How did this generation grow up to be so repressive?

[JohnStOnge]

To put it metaphorically, if I have a hammer and I use it for myself, it is a possession; if i pay you to use my hammer to make items for me to sell while giving you only a small cut for your labor, it's property, which most likely will lead to exploitation. When a marxist or an anarchist says they want to abolish private property, they don't want to take all of your stuff away, they just want to take the stuff that's used collectively, like the factories, etc and put in them in the possession of the community to maximize the profits the worker can earn. In said establishment, you can keep your house, your nice car, your summer home, etc, but you can't use your factory to exploit people. The definition of exploitation is rather broad, and I could get into it, but I think it's best summarized by the labor theory of value.

This past Spring I let someone use my lawnmower to mow my lawn and paid them for the mowing. Does that mean that under this philosophy my lawnmower is property that should be possessed by the community? Or can I keep my lawnmower because it was just one person so it wasn't used "collectively?" But what if I let more than one person do that?

I'll admit that I don't know what the labor theory of value is. I could Google it and pretend I already knew. But I won't. Because I already know what the value of labor is.

It's value, like anything else, is determined by how much someone else is voluntarily willing to pay for it. If what you offer is something in short supply you can command more compensation. If you're a good Engineer right now, for instance, you don't have to worry about being paid minimum wage. Good Engineers are in demand because the demand exceeds the supply. But if you have no skills then practically anybody else can do what you can do. And that sets the value of your "labor."

[JohnStOnge]

Ok. I looked up the labor theory of value and as I expected it's a bunch of crap. Total nonsense.

[youngterrier]

An economic transaction is not "association"

Sure it is. That is a self-evidently inaccurate statement.

and I don't think one should be allowed discriminate in said transaction based on race, gender, etc.

So, let's say a Black person in an inner city doesn't want to buy anything from a store owned by an Asian. Do you think we should have laws that say that if we catch on to the fact that he's not shopping there because he doesn't want to buy from an Asian he should be penalized or forced to buy from the Asian? Or do you think the Asian should be able to sue him for not buying from him?

Obviously if the Asian has set up shop in a predominately Black area and Blacks don't want to buy from his store because he's Asian that could severely impact his life. His business could fail.

So should we force the Blacks in the neighborhood to buy from the Asian store?

Total straw man right there. Seeing as our society/country/whatever has a currency, and thus most if not all economic transactions that take place often include currency on one side of the transaction, thus our society essentially revolves around the accumulation of that currency.

In any case, your viewing trade as one good or service in exchange for another and thus one cannot distinguish between producers and consumers. In a barter economy without a monopolistic currency, it would be hard to distinguish between the producer and the consumer as each would be "profiting." But that is not the economy we live in. Because there is a monopolistic currency, we have to distinguish between producers and consumers or buyers and sellers in business transaction.

In the case you described, you're asking whether or not we should force the blacks to buy from the asian store and the answer is a profound no. Why is this? I don't think anyone should be forced to buy anything they don't want. The asian isn't buying from the black, he's selling stuff.

In short, you buy and sell things with currency, in a barter economy, you trade, which I think there is a specific difference that needs to be recognized.

Because our economy is based on the idea of accumulating a certain good in the currency, naturally there are those who have a decent amount of said good and there are those who don't (at least given the history of the world). It would be one thing if we lived in a barter economy and naturally the value of the labor done by a worker was traded for a specific value in items of some sort, and thus everything was bartered subjectively and thus anyone could probably start a business if there was demand (the blacks open a store to compete with the Asian) easier.

The TL;DR version
currencies screw up things in trade. Because it favors those with more of a single good than less. Our economy is based on money and not on labor, and if we aren't going to change that we might as well change other things to where certain groups don't suffer just because they don't have the capabilities to fend for themselves because of discrimination.

I mean, I could go on and on. The fact is that libertarians complain about their "liberteh" being violated, but when you look at the big picture, government interference of any sort that appears to be common sense, coupled with that "liberteh" is really oppressive when put in action. This isn't marxism, this is anarchism (mutualism specifically), and I'm not an anarchist, but that still doesn't mean they don't bring up good points. If we aren't going to change the fundamentals of the system, we might as well make little laws to compensate.

Of course I made that harder than it is, I didn't even talk about the moral implications

[youngterrier]

The first libertarians and anarchists were socialists and this concept of right-wing libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new concept.

YT, I looked into it and there is such a thing as "Libertarian Socialism." Whether "the first" libertarians were of that vein is debatable. But it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion.

In the context of this time and this place (the United States), libertarianism is what you call "right wing" libertarianism. It doesn't matter if it's a relatively new concept or not. When one says or writes "libertarian" everyone pretty much knows what they are talking about.

And what most people would consider to be a "Libertarian" philosophy is inconsistent with what most people consider to be "Socialism." To me, "Libertarian Socialism" is an oxymoron. And I think most people would agree with me.

But if you want to believe otherwise, feel free.

Libertarian socialists have been around since the mid 19th century, right wing libertarians have been around since 1980s.

Quit picking your facts selectively

[JohnStOnge]

Libertarian socialists have been around since the mid 19th century, right wing libertarians have been around since 1980s.

Quit picking your facts selectively

Read what I wrote again. I wrote that it doesn't matter how long each has been around for the purposes of this discussion.

But, as an aside, I think the CATO Institute would disagree with you on the timelines based on reading their discussion of the history of "modern libertarianism." Maybe you can start an e mail debate with them.

[JohnStOnge]

n the case you described, you're asking whether or not we should force the blacks to buy from the asian store and the answer is a profound no. Why is this? I don't think anyone should be forced to buy anything they don't want.

I think you missed an important point. In my scenario the reason the Black isn't buying from the Asian isn't because the Asian is selling things the Black doesn't want. He isn't buying from the Asian because he doesn't like Asians.

So, should anything be done about that in your world view? Is it OK to refuse to buy things because you don't like the race of the person who is selling it but not OK to sell things because you don't like the race of the person buying it?

[youngterrier]

To put it metaphorically, if I have a hammer and I use it for myself, it is a possession; if i pay you to use my hammer to make items for me to sell while giving you only a small cut for your labor, it's property, which most likely will lead to exploitation. When a marxist or an anarchist says they want to abolish private property, they don't want to take all of your stuff away, they just want to take the stuff that's used collectively, like the factories, etc and put in them in the possession of the community to maximize the profits the worker can earn. In said establishment, you can keep your house, your nice car, your summer home, etc, but you can't use your factory to exploit people. The definition of exploitation is rather broad, and I could get into it, but I think it's best summarized by the labor theory of value.

This past Spring I let someone use my lawnmower to mow my lawn and paid them for the mowing. Does that mean that under this philosophy my lawnmower is property that should be possessed by the community? Or can I keep my lawnmower because it was just one person so it wasn't used "collectively?" But what if I let more than one person do that?

I'll admit that I don't know what the labor theory of value is. I could Google it and pretend I already knew. But I won't. Because I already know what the value of labor is.

It's value, like anything else, is determined by how much someone else is voluntarily willing to pay for it. If what you offer is something in short supply you can command more compensation. If you're a good Engineer right now, for instance, you don't have to worry about being paid minimum wage. Good Engineers are in demand because the demand exceeds the supply. But if you have no skills then practically anybody else can do what you can do. And that sets the value of your "labor."

Actually, because you paid the person for as much as they wanted for the product, it was a fair deal.

When we're talking about exploitation and the idea of property, we're mainly talking about manufacturing. But if we're talking about a service industry, there's a difference as well. It would be one thing if it's just one instance where you allow one person to mow the lawn, but it's another if there are a bunch of people working for someone in a lawn-mowing business.

You gave him money and access to a lawn mower, he gave you a service in mowing your lawn. There was no one else involved.

compare that with a lawn mowing service at which a worker gets paid $5 to perform a service with someone else's equipment. The service cost $20 and the owner of the lawnmower (a third party) retains that remaining $15, yet did no work.

I am not, nor any socialist, saying that the "property" used here in the lawnmower should be considered owned by all of society, rather it should be considered owned by whoever uses it for labor. In a service industry like mowing lawns, it's harder because said property is movable...that sets up for cooperatives, as opposed to corporations.

Your straw-manning in that way by using rhetoric that isn't socialist.

Read more.

[youngterrier]

Libertarian socialists have been around since the mid 19th century, right wing libertarians have been around since 1980s.

Quit picking your facts selectively

Read what I wrote again. I wrote that it doesn't matter how long each has been around for the purposes of this discussion.

But, as an aside, I think the CATO Institute would disagree with you on the timelines based on reading their discussion of the history of "modern libertarianism." Maybe you can start an e mail debate with them.

The CATO institute, a right wing libertarian institution, is proposing right libertarianism is the original libertarianism?

Say it ain't so.

[JohnStOnge]

Actually, because you paid the person for as much as they wanted for the product, it was a fair deal.

Not so. I said I'd pay him a certain amount and he accepted. If he didn't think it was enough he could've refused.

Which is the case with any offer of employment.

[JohnStOnge]

The CATO institute, a right wing libertarian institution, is proposing right libertarianism is the original libertarianism?

Say it ain't so.

As I said. You can e mail them and start a debate. My bet would be that you would lose.

[youngterrier]

n the case you described, you're asking whether or not we should force the blacks to buy from the asian store and the answer is a profound no. Why is this? I don't think anyone should be forced to buy anything they don't want.

I think you missed an important point. In my scenario the reason the Black isn't buying from the Asian isn't because the Asian is selling things the Black doesn't want. He isn't buying from the Asian because he doesn't like Asians.

So, should anything be done about that in your world view? Is it OK to refuse to buy things because you don't like the race of the person who is selling it but not OK to sell things because you don't like the race of the person buying it?

<facepalm> you missed the entire point of the post.

there is a distinguished difference between buyers and sellers in our economy.

Buyers=have money
Sellers=have goods and service, many of which are necessary to survive.

money by itself does not give you any nutritional value. It gives you no food, water, shelter, etc
supplies do that.

One party in the said business transaction is physically dependent on another party, while the depended upon party is self reliant.

If the government is going to force us to use a single currency, they might as well make sure its use is universally valid for each citizen's survival. If the independent party chooses, they can starve the dependent party. It would be the governments fault.

[JohnStOnge]

compare that with a lawn mowing service at which a worker gets paid $5 to perform a service with someone else's equipment. The service cost $20 and the owner of the lawnmower (a third party) retains that remaining $15, yet did no work.

Did no work? The owner/management of the lawn mowing service is the one that went out and sold the lawn mowing service. They obtained the customers. They purchased the expensive equipment used to perform the service. Chances are they used credit and are paying notes on a lot of the equipment.

Someone who runs a business like that does a lot of work. A lot more work and a lot more stress than the guy who mowed the lawn. They keep the records. They deal with the IRS. Ect. ect.

Can I please get an "AMEN" from out there from somebody who actually has to run a small business?

[JohnStOnge]

One party in the said business transaction is physically dependent on another party, while the depended upon party is self reliant.

That is not true. The selling party is dependent upon being able to sell things for their livelihood. Someone who is selling things for a living is VERY dependent upon people who can potentially buy things from them.

[youngterrier]

Actually, because you paid the person for as much as they wanted for the product, it was a fair deal.

Not so. I said I'd pay him a certain amount and he accepted. If he didn't think it was enough he could've refused.

Which is the case with any offer of employment.

True, but seeing as we have a limited number of resources in the hands of a finite amount of individuals, all of which are trying to maximize their person profit, the dependent class of people, not having said resources or wealth, must make sacrifices for their survival, while the independent class can hire services for all the bit cheaper. the dependent must then choose to get paid less than they would if they had other options, and thus they are exploited.

accumulation of wealth and monopolies over time are natural, especially in a market with a set currency. I don't think I really need to explain how monopolies are bad as they can be just as tyrannical as governments squeezing money out of your pocket.

[youngterrier]

One party in the said business transaction is physically dependent on another party, while the depended upon party is self reliant.

That is not true. The selling party is dependent upon being able to sell things for their livelihood. Someone who is selling things for a living is VERY dependent upon people who can potentially buy things from them.

but not as much as the people who buy things.

You can grow food and sell it for money or eat it. You cannot eat money. You don't need my money to survive, you have food. I need your food to survive, so naturally I'm more dependent on you than vice versa

[youngterrier]

compare that with a lawn mowing service at which a worker gets paid $5 to perform a service with someone else's equipment. The service cost $20 and the owner of the lawnmower (a third party) retains that remaining $15, yet did no work.

Did no work? The owner/management of the lawn mowing service is the one that went out and sold the lawn mowing service. They obtained the customers. They purchased the expensive equipment used to perform the service. Chances are they used credit and are paying notes on a lot of the equipment.

Someone who runs a business like that does a lot of work. A lot more work and a lot more stress than the guy who mowed the lawn. They keep the records. They deal with the IRS. Ect. ect.

Can I please get an "AMEN" from out there from somebody who actually has to run a small business?

go fuck yourself for the straw man.

It is tangible labor that creates value, not ownership, and that is all I am saying. The problem is that some owners haven't done any labor in their life other than buying stocks, but ultimately the value in the stocks is dependent on the labor that workers do to create a product.

Say I inherited a very successful lawn-mowing business, hire a manager or something to all the busy work for me, and just chill with the profit that it creates naturally? What work did I do? Yet I'm receiving $15 for every $20 for every lawn mowed, yet the worker gets $5, when in fact the tangible product that's created was by someone else's labor.

[youngterrier]

The CATO institute, a right wing libertarian institution, is proposing right libertarianism is the original libertarianism?

Say it ain't so.

As I said. You can e mail them and start a debate. My bet would be that you would lose.

Because I've NEVER argued with libertarians before You're such a sheep.

I'll admit, it's fun to argue with you Jon, because it's so easy.

I used to be a right libertarian, you're going to have a hard time beating me seeing as I probably know whatever perspective you're going to throw at me

[Ibanez]

You sound like R.Kelly when he asked what the definition of teenage was.


Ha. Good one.

lolz just saying people are wrong is a perfect argument you guyz!

I didn't say you were wrong. But damn dude, i'm shocked you haven't broken down the words "libertarian" and "Socialist" down thier their latin roots.

[JohnStOnge]

but not as much as the people who buy things.

You can grow food and sell it for money or eat it. You cannot eat money. You don't need my money to survive, you have food. I need your food to survive, so naturally I'm more dependent on you than vice versa

Do you not think it's possible for someone who is in business to fail and end up destitute? It is ridiculous to say that someone who is in business does not depend on having customers buy their goods or services.

[JohnStOnge]

t is tangible labor that creates value,

There are many things factors in creating value. Someone came up with the idea we now know as the IPOD. That, and not "tangible labor," is what created most of the value associated with an Ipod. Lots of people can do whatever it takes to participate in the process of producing what we now know as the Ipod. They are interchangeable. Nothing unique or special about them. And the value of what they do is largely determined by how difficult it is to find someone who can do it.

But not all that many people could come up with the design and the concept as someone did in the beginning. Only a very small fraction of 1% of the population is capable of that.

This thing you have about "tangible labor" being the primary determinate of value is absolute nonsense.

And so is the concept of "Libertarian" socialism; though it's true that the concept exists. It can't be. Let's say I come up with an idea for something I think a lot of people would want. I buy a bunch of equipment in order to produce it. But I can't do it all myself. So I offer to pay a bunch of people for their labor so I can get it done. But I paid a lot of money for that equipment. And it was my idea. So the amount they get is a relatively small percentage of the value of the item. But at the same time they voluntarily accept my offer including the amount I offer to pay them.

According to the philosophy you described earlier, we should not be allowed to engage in that voluntary transaction. I should not be allowed to buy and own the equipment I needed to implement my idea. That is not liberty. That is not "Libertarian" in the sense that most people understand the term regardless of how badly someone wants to call it that.

[JohnStOnge]

Because I've NEVER argued with libertarians before You're such a sheep.

I'll admit, it's fun to argue with you Jon, because it's so easy.

I used to be a right libertarian, you're going to have a hard time beating me seeing as I probably know whatever perspective you're going to throw at me

You are young. Hopefully, in time, you will grow out of that approach to debate.

[JohnStOnge]

Say I inherited a very successful lawn-mowing business, hire a manager or something to all the busy work for me, and just chill with the profit that it creates naturally? What work did I do? Yet I'm receiving $15 for every $20 for every lawn mowed, yet the worker gets $5, when in fact the tangible product that's created was by someone else's labor.

If the worker doesn't like getting paid only $5 for every $20 charged to mow lawns the worker can go get his own lawnmower and start his own lawn business.

In a case like that the business owner is fortunate. He did not build the business and apparently he's got enough money to pay a manager and others as necessary so that he just stays hands off. But that is not the typical situation in a business like that. And you have been arguing that under the "original" libertarianism, regardless of the situation, a person should not be allowed to have a lawn care business where they go out and by lawn care equipment (property) that is there own, build up a clientele, and enter into mutually voluntary agreements with others who will operate the equipment in exchange for some portion of what is charged to mow lawns.

I think most here can see that that is absurd. And if any have doubts I refer them to these two links with descriptions of what principles are common to libertarianism:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both are very consistent with the concept of Libertarianism I started this discussion with. The fact that there are different "types" or "factions" of Libertarianism doesn't change that.

[youngterrier]

but not as much as the people who buy things.

You can grow food and sell it for money or eat it. You cannot eat money. You don't need my money to survive, you have food. I need your food to survive, so naturally I'm more dependent on you than vice versa

Do you not think it's possible for someone who is in business to fail and end up destitute? It is ridiculous to say that someone who is in business does not depend on having customers buy their goods or services.

You want to continue putting words in my mouth and debating about things I haven't said? I didn't say what you said I said, if you want to have a big boy conversation, you can't put words in my mouth that you wish I said in order to beat an argument I didn't make.

I didn't say they weren't dependent on consumers, I said that the consumers are MORE DEPENDENT on producers. Producers have things, consumers have money. the only practical utility money has is buying things. Products have more utility than that in their nature.

[JohnStOnge]

You want to continue putting words in my mouth and debating about things I haven't said?

Did you not segregate people into "dependent class" and "independent class" categories? Any reasonable person would read your series of posts as indicating you think that the person going into the store to purchase something is dependent upon being allowed to buy something in that store while the person who owns the store is not dependent on the person coming in to buy something.

If you don't want to be construed as saying something, don't say it.

[youngterrier]

t is tangible labor that creates value,

There are many things factors in creating value. Someone came up with the idea we now know as the IPOD. That, and not "tangible labor," is what created most of the value associated with an Ipod. Lots of people can do whatever it takes to participate in the process of producing what we now know as the Ipod. They are interchangeable. Nothing unique or special about them. And the value of what they do is largely determined by how difficult it is to find someone who can do it.

But not all that many people could come up with the design and the concept as someone did in the beginning. Only a very small fraction of 1% of the population is capable of that.

This thing you have about "tangible labor" being the primary determinate of value is absolute nonsense.

And so is the concept of "Libertarian" socialism; though it's true that the concept exists. It can't be. Let's say I come up with an idea for something I think a lot of people would want. I buy a bunch of equipment in order to produce it. But I can't do it all myself. So I offer to pay a bunch of people for their labor so I can get it done. But I paid a lot of money for that equipment. And it was my idea. So the amount they get is a relatively small percentage of the value of the item. But at the same time they voluntarily accept my offer including the amount I offer to pay them.

According to the philosophy you described earlier, we should not be allowed to engage in that voluntary transaction. I should not be allowed to buy and own the equipment I needed to implement my idea. That is not liberty. That is not "Libertarian" in the sense that most people understand the term regardless of how badly someone wants to call it that.

I'm laughing my ass of right now at how hard you miss the point.

Without labor, iPods don't get made, no matter how good an idea is. That's just reality. You have no idea what libertarian socialism is yet you keep talking about it..

All libertarian socialism is saying (or any socialism for that matter) is that those who actually create the product, physically, with their blood, sweat, and tears, should have a bigger piece of the pie than scrumaging for the most pay they can get. The owner class has a monopoly on the capital and means of production, and because of that, the laborers don't have as much of a say in their destiny, whereas the owners do.

And don't give me this "liberteh" shit because it's broad and vague on purpose, to where if the government or any other entity says to an individual they can't do something for one purpose or another, that means it's an infringement on liberty. That's bullshit. If that's the case, making it illegal to set off thermonuclear bombs just for funsies is an infringement on liberty. The fact is that your liberty goes as far as your interactions with someone else, and that includes in economic affairs. We respect transparency and standards for the consumer-producer relationship but for some people the capital-labor relationship seems to be overlooked.