What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

And you keep thinking like a flaming capitalist with zero exposure to working collectivism. It's virtually impossible to discuss any of this with you, as a result.

FTR, though: You are entirely wrong about almost all of it. Your whimsical notions of what collectivism actually looks like in practice, are merely the daydreams of the First Worlder individualist and lush.

 

Yes, when attempted by the State. It can't be any other way, since the people will never agree to it.

 

Apropos of that ..... if that firm engages in capitalism (profit generation), it's still capitalist whether owned by Mr Big, or the workers. Ownership changes nothing. It's an obvious vanity to call it 'socialism'. All part of the attempt to absolve themselves of the guilt of being capitalism fanboys and living large on the planet's dime.

 

I have no problem with others engaging in socialism that I'm free to not participate in, without penalty.

 

This is nothing but whine. Market socialism is feasible, encompassing both Marxist and Austrian economic perspectives. In contrast, you just spend your time collecting likes from right wingers as you pander the standard supply side guff and pretend to be radical.

Again, no content. Try again or aren't you able to respond?:

The labour contract is coercive, by definition. That's even accepted by orthodox economics, as it acknowledges that wages are not consistent with productivity criteria. And it's just factual to note that socialism generates democracy within the workplace. Indeed, that is a primary reason why the empirical evidence finds that worker ownership generates productivity gains. Such democracy improves decision making and ensures the diffusion of information (which is necessarily restricted in the traditional firm through the need of inefficient hierarchy for divide and conquer purpose)

 

Market socialism of course enables self-employment to continue, providing a means to allow entrepreneurship to go unchallenged. However, you would have no right to exploit workers. You have no right to rent seek through imperfect property rights. Workers deserve the value of their labour.

 

Totalitarianism, as expected.

PS: 'market socialism'? that's like saying 'honest thief'.

 

It's nice that you to attempt to reduce the capitalism fanboy-ing via a load of old bollocks "marxism and democracy and luxury can all co-exist (because I want and need them to)", etc, but no one's buying, Love. At least no one who has even the least sense of the brute reality of collectivism.

So don't freaking engage in a 'labour contract', if you don't like it. No one is forcing you to. Remember .. you live in a capitalist democracy in the free First World. You can (still) do whatever you like.

 

Exactly. It must always be - and can literally ONLY be - 100% voluntary.

 

They aren't all in the community. Only people living under the same sovereign authority can be in the same community.

 

No person, institution or organization can rightly own land because that inherently abrogates everyone else's rights to liberty. The only way one can rightly obtain exclusive tenure is by making just compensation to the community of those whom you deprive of their rights.

 

I've told you many times that land can't rightly be owned any more than the sun, the atmosphere, human beings, the oceans, or the alphabet can rightly be owned: it inherently violates others' rights. I'm not sure there is any way to state that which would be clear and simple enough for you to find a willingness to know.

 

No, it reads as a refutation to which you have no answers.

 

?? Uh, that would describe Marx and Engels....

 

Okay, so who do you want to control access to the land?

 

Why?

 

Whatever ... plenty of Posturing Progressives think they're Marxists and socialists. While residing in their exclusive homes, and enjoying the immense freedoms and wealth of the capitalist democracies they can't live without.

 

He's the Kingmaker, remember. He wants all of us peasants knocked back to tenant farmer status, as per the Middle Ages.

 

"Answering" you is like shooting fish in a barrel. It almost feels cruel.

 

There must be some right to monopolize justice. Perhaps, for you, might makes right?

"Consent of the populace" is weak rhetoric and does not hold up under any logical scrutiny.

 

Appealing to consequence and slippery slopes are both fallacies.

So, there is no liberty to own land. How does one have the right to own anything, then?

 

Sure it does. Rights are only something that we provide one another, temporarily. As long as we as a society determine what those rights are, the populace provides the consent.

 

I shop at a worker-owned hardware store. They do a good job. I won't say that it is outstanding. They are obviously very conservative about spending to modernize the store and each department is a sort of hodge podge of high quality items and low quality junk.

So, basically, like any other hardware store.

Modern worker-owned firms tend to attract those passionate about the opportunity. Some armchair socialist moralizers are then led to conclude that forcing all firms to be worker-owned would lead to higher productivity. Not everyone wants to work in a democratic environment.

 

If "we" provide them, from where do they come?

 

How does that change the fact that it is a moral framework? You are now saying that your values of efficiency and equity are rightfully imposed on others through the police powers of the state.

Do "real" libertarians like you use that word because you want to hide your inherent authoritarianism? That seems rather cowardly, to me. I must conclude that what you call "real libertarianism" is marked by haughty moralizing and cowardice.

Another sign of cowardly "real" libertarian. By "generate", you mean "we will force it on them and harm them if they resist."

Is coercion a crime? Please point out, logically, how the worker is violently subjected to the employment contract by the employer. You have no problem with coercion if it enforces your values, so I suppose that makes you a hypocrite.