/liberty/ - Liberty

>>71348

Thunderdome is the best way to settle disputes.

Can haz shire reeve?

>>71350

In Saxon times, the reeve was originally appointed by the commune, not by a private entity. There wasn't any private property in the Middle Ages. You are basically implying that communism is the precondition for statelessness.

>>71348

Before we go further, answer us one thing: Are you curious what the answers are or genuinely think you've found something we haven't thought of for the last decade of private law theory?(Not counting Molinari's work being centuries old). Is this supposed to a gotcha thing? Are you too lazy to look up the available information on it, or you just in it for the (you)s? Tell us why we should not brand everyone with a leftyflag as a shitposter on sight.

>>71352

Yes, I'm interested in the answers because what I've heard so far doesn't convince me at all. I've simplified my OP so you can't squirm arround the question, as you usually do.

>>71353

Feudalism is not a relationship to property, but rather to competence to distribute usufruct rights, such as: A liege would grant a peasent to sustain himself by having the right to cultivate the land, in exchange for a duty to follow the liege into war. This is not a property relation, in capitalism people are free, but the means of production are owned.

>>71348

>How the fuck would private courts work when there is no coercion to make people show up there or to execute their verdicts?

Who says there's no coercion? When you bring a claim in front of a court, and the court deems it justified, then you can enforce it. Withholding what's due to you is equivalent to theft, and just as you can take back what was stolen from you, so you can take what you are owed.

This is one of the basics of anarchocapitalism. I suggest you read For a New Liberty, or The Ethics of Liberty. They are the best sources for Rothbards property and contract theories.

>Secondly, why the hell would you think this is even remotely a good idea when corporations decide as to what legal system you have to subscribe to?

If anything, the courts would ultimately create the legal system, but even they would be bound by what is acceptable to their clients, who in turn would be influenced by legal scholars as well as by simple custom, and by moral authorities. The making of the law would not be up to a single entity.

Also, see below, that's relevant here, too.

>Self-interest would dictate that they would choose a legal system with the least possible employee or consumer protection, or none at all.

You assume an identity of interests among all capitalists, which makes sense given your background, but is nevertheless wrong. It's in the self-interest of the courts to make correct rulings, according to a transparent method, by unbiased and skilled judges. Any court delivering less than that will be at a huge competitive disadvantage.

>>71355

>When you bring a claim in front of a court, and the court deems it justified, then you can enforce it

How do I do this? With a private militia? What if the other party has an executory title from another court as well? Do we fight it out?

>If anything, the courts would ultimately create the legal system

So you are in favor of radical case law then? I'm sure you would have to agree which legal framwork you'd use whenever you make a contract. Don't you see the inherent imbalance between a corporation and an average employee or consumer there? The legal system would be economized, as opposed to legal equality.

>You assume an identity of interests among all capitalists, which makes sense given your background, but is nevertheless wrong.

Are you trying to argue that the profit motive is not the main incentive for every capitalist?

>It's in the self-interest of the courts to make correct rulings, according to a transparent method, by unbiased and skilled judges.

It's not the competence of the judges I doubt, I doubt the legal framework you propose. What you are suggesting is law positivism. An Iranian court sentencing someone to stoning is also the "correct" ruling when I look at Sharia law. Family courts already sometimes use Sharia law when the couple has mutually decided to do so in their marriage contract, that doesn't make it incorrect, it just makes it exceedingly undesireable.

>>71351

>There wasn't any private property in the Middle Ages.

Wrong. There clearly was private property, at least by how we define it. And dare I say, our definition is correct.

>>71354

>Yes, I'm interested in the answers because what I've heard so far doesn't convince me at all. I've simplified my OP so you can't squirm arround the question, as you usually do.

Well, I don't. I usually try to give helpful answers, even to people who initially seem not to be acting in good faith. Although it gets frustrating, when visitors don't even check the first three pages of the catalog before opening a new thread.

>Feudalism is not a relationship to property, but rather to competence to distribute usufruct rights, such as: A liege would grant a peasent to sustain himself by having the right to cultivate the land, in exchange for a duty to follow the liege into war. This is not a property relation, in capitalism people are free, but the means of production are owned.

This sounds utterly confused. Yes, peasants didn't hold property the way we know it, but even their relationship to the land was proprietarian. They didn't own the land, but they had a right to the land. And that right was actually very strong. Often, the peasant couldn't even be legally kicked off his land. His right of usufruct, as you call it, had proprietarian character.

And what's more: The liege transferred this right to him. How could the liege have done this, had he not held a more complete right over his land? And while we're at it, what about free men generally, merchants, and kings? They obviously held more than just usufruct.

Basically, you ignored the perspective of everyone who was not a peasant. Otherwise, you couldn't sustain your interpretation.

>>71358

>Wrong. There clearly was private property, at least by how we define it. And dare I say, our definition is correct.

Then let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a difference between private property and personal property.

>Yes, peasants didn't hold property the way we know it, but even their relationship to the land was proprietarian.

Yes, this is correct, it legally is proprietarian. But there is still a vast difference between rights of usage and private property rights. This difference isn't a nuance, it is actually quite important, as in capitalism you would own the land and everything on it, whereas the former relationship is more similar to the one of a tenant and a landlord. I was obviously vulgarizing when I said there wasn't private property in feudalism, what I meant by this is that there were no capitalist property relation, which is: Private ownership of the means of production (the plow and the lifestock, in this case).

>Basically, you ignored the perspective of everyone who was not a peasant

The majority of medieval society were peasents. It was the ruling mode of production. Politics, ideology and the such evolved arround feudal relationships, cities were a seperate entity for a long time.

>Often, the peasant couldn't even be legally kicked off his land

Ironically this was done by capitalism during the enclosure movement.

>>71357

>How do I do this? With a private militia?

Did you ever go to court? Unless your debtor literally brandishes his guns, there is no need for any militia to get involved. And if he does brandish his guns, then guess what? You'll always need a militia or a police force to enforce the verdict. Same nowadays as it would be in Ancapistan.

But most of the time, it wouldn't come to that. I've once heard a lawyer advise his client to just steal a car back from the thief. That's it. No force involved, he just took what rightfully belonged to him while the other guy wasn't looking.

>What if the other party has an executory title from another court as well? Do we fight it out?

No, you trust that your courts know a less damaging way of settling the case. Like setting up an ad hoc arbitration court. One judge who agreed with you, one who agreed with your debtor, and another judge that both judges have elected for this role. That is one possibility that does not involve bloodshed, and as you and many others have demonstrated their preference for a peaceful solution to such problems, I assume that there would be demand for it.

>So you are in favor of radical case law then?

Customary law. Legal decisions wouldn't constitute the law. They would play a big role, no doubt, but they do that even now.

>I'm sure you would have to agree which legal framwork you'd use whenever you make a contract. Don't you see the inherent imbalance between a corporation and an average employee or consumer there? The legal system would be economized, as opposed to legal equality.

Would you strike a contract with a broadcasting company that asked you to submit to sharia law? No? Congratulations, you're everyone. That's why such companies couldn't stay on the market for long.

>Are you trying to argue that the profit motive is not the main incentive for every capitalist?

I argue that the profit motive ensures that companies will provide goods and services that are actually attractive to consumers. Consumers aren't money-making machines that give you a dollar whenever you push a button. They're human beings and you have to convince them that what you offer them is worth their money.

>It's not the competence of the judges I doubt, I doubt the legal framework you propose. What you are suggesting is law positivism. An Iranian court sentencing someone to stoning is also the "correct" ruling when I look at Sharia law. Family courts already sometimes use Sharia law when the couple has mutually decided to do so in their marriage contract, that doesn't make it incorrect, it just makes it exceedingly undesireable.

I'm telling you how the law would function, not how it should function. It's conceivable that an anarchocapitalist society would have a bad law. If it did, then I would maintain that the law is wrong, and not binding insofar as it's wrong. That's not positivism at all.

>>71361

>Unless your debtor literally brandishes his guns, there is no need for any militia to get involved.

No, but it's the threat of such violence that make me comply in the first place! They would send bailiffs after me, and then the police.

>You'll always need a militia or a police force to enforce the verdict.

But guess what, they are free. In Ancapistan I would have to pay for a milita. I don't have the money and the amount in legal dispute is far beneath the cost of the milita, I'm fucked. Also, what stops my opponent to arm his own milita? People are complying to legal verdicts because there is no way to resist the state in executing them. That you can steal things which you are legally entitled to is a legal oddity but it's insanity to even think this would be cool as a generalized system.

>One judge who agreed with you, one who agreed with your debtor, and another judge that both judges have elected for this role.

We already have that and it's called apellate court. However, in your proposed system, there is no way of determining who the judge is going to be. Money?

>Customary law

Which is the same we have now, more or less. Fair enough.

>Would you strike a contract with a broadcasting company that asked you to submit to sharia law?

Not with a broadcasting company, but I would 100% do so when I was looking for an apartment and living space is scarce, or if there is just one grocery chain in the town I'm living in. I already got fucked over by my landlord last year because I was dependent on the apartment.

>I argue that the profit motive ensures that companies will provide goods and services that are actually attractive to consumers.

Why would consumers give a fuck about how employees are treated? Why would consumers care about the terms and conditions when they don't have another option? I'm really wondering in what hyper-idealist world you are living in.

>If it did, then I would maintain that the law is wrong, and not binding insofar as it's wrong.

Have you tried this in real life?

>>71360

>Then let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a difference between private property and personal property.

Not sure why, but okay.

>Yes, this is correct, it legally is proprietarian. But there is still a vast difference between rights of usage and private property rights. This difference isn't a nuance, it is actually quite important, as in capitalism you would own the land and everything on it, whereas the former relationship is more similar to the one of a tenant and a landlord. I was obviously vulgarizing when I said there wasn't private property in feudalism, what I meant by this is that there were no capitalist property relation, which is: Private ownership of the means of production (the plow and the lifestock, in this case).

>The majority of medieval society were peasents. It was the ruling mode of production. Politics, ideology and the such evolved arround feudal relationships, cities were a seperate entity for a long time.

I get what you mean, but I don't think it's that important. These instances of private property are enough to show that the concept was not an invention of recent times or an entirely artificial construct. That we're capable of understanding serfdom as an aberration of property rights is rather a hint that property rights are something given and natural.

If your point was something else entirely (even if it was just to school this guy >>71350 ), feel free to tell me.

>Ironically this was done by capitalism during the enclosure movement.

Not capitalism, it was done by the state. Or rather, it would be capitalism according to your definition, but not according to ours. To you, it's an expression of a capitalist class interest if the state distributed property to capitalists. We deny that there is such a thing as class interest or class consciousness, or indeed a capitalist class, so we cannot share your verdict.

Can someone please take over? I gotta go to sleep soon. Would be awesome.

A corporation is a business that has special privileges from the state. AnCap does not have a state, therefore it has no corporations.

In AnCap the owner of the land decides what legal system inhabitants must follow.

>>71365

forgot your (you)

>>71348

>corporations decide as to what legal system you have to subscribe to

>>71363

>These instances of private property are enough to show that the concept was not an invention of recent times

The character of private property has significantly changed though. In capitalism, you extort surplus value out of privately owned means of production by hiring wage laborers who compete in a labor market. This is a somewhat different socio-economic system compared to the past ones.

You talk about property being "natural". I assume you mean that property claims are natural amongst humans in general or even amonst animals? Personal property, for sure, or property used for personal consumption, but you won't see a wolf extorting rents out of another wolf. By the way, I don't necessarily give a fuck about what is natural. Humans carried out socialist revolutions in the past, therefore socialism is natural. It's that easy.

>Not capitalism, it was done by the state.

<not real capitalism

Capitalism has yet to exist without a state.

>We deny that there is such a thing as class interest

Class is not an identity, it's the reality of your material condition. You don't act in the interest of your class, you act in your own self-interest. A capitalist wants to maximize profits, that can lead to him wanted to grant people the best service, or, him treating his workers miserably. Both is possible. Marx investigates exactly that, what the underlying laws of capitalism imply for society and for our futurel.

>>71365

>AnCap does not have a state, therefore it has no corporations.

Explain to me how this is not just a semantic difference.

>In AnCap the owner of the land decides what legal system inhabitants must follow.

So, feudalism?

>>71373

>Capitalism has yet to exist without a state.

Definition of capitalism:

>an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Capitalism existed before the first state.

>Caveman owns meat

>Cavewoman owns pussy

>They trade, meat for pussy

Capitalism.

And to preempt an argument I expect you to make, heres a definition for "country":

>an area or region with regard to its physical features

>>71375

>an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit

Did the cavewomen's pussy produce profit and was privately owned? I didn't say that means of production have to be owned by a state, my argument is that it is not realistic to think about capitalism without a state superstructure to enforce private property rights, contracts or provision of social security. I don't know why we even argue this. Marx, in his analysis of capitalism, was investigating the laissez faire type of capitalism of the 19th century, with almost no state intervention, a type of capitalism you guys advocate. Secondly, it doesn't change the fact that state intervention brought about capitalism, and if that is just a-ok with you, then you can't really be against massive state coercion to bring about socialism either.

You realize that your stance of "capitalism as existed since the homo habilis" is absolutely useless and non-descriptive? Do you think within 100k years of human development the mode of production has not significantly changed once?

>And to preempt an argument I expect you to make, heres a definition for "country"

A country, as well as a nation, isn't a state.

>>71374

>Explain to me how this is not just a semantic difference

Corporations have special privileges from the state. For example, Nestle has the exclusive "rights" to Canadas fresh water, because the government there is profiting from it. In AnCap, there is no government to sell off natural resources to corporations.

Another example: only Comcast can use the utility poles in my neighborhood, because my local government sold them that contract.

Oil corporations have "permission" from the state to dump waste into rivers and lakes.

In AnCap there is no special privileges. If you see a comcast employee climbing a pole in your front yard you can shoot him for trespassing. If you own property with a lake, there is no state to say "Yes, Exxon, you may dump industrial waste in Anon's lake"

>>71376

>A country, as well as a nation, isn't a state.

Right, that's what I said. I was making that clear because the capitalism definition applied to countries. If someone believes countries are states, then that definition would say only states can have capitalism. But it says capitalism occurs in countries, not states.

Basically you agree with me.

>>71377

>Another example: only Comcast can use the utility poles in my neighborhood, because my local government sold them that contract.

So, why would a private owner not do the same shit the government did? The way I see it, the government did it based on a profit motive, I don't see how a private owner would act so radically different. Have you ever thought that all this disgusting shit, where I totally agree with you, it is disgusting, is not because a government exist, but that there is a deeper reason? Maybe the profit motive itself is the one that's causing this, I don't think oil companies would dump waste into a lake if it wasn't profitable to them. Let's say I privately own this lake, it's not a very pretty lake so I don't give a shit. Exxon approaches me offering me free gibsmedat for an allowance to dump industrial waste into it. I don't see why I wouldn't do it.

>>71376

>Did the cavewomen's pussy produce profit

It doesnt matter. Thjs isn't /leftypol/, we dont have the same values and priorities here.

>was privately owned?

yes. All that matters is the pussy is owned by the cavewoman. It is hers to sell, use, destroy, or do whatever she likes with. The meat is owned by the man (or stolen from the animal depending on your view, but lets keep it simple for now) and he can trade it, eat it, bury it, whatever. It is not up to you or me to appraise its value, or decide how he uses it, how to best help the economy etc. It is HIS. /liberty/ is about property RIGHTS, not economic efficiency.

>means of production

Not applicable to AnCap. Again, we care about liberty, not economy. Take your central planning back to /leftypol/

This video goes into detail. About how its going to work. It could change in the future with innovation.

>>71380

>>71380

>>71380

>So, why would a private owner not do the same shit the government did? The way I see it, the government did it based on a profit motive, I don't see how a private owner would act so radically different.

Without the state, Comcast has no authority to commandeer your front lawn for their new utility pole. If they really want to use your land they have to deal with you directly. With a state, two people you never met sign away your rights to your own lawn.

>Let's say I privately own this lake, it's not a very pretty lake so I don't give a shit. Exxon approaches me offering me free gibsmedat for an allowance to dump industrial waste into it. I don't see why I wouldn't do it.

Theres nothing wrong in that scenario. The issue is when your government sells "your" lake to Exxon.

>>71382

>It doesnt matter. Thjs isn't /leftypol/, we dont have the same values and priorities here.

It's not about subjective values. It's about definitions, and I don't think that Wiki tier definition of capitalism considers profit to be coming out of a cavewoman's pussy.

>The meat is owned by the man (or stolen from the animal depending on your view, but lets keep it simple for now) and he can trade it, eat it, bury it, whatever.

And that's absolutely okay because he is either consuming it or trades it for a product he consumes (cavewoman). It's just that this isn't capitalism. There isn't any profit. Profit would imply that there is some sort of surplus value being created, that the dead animal can be attributed some sort of abstract exchange value besides its use value (which would make it a commodity). In capitalism, commodities are reduced to their exchange value exclusively, you don't particulary give a fuck about how useful something is, just how much profit can be made from something.

>It is not up to you or me to appraise its value

Value isn't subjective. I can tell you easily what the global market price for a silver ingot is on the world market by using Google. Silver has no use value, so this is not based on supply and demand either.

>Not applicable to AnCap. Again, we care about liberty, not economy.

We can talk about liberty. If there is a society without coercion, how do you reconsile this with the fact that imbalanced preconditions shape material reality? Some people own everything, some people own nothing. For such a society to be desireable, you would need a massive redistribution program to set everyone to zero, to the year 1800, and then start competing again (until new oligopolies are built, and we need a new break-up). Do you think the French Revolutionaries were wrong to use violence?

>>71384

>With a state, two people you never met sign away your rights to your own lawn.

What if I'm totally okay with a state? I'm basically signing the social contract there. Sure, you might disagree, but be honest, how many people really do hold radical libertarian or anarcho-capitalist views?

>Theres nothing wrong in that scenario.

So the outcome is the same, just the actors are different in name. Except you might use the profits however you see fit, whereas the government - usually! - uses its profits to provide public services. Overall, this seems like an overall deterioration to me, and your argument revolves arround moralism.

>>71385

>I don't think that Wiki tier definition of capitalism considers profit to be coming out of a cavewoman's pussy

The cavewoman traded 10 minutes of pussy access for 1/2 pound of meat. Why isnt that a profit?

>In capitalism, commodities are reduced to their exchange value exclusively, you don't particulary give a fuck about how useful something is, just how much profit can be made from something.

There are forms of profit besides currency. If I exert 50 calories to kill an animal, and then gain 5000 calories of meat, that's a profit.

>Value isn't subjective.

Yes it is.

>I can tell you easily what the global market price for a silver ingot is on the world market by using Google.

>Silver has no use value

Lol, false. "Today silver is invaluable to solder and brazing alloys, batteries, dentistry, glass coatings, LED chips, medicine, nuclear reactors, photography, photovoltaic (or solar) energy, RFID chips (for tracking parcels or shipments worldwide), semiconductors, touch screens, water purification, wood preservatives and many other industrial uses."

>We can talk about liberty. If there is a society without coercion, how do you reconsile this with the fact that imbalanced preconditions shape material reality?

Nature is imbalanced, get over it. Sone survive and some dont.

>Some people own everything, some people own nothing.

Liberty doesnt mean equality.

>For such a society to be desireable, you would need a massive redistribution program to set everyone to zero, to the year 1800, and then start competing again (until new oligopolies are built, and we need a new break-up).

Too bad

>Do you think the French Revolutionaries were wrong to use violence?

Dont care

You really just dont get it. We arent going to convert each other. Different people want different things. I know your liberal schools taught you to be open minded and listen to other opinions, but eventually you know who you are and should just stay with your own kind. You should stay on /leftypol/.

>>71387

sorry, missed this one.

>>71386

>I can tell you easily what the global market price for a silver ingot is on the world market by using Google.

"Global market price" isnt a universal value. My girlfriend would pay hundreds of dollars to see Linkin Park in concert. The "market price" is probably like $50. I would pay to not have to go to the concert. "Market price" doesnt matter here, what matters is the value to the individual.

>>71388

>what matters is the value to the individual

This is where /leftypol/ and /liberty/ clash. We do not appreciate other people planning our lives for us

>>71387

>The cavewoman traded 10 minutes of pussy access for 1/2 pound of meat. Why isnt that a profit?

>There are forms of profit besides currency. If I exert 50 calories to kill an animal, and then gain 5000 calories of meat, that's a profit.

That's surplus. You put labor into something, and something is worth more to you as it has been before. Profit is something materialized that you can use for investment, fucking a woman doesn't provide you that, and neither does eating a steak.

>Yes it is.

Then how come that I'll get roughly the same amount of bucks for my car across the entire country? The way things are reproduceable clearly has an effect on its value.

>Lol, false

Got me there, but my argument still stands. Many noble metals don't have (or didn't used to have) use value yet there is a determined global market price.

>Nature is imbalanced, get over it. Sone survive and some dont.

A modern industrial society isn't nature. Such a society provides us with the means to provide a better quality of life for everybody that exceeds the one of our ancestors dozen of times. Do you think freedom is defined as only negative freedom? That's a reductionist Anglo-Saxon interpretation of freedom. Other than that, you imply that wealth under capitalism is meritocratic - how can you look at Paris Hilton with a straight face and say that?

>Liberty doesnt mean equality.

I never said that, but how do you assess that property rights are distributed righteously?

>You really just dont get it. We arent going to convert each other. Different people want different things. I know your liberal schools taught you to be open minded and listen to other opinions, but eventually you know who you are and should just stay with your own kind. You should stay on /leftypol/.

>no argument, evades the question, calls me a liberal

Dude, that's pretty desperate. Nobody outside burgerland considers liberals to be on the left anyway. In my country, liberals are pretty much the equivalent of libertarians. But you have pretty much entered a "hurr cultural marxism" tier level of discussion at this point.

>>71394

Good on you for continuing this because as I read it it looks like it keeps going off topic. The whole thing could easily stop at "there wasn't private property before the middle ages." The way he's going forward with his arguments is exactly someone who hasn't read any of the theory on it argues. He didn't like the answers because he doesn't like anyone arguing outside his preferred definitions as any Lefty does.

>>71391

>If you have no problem letting corporations plan your lives

Okay, now I know you are just retarded. I DONT WANT CORPORATIONS. Not every business is a corporation. Not every property owner is "porky."

Take your means of reproduction and shove it up your ass

>>71391

>Marx talks about

Nobody here gives a fuck. Go away

>>71396

Here it can't be helped to answer point by point.

>And how is this not nature?

I would argue that once we leave our biological programming (doing office work, buying stuff at a store, etc.) we are becoming something different from our species-essence, communism is about restoring our species-essence, but that wasn't my point here, it wasn't me who argued with "nature" as an argument in regards to property rights. I'm saying your concept of nature is meaningless, because if it is "natural" for humans to own property and to extort value from it by hiring wage-laborers (realize how that sounds?) it seems to be just as natural that we pay taxes, as we have given a part of what we produce to the ruling class in most societies, historically speaking, therefore there will always be a ruling class that extorts us?

>The only freedom that can truly exist, is the freedom over one's body and his property, to take away either or to restrict one's freedoms over either is to strip him of his rights and consequentially his freedom.

wew. Try to get the eternal Anglo out of you, humans are not isolationist sociopaths, humans define and live cooperatively in a society to which fruits participants of that society should have access to. There is no freedom to starve under a bridge, however, there is a right to be taken into a shelter and not freeze to death in a society that is overwhelmingly rich. I don't really believe in rights, so I don't particulary care, but that would be my response to that - this extremly vulgar and reductionist view on liberty that was further developed by people like mill came not only out in a time where basic rights where still a luxury to have, it also delivered the ideological superstructure the British Empire used to oppress nations arround the world.

>When she was a celebrity she provided multitudes of people with entertainment which of course people valued.

That was not what I asked. As expected you start evading the questions: Do you think capitalism is inherently meritocratic? Do you think Paris Hilton deserves her wealth and publicity, while Nikola Tesla deserved to die poor?

>I hope to god you end up on a board of executives for some multi million dollar company

Again, business economics, that was not what we were talking about. Next you are going to tell me that I can't talk about political economy because I've never managed a restaurant. I'm in favor of abolishing such companies all together.

>>71395

>I'm not going to respond to you but my friends will do

>>71398

>wanting no corporations

>wanting capitalism

I've got bad news for you buddy.

>>71414

>Marxist economics already assume that commodities have use value, what you have been making was what we call the mudpie argument.

That's the problem though, is that commodities don't inherently have any value at all. Some individuals may value you the product at certain prices, others may not. I can sell a chocolate bar for $2.00 and have 50 people buy it because they value it for more than that price, but I can also sell it for $1.50 and have way more people buy it. As we can see the value of a product is ultimately subjective, the people who were willing to buy it when it was $2.00 were more than willing to pay for it while others wouldn't. This is important when studying economics because economics itself is the study of how people use and allocate scarce resources to satisfy unlimited wants and needs. To act as though this doesn't matter on a "macroeconomic" level is to essentially be A.) ignorant of economics altogether as an economist and on a more deadly level as a businessman or anything in the market B.) ignorant of your own consumer base and the best way to maximize profits. It's retarded

> Obviously you produce something when there is a demand for it,

Just as a nitpick. Demand doesn't inherently create it's own supply. There was no demand for iphones before the iphone came out and there was no demand for the automobile before it came out either.

>this is not the problem, the problem is that the mode of production and the distribution of what is produced revolves arround exchange value and not according to need (commodity fetishism, etc).

This implies is that the people who "need" something somehow are then entitled to it when there's no real reason for that to be the situation. Let's say I'm cooking some meat for myself and along comes someone who's in dire need of food. I'm the one who caught it, killed the animal, etc. What is it that gives him some sort of right to have my food?

> Everybody needs food, clothing, a roof over his head, or whatever the social standard requires a person to own (for example, not having a phone is something that would ostracize you in modern society).

So we're operating on social standards and fads now? If something is objective and has objective value then it wouldn't matter what society has to say. Society can say "2+2" is correct but that wouldn't make it so. Which is ultimately what I was talking about (and you misunderstood later on in the argument for something against equilibrium prices). If something is objective then it wouldn't rely on the beliefs of everyone else, millions of people believed in multiple gods does that make them correct simply because it was the majority belief at the time? No, and in much of the same way, many people having a general ballpark area of money they'd be willing to fork over for a car doesn't mean that this is suddenly the objective value of the car, this is simply what they're willing to give to receive any given product which is ultimately subjective, just like

what we like to eat, drink, watch, read, etc.

Let's say there's a salesman trying to sell you apples; these apples sell for around $1.40. Just from this alone we can already assume that there will be three categories that individuals can fit in when it comes to the market (or more specifically in this case, the person selling the apples). There will be;

>A.) People who don't value given product at all

>B.) People who do value it but at a higher price (making this logical for trade)

>C.) People who would value it, but don't value it at the price given to them

If he's lucky, then the price of $1.40 will be enough to utilize his product and make profit with enough people in the given market being in the status of B. However if his price is too high for most people, then he will have to lower it to actually make a profit because although some people do value his apples, that's not the vast majority.

>Granted, there are some things, that possess a symbolic value for the owner, such as a painting or a specific brand, but that is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about the general underlying economic currents of society.

This right here sort of shows a lot of the underlying problems in your thesis. You blatantly disregard the value that someone gets from purchasing art as though it's entirely irrelevant. This IS an economic exchange, the person who paid for the art did so because he valued the art enough to pay for it and the artist gave the buyer art. This is exactly what we're talking about here, satisfying wants with scarce resources. He had a want for art, and the artist had a want for money (to buy other things, etc), they made a trade and both have profited, both have gained something. This is the essence of economic interaction, to ignore this or to handwave it away is to ignore economics altogether.

>That's just market prices adjusting to supply and demand, not the general exchange value of tomatoes.

You make no sense here. I'm saying people in Italy love tomatoes while people in France hate them, if value was objective then they'd sell for the same price and in both countries but they ultimately don't because of different tastes and preferences.

>The concept of equilibrium prices is not an evil Marxist idea by the way,

Yeah,we know. He got a good portion of his economic theory from Smith and Ricardo and that's the fucking problem. He's built his thesis on completely outdated grounds, Smith and Ricardo were important for their time but were incorrect on numerous things which ultimately lead to the Labor Theory of value. Everyone already knows, you don't need to keep reciting the whole "Marx didn't come up with this y'know". We already know, it just doesn't change a thing

>Imagine a scenario where supply and demand cancel each other out, let's say a mining village needs 10kg iron every day and 10kg quarrystones and the local mine and quarry produce this exact amount every day.

Okay.

>Now tell me, how come that they are still differently priced?

Because the producers of either assume that their product is as valuable as their selling it for. You're implying that I'm saying that if an individual has the same quantity of A and B, that by my logic A and B must be worth the same but that's not an argument I've ever made, A may bring consumer X far more value than item B and as such Conumer X is willing to pay far more for A than B, this completely revolves around subjective values and preferences. Another thing to bring up is that this doesn't mean that this is set in stone, they could very well raise the price the next day and assuming that people's value judgements on the product in question is way higher than what they were paying previously, they could probably still make the same amount of money, and this isn't even taking into account that there could be near by villages who may specialize in the same thing willing to sell their products for much cheaper in any given moment (competition). I'm amused by the fact that you're presenting this as some sort of Achilles's heal, it's not. It's basic economics and one that can be explained immediately, I'm guessing you've never actually presented this scenario in an argument before.

>I would argue that once we leave our biological programming (doing office work, buying stuff at a store, etc.)

Calm down there Neo, you're not in the Matrix.

>we are becoming something different from our species-essence

Yeah let's go back to fucking for food pellets, living in huts and having to worry every night as to whether you'll sleep on a hurting stomach or not. In fact, let's stop farming and disregard the neolithic revolution completely, disregard languages and transform into retards who wander the land in search of animals. You're more of an anarcho primitivist than you are a communist it seems.

>>71350

>can haz

Fuck off, Reddit.

>>71373

>Capitalism has yet to exist without a state.

Private entities have invested and held ownership in capital goods in places where states do not exist. States are mutually exclusive to this. WE have examples of this:

http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/anarchy-never-been-tried-part-i/

>In capitalism, you extort surplus value out of privately owned means of production by hiring wage laborers who compete in a labor market.

This is an oxymoron. A competitive market for labor ensures laborers are compensated for the value of their labor. The only time laborers are not fully compensated are times when there is glut in labor supply, which is temporary in changing industries and corrected through the price mechanism (laborers get another job, increase education, etc.). If this was a wide-scale issue we should be seeing large profits from the majority of employers, but we do not see that, as is evident by the fact that 80%+ of businesses fail within the first 5 years.

>>71376

>19th century

>almost no state intervention

What are tariffs? Subsidies? Charters? National banks?

>>71397

> I love Joe, and Joe loves me.

kek'd at Great Expectations reference

>>71502

>>71422

As Bukharin puts it:

>Modern society, with its anarchic structure (the theory of political economy makes precisely this society the object of its study); with its market forces and their elemental action (competition, fluctuation of prices, stock exchange, etc.), offers numerous illustrations in favour of the assumption that the “social product” predominates over its creators, that the result of the motives of the individual (yet not isolated) economic men, not only does not correspond to these motives, but at times even enters into direct opposition to them. This may best be explained by the example of the formation of prices. A number of buyers and sellers go to market with a certain (approximate) idea of the value of their own goods as well as of each other’s goods; the result of their struggle is a certain market price, which will not coincide with the individual estimates of the great majority of the contracting parties. […] In all these cases, which are typical for the modern social-economic organisation, we may speak of the “independence” of social phenomena of the will, the consciousness and the intentions of men; yet this independence should by no means be understood as involving two different phenomena, completely independent of each other. It would be absurd to assume that human history is not being made by the will of men, but regardless of this will (this “materialist conception of history” is a bourgeois caricature of Marxism); precisely the opposite is the case. Both series of phenomena — individual transactions and social phenomena — are in the closest genetic relation with each other. This independence must be understood only in the sense that such results of individual acts as have become objective are supreme over all other partial elements. The “product” dominates its creator; at any given moment, the individual will is determined by the already achieved resultant of the clash of wills of the various “economic individuals.” The entrepreneur defeated in the competitive struggle, the bankrupt financier, are forced to clear the field of battle, although a moment ago they served as active quantities, as “creators” of the social process which finally turned against them.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/index.htm

tl/dr modern economic life doesn't happen between five castaways on an island. To claim that there are no underlying laws sperated from the individual creativity of producers and consumers is quite blunt. After all, the labor theory of value can be empirically proven, it's falsifiable, and so far it seems to be completely correct.

>>71423

> I can sell a chocolate bar for $2.00 and have 50 people buy it because they value it for more than that price, but I can also sell it for $1.50 and have way more people buy it

THAT IS NOT THE VALUE. THAT'S THE MARKET PRICE.

>To act as though this doesn't matter on a "macroeconomic" level is to essentially be A.) ignorant of economics altogether as an economist and on a more deadly level as a businessman or anything in the market B.) ignorant of your own consumer base and the best way to maximize profits.

Where did I say it doesn't matter? It's just not descriptive of anything, marginalism doesn't explain anything whatsoever. It's a capitulation. I'm sure some business manager need to be well-versed in consumer behaviour, heuristics and the such, but that is not an analysis of the capitalist economy.

>There was no demand for iphones before the iphone came out and there was no demand for the automobile before it came out either.

That's innovation, not market distribution. Inventors aren't necessarily thinking about the letter, especially smartphones are based on developments done in state labs.

>Let's say I'm cooking some meat for myself and along comes someone who's in dire need of food. I'm the one who caught it, killed the animal, etc. What is it that gives him some sort of right to have my food?

wew lad. That's literally communism you are describing. People are entitled to their own fruits of labor.

>If something is objective and has objective value then it wouldn't matter what society has to say.

I'm sorry to disregard that paragraph but I'm not arguing for the redistribution of value. Those guys are called social democrats. Communists advocate the abolition of value.

>You blatantly disregard the value that someone gets from purchasing art as though it's entirely irrelevant.

That's the point though, it's symbolic value. It isn't value in any economistic sense. Ironically, the scarcity you are talking about only applies to luxury goods, art, etc. as we don't have scarcitiy in western society for most commodities. The reason that art doesn't matter (before you go berzerk, yes I do appreciate art) is because it is not reproducable by unskilled labor. With unskilled (granted that word is a little outdated as to what it desribes) Marx means a certain, learned set of behaviours which is required to reproduce a commodity. Sure there are nuances in the business of bricklayers, but in the end, every bricklayer does the same job. So does a crane driver. There is no individualistic creative element embodied in this labor, it's technical reproduction.

>>71424

>"Marx didn't come up with this y'know". We already know, it just doesn't change a thing

There was an underlying notion of "liberal professors" in this thread before, I just made this remark because Smith is usually associated with Classical Liberalism.

> Because the producers of either assume that their product is as valuable as their selling it for.

They don't, both 10kg of iron and 10kg of quarrystones are equally important for the maintenance of the village. Can you not just admit at this point that the price is dependent on the labor they are doing? Do you seriously think that in this scenario, price would be independent from the fact that one bunch of miners work themselves to death while the stonecutters can easily achieve the same output by more lax means?

>Yeah let's go back to fucking for food pellets, living in huts and having to worry every night as to whether you'll sleep on a hurting stomach or not.

Strawman.

>>71426

> How the fuck do you equate a voluntary episode of cooperation with the violence of the state?

<voluntary

My point is that capitalism didn't came about through voluntary means, it was enforced by state violence during the enclosure of commons, and it is maintained through violence or the threat of violence by protecting freedom of contract and property rights. Also, nature isn't voluntary, if I'm straving and I'm stealing someone's food who has an entire storehouse of it I'm not really doing this volunarily, do I?

>Yes, you get something in exchange for providing someone else with something. To earn money, you must first give consumers something to begin with.

What does a financial speculator provide for consumers? Or an heir? If you abandon this ideological conception of private property rights for a second, what does a owner of a company actually provide? Sure, sometimes owners are self-employed CEOs, but they don't just recieve the CEO wage, right? They are rewarded beyond their labor they provide for the company.

>No one deserves anything

>NO ONE DESERVES ANYTHING

Am I still on /liberty/? I wholeheartedly agree. There should be no reason for the bourgeoisie to own the means of production.

>To ask if I think he deserved it is to be ignorant of actions and consequences.

Action and consequences economically, not in the subject matter of inventing the light bulb. You can literally justify everything with this, because you are assuming that the economic system is somehow and unchangeable axiom, like God, or a natural disaster.

>the 1920-21 famine happened under the Tzar

Got me there but I have been presented these pictures as photos from the Holodomor, which they are not. Many fraudulent photos are on the Internet claiming they are from the Holodomor. Are you blaming the Bolsheviks for the 1920 famine? There was civil war.

>I take it you've never heard of rosy retrospection?

You presented anectdotal evidence so I answered with anecdotal evidence. Are you denying the achievements of the USSR?

>>71502

>profit in economic terms is not "profit" as in the attainment of any sort of advantage or pleasure one might experience in daily life, if I were to commit defalcation in a company I surely profit from it personally but reduce the dividends (profits) for the shareholders.

Again, you're sort of stuck on the financial aspect of profit when profit exists in other manners. Sure, it's pointless to try and talk about something like the emotional profit one can get from a visit to the therapist or a date from a girlfriend, but that's not what I was talking about either. Economics is the study of how human beings satisfy practically unlimited wants with scarce resources. The problem here is that you're equating profit to just money but this then implies two things: Profit didn't exist until money did, and that money is the only form of value out there.

Economics put very simply is not the study of money. Money plays a large role in any study of economics as it revolutionized the way human beings interact with one another, however money is still not even close to the whole picture. To emphasize this, let's go back to an age before money. Let's say it's the dawn of the Neolithic revolution and I just found out how to farm grapes, and so I've farmed a lot of grapes. That's great, now I have lots of food and I know how to grow more but there's one little problem: I certainly love meat a hell of a lot more than I love grapes. So I decide the best course of action is to trade with the fisherman and some hunters of other tribes. This goes over well, I trade with the nearby hunters and get lots of meat! I have given something and in exchange gotten something. I have taken action to change a less preferable state of affairs (not having meat) to the more preferable one (I'll be having fish that day). Am I profiting? Of course I am, this episode of interaction is the very essence of profit.

> I mean, are you really trying to argue profits can not be economically measured at all?

That's not the argument I'm making, if someone's goal is to make money then their profits can very easily be measured, but what I'm saying is that profit does not only exist in financial terms and to assume that this is the only type of profit that can exist is to essentially ignore all of history. If money was the only metric that mattered or the only gain that human beings would ever consider, then no one would spend money on anything, and such a world is just not feasible.

> but why do you think that the socio-economic systems humans had for thousends of years wouldn't be primitive communism?

Because sharing resources isn't the same as communism. If I share beer with my fellow friends around a bonfire, that doesn't mean I'm a communist, what it does mean is that I just simply want my friends to have a beer, there's no force involved, I simply do so because I care about my friends. Same thing with the tribes, if I'm in a tribe then I'm basically with a family, a family that I care about and have a blood bond with, we hunt together, eat together, etc. I can still possess things like little sexual statues, no one would interfere, but because I care about my family I give them food.

It's essentially the difference between getting money by putting a gun to someone's head and getting money by simply asking for a donation. There's a world of diffierence

> My understanding of intertribal relations at that time is that there was more often simple avoidance of other tribes, as population density and resource abundance didn't force them to deal with one another,

That's not correct. At all. Tribes did interact with other tribes but this was mainly for exogamous sexual relationships (in order to grow the tribe and avoid incest), the only reason tribes didn't interact with other tribes was ironically often for the same reason that they did. Resources were not abundant whatsoever, they were the complete opposite, hence why some tribes would decide to expand (more guaranteed security) while others would be more xenophobic and try and kill outsiders. Hunting and gathering is efficient for simple survival but it's not a guarantee of survival.

> And obviously I am not a primitivist, in communism there would be a surplus,

Top lel.

>>71535

>Can one deny the achievements of slavery in building the pyramids of Egypt, the construction of the White House, or the theft of the land required for the Panama canal?

Kek, this so hard!

>>71529

Also just to correct a tiny error in statements here.

>Hunting and gathering is efficient for simple survival but it's not a guarantee of survival.

The statement was supposed to be

> Hunting and gathering is efficient for simple survival, but it's not a guarantee of long term action