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

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Kode, Aug 19, 2018.

  1. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no trouble picking out the flaws in your argument. That you don't understand how flawed they are does make sense.

    Yet, I can own things that are made from the sun, such as plant material, correct? Or is that also verboten and an affront to your version of liberty? After all, plants come from entirely natural sources, so the only thing I might own is my labor. But what right, even, do Ihave to my labor and how do I acquire that right?

    If you think I don't understand reason, then give me a principle for rights that is objective, so we can be on the same page regarding ethics. Be aware, though, that I will pick apart any flaws that I see in your attempt at objectivity.

    You're mixing a lot of things together. The governments of the world claim ownership of the oceans. Can they do so? If they can, why not individuals? Again, an objective principle, please.

    As for owning people, why can't governments own them? I can explain why, using natural rights as an objective framework for ethics. What do you have?

    From where do they get that right? What makes it objectively wrong to interfere?

    What if I create a chunk of usable land? For instance, I have an acre of property. On it is a bunch of mulch, two gates, a fence, and space for a horse to run around. Why is it objectively wrong fro me to own that land but objectively right for me to own the fence and gates? How about the mulch, since that is a natural product made from grinding up trees. Do I own it, or does it fall into the "resource you can't own because muh liberty" argument?[/quote][/QUOTE]
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019
  2. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, yeah. The socialists would require that these worker-owned coops be monitored by enlightened central planners. Just to be sure that their votes are properly regulated.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Think about it. You're demanding a coercive result where economic efficiency is destroyed. Didn't you think that was a tad coercive? A tad un-libertarian?

    I merely refer to the reality. You can't embrace libertarianism if you accept the coercive labour contract. Given you do accept that coercion, everything you say is based on fib. Now there is real debate to be had. For example, anarchists would question my support for market socialism. However, at least that is honest debate.

    A cretinous effort! It merely refers to the protection of property rights. Its interesting, however, that you see democracy within the workplace as a bad thing. Ultimately you're attacking Hayek's application of distributed knowledge...

    This question at least amused me. A supposed libertarian asking whether coercion is a crime? Wowsers

    You have been informed of this several times. Its a shame you can't be more honest about it. It is quite simple: if the labour contract was purely characterised by exchange there would be no underpayment. Neither labour economic theory (given monopsony power) or empirical evidence (measuring underpayment) accepts that occurs.

    There is an interesting aspect here mind you. Fake libertarians will often crow "I'm a classical liberal, not a modern liberal". Classical economics, mind you, focused very much on bargaining power and how workers lost out unfairly. Selective consideration...
     
  4. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The King. Back in your dirt-floored hut, peasant!
     
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, because we live in democracies, that was my point. The demographic of any given democracy will determine the outcome, so in any multi-demographic democracy you will always have a 50/50 split. Only national cultural unity can produce the kind of 'social democracy' seen (for a short time, at least) in places like Scandinavia. IOW, you'll never get it in America.
     
  6. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about a non-coercive labor contract? Or the person could simply be a business and not a laborer. Being a business is probably better.
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <yawn> I have demolished all your amateurish attempts. That will not be changing.
    <yawn> I hold a degree in philosophy, with honors, from an internationally respected university. You self-evidently do not. The notion that you could find a flaw in any argument of mine is laughable.
    Only if you or someone you have traded with removed the plant from nature. Not if it's just the plant that made itself naturally. You can't rightly just proclaim yourself the owner of natural plants and expect to erase others' liberty rights to use them.
    It is an affront to liberty to deprive people, by force, of their liberty to do what they wold otherwise be at liberty to do.
    You own what you create by your labor, because that is not something others would otherwise have.
    That depends on what you mean by "right." We can consider three levels of right: legal, practical, and natural. Legal rights are uninteresting, as they are just whatever the law says. Practical rights are the rights a given society extends to its members -- in a democracy, legal rights are supposed to reflect practical rights. Natural rights are the rights societies would extend to their members if everyone understood how rights relate to justice, which confers reproductive success. We have natural rights to all that we would have if others did not deprive us of it, because that is justice. Justice is right because it gets the incentives right.
    We have rights to all that we would have if others did not deprive us of it -- mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of our labor -- because those rights secure justice, and justice gets the incentives right. A society that gets the incentives right will be more successful, prosperous and competitive, enhancing its members' reproductive success. It ultimately comes down to Darwin. Other animals are not like us, do not survive better with justice, and thus do not have rights.
    It's a large and subtle subject, but I don't mind clarifying and refining the concepts at some length.
    I am proving you wrong.
    Where? I do not believe you. I think you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    See above. No one can rightly own what no one created.
    That would be unjust, because it would get the incentives wrong. To thrive and compete, societies have to engage their members' loyalty. They can't do that by inflicting injustice or making supererogatory demands on them.
    Natural rights that, unlike yours, are grounded in the objective facts of human evolution.
    From our biological identity as social animals. Interfering is wrong because it gets the incentives wrong, leading to reduced societal competitiveness and thus impaired individual reproductive success.
    You can't create land. All you can do is improve pre-existing land to make it more usable.
    Because the fence and gates were not already there, ready to be used by others. The land was.
    Grinding up trees is not natural.
    You should be able to figure that out for yourself by now.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  8. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the state should deprive people, by force, of their liberty to do what they wold otherwise be at liberty to do?
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
    crank likes this.
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unless someone else was willing to pay the community more than you for exclusive tenure. You can use any land no one else is willing to pay to use for free.
    The system is there to ensure that WHOEVER violates others' rights to liberty by excluding them from the land makes just compensation to the community of those thus excluded.
     
  10. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would be the state violating our right to liberty, right? They would be preventing us from doing what we would otherwise be at liberty to do?
     
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. Exclusive land tenure means your right to liberty is violated, whatever the system. My proposed system just ensures that such violations are justly compensated, and not just forcibly inflicted injustice.
     
  12. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So under your system, I would not be free to use any land I choose?
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only their liberty to deprive others of the liberty or products of labor they would otherwise have.
     
  14. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great. So under your system no person will stop me from using the land nature provided. Fantastic.
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right. It would have to be available; i.e., no one else could be paying the community -- you and everyone else -- just compensation for excluding you from it. People can only be free to use any land they choose if that use is non-exclusive.
     
  16. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What filthy landowner would be able to prevent me from using what nature provided?
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unless your use of it would deprive someone else of their rights to life, liberty, or the fruits of their labor.
     
  18. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Under your system, what filthy landowner would be allowed to deprive me of farming the land that nature provided?
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The one who was willing to pay the most compensation to the community of those excluded in return for his secure, exclusive tenure.
     
  20. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow, what a filthy landowner. Depriving me of my right to use what nature provided.
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it would be the exclusive landholder. The state's role would be to ensure he made just compensation to those excluded.
    No, that would be the landholder. You know this. You just have to contrive some way to prevent yourself from knowing it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
     
  22. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The people you refer to as the state better not violate my right to use what nature provided. They have no right to stop me from using land they didn't create.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what exclusive landholders always do. Don't act so surprised: it's what you also want to do. You just don't want to make just compensation to those whose rights you thereby violate. You want to be legally entitled to steal from them. Simple.
     
  24. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the state is an exclusive landholder?
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or under any system that includes exclusive land tenure.

    I have to say, the despicable disingenuousness of your "contributions" in this exchange is quite gratifying: it proves I must be right.
     

Share This Page