Free Market Fundamentalist Ideology is based on a Logical Fallacy.

Because you are objectively wrong.

But that claim is just false. There would be no way to compel manufacturers to provide such information accurately, and no one would have any financial incentive to do the amount of testing required to establish it independently.

 

I disagree with both of those assertions.

Insurance companies providing liability insurance might require that manufacturers provide such information.

 

You deny both of those facts because you are objectively wrong, and the preservation of your false, disingenuous and evil political ideology is more important to you than liberty, justice, or truth.

No, that's also false, because even if manufacturers thought they needed liability insurance in your brain-dead Randroid utopia (they wouldn't), insurers would protect their own deniability as well as their market share by not asking customers for information that might prove embarrassing if it was subpoenaed.

 

I don't think I agree with your assesment.

 

Because you are objectively wrong.

 

Or perhaps you're objectively wrong

 

No, that is very unlikely, as the superior factual and logical force of my arguments shows.

 

Well, you seem to have everything figured out.

 

No, just quite a bit more than you do.

 

I don't have anything figured out, so that's not saying much for you. Have a nice night.

 

The Cynicism of an Anti-human Political Economy

“Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity."
--Tacitus.
​

Marx wrote on the relationships of value, labor, and private property in the theories of the classical economists such as Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill who conclude that labor is actually the source of value instead of agricultural land, (the first from of private property), but this conclusion places "private property in man's own being" so that the person becomes the essence of private property (not something external to her). Yet, there is a huge contradiction in how the source of value becomes valueless in an inverse relation to capital (crystallized labor in the form of private property). This contradiction between labor and capital is described by the young Marx:

"(According to the economic laws the estrangement of the worker in his object is expressed thus: the more the worker produces, the less he has to consume; the more values he creates, the more valueless, the more unworthy he becomes; the better formed his product, the more deformed becomes the worker; the more civilised his object, the more barbarous becomes the worker; the more powerful labour becomes, the more powerless becomes the worker; the more ingenious labour becomes, the less ingenious becomes the worker and the more he becomes nature’s servant.) (1844 Manuscripts, Marx, p. 69) (pdf.)."

However, as acceptance of the original classical economic theory began to encompass all productive activity, it ignored the human source of economic value by theoretically stripping them of all particular specific forms of labor and instead only recognize labor in general, in the abstract. Marx describes how reality intrudes on the abstract:

“This political economy [The economic theories of Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill], consequently, displays a cosmopolitan, universal energy which overthrows every restriction and bond so as to establish itself instead as the sole politics, the sole universality, the sole limit and sole bond. Hence it must throw aside this hypocrisy in the course of its further development and come out in its complete cynicism. And this it does—untroubled by all the apparent contradictions in which it becomes involved as a result of this theory—by developing the idea of labour much more one-sidedly, and therefore more sharply and more consistently, as the sole essence of wealth; by proving the implications of this theory to be anti-human in character, in contrast to the other, original approach (1844 Manuscripts, Marx, p. 90; bracketed text added; italics in original text)."

What is neoliberalism? How the 'Washington consensus' was imposed on the world.
​

 

But only demonstrated that he didn't understand any of them.

It is indisputable that agricultural land was not the first form of private property. Property in land was unknown, even inconceivable, until a few thousand years ago, whereas property in the fruits of labor -- and even in slaves -- has existed far longer. Marx was just a complete economic and historical ignoramus.

No, that's just absurd Marxist gibberish directly contrary to fact.

More absurd gibberish.

Gibberish.

Stupid Marxist garbage directly contrary to fact.

Stupid Marxist garbage directly contrary to fact.

Stupid Marxist garbage directly contrary to fact.

Stupid Marxist garbage directly contrary to fact.

Stupid Marxist garbage directly contrary to fact.

Stupid Marxist garbage directly contrary to fact.

Absurd Hegelian metaphysical idiocy.

No, he spews stupid, anti-economic nonscience directly contrary to fact:

Gibberish.

Gibberish.

How could anyone over the age of ten ever have taken this nincompoop seriously?

 

Ben Shapiro's Embarrassing Misinterpretations of Classical Marxism


"The idea is that the Forgotten man is actually the person who's being left behind by the new meritocracy by the economy
that everything is about class conflict and if only we could redistribute if only, we could subsidize we could do all of that
we could create solidarity again all we would have to do is change the economic systems by which we live and this would
magically fix everything but it's not true."--Ben Shapiro @ 3:36 minutes​

Recently, the internet program “Left Reckoning” with David Griscom and Matt Lech aired an insightful and fun critical review in the episode titled “Debunking: Ben Shapiro's Failed Marx Critique.” Their criticisms are spot on pointing out that Shapiro has possibly never read anything written by Marx, or Engels. In fact, Shapiro never identified what interpretation of Marxism he is attacking and is not even Marxism—it is a rightwing cartoon version of socialism. Karl Marx and Engels both criticized the socialism and communism sects of the French socialists Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Jean-Baptiste Fourier, Henri Saint-Simon, Étienne Cabet, Francois Villeguardelle, Welsh socialists Robert Owens, the Community of Women socialist movement, and vulgar Possessionism. The term “socialism” is coined from the word “societies” used to describe Owens' worker union co-operatives textile factories.

The criticism Marx directed at these various schools of socialism explodes Shapiro's concept of Marxism as simply possessionism and uses that idea as the whole of Marxism. If Shapiro opened a book authored by Marx instead of shooting his big mouth off, he would have found Marx's counterarguments in "The Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844," in the chapter “Private Property and Communism,” p. 95 (pdf.). (A better copy of the same book can be found at Marxists.org.). Also, if you can find the International Publishers version of the 1844 Manuscripts, see the famous introduction written by Dirk J. Struik.

“Estranged labor turns thus: (3) Man’s species-being, both nature and his spiritual species-property, into a being alien to him, into a means of his individual existence. It estranges from man his own body, as well as external nature and his spiritual aspect, his human aspect.”
--Marx, 1844 Manuscripts, p. 32​

Within the chapter on private property and communism Marx criticized the French Utopian socialists of “utopianism” which literally means, “ou” (no) “τόπος” (place), “no place.” Frederick Engels wrote in “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,1880) (pdf.) that utopian socialism was not systematic, or scientific and could not understand how capitalism actually worked.

“But the Socialism of earlier days was as incompatible with this materialist conception as the conception of Nature of the French materialists was with dialectics and modern natural science. The Socialism of earlier days certainly criticized the existing capitalistic mode of production and its consequences. But it could not explain them, and, therefore, could not get the mastery of them. It could only simply reject them as bad (Utopian and Scientific, p. 62).”

Consequently, Marx wrote “Capital” to explain scientifically why capitalism is bad.

There was also rumored a historical woman's socialist movement proposed by poet Sylvain Marechal (1796), but no socialists group adopted the idea. Some have traced the idea to Plato aristocratic Guards who were required to have no marriage relations. Marx and Engels rejected this theoretical community of women socialism because women would just become communal property duplicating capitalism in a universal prostitution of the community. The Christian Anabaptist of the 16th century was attracted to the idea of communal polygamy.

And then there is the lamest and crudest group of socialists that Marx criticized known as possessionism. This is the conception of socialism that Shapiro seems to be attracted to the most defined as “The tendency to expand one's ownership of property without regard for its ethical implications.” This kind of political action emerges from resentment, envy, and uncontrolled greed for things as private property. Marx wrote of possessionism:

“...the dominion of material property bulks so large that it wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property. It wants to disregard talent, etc., in an arbitrary manner. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical possession. The category of the worker is not done away with but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things (1844 Manuscript, p. 42).”

And this is the whole of socialism for Shapiro for it is all his tiny fascist mind will allow him to entertain. Shapiro is projecting his own preferences in reducing all Marxism to possessionism--every accusation is a confession. Projectionism is the right-wing's most important strategy since it requires no critical thinking effort; but rather simply accusing by rote any adversary of the very beliefs and actions that fascists themselves embrace.

 

I believe your error here is in reifying "the marketplace". There is no "marketplace". There are only individuals going about their business.

And since there is no actual thing called "the marketplace", there is no composition, and there can be no fallacy of composition.

 

And I clicked the "ignore" button which means I did not see this reply.

 

Did you ignore the thread, or me specifically? If me specifically, may I ask why?

 

There is nothing in "Capital" that can accurately be described as scientific.

Gibberish. Classic Marx.

 

There is no country with pure free-market economies, but US and other Western countries are closest to it, and it provides for the highest standards of living, while socialist countries (Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela), offer lowest standards.

Its no guarantee though, because some capitalist countries like Kenya (its really a mixed economy, but they have a good degree of capitalism by African standards) have managed to make a mess out of it, but even so, even Kenya fares better than their neighbors like Tanzania which have lesser degree of capitalism and bigger degree of central government planning. Of course both countries are corrupt to the bone, which makes success almost impossible.

 

Isn't economics the study of how PEOPLE act? That sounds pretty micro to me.

 

No, small-government libertarian utopias like Haiti, Burundi and Somalia offer the lowest standards of living.

 

Absence of functioning government <> Libertarian

 

Depends which libertarian you talk to. IME, libertarians want "limited" government -- meaning a government that is limited to issuing and enforcing the privileges the libertarians own, and preventing the victims from defending themselves.

 

Limited, but functional, and they would not prevent victims from defending themselves.

 

Sure they would, because they think landowners' property "rights" in land have unconditional priority over others' liberty rights.

 

No , they believe their rights end when they infringe upon rights on others.