealth would be distributed in whatever way the people decided via direct democracy. Everyone has an equal say so nobody is coerced. Need is also judged by those involved in the community. You and everyone else in the society plans for themselves and everyone else - Democracy.
Wealth in the free market is distributed by the implicit agreement of free individuals. The market is the summation of EVERYONE in society not the oligarachy in government. The free market is the only trully efficinent democracy.

I could swear earlier that you wanted stateless society. Now you have turned (as you inevitably had to) to government and democracy. Democracy is the tyranny of the masses. And worst of all it takes freedom from individuals and gives power to a select few political elite who only serve their own interests not the interests of society. If they could even judge what the public interest is which they cannot.

Socialist libertarianism is just a contradiction in terms. The whole purpose of libertarianism is the individual. Socialism is about central planning to serve the greater good at the expense of individuals.

You are not a radical. You have no innovative ideas. You just want what we have already. The welfare state and large intrusive government.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (442)
37.81%
No - but I will (88)
7.53%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.84%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (559)
47.82%

Watched Threads

View All