Ultimate Metal Forum  
UltimateMetal.com homeContact UltimateMetal.com
 
Ultimate Metal Zine Ultimate Metal Photo Gallery Ultimate Metal Classifieds Ultimate Metal Link Directory Ultimate Metal Events Ultimate Metal Radio Ultimate Metal Store

Sponsored Links

Go Back   Ultimate Metal Forum > The Music > General Metal Discussion > GMD Social Forum


Register FAQ Donate Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old December 27th, 2011, 08:40 PM   #101 (permalink)
Einherjar86
Winter is Coming
 
Einherjar86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hic et nunc
Posts: 12,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overwatch View Post
I haven't abandoned this thread, just too busy to reply to everything right now. I say that if Sap and Ein can't see "that how a good family works" has absolutely nothing in common with anarcho-socialism, when it is glaringly obvious, that is disturbing.
First of all, that's not what we're (or at least, what I'm) saying; I'm saying comparable relationships are necessary. A social organism like the family is comprised of specific relationships (which, in their own ways, have been culturally conditioned), and there are small communities in the world which function in very similar ways. It's not "disturbing" to suggest that a large-scale society would thus require similar internal relations.

Second of all, the more appropriate response would be to explain why you find this "disturbing" rather than resort to theatrics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy... Dead. View Post
In my view, This is contradictory & anti-individual.
What's anti-individual about allowing individuals to volunteer their labor? I'm not saying there's a justifiable way to make people participate; I'm saying that with proper education, explanation, and implementation of the system, people might actually want to participate.
__________________
Creatures of epidemic rather than hermeneutics, werewolves tend to be very crude, but then, they don't live as long as deconstructionists.

Theory: http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/

Fiction: http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/
Einherjar86 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2011, 09:40 PM   #102 (permalink)
Rick Parry
Member
 
Rick Parry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 36
This guy should be look at more carefully with what he said to Aaron Russo.




http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/adinlela.html
Rick Parry is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2011, 09:50 PM   #103 (permalink)
Jimmy... Dead.
hunger and haunt
 
Jimmy... Dead.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einherjar86 View Post


What's anti-individual about allowing individuals to volunteer their labor? I'm not saying there's a justifiable way to make people participate; I'm saying that with proper education, explanation, and implementation of the system, people might actually want to participate.
Because you don't have the authority to allow voluntary action & that idea also assumes you or someone else has authority to deny voluntary action.
__________________
“The meaning of life is that it stops.”
Jimmy... Dead. is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2011, 11:42 PM   #104 (permalink)
Einherjar86
Winter is Coming
 
Einherjar86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hic et nunc
Posts: 12,258
I'm not claiming authority. The system itself is that which provides the opportunity for voluntary action. In a coercive system, there needs to be hierarchies of power; but I'm suggesting an equality of power among those in the collective. A collective system, composed of willing and volunteering individuals, is not a coercive system, nor is it a contradictory system.

The "anarchist" addendum allows for the free secession and abstinence from such a system, if one chooses.
__________________
Creatures of epidemic rather than hermeneutics, werewolves tend to be very crude, but then, they don't live as long as deconstructionists.

Theory: http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/

Fiction: http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/
Einherjar86 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2011, 12:48 PM   #105 (permalink)
Overwatch
Dare to be offended
 
Overwatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Babylon, A.D.
Posts: 14,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by zabu of nΩd View Post
Let's see if we can spare me some research right now and try to reason through this with a few basic assumptions (which you will hopefully agree with).

Assumption #1: there will always be children in orphanages, because some kids are "mistakes" or the parents turn out to be too irresponsible to take care of them.

Assumption #2: there will always be some orphanage caretakers who (under the conditions of the early Industrial Revolution) are greedy enough to be tempted into selling kids, or dumb enough to be fooled into thinking that selling the kids will give them a better life (i.e. living under a factory owner who can provide for them).

I think this covers the root causes of a lot of these cases of factory kids, and thus i maintain that you can't do away with laws and government by deregulating your way into some Lockean society where the better part of human nature takes care of everything bad.


Also, regarding your claim that taxes and regulations drove people to urbanize during industrialization: doesn't that assume that most pre-industrial people owned their land in the first place? My impression was that Europe was very feudal up until then, with the nobility basically owning everything and administering the 'privilege' of working the land to the average people. If that's the case, industrialization was really more of a migration of the lower classes from one "cage" to another.
There haven't always been orphanages, and there doesn't need to be. However, state regulation or assumption doesn't stop the mistreatment of underprivileged/abandoned children, it exacerbates it, as the current CPS/Juvi systems bear witness. "Who watches the watchers". If there are bad people who use force to take advantage of adults or children, and we give the monopoly of that force to government, who will seek to wield that force?

I am much less familier with the details of transition to industrialism in Europe, but I agree with your analogy of "one cage to another", but would submit that the analogy would fit in most cases for America as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cythraul View Post
Why not what? Why not say that you have a full property right in your shirt such that I am prohibited from taking it from your closet and that this property right is justified by self-ownership? Well, I would want to say "Because taking the shirt from your closet is not a violation of your self-ownership." It seriously just doesn't look in any clear way to be that sort of violation. I have never seen a convincing explanation for how property rights in external things are connected to (i.e., justified by) the concept of self-ownership.
It is though. If I own myself I own what I do, and the product thereof. If you take the shirt, you take my time/life spent to acquire. If you steal my time/life, how am I not a slave? How does this not violate self ownership?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Einherjar86 View Post
I see this all the time; parents today, both bourgeois and underclass, constantly pressure their kids into working. That whole "instill a work ethic" thing.
Work how? What ages? I did chores around the house growing up, that's certainly not what I meant, but I only knew a handful of other kids who had to even do chores.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Einherjar86 View Post
I'm sorry, but I don't see where you're argument is going. According to you, poor labor conditions for children are a symptom; but a symptom of what? Not government intervention or anything of the sort, because these regulations only came about after NCLC and others in the "worthless class" began clamoring for reform. Are you arguing against industrialization?
And then what happened to all the unwanted kids? They now reside in prison/juvi/the foster system. You cannot regulate problems away. Just like the minimum wage merely reduced the amount of paying jobs available, leading to higher unemployment for low-skilled workers, and a greater drain on society through "safety nets".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saparmurat_Niyazov View Post
I'll jump on the Zabu bandwagon here. That's pretty much exactly how I feel about him; he is absolutely long winded. I do like, conceptually, "anarcho-socialism", because that is how a good family is run, imo. There has to be a fair division of labor (chores in a family setting, with mom, dad, and all kids participating) along with a roughly equal distribution of capital (my children actually receive more of my money than I do because I'm providing them "welfare"). I don't see why small communities can't operate this way without being under the thumb of a central government.
A family as you described, is fairly idyllic and roughly how I grew up. The problem of comparing this to "anarcho-socialism" is that there is no comparison.

Families are inherently capitalistic in terms of economics. Families are created a voluntary pooling of capital (marriage/moving in together/etc, excluding forced or arranged marriages) both human and material, and time/material capital is invested and enjoyed mutually amongst the 'family owners'. Sometimes time and material capital is invested in more hours working to increase material capital, and sometimes it is invested into human capital (kids). It is not welfare (that is given to kids), which is money stolen from one person by a different person to give to a third person. It is a direct, voluntary investment of material capital into human capital for the enjoyment of the investors and hopefully of future benefit to society as a whole, just like any good business.
__________________
The conflict is pure
The truth devised
The future secured
The enemy designed


"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." - Herbert Spencer

"The four most expensive words in the English language are 'this time it’s different." - John Templeton
Overwatch is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2011, 05:29 PM   #106 (permalink)
King Richard
Always against the wind
 
King Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 02 Panic Room
Posts: 11,979
I'm not sure what anyone is arguing anymore so before we all get too bored with this topic let's try something else.

Do you think black people who voted for Obama solely because he's black is racist?
King Richard is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2011, 06:25 PM   #107 (permalink)
Jimmy... Dead.
hunger and haunt
 
Jimmy... Dead.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,613
No, but I do think most are uneducated & marginalized.
__________________
“The meaning of life is that it stops.”
Jimmy... Dead. is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2011, 07:12 PM   #108 (permalink)
Einherjar86
Winter is Coming
 
Einherjar86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hic et nunc
Posts: 12,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overwatch View Post
And then what happened to all the unwanted kids? They now reside in prison/juvi/the foster system. You cannot regulate problems away. Just like the minimum wage merely reduced the amount of paying jobs available, leading to higher unemployment for low-skilled workers, and a greater drain on society through "safety nets".
You keep side-stepping the question. Yes, government regulation on child labor created a plethora of children who couldn't work and whose families couldn't afford to feed them. What was the problem that led to this shortage of resources and forced child labor in the first place?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overwatch View Post
Families are inherently capitalistic in terms of economics. Families are created a voluntary pooling of capital (marriage/moving in together/etc, excluding forced or arranged marriages) both human and material, and time/material capital is invested and enjoyed mutually amongst the 'family owners'. Sometimes time and material capital is invested in more hours working to increase material capital, and sometimes it is invested into human capital (kids). It is not welfare (that is given to kids), which is money stolen from one person by a different person to give to a third person. It is a direct, voluntary investment of material capital into human capital for the enjoyment of the investors and hopefully of future benefit to society as a whole, just like any good business.
Your post make me want to propose a thought experiment (I'm addressing this to everyone). Please ignore the implausibilities of this scenario, since its plausibility is not the question. The question appears at the end of the experiment:

Imagine a society of one million individuals. In this society, every individual participates and fulfills his or her duties. Among these individuals, a certain number are designated the responsibility of collecting voluntary donations from every member of the society (including themselves). It has been previously agreed upon, by every member of this society, that each individual must donate at least one dollar, but may donate as much as he or she volunteers beyond that. These donations are then dispersed equally among the individuals of the society.

How would you define such a society: capitalist or collectivist?
__________________
Creatures of epidemic rather than hermeneutics, werewolves tend to be very crude, but then, they don't live as long as deconstructionists.

Theory: http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/

Fiction: http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/
Einherjar86 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2011, 07:50 PM   #109 (permalink)
Jimmy... Dead.
hunger and haunt
 
Jimmy... Dead.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,613
Before I answer I want to ask a question and make a quick statement/suggestion.

When you say every individual participates and fulfills his or her duties, do you mean his/her individual duties to themselves or duty to society?

Also:

It has been previously agreed upon, by every member of this society, that each individual must donate at least one dollar, but may donate as much as he or she volunteers beyond that. These donations are then dispersed equally among the individuals of the society.

Let's lose this.
__________________
“The meaning of life is that it stops.”
Jimmy... Dead. is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2011, 08:03 PM   #110 (permalink)
Overwatch
Dare to be offended
 
Overwatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Babylon, A.D.
Posts: 14,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einherjar86 View Post
You keep side-stepping the question. Yes, government regulation on child labor created a plethora of children who couldn't work and whose families couldn't afford to feed them. What was the problem that led to this shortage of resources and forced child labor in the first place?
Government ownership and delegation of land usage was a primary culprit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Einherjar86 View Post
Your post make me want to propose a thought experiment (I'm addressing this to everyone). Please ignore the implausibilities of this scenario, since its plausibility is not the question. The question appears at the end of the experiment:

Imagine a society of one million individuals. In this society, every individual participates and fulfills his or her duties. Among these individuals, a certain number are designated the responsibility of collecting voluntary donations from every member of the society (including themselves). It has been previously agreed upon, by every member of this society, that each individual must donate at least one dollar, but may donate as much as he or she volunteers beyond that. These donations are then dispersed equally among the individuals of the society.

How would you define such a society: capitalist or collectivist?
Who is going to collect the one dollar and then redistribute it back out to the payers, for free? You have created an unfunded, mandated beaurocracy, not to mention a pointless one at that, to collect a dollar from each individual and then hand it back. If someone wants to voluntarily give to one or more persons of the society around them, let them also personally fund the cost of distribution, as a necessary part of the act of giving, or some person may form a private organization which works to distribute charity to the desired target elements of society.

Why is the unfunded, mandated beaurocracy needed, and the needless hassle of shifting the money right back into the original hands?
__________________
The conflict is pure
The truth devised
The future secured
The enemy designed


"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." - Herbert Spencer

"The four most expensive words in the English language are 'this time it’s different." - John Templeton
Overwatch is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2011, 08:38 PM   #111 (permalink)
King Richard
Always against the wind
 
King Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 02 Panic Room
Posts: 11,979
That's a really good fucking question.

edit: My answer is both.

Last edited by King Richard : December 28th, 2011 at 08:45 PM.
King Richard is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2011, 09:13 PM   #112 (permalink)
Einherjar86
Winter is Coming
 
Einherjar86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hic et nunc
Posts: 12,258
But as I already said, plausibility and practicality aren't my concern. I want to know how we can define it.
__________________
Creatures of epidemic rather than hermeneutics, werewolves tend to be very crude, but then, they don't live as long as deconstructionists.

Theory: http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/

Fiction: http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/
Einherjar86 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2011, 09:31 PM   #113 (permalink)
Overwatch
Dare to be offended
 
Overwatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Babylon, A.D.
Posts: 14,655
There's not enough information to determine whether it is capitalistic or not. If the donations are voluntary, it assumes at least the principle of personal ownership of what is donated, yet duties is vague and there is very little other information given.

Inconclusive.
__________________
The conflict is pure
The truth devised
The future secured
The enemy designed


"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." - Herbert Spencer

"The four most expensive words in the English language are 'this time it’s different." - John Templeton
Overwatch is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2011, 11:21 PM   #114 (permalink)
Jimmy... Dead.
hunger and haunt
 
Jimmy... Dead.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,613
It's a pseudo Democracy with a confused mixed economy
__________________
“The meaning of life is that it stops.”
Jimmy... Dead. is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2011, 09:46 AM   #115 (permalink)
Einherjar86
Winter is Coming
 
Einherjar86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hic et nunc
Posts: 12,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overwatch View Post
There's not enough information to determine whether it is capitalistic or not. If the donations are voluntary, it assumes at least the principle of personal ownership of what is donated, yet duties is vague and there is very little other information given.

Inconclusive.
This is the portion I was aiming at, and was really the entire point. In one of your earlier posts you kept using the word "voluntary" (as I have been); I think it's important to see that a society operating in the fashion I described (whether or not it's a plausible scenario is beside the point) could be defined as "capitalist." However, there are many who would term such a community "collectivist." The attempts by contemporary thought and common sense to demonize collectivism do so by positing it as the antithesis to voluntarism and liberal action, when in fact it needn't be.
__________________
Creatures of epidemic rather than hermeneutics, werewolves tend to be very crude, but then, they don't live as long as deconstructionists.

Theory: http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/

Fiction: http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/
Einherjar86 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2011, 10:37 AM   #116 (permalink)
Overwatch
Dare to be offended
 
Overwatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Babylon, A.D.
Posts: 14,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einherjar86 View Post
This is the portion I was aiming at, and was really the entire point. In one of your earlier posts you kept using the word "voluntary" (as I have been); I think it's important to see that a society operating in the fashion I described (whether or not it's a plausible scenario is beside the point) could be defined as "capitalist." However, there are many who would term such a community "collectivist." The attempts by contemporary thought and common sense to demonize collectivism do so by positing it as the antithesis to voluntarism and liberal action, when in fact it needn't be.
The problem with voluntary is that it is, until it isn't. You don't need gun of the state for voluntaryism, you [supposedly]need them for defense. So just stay out of people's business. It is incredibly difficult for those who enjoy the vantage(and in some cases disadvantage) point of ivory towers of philosophical thought, but it is a necessity for freedom. That doesn't even address the implausibility of the scenario.
__________________
The conflict is pure
The truth devised
The future secured
The enemy designed


"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." - Herbert Spencer

"The four most expensive words in the English language are 'this time it’s different." - John Templeton

Last edited by Overwatch : December 29th, 2011 at 10:40 AM.
Overwatch is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2011, 08:31 PM   #117 (permalink)
Jimmy... Dead.
hunger and haunt
 
Jimmy... Dead.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,613
Collectivism is the subjugation of the individual to a group - it is the antithesis of the good.
__________________
“The meaning of life is that it stops.”
Jimmy... Dead. is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2011, 10:15 PM   #118 (permalink)
zabu of nΩd
narrator of non-existence
 
zabu of nΩd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: DC
Posts: 13,638
I'll try to get back to you sometime dak, just losing steam a bit for now. You've probably given me some good questions to work on for a while. I still think you jump to way too many conclusions, so for some of these things we're debating i'd rather just research them myself than parry words.
__________________
Last.fm
zabu of nΩd is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2011, 10:22 PM   #119 (permalink)
zabu of nΩd
narrator of non-existence
 
zabu of nΩd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: DC
Posts: 13,638
One thing i want to add - i think for a lot of this shit about libertarian vs. authoritarian society, it can be said that authoritarianism has a much better track record of "producing results" in a way that can scale to meet the needs/goals of a national or global society than libertarianism does.

I know there's a lot of conspiracy theory around the apparent lack of success of libertarian initiatives (and probably a few real conspiracies too), but at the end of the day it's just not clear that a large-scale libertarian society could even exist in the first place, let alone bring about all the cool-as-shit advances that have happened alongside (and sometimes due to) our authoritarianism.

Granted, a lot of valuable experimentation is being denied to libertarians by governments right now, but i think there are loads of workarounds to that, and the extent to which those workarounds are exploited just depends on what the world's talented/superintelligent people are interested/motivated to do. Obviously the ones with the salt to become "technocrats" (bankers, businessmen, engineers, etc.) have a huge incentive to shape the world to better serve whatever their entrepreneurial vision may be (which is sometimes benevolent, sometimes corrupt). So i guess what i'm saying there is "control the world's talent, and you control the world"?
__________________
Last.fm

Last edited by zabu of nΩd : December 29th, 2011 at 10:30 PM.
zabu of nΩd is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2011, 10:23 PM   #120 (permalink)
Overwatch
Dare to be offended
 
Overwatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Babylon, A.D.
Posts: 14,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by zabu of nΩd View Post
I'll try to get back to you sometime dak, just losing steam a bit for now. You've probably given me some good questions to work on for a while. I still think you jump to way too many conclusions, so for some of these things we're debating i'd rather just research them myself than parry words.
Which is a great direction to take. I hope no one is "convinced" by any of my arguments, for a more skilled debater than I can surely sway you into another direction.

Much reading, and contemplation in reason and logic are a better path to finding personal positions. I use arguments to test my conclusion's foundational logic/reasoning/educational foundation.
__________________
The conflict is pure
The truth devised
The future secured
The enemy designed


"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." - Herbert Spencer

"The four most expensive words in the English language are 'this time it’s different." - John Templeton

Last edited by Overwatch : December 29th, 2011 at 10:30 PM.
Overwatch is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2011, 10:49 AM   #121 (permalink)
Overwatch
Dare to be offended
 
Overwatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Babylon, A.D.
Posts: 14,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cythraul View Post
Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with the inference you're making here. It does not seem obvious to me that if you own yourself and what you do that you thereby own the product of what you do. I mean, that's part of the whole controversy between libertarians and people who doubt this connection between self-ownership and external property; is it really the case that if you own yourself, you also own the things that you produce? Even if I concede that you own yourself, why do I have to concede that you have a right to what you produced? Let's suppose you own yourself: you have a right to do what you want with yourself, where yourself is defined by what counts as a part of your body. So you have a right to your labor in the sense that you have a right to engage in the activity of producing things. If I, for instance, physically restrained you by tying you down in order to prevent you from engaging in the activity of producing various things, it seems to me that that would be a clear violation of your self-ownership, since I'd be doing something to you against your will. But this need not be the case if I take, destroy, or otherwise mess with something that you have produced, since it need only involve doing something to a thing that is not you or a part of you. That's why it seems pretty obvious that a prohibition on chattel slavery is justified on grounds of self-ownership but that extensive private property rights are not.
Nothing that is not an organic part of my body is a part of me, so by your line of reasoning the clothes on my back are fair game as well. If you restrain me from producing the shirt, or come after it is made and take it, the end result is the same: I have no shirt. If I can spend my time working on a shirt, or spend my time in leisure, and have the same net material gain (no shirt), why would I make a shirt? To steal the product of my time and effort IS to steal my time and effort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cythraul View Post
But if I take your shirt, it seems pretty obvious that I do not take your time or your life, since I never prevented you from using your time and your life in that particular way in the first place. I'm just taking the thing that resulted from it.
Yet, you did. You stole it retroactively. Preventing me from using it to make a shirt would actually have been preferable to stealing my productivity and labor for yourself. I could have spent my time "producing" something that cannot be stolen (leisure, IE, nothing).
__________________
The conflict is pure
The truth devised
The future secured
The enemy designed


"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." - Herbert Spencer

"The four most expensive words in the English language are 'this time it’s different." - John Templeton
Overwatch is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2011, 10:37 PM   #122 (permalink)
Rick Parry
Member
 
Rick Parry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 36
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...uh3gWlVAetLC9g


I hope all of you check this movie sooner or later and especially for the Paul fanboys.
Rick Parry is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2011, 11:07 AM   #123 (permalink)
Einherjar86
Winter is Coming
 
Einherjar86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hic et nunc
Posts: 12,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overwatch View Post
Nothing that is not an organic part of my body is a part of me, so by your line of reasoning the clothes on my back are fair game as well. If you restrain me from producing the shirt, or come after it is made and take it, the end result is the same: I have no shirt. If I can spend my time working on a shirt, or spend my time in leisure, and have the same net material gain (no shirt), why would I make a shirt? To steal the product of my time and effort IS to steal my time and effort.
You're equating the value of the object with the time and effort necessary to produce the object; while this is ideal, you know as well as I do that this is not how values (i.e. prices) are dictated in a market economy. Even Adam Smith said that a thing is only worth how much someone is willing to pay for it. By this logic, a market that dictates prices is constantly stealing from individuals who have produced commodities for market exchange.

Your simple explanation makes sense in a market-driven community where every individual contributes something "valuable" and is the absolute best worker he or she can be (i.e. the worker makes things in the maximum economical fashion so as to sell them to others at prices they are willing to pay); but this is unteneble and completely implausible. The market does not adapt to the labor value of things.
__________________
Creatures of epidemic rather than hermeneutics, werewolves tend to be very crude, but then, they don't live as long as deconstructionists.

Theory: http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/

Fiction: http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/
Einherjar86 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2011, 12:12 PM   #124 (permalink)
Overwatch
Dare to be offended
 
Overwatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Babylon, A.D.
Posts: 14,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einherjar86 View Post
You're equating the value of the object with the time and effort necessary to produce the object; while this is ideal, you know as well as I do that this is not how values (i.e. prices) are dictated in a market economy. Even Adam Smith said that a thing is only worth how much someone is willing to pay for it. By this logic, a market that dictates prices is constantly stealing from individuals who have produced commodities for market exchange.

Your simple explanation makes sense in a market-driven community where every individual contributes something "valuable" and is the absolute best worker he or she can be (i.e. the worker makes things in the maximum economical fashion so as to sell them to others at prices they are willing to pay); but this is unteneble and completely implausible. The market does not adapt to the labor value of things.
Whether I directly produce the object, or acquire it through a more drawn out chain of voluntary events, IE: Produce something else, then trade or sell then buy the shirt, is irrelevant to the point. I have spent time and effort to voluntary acquire the item, regardless of pricing. Were the ultimate result of my efforts taken by someone else, it is no different than forcibly enslaving me to procure it for someone else.
__________________
The conflict is pure
The truth devised
The future secured
The enemy designed


"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." - Herbert Spencer

"The four most expensive words in the English language are 'this time it’s different." - John Templeton

Last edited by Overwatch : December 31st, 2011 at 12:15 PM.
Overwatch is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2011, 01:27 PM   #125 (permalink)
Einherjar86
Winter is Coming
 
Einherjar86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hic et nunc
Posts: 12,258
You're not addressing my point. I'm saying your theory of labor value is incompatible with a market economy.
__________________
Creatures of epidemic rather than hermeneutics, werewolves tend to be very crude, but then, they don't live as long as deconstructionists.

Theory: http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/

Fiction: http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/
Einherjar86 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0
© Copyright 2000-2014 UltimateMetal.com | MetalAges Media