/liberty/ - Liberty

>>70549

It's not about wealth, it's about having complete control over the things necessary to survive.

>>Implying that it is somehow difficult for someone with half a brain to become a property holder.

I sure hope you're a successful employer then otherwise you just called yourself dumb. But regardless even if that was true, are you implying that the 50% of the population with below average intelligence are unworthy of having liberty and not being beholden to authority?

>>70550

>It's not about wealth, it's about having complete control over the things necessary to survive.

The earth by itself cannot sustain more than a few million people. Capitalism is not taking something from people that they had before, it's literally what enables a world population of several billions. Every good that you take for granted was created by someone, and you're bitching

>I sure hope you're a successful employer then otherwise you just called yourself dumb.

He didn't. He said that it doesn't take much to become a property owner. It doesn't follow from that that everyone who owns property is dumb.

>But regardless even if that was true, are you implying that the 50% of the population with below average intelligence are unworthy of having liberty and not being beholden to authority?

They are free to find their own tract of land somewhere. There's enough unowned property in the world. It's not convenient to get there, even less to actually try to make a living miles away from civilization, but you can't have your cake and eat it.

>>70560

> It doesn't follow from that that everyone who owns property is dumb.

Leftypol was implying that owning property=being an employer. Communists like him believe anybody with property will use it to extort the less fortunate. Own a farm? You must have slaves to pick your crops. Have a bakery? Then you have poor children wlrking the oven 16 hours a day.

Leftypol doesnt realize you can own land and just live on it, without being "porky"

>>70562

muh reddit spacing was unintended

>>70560

> it's literally what enables a world population of several billions

Really? I thought it was modern technology that did that. Good thing the Soviet Union is no longer around or someone would've had to tell them they can't use modern technology without being Capitalist.

>Every good that you take for granted was created by someone, and you're bitching

I fail to see how that or anything else that you said addresses my point.

>He said that it doesn't take much to become a property owner

Which is almost always said by those who don't own any meaningful amount of private property. Most people don't even own their house.

>It's not convenient to get there, even less to actually try to make a living miles away from civilization, but you can't have your cake and eat it.

So, having liberty and not being beholden to authority while not living like a mountain-man is having your cake and eating it to you?

>>70562

>Leftypol was implying that owning property=being an employer.

I'm also referring to landlords.

>Communists like him believe anybody with property will use it to extort the less fortunate. Own a farm? You must have slaves to pick your crops. Have a bakery? Then you have poor children wlrking the oven 16 hours a day. Leftypol doesnt realize you can own land and just live on it, without being "porky"

You're strawmanning doesn't disprove the fact that someone doesn't own a factory or an apartment complex for their own use. They own precisely so that someone else can use it and pay them for it. Or disprove the fact that people need a place to live and means to a livelihood and that a minority of people own those things, and you want to give them absolute power over their property and therefor absolute authority over the majority of people.

>>70564

You seem to think owning something now means doing so later.

>>70568

Unless you're implying that the destruction of the state will lead to an equal distribution of property, effectively Mutualism, then for it basically will. There might be more proprietors and wealth might be more evenly distributed between them, but they'll still be the minority. Capitalism inherently requires a property-less majority to work as labors.

>>70569

There are only individuals who are at different times working for someone else, themselves, not working, stealing, etc. What statistics happen to come out of this is irrelevant.

>>70546

>start a thread with an assertion

>demand arguments

It doesn't work like that. You have to go back to your tankie overlord.

>>70564

>Good thing the Soviet Union is no longer around or someone would've had to tell them they can't use modern technology without being Capitalist.

I'd tell them they're not allowed to take investments from foreign Capitalists and use foreign statistics to try to emulate a market since they can't calculate.

>>70564

>Really? I thought it was modern technology that did that.

Yes and no. Yes, modern technology played a role, but it wouldn't have been invented without capital accumulation, because research and experimentation aren't free, and leisure to contemplate isn't free. And no, because even if we disregard that, technology without capital accumulation is largely impotent. It wasn't the invention of the tractor per se that increased yield, it was the distribution of actual tractors. Same with the plough, sprinkling machines and so on. These all required industrialization to be distributed.

Outside the agrarian field, it's even more obvious that pure invention is impotent. If you gave a primitive society the blueprints for a supercomputer, it couldn't do anything with them for decades or even centuries. It would first have to find a way to generate electricity, mine copper, build transistors on a nanoscale, and so on.

>Good thing the Soviet Union is no longer around or someone would've had to tell them they can't use modern technology without being Capitalist.

The Soviet Union was a leech on the capitalist system. First of all, it acquired its capital from outside. It could only do so because said capital was already so cheap that they could afford it. They benefitted from the process of capital accumulation the same way everyone else does, capitalist or socialist. They also bailed out on their payments and took on very generous loans from outside. Thanks to that, it took Stalin only an aggravated famine to bring the Soviet Union somewhat up to date. That's because he was smart enough to export grain and buy capital instead of prohibiting farming and having everyone start a steel mill, as Mao did. And before you bring up the fucking Tzars: Russia wasn't that poor before the Revolutions. It wasn't Great Britain or Germany, but it was probably on the level of Greece or Spain. Both of these countries overtook the Soviet Union and they didn't need to suffer a famine for it.

More fundamentally, the Soviet Union was also dependent on foreign prices to calculate. They had no domestic prices, after all, or at least they weren't supposed to have them. If they didn't have access to foreign prices, they'd have suffered the full effects of the calculation-problem.

>So, having liberty and not being beholden to authority while not living like a mountain-man is having your cake and eating it to you?

Yes, although I'd put it less emotional. Then again, I'm not a women. But I digress; yes, it's having your cake and trying to eat it too to expect the living standards of someone who receives services from others and not giving them any renumeration.

>>70570

I don't see your point.

>>70571

I disagree.

>>70574

> but it wouldn't have been invented without capital accumulation, because research and experimentation aren't free, and leisure to contemplate isn't free

Yes, under Capitalism you need capital to get things done. No one argues that.

>It wasn't the invention of the tractor per se that increased yield, it was the distribution of actual tractors. Same with the plough, sprinkling machines and so on. These all required industrialization to be distributed.

And while that happened through Capitalism that does not mean for those things to exist Capitalism does also.

>The Soviet Union was a leech on the capitalist system. First of all, it acquired its capital from outside. It could only do so because said capital was already so cheap that they could afford it. They benefitted from the process of capital accumulation the same way everyone else does, capitalist or socialist. They also bailed out on their payments and took on very generous loans from outside. Thanks to that, it took Stalin only an aggravated famine to bring the Soviet Union somewhat up to date. That's because he was smart enough to export grain and buy capital instead of prohibiting farming and having everyone start a steel mill, as Mao did. And before you bring up the fucking Tzars: Russia wasn't that poor before the Revolutions. It wasn't Great Britain or Germany, but it was probably on the level of Greece or Spain. Both of these countries overtook the Soviet Union and they didn't need to suffer a famine for it.

The law of value was never abolished in the SU, that's true. I was mainly making a joke and not particularly concerned with arguing for or about the SU.

>But I digress; yes, it's having your cake and trying to eat it too to expect the living standards of someone who receives services from others and not giving them any renumeration.

That's precisely what Capitalism is. Socialism isn't lolfreeshitforveryone, so I don't see what you're implying.

>>70579

>Yes, modern technology which was built in the market to satisfy consumer demand. Computers such as the Osbourne 1 portable computer, the IBM personal computers, the Apple Iphone, the modern day operating system, the video game industry, etc were all built to satisfy consumer demand in a market economy and thus were quite successful

I wasn't aware that the only way to satisfy demands was through Capitalism.

>Well some people just don't want to own a house, in fact most people prefer renting a property…

Indeed, it's in the interest of the rentier class to ensure that people stay renters, therefor they make it as attractive to rent as possible, along with making owning as difficult as possible.

>Land is just not particularly valued by the good majority of people

I wasn't implying it was. My point was a house is probably the easiest piece of private property they could own, and the majority don't.

>Robbing someone's property and even using force to do so is not 'liberty'

The lord called his fief his property, as the slave master called his slaves. Just because something is seen as someone else's property does not justify anything. Would you chastise the peasant claiming their land, or the slave their freedom because they're violating the property rights of their respective master?

> We have full authority of our bodies and we have full authority over our property

This is a false equivalency. An individual's life is nowhere near similar to property they "own". The choices I make with my life only affect me, and no one needs me to use my body in a certain way in order for them to live. The same cannot be said for property I own. Full authority over private property, property whose dominant trait is the fact that others use it for my benefit, is in reality full control over those who must use it.

>to violate this is to claim authority over others which (wouldn't you know it!?) is defined as "authoritarian".

This is equivalent to someone saying revolution is "authoritarian" because the people are violently taking their freedom.

>>70569

The majority of the property-less, just like the lowest income brackets, are young workers.. Within time the majority will reach the top income brackets.

>12% of the population will find themselves in the top 1% of the income distribution for at least one year

>39% of Americans will spend a year in the top 5% of the income distribution

>56% will find themselves in the top 10%

>73% will spend a year in the top 20% of the income distribution.

https://www.aei.org/publication/evidence-shows-significant-income-mobility-in-the-us-73-of-americans-were-in-the-top-20-for-at-least-a-year/print/

>>70603

>I wasn't aware that the only way to satisfy demands was through Capitalism.

Well now you know!

In all seriousness, I think it should be pretty obvious to mostly anyone that a system that responds to consumer demand is really the best and most efficient way to satisfy demands. Don't want to provide people with a service they provide? Then they won't buy it. Charging at a price too high for virtually anyone's value judgements? You suffer as a result until you can change your prices, etc to adapt to people's needs.

>Indeed, it's in the interest of the rentier class to ensure that people stay renters, therefor they make it as attractive to rent as possible,

It's almost like they're providing people a service that they value… hmm. The bastards.

> Along with making owning as difficult as possible

I don't know exactly what it is you're referring to here, do you mean government regulation? Do you mean when the rentier tells you he doesn't want dogs in the apartment? What exactly do the members of this very vague "rentier class" do to make owning things harder for you exactly?

>I wasn't implying it was. My point was a house is probably the easiest piece of private property they could own, and the majority don't.

Well yet again, a lot of people just aren't interested in a house. Another thing, what the fuck do you mean by "easiest piece of private property they could own"? That doesn't make any sense in the way you've phrased it. Do you mean that they're easy to maintain? That's heavily debatable. Do you mean that they're plentiful? They are, sure but again some people just aren't interested in a house, just don't have the money for it, are looking for another location, or see some better direction in which the money can be spent.

>The lord called his fief his property, as the slave master called his slaves

Yes, these systems robbed them (the slaves and the fiefs) out of their self-ownership. I ironically addressed this earlier with the statement that

>We have full authority of our bodies and we have full authority over our property, to violate this is to claim authority over others which (wouldn't you know it!?) is defined as "authoritarian".

But you seemed to have missed that point. These systems are not Capitalistic anymore so than Communism or Socialism is. A system in which people are denied property rights over even something as basic as their bodies is not capitalism. Your argument practically sounds like an argument FOR Capitalism, not against it.

1/2

>>70655

> This whole idea you've got is put into light of control through the provision of services in genuinely odd when we think of it in pretty much any scenario.

Fucked that up, I meant to say "The whole idea of control through the provision of services is genuinely odd when we think of it in pretty much any scenario". Wew.

>unlimited autority to property holders

yes, if I do not have unlimited authority over myself and my labor then that means I do not own myself and AM A SLAVE, the only way to rebel against this authority is to take ownership of my life or labor, either by threatening its destruction or seizing it for yourself, so yes it is "unethical" and I will resist it at every turn

>you want to create a world where the minority has absolute authority and power over the majority.

you are a memer, I wish for a world where every man has control over himself, and by extension his labor, to do as he pleases, the only way I know of to do this is a voluntary society. how that society is organised is completely up to the people in it, they could form a commune, a voluntary ethnostate within their property, a homeowners association, a merchants guild, a market, whatever works for them.

>As a landlord I have to maintain contracts with energy companies…

Ultimately you don't have to do any of that as a landlord, you could just hire someone else to manage your properties for you, or depending on what you own, land for instance, you have to do nothing and you offer literally no service. Your position as a landlord is entirely from the fact that you own the property.

>Is the farmer suddenly some type of tyrant because he demands something that he values in exchange for the product that you value?

The difference is it is a mutual, equal relationship with the farmer. He is actually working to produce those tomatoes for me in exchange for something I have that he must need. It's his inalienable labor that I need, and in exchange I give my inalienable labor. Whereas in a worker-employer relationship, the employer has property and the worker has labor, and because of the usurious relationship of private property, the employers gets back much more labor then they originally put in.

>If someone is reclaiming their freedom (which is to say authority over themselves and their property), then that's perfectly fine

And that's precisely what a true Anarchist revolution is. The current system of property rights has its origin in state violence and theft of property from its actual users. pdf related talks about this from a leftwing market-anarchist perspective.

2/2

>>70657

>yes, if I do not have unlimited authority over myself and my labor then that means I do not own myself and AM A SLAVE, the only way to rebel against this authority is to take ownership of my life or labor, either by threatening its destruction or seizing it for yourself, so yes it is "unethical" and I will resist it at every turn

You're absolutely correct. I'm glad we agree.

>I wish for a world where every man has control over himself, and by extension his labor, to do as he pleases, the only way I know of to do this is a voluntary society

As do I, but a society built upon private property is not voluntary. I must pay rent in excess of whatever labor the landlord put in, and I must work in excess of whatever the employer put in.

>>70662

>I argue that there is no other way to get things done. Capital, in the sense of goods required for the production of other goods

Yes, that's true.

>The only possible allocation, beyond a certain length of the production chains, is through the market.

Markets can exist without Capitalism.

>Completely abolishing it ends in ruin because of the calculation-problem.

How are you so sure of that? The market is already extensively planned by the millions of businesses and corporations within it, yet they have limited information and the goal of their planning is to maximize profits, not efficiently or eliminating needs.

>To acquire capital in the first place, someone must restrict his consumption first

Or happen to be born with it, or be lucky speculating, or through investing. Even if it was through saving, isn't it convenient that the biggest savers are the wealthy, those who can afford to save? None of those things justify receiving more labor back than you put in.

>The main difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialists want to give the fishing rod to whoever needs it, while capitalists want to give it to the person that build it

No, the difference is Socialists wants to give the rod to who built it, while Capitalists want to give it to who owned the trees on the island.

>also pic related

>analyzed the market

Plenty of people do that and fail. It's far easier to manipulate the market through advertising.

>took the risk

Luckily he decided to incorporate to severely diminish that risk. If risk got you wealthy than the tree-cutter who regularly risks dying every day would be a millionaire.

>paid a salary

Paid a wage specifically, a wage that only pays for a fraction of the labor done that day; how else is he supposed to make a profit?

>Then define socialism

Worker control of the means of production, whether socially by the entire society, or by the individual workers owning their workplace.

>>70852

> you have to do nothing and you offer literally no service

As a landlord you have the ultimate decision power of what is the most efficient way to employ that land. The land is a subject to exploitation and that affects its value. It's up to the landlord to find the most suitable tenant, or go broke and lose it. Land does not produce wealth for him just by existing. It's no different than dealing with the trade of any other scarce commodity. As soon as someone uses the land its value goes down. The landlord serves to maintain some semblance of order of who gets to do what with a scarce resource, or else it's a either a free for all, or utter chaos and rampant exhaustion (fishing being a perfect example). Depending on where the property is located, you have to do particular maintenance.

Nobody's going to pay high rent for land that isn't worth it. Nor can you afford to sit on it forever as your savings diminish. Eventually, supply and demand have to meet.

>the employers gets back much more labor then they originally put in

Neither of them receives their pay in labor. Both gain more than they would have otherwise. Both want the goods that have been procured with the ability and decisions made in employing that labor. To the customer it doesn't matter how much labor you're going to put in any product. What they want and what they get is the final product of said labor. Whether you spend 1 unit of labor or 5 to finish a task is entirely on you.

The risk of selling the produce and providing the existing capital stays with the employer. The employee does not bother with the expenses of the employer. The employee is not paid with what he produces. He's taking an advance from the savings of the employer, who in saving more than he needs to subsist can now employ in further improving his life.

>>70854

>Markets can exist without Capitalism.

P. sure he means capital markets.

>How are you so sure of that? The market is already extensively planned by the millions of businesses and corporations within it, yet they have limited information and the goal of their planning is to maximize profits, not efficiently or eliminating needs.

I don't think you're familiar with the planning problem

>>70854

>Paid a wage specifically, a wage that only pays for a fraction of the labor done that day; how else is he supposed to make a profit?

Nobody is being paid for a specific measurable quantity of labor. There is no "fraction." A janitor is paid for a clean floor, not the specific units of energy he expends in cleaning it. If there were a way to measure that it would already be part of calculating expenses. Anyone who's measurable labor power couldn't produce at the desired cost would not be employed. You would still be paid for the "full" amount.

>>70855

>As a landlord you have the ultimate decision power of what is the most efficient way to employ that land

As a king you have the ultimate decision power of what is the most efficient way to employ the kingdom.

>Land does not produce wealth for him just by existing

That's precisely why he rents it out, so he can extract wealth out of his tenants.

>The landlord serves to maintain some semblance of order of who gets to do what with a scarce resource, or else it's a either a free for all, or utter chaos and rampant exhaustion (fishing being a perfect example)

I'm pretty sure statists make this argument all the time concerning the state.

>Nobody's going to pay high rent for land that isn't worth it

Unless its desert or land in Montana hours from any town, all land is practically worth it, which is why even shitty land costs thousands an acre.

>Nor can you afford to sit on it forever as your savings diminish

That's precisely why land speculation is, and the reason why most privately owned land is completely unused.

>Both gain more than they would have otherwise. Both want the goods that have been procured with the ability and decisions made in employing that labor. To the customer it doesn't matter how much labor you're going to put in any product. What they want and what they get is the final product of said labor. Whether you spend 1 unit of labor or 5 to finish a task is entirely on you.

I don't see the relevance.

>The risk of selling the produce and providing the existing capital stays with the employer

Except when that employer makes use of personal-risk absolving corporations, or government bailouts. And what about the risks employees make? Whether the real physical risks that their job might entail, or the risk of their chosen job being a dead end, or simply not existing in 10 years? http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionC2#secc29 this goes into it more.

>The employee does not bother with the expenses of the employer

Except when those expenses get him laid off.

>He's taking an advance from the savings of the employer

Only as far as the business is unprofitable, which necessarily must be temporary otherwise he won't keep his job. Employers also take advances from the bank, but he knows precisely how much he owes and what the interest is, and he can eventually pay it off, whereas the worker can never pay it off and remains perpetually repaying the employer.

>>70856

>I don't think you're familiar with the planning problem

AFAIK, it's a supposed problem of a lack of information, particularly the lack of information without price signals.

>>70857

You're correct, they're not paid for their labor, but their capacity to labor in a given time, their labor-power. The point remains you hire someone in order to use that labor-power to produce more than you're paying them.

>>70854

>I must pay rent in excess of whatever labor the landlord put in, and I must work in excess of whatever the employer put in.

Rent is simply providing a commodity like any other. Without that incentive to profit to mitigate the risk in developing that commodity, then that commodity would not have been provided. If you are putting in excess labor, than there must be a temporary supply-demand imbalance, which would signal the market to provide more lodging and lower rents (unless restricted by zoning, rent controls, etc.).

>The market is already extensively planned by the millions of businesses and corporations within it, yet they have limited information and the goal of their planning is to maximize profits, not efficiently or eliminating needs.

The market is not centrally planned and does not require unlimited information, much like the flocking behavior of birds is achieved with the limited knowledge of a bird's relative position to and direction of its neighbors. You cannot maximize profits without efficient management of resources and sating the demands of your customers.

>isn't it convenient that the biggest savers are the wealthy, those who can afford to save?

Most of those in the wealthiest 20% income cohort started in the lowest income cohort when they were young (see >>70647).

> the difference is Socialists wants to give the rod to who built it, while Capitalists want to give it to who owned the trees on the island.

Simply owning the trees does not produce the rod. It is the capitalists that provide the capital and take the risk of venture that produced the rod. According to your analogy the capitalists are the ones who built it.

>It's far easier to manipulate the market through advertising.

Not against competitors employing the aame tactics. In the end, you must employ some kind of market survey and product testing.

>Luckily he decided to incorporate to severely diminish that risk. If risk got you wealthy than the tree-cutter who regularly risks dying every day would be a millionaire.

By incorporating with other investors, he does diminish the risk, but also diminishes his share of the profit. Loggers are well paid when you take into consideration the purchasing power, but there are other factors besides risk that affect wealth.

>Paid a wage specifically, a wage that only pays for a fraction of the labor done that day

The wage matches the exchange value of labor, so how do you get a "fraction of labor" paid?

>Worker control of the means of production, whether socially by the entire society, or by the individual workers owning their workplace.

That is compatible with capitalism. Most people do not enter communes or coops because they forego venture risks for a steady and guaranteed income.

>>70869

>As a king you have the ultimate decision power of what is the most efficient way to employ the kingdom.

Poor analogy since the king does not exist in a market.

>That's precisely why he rents it out,

The development on the land (whether farm, factory, or tenement) is rented out, not the land itself.

>That's precisely why land speculation is, and the reason why most privately owned land is completely unused.

Soruce on this? Land speculation is pretty unprofitable considereing property taxes, maintenance, and the fact that you can generate more income by renting it out than leavcing it stagnant.

>personal-risk absolving corporations,

Risk is passed onto the investors who share the profits, soi the employer trades off profit for mroe security.

>government bailouts

Bailouts are given to only a fraction of employers, which increases risk among the majority of employers that must compete in the same market with these corporate welfare-queens. Employee risks are minimal compared to the employer since they do not risk their credit portfolio and are not subject to litigation when a company goes under. They have severance packages and unemployment insurance to provide them an income until they find another job or get training for another trade if made redundant.

>Only as far as the business is unprofitable

Even when profitable too since the worker is taken an advance on the product made now to be sold in the future.

>capacity to labor in a given time, their labor-power.

Actually it's human capital. "Labor-power" as defined by Marx as a commodity, does not exist since it's not a end product of exchange in a market (being that the worker retains his skills/knwoledge and augments them after they are employed in production) and the lack of fungibility (no two individual's knowledge are alike). The worker employs his skills and knowledge in the production process (hence why it is capital).

>The point remains you hire someone in order to use that labor-power to produce more than you're paying them.

Could you provide proof of this?

>>70546

This is a plainly ridiculous assertion when you spend more than a few minutes contemplating it.

Firstly, Libertarians do not give the owners of property owns, which every human owns, whether his property is limited to himself and what he can create with his own physical body or whether it also includes land, equipment, or whatever else, unlimited power. Instead it grants every property owner (person) the same and equal freedom to do what he wants as long as it does not directly impose with force on another person. Clearly property-holders have no greater authority than any other person. The tradition of Liberty also has widely advocated rebellion and resistance against any authority that wishes to impose itself by force on any person, whether it be the authority of the state or the authority of a highway man with a club. However, I think most people disposed to liberty would prefer the latter to the former, as the Highwayman makes no pretense for legal legitimacy and does not continue to impose violence on a person after his mulct has been delivered while a government will then continue to impose itself on a person and declare itself the protector and master of the person and shall continue again and again to demand dues and taxes. In this way a criminal is a gentleman.

Secondly, a government has never defended any right of a citizen. It has always been the citizen of a government that has again and again needed to vigilantly and continuously defend their freedoms against the unlimited desire of government from expanding its power at the expense of the citizen. The citizen has no choice whether it wishes to subject himself to the State like it can to choose to buy steel from a certain manufacture, purchase from a certain grocery store, or watch a football athlete. While the business man, artist, or athlete must persuade others to voluntarily enjoy their services the government by bayonet and the police baton will jail peoples engaging voluntary exchanges, enslave people into war, and confer onto a minority mercantilist privileges to produce power, to broadcast radio, to gambling, among many others.

The government as protector of personal liberty is a fiction concocted and promoted by the minority of plutocrats and bureaucrats who rule us by force.

>>70877

>Rent is simply providing a commodity like any other

Rent is simply protection money under a different name, i.e. money you pay to prevent the other person from using violence against you. This isn't even an ideological definition, the only reason a person has to pay rent in excess of the costs of upkeep is so the landlord doesn't evict them.

>Without that incentive to profit to mitigate the risk in developing that commodity

Where is the risk or development in land speculation or renting land to 3rd world peasants?

>then that commodity would not have been provided

The question is whether whatever service the landlord provides can be done without him.

>If you are putting in excess labor, than there must be a temporary supply-demand imbalance, which would signal the market to provide more lodging and lower rents (unless restricted by zoning, rent controls, etc.).

I must be putting in excess labor or the landlord couldn't ever possibly make a profit, whether short-term in perspective of the costs and his labor, or long-term in perspective of the capital they've invested.

>The market is not centrally planned and does not require unlimited information

Planning doesn't necessarily mean central planning, which doesn't require unlimited information either. Just because the market gets by with limited information doesn't mean that's a good thing.

>You cannot maximize profits without efficient management of resources

It's insane to think that the current usage of resources is efficient. 40% of food isn't thrown away because its an efficient use of resources, it's because it's an efficient for the means of gaining profits with limited information.

>Most of those in the wealthiest 20% income cohort started in the lowest income cohort when they were young

The 80th percentile of income earners is only about $117,000 from 2 income earners. That's really good money but it's from 2 people and it's only temporary, whereas saving enough to start a business obviously requires years. Additionally, that link doesn't mention where they started from.

>It is the capitalists that provide the capital

Yes, the trees, which they own, that is their entire role in the situation.

>take the risk of venture that produced the rod

This is a complete myth. If anything risk is inversely proportional to profit under Capitalism. Here's a good quote:

>Indeed, it would be fairer to say that return is inversely proportional to the amount of risk a person faces. The most obvious example is that of a worker who wants to be their own boss and sets up their own business. That is a genuine risk, as they are risking their savings and are willing to go into debt. Compare this to a billionaire investor with millions of shares in hundreds of companies. While the former struggles to make a living, the latter gets a large regular flow of income without raising a finger. In terms of risk, the investor is wealthy enough to have spread their money so far that, in practical terms, there is none. Who has the larger income?

>Not against competitors employing the aame tactics. In the end, you must employ some kind of market survey and product testing.

To an extent, but $200b is still put into advertising every year for a very good reason.

>By incorporating with other investors, he does diminish the risk, but also diminishes his share of the profit.

Whereas for the investors they get a substantial amount of the profits for very little risk, therefor proving that risk is not correlated with profits.

>Loggers are well paid when you take into consideration the purchasing power

I was referring to tree-trimmers, who usually make about $33,000 a year while probably having the most dangerous job in the US. Look at the OSHA fatcat report by far the most common fatalities involve tree-trimming. Again, this is the greatest risk a person could make, yet it puts them in the 28th percentile.

>factors besides risk that affect wealth.

And those factors are the ones which actually determine wealth, not risk. Especially considering unsuccessful risks aren't paid at all.

1/2

>The wage matches the exchange value of labor, so how do you get a "fraction of labor" paid?

Because the labor-power bought produces in excess of what was paid for it and the means of production it works on. If the worker's wage for the 8 hour day is $80 and he produces $200 worth of goods from $40 worth of materials, then he is effectively working for free for half of the day. This surplus-value is payment to the employer for the service of his property, and service that is entirely unnecessary if he is out of the picture.

>That is compatible with capitalism. Most people do not enter communes or coops because they forego venture risks for a steady and guaranteed income.

It necessitates it on a societal level, not just a few coops. Most people do not create communes and coops because they don't have the means, while the few who do would likely start a regular business anyway and forget about ideals.

>>70878

>Poor analogy since the king does not exist in a market.

I was making a point about how the king is as useful as the landlord.

>The development on the land (whether farm, factory, or tenement) is rented out, not the land itself.

In agrarian societies and situations it is precisely the land and only the land that is rented out. Even still, developments don't make money for him on their own either, which is why he rents it out to a human who can.

>Soruce on this? Land speculation is pretty unprofitable considereing property taxes, maintenance, and the fact that you can generate more income by renting it out than leavcing it stagnant.

I can't find any sources for land speculation, but considering 60% of the land in the US is privately owned (even more in states like Florida and Texas) while only 40% of all land total is used for agriculture. So most private land is probably used for something, but there's still a significant gap of ownership that can be explained through speculation.

>>70878

>Risk is passed onto the investors who share the profits, soi the employer trades off profit for mroe security.

The whole point of limited liability is so that the risk is limited. A corporation isn't just spreading the risk to multiple people, it's completely absolving a significant part of it.

>Employee risks are minimal compared to the employer since they do not risk their credit portfolio and are not subject to litigation when a company goes under.

Neither are owners under limited liability.

>They have severance packages and unemployment insurance to provide them an income until they find another job or get training for another trade if made redundant.

That doesn't mean they didn't take a substantial amount of risk on that company.

>Even when profitable too since the worker is taken an advance on the product made now to be sold in the future.

In a sense that he's being paid today for tomorrow's work. An arrangement that he must agree to if he wants to work, and one that suits the employer much more than the worker.

>does not exist since it's not a end product of exchange in a market

Are you saying it's not a commodity because it's not an end product of previous work, or because it's not a finite product permanently exchanged? I'll assume the second because the first is obviously untrue; the second is untrue because there is a finite product (the worker's time and willingness to work in that given timeframe) and it is permanently exchanged (he's not getting that time back). The worker isn't selling himself along with his skills, he's selling his ability to work with those skills for a certain time.

>and the lack of fungibility

That doesn't change the fact that certain jobs pay the same to two different people.

>The worker employs his skills and knowledge in the production process (hence why it is capital).

Capital is ultimately just commodities used in a certain way. You're arguing semantics. Whether human capital or labor-power, the worker is still selling their ability to work for a given time.

>Could you provide proof of this?

I gave an example in the last post, but as further proof: why would you hire someone if hiring them did not make you more money than otherwise? Labor-power is the only thing you can buy that can produce more than it costs. Profits cannot be explained in any other way than surplus-value.

2/2

>>70880

>Instead it grants every property owner (person) the same and equal freedom to do what he wants as long as it does not directly impose with force on another person.

The point of private property (property you do not personally use) is for the owner to profit from someone else using it. When the owner has absolute authority over this property, he has absolute authority over its users.

>Clearly property-holders have no greater authority than any other person

A regular person only has authority over their life, as it should be.

>The tradition of Liberty also has widely advocated rebellion and resistance against any authority that wishes to impose itself by force on any person, whether it be the authority of the state or the authority of a highway man with a club. However, I think most people disposed to liberty would prefer the latter to the former, as the Highwayman makes no pretense for legal legitimacy and does not continue to impose violence on a person after his mulct has been delivered while a government will then continue to impose itself on a person and declare itself the protector and master of the person and shall continue again and again to demand dues and taxes. In this way a criminal is a gentleman.

I don't disagree.

>Secondly, a government has never defended any right of a citizen.

That's why I said it pretends to.

>The government as protector of personal liberty is a fiction concocted and promoted by the minority of plutocrats and bureaucrats who rule us by force.

Absolutely correct.

>>70886

>The point of private property (property you do not personally use) is for the owner to profit from someone else using it. When the owner has absolute authority over this property, he has absolute authority over its users.

That's why we only say that property rights which are rightfully derived can be justified. If you leave the process of acquisition out of the picture, then yes, property rights seem arbitrary. Which is why you shouldn't.

>>70886

I actually read over your modifier of 'pretend' but I think adding that only serves to damage the credibility of a government being a benevolent institution, which you don't seem to actually believe. So I'm confused to why you made this thread because you make no plausible argument for government and you admit that the supposed benefit for government is a fiction. Regardless.

>The point of private property (property you do not personally use) is for the owner to profit from someone else using it. When the owner has absolute authority over this property, he has absolute authority over its users.

You define private property as property that you do not personally use? Inversely is property that you do use becomes 'public'? I am confused to how you would define 'personal use'. Regardless of this though the owner of private property can freely choose who may use his property, to what ends they may use his property, and what may be exchanged for the inconvenience put upon the owner for his property being used by another. His authority does not extend any further than this. He cannot use force on the users of his property, whether that be land, factory, sculpture, car, etc. There is no absolute authority.

>A regular person only has authority over their life, as it should be.

This is also a little vague but I think that what you mean is that a person only has freedom that extends only to his material being. That this freedom does not extend to the products that he creates with his physical capacities to reshape matter and material to his own usages. But if a person has no ownership over what he creates using his own physical capacities then what freedom is there? It is like saying that a prisoner is free because his bondage only extends to his physical body while his mind is free to think.

>>70546

>How can you claim to be anti-authoritarians

I don't

>>70897

edgy

>>70851

>You're implying that Capitalism is somehow objectively best at this.

It is. He just described market forces, don't you think that these are strongest on… the market?

>Capitalism does the same by violently taking control over the things others need to live and demanding they sell their body and will for a certain amount of time in order to use those things.

First of all, "capitalism" doesn't. Capitalists do, perhaps. But - second -, they do not take anything away from people. In the state of nature, you have to use your body and will to survive, too. Capitalism only makes it easier to do so. Cheeseburgers, apartment buildings and cars aren't things that the capitalist takes from you, he presents them to you in the first place. The same thing is true even of drinking water. The capitalist does not withhold water from you that you could otherwise get in nature for free. Even under the best conditions, you'd have to look for this water - not a trivial task -, and under the worst, you'd die.

>Again, the point is that property rights are not liberating, they are in reality enslaving. You say I own my body and no one else can infringe on my right, yet I live in a world where I must sell my body and forsake this right if I want to live. The only freedom I have without productive property (either to personally use or to sell) is the freedom to die.

You're complaining that you have to use your body to survive, when that was always the case throughout history. You can still try to make it on your own, but even then, you have to use your body to pick berries, kill squirrels and find drinking water. Your options are selling your labor (not the same thing as selling your body), using your labor to be self-sufficient, or dying. There is no third option.

If there was no authority over things you wouldn't be allowed to stand anywhere because the moment you stand there no one else can stand there, you occupy the land thus asserting authority over it.

Now what we do is saying there is an "owner" who has this authority, and ownership can be traded if buyer and seller both agree.

>>70890

Then it seems like government and the state isn't bad because of what they do, they're bad because they didn't acquire their property properly in the first place. It's like a judge convicting someone of abusing a slave because it wasn't his slave to abuse; to the judge it's not a question whether abuse is wrong or not, only a question of whether the man legally owns the slave.

>>70892

>So I'm confused to why you made this thread

I'm not arguing for statism, I'm arguing for true anarchy.

>I am confused to how you would define 'personal use'.

It's pretty clear that the landlord of an apartment complex does not personally use his property like his tenants use their apartment.

>His authority does not extend any further than this. He cannot use force on the users of his property, whether that be land, factory, sculpture, car, etc

He does not need to use physical force because he can get compliance through threatening to fire the person. If he asks too much then you could go to another employer, the problem arises when he asks what everyone else asks.

>But if a person has no ownership over what he creates using his own physical capacities then what freedom is there?

There is no problem with a person owning the things they create and need, the problem comes in when they're able to use their property to create an authoritarian relationship. For an Anarchist, ownership most stop being respected when it leads to archy.

>>70938

>First of all, that's not what you said earlier. You stated "My point was a house is probably the easiest piece of private property they could own, and the majority don't."

I was implying houses are the easiest because a comparatively sizable amount of people own them.

>A sizable amount of people own gaming computers, a sizable amount of people own cars, a sizable amount of people own the newest type of iphone

None of these things have an relevance to any one outside of their owner. That is why there is a distinction between private (or alternatively productive, or commercial) property and personal property (or alternatively possessions or belongings).

>so what exactly do you mean by "easier to own"?

Out of all real or private property, houses are the most commonly owned. I bring up houses because a home is a thing everyone needs, so for those who do not own homes, this puts them in a position of submission to those who do.

>If I build a house near a lake and make this place my estate, this is not violence. It is when someone tries to interfere with my ownership of the resource that there is violence

If you were the only man on Earth then the idea of property wouldn't exist anymore. Property is a social relation that is necessarily built upon violence; the entire point of it is for the owner to be able to legitimately use violence to enforce his will over the property. This is not a problem when it comes to property that you need to live, since you are indirectly protecting your life, but it's entirely different when it is property you do not use or need, because then it is a scenario of you violently demanding tribute.

>That makes no sense.

The unspoken agreement behind all jobs is that you will obey your boss.

>That's like owning a car and then saying that due to the fact you own the car, you therefore have right to as much gasoline as you want. This is not the way it works due to the fact that the providers of gasoline (and those who refine it, etc) have just as much a right to their property as you do to yours.

You're conflating the natural state of things (humans need things to survive), when the artificial state of things (certain humans own these things exclusively and everyone else must work for them to get it). The problem isn't that I must grow or buy food to survive, it's that certain men own the fields and I must pay tribute to them in order for me to even provide for myself.

>So if I allow my son to use my vehicle to drive his high school sweetheart to prom there's suddenly a dramatic problem? Why?

Obviously that's not a problem. The problem is when someone absolutely needs that car, the car you are not using and have no plans to use; this effectively gives you complete power over his life, and you only have this power because you will use violence to prevent this man from using this car without your agreement.

>This make no sense, if I own a resource it inevitably happens that I also have the right to determine who can and can't use it and whether anyone can use it at all. I can even pay people to use my property for certain goals

Yes, that's the problem.

>So to draw this artificial line in the sand is very odd.

It's a line that's drawn because the entire point of property was to guarantee liberty and freedom. If a means does not lead to the desired end, then the means must be discarded. If your end is property for the sake of itself and you have no concern for the freedom of others, then so be it, just don't pretend otherwise.

>I then proceeded to explain why that's just not the case, you don't need to use your private property in a certain way so that people live, rather just that they don't die or get harmed.

I don't get what you're saying here. Are you saying people don't need homes to live?

> Well of course, If one chooses to ignore that whole side of the conversation I imagine you could come to a whole load of other conclusions that aren't odd in that context whatsoever but ignorance of the subject matter doesn't lead to very many logical conclusion when all things are considered.

I'm saying it's not odd if you think in terms of freedom instead of property.

>>70939

>which is to say that there is no individual forcing you to do such and such with the immediate threat of taking away your life or any thing in that regard

It's irrelevant whether it's an individual or nature threatening me with death if I don't comply, the end result of both is death.

>We all need these things to survive and so do the people who specialize in making such things, and in order for the doctor to survive, in order for the construction worker to survive, he must receive something in return for his services.

I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying when you're in a situation where you need these things, then the only person who can give you these things has unlimited power over you. The main way to get these things in the current society is to buy them and to do that you need a wage, therefor the wage-giver is the person who has this power over you. A better situation would be to have complete control over your livelihood so you could freely exchange with others, this is what Mutualists and Market Socialists advocate.

>the other is one just not giving you something that you have no right to from the start

It's not about clothes or money, it's about the means to survive, the ability to have a livelihood, i.e. the means of production.

>she's suddenly the one in the wrong because she's willing to use violence to protect her body?

In that sentence I wasn't saying property was right or wrong, I was saying it's inherently violent.

> you may be willing to use violence to stop someone from eating all your food, or taking something from you like your car, how does this suddenly put you in the wrong?

How do you not see the difference between a car and a car factory, or food and a field? No one is exercising an hierarchical relationship over me with their car or food, precisely because they need those things for their own life. I'm not even advocating taking away the individual craftsman's tools, or the lone farmer's field, I'm advocating for giving to the tenant farmer the fields he works on, and to the craftsman the tools his employer owns.

>I'm just utilizing my resources by using them to pay others to help with the property in question.

Only if it's not profitable. Realistically its the tenants who are providing the resources for these people to be hired while you take a cut solely because you own the complex. A proprietor ultimately has to do nothing, someone could come to him and agree to take care of the property while paying him rent, and they'll do that because they need his agreement. In reality proprietors do usually manage and take care of their property, but they do not have to to receive the profits from it.

>I still provide a service for people who enter it in so far as the fact that the museum houses these various works and I paid certain artists to help me with this endeavor by doing artwork

You *provided* a service, and you should be compensated for that. But you're saying that because you did something in the past you now deserve a potentially infinite stream of income. The way property works is your descendants could still be receiving the profits from this museum even though they have long had no involvement with it.

>It's the same with the rentier, both are providing one another with a service

How is the rentier providing a service if he could suddenly disappear and that only be a positive for the renters, who now only have to pay a "rent" to cover maintenance? If his service was providing the initial capital to build the complex, then why does he deserve much more, hypothetically an infinite amount more, than what he invested?

>Government's provision of "property rights" isn't anymore legitimate than a mafia's protection of businesses. This doesn't mean that the businesses aren't legitimate, it just means the mafia isn't.

When the mafia is the sole reason why the businesses exist and are successful, then I would say they share illegitimacy. Read that pdf I uploaded, it's not very long. You can keep your fetish for markets while being a socialist.

Are we doing this again?