Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
- From: royls@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 18:12:06 GMT
On 20 May 2005 05:37:04 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> On 18 May 2005 12:14:29 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Property in the products of one's labor is not a privilege,
>> but a right which it is government's duty and function to secure. No
>> privilege is granted thereby. Stop lying.
>
>When that right to property is enforced by the authority of social
>institutions then it is a privilege,
No, it just plain isn't.
>"Government duty" is dependent on the social model, the one you would
>have is not the only one.
Of course I'm talking about legitimate government, not simple rule by
force.
>> >The right of property is only inherently valid when it is possessed
>and used,
>
>> It is inherently valid for _any_ form of voluntary transaction. Stop
>> lying.
>
>As I said, coerced transaction is not voluntary,
It is not coerced. Neither side is made worse off by the transaction
than if the transaction was not offered.
>if you believe that it
>is, then you ought to believe that indentured servitude was also an
>inherently valaid practice. Do you?
Depends what you mean by "indentured servitude." I suspect that
superficially slavery-like arrangements can be arrived at without
coercion, and have been outlawed not because they are inherently wrong
so much as because of societal revulsion.
>> >the right to "own" that which is used and possessed by others,
>> >and the right to appropriate their product as a consequence,
>
>> Voluntary trade is not appropriation. Stop lying.
>
>Look the word 'appropriation' up in the dictionary, it means "to take
>exclusive possession of" and that is the sense that it is meant here,
>and in many other writings on the subject, including Ellerman, as
>quoted.
It means to take possession of, other than by consensual trade.
>You seem to believe that appropriation inherently //unjust//
>appropriation, which is false.
No, it is _you_ who are using the term, "appropriation" dishonestly to
try to claim that lending capital at interest is unjust, which is
false.
>As stated previously, and for some reason ignored, it is weather this
>appropriation is rightfull or not that is the topic.
Why use the word, "appropriation" to describe one voluntary trade, but
not another?
>> >is a
>> >privilege granted by social convention.
>>
>> No, it is not. It is inherent in the right to use, trade, or
>> otherwise dispose of the products of one's labor. Stop lying.
>
>It is granted by social convention, without such, the Owner of the
>Spear would have no way to collect his Spear or any of the Hunt from
>the Hunter, since he gave the Hunter the Spear himself.
Of course he would. The hunter agreed to return the spear and part of
his kill. If he doesn't keep his word, he is just a thief.
>This is what I mean by privilege.
But it's not. It is not a privilege to have your rights respected by
others.
>You seem obsessed with semantic diversions and uninterested in actually
>discussing this topic.
No. I am interested in clarity. You are trying to obscure the facts
by misusing the words that identify them.
>Which is actually ok, if it irritates you to
>talk about this, you need not bother, since we can discuss many other
>things which appear to irritate you less, and thus allow you to make
>far more interesting contributions.
It's not about me. Think of me as channeling the God of Clarity.
>I'm here to learn, not to promote my beliefs.
ROTFL!! IMO you need to defend your beliefs because they are built on
such shaky foundations.
>> >And if the Hunter's alternative is starvation, he can not refuse.
>>
>> Of course he can. Stop lying. And if his alternative really is
>> starvation, you'd think he would show some gratitude for being given
>> the opportunity to save his own life.
>
>Again, you trivialize the difficulty in accumulating Capital, and
>ignore the fact that, in this example, it is the refusal of the owner
>to trade his Spear that forces the worker to instead sell his labour.
The owner does not refuse to sell the spear. You have claimed that
repeatedly, with no evidence, and despite the fact that I have
corrected it many times. The hunter either cannot or will not pay the
owner the market price for the spear.
>If a deal can not be made, they both starve.
No, they both have alternatives.
>However social conventions regarding property form the context.
Property rights in the products of labor are not mere social
conventions, they are based on the irreducible fact of physical
reality that products come into existence in their producers' hands.
>It is social convention that allows the Owner to give his Spear to the
>Hunter to use, and then take the Spear and the yield back, leaving the
>Hunter with only subsistense.
No, it is the hunter's desire to live better than he could without the
use of the spear and the owner's desire to live better than he could
by giving the spear away to the hunter for less than its market value.
>Social convention could easily, as Benjamin Tucker suggests, simply
>refuse to enforce anything other that the return of the Spear in this
>case, and allow the Hunter to keep his yield,
No, because such a social convention would greatly impede both
division of labor and accumulation of capital, yielding a
poverty-stricken, animal existence for the members of that society and
leading to its extinction through Darwinian competition with more
enlightened societies. Because Tucker was unable or unwilling to
understand that interest is the return to a positive contribution to
production, he assumed that supporting the lending of capital at
interest does not yield an increase in production. But it does.
>as it was the Spear owner who refused to sell it to him,
No, the hunter just wouldn't or couldn't meet the owner's price.
>in this case, would you say the owner
>should be grateful for any scraps the Hunter offers him?
Why would the owner produce the spear and assume the risk of lending
it in return for no reward for his contribution to production?
>Or the Hunter's, Collectively, as I and the more mainstream Anarchists
>would say, should all refuse to deal the Owner unless he will trade his
>Spear outright, and either look for other Owners that will, or work
>together to make their own Spears.
And then when the more intelligent hunters who are willing to deal
with the spear maker/owner do better than the anarchist hunters, do
the latter try to learn from their error, or do they complain about
"appropriation," and "exploitation." or make plans to ambush and kill
the smarter hunters and spear owners?
>> >> Competition from other spear owners, who also want to eat.
>> >
>> >Why would any of them give the Hunters a better deal as long as the
>> >supply of Hunter's is sufficient?
>>
>> Because they want to make better use of their capital. "Sufficient"
>> is economically meaningless. The supply of labor has a positive
>> elasticity, like the supply of capital.
>
>However, it is well known that the Capitalists are constantly trying to
>reduce and "deskill" their labour force, through work studies and
>automation, precisely to always be able to take advantage of less
>skilled workers, and be rid themselves of more skilled workers.
Uh-huh. "Well known," but in fact false. Automation usually requires
fewer but more skillful laborers to tend and maintain the machines.
>A good account of this is given in Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, which
>chronicles these developments in the Restaurant business as skilled
>short order cooks where fired en mass and replaces with unskilled
>teenagers opperating beeping machines.
And the beeping machines were designed and built by more unskilled
teenagers...?
I find this sort of nostalgia for the age of hand-drawn plows and
handcrafted products frankly ridiculous.
>The same trend can be seen in virtually every sector, and ultimately
>will take the job to illiterate peasants on the other side of the world
>if possible.
Nonsense. The growth of Chinese manufacturing has been made possible
precisely by a huge investment in literacy. Illiterate Chinese
workers were even cheaper than literate ones, but they couldn't do the
job and provide a profit.
>It is exactly the worker with the _minimum_ skill needed to the job
>that is most desirable for the Capitalist.
This sort of belief is why your venture communism idea will fail.
>And it is exactly this worker who has no leverage by which to drive his
>wage above subsistense.
Of course he has: competition among capitalists, driving interest to
zero.
>> >As long as there are other, unemployed and hungry Hunters, why would
>> >any spear owner pay them more than any other?
>>
>> ?? Why would a hunter be "unemployed" if he has access to the same
>> natural opportunities as anyone else?
>
>I understand and agree that the situation would be much improved under
>such equal natural opportunities.
>
>But even so, being in the position to accumulate Capital is not
>trivial.
It would be if natural opportunities were open.
>> >As both Malthus and Ricardo explained at length, any wage increases
>> >that results from a shortfall of labour supply, will be retrenched
>by
>> >an increase in supply.
>>
>> Malthus was a theologian by training, an economic and scientific
>> illiterate, and Ricardo smoked him in every dispute they ever had.
>
>Parson Malthus was also trained in political economy, infact he was a
>lecturer of political economy.
Indeed. For most of his adult life, he was the most renowned and
influential "economist" at the British East India Company's training
college. His pervasive influence over the economic beliefs of the
company's officers and executives, and consequently over the British
Raj after the company's dissolution in 1858, was such as to strongly
discourage any relief measures for the dozens of famines that struck
India during British rule (Malthus and his disciples held that famine
was the natural corrective for overpopulation). As a result of
Malthus's influence on British policy in India, tens of millions of
Indians died horribly, and India's economy, which had been the world's
second most industrially productive (after China) when Malthus wrote
"On Population," was by the time of independence a virtual basket
case.
>Ricardo was the self trained one,
>Ricardo did indeed smoke Malthus in every dispute they had, Malthus
>himself admits this, but they where also great friends and held many
>opinions in common, including the one that labour is always driven to
>its subsistence.
_Given_certain_assumptions_. And remember, under those assumptions,
the additional production above subsistence that does not go to wages
does not go to interest, either. It goes to rent.
>> >Also, as we all know, Capital ownership tends to centralize in to
>fewer
>> >hands with each business cycle as insolvent Capital is absorbed by
>> >Capital owners that have survived the downturn.
>>
>> Wrong. It's landowner privilege that concentrates wealth. Capital
>> just wears out and becomes obsolete.
>
>I agree that landowner privilege plays the larger role, but see Capital
>working very much the same way when hired labourers are used by Capital
>owners.
It can't, because more capital will be produced to compete away any
excess returns.
>And it is not wrong, but clearly true, that Capital ownership, like
>land, tends to centralize in to fewer and fewer hands.
It is not clearly true that it does so even in the absence of
privilege.
>> >"Spear" is figurative here and not just anybody can make Capital,
>you
>> >first have to accumulate enough wealth, which is where the problem
>> >starts.
>
>> Wrong. Anyone can divert part of the fruits of their labor
>> (purchasing power) to capital.
>
>However, that part maybe insufficient to acquire enough Capital to be
>able to stop selling their labour.
And it may be sufficient. So? What is so magical about having enough
to retire?
>> >It is better for your personal and class interests to pay
>subsistense
>> >to an average Hunter, then allow a "better" hunter to accumulate
>> >wealth, and perhaps enter your class.
>
>> No, it is most definitely _not_ better for your personal interests to
>> forego profitable exchanges in an effort to keep others from
>profiting too. That is just idiotic Marxist class-war claptrap.
>
>It is best to hire the least skilled worker possible for the job,
>because even if the yield is lower, you can appropriate more of it, and
>thus the Capitalist's yield is bigger.
False and absurd. Any competent employer looks for the _best_
candidate he can get for the job, not the worst, because unlike you,
he knows that it is better to have a bigger pie to divide than to have
a larger fraction of a smaller pie. Why do you think employees are
commonly given raises after their initial probabtion periods, instead
of being fired in favor of another low-wage entrant?
>Again, this fact is quite visible is so-called Globalization.
No, it isn't.
>It is not that Jamaican Free Zone textile workers are more productive
>than workers in Montreal, they are not, it is that they are more
>exploitable.
I agree, and that is the main problem with globalization: it enables
more efficient and profitable exploitation of people who are being
systematically denied their rights, especially their rights to access
and use natural resources. But assuming they were not being denied
access to natural opportunities, how would it be "exploitation" to pay
them more than they could otherwise earn?
>> >The word appropriation means "to take exclusive possession of,"
>check
>> >your dictionary, and is often used in the scholarally discusion on
>this
>> >topic, for example David Ellerman in his essay "Capitalism and
>Worker's
>> >Self-Management" says "What is the moral basis of property? How is
>> >property to be rightfully appropriated?" My usage of the word is
>thus
>> >influenced by Ellerman and others.
>
>> Blatant equivocation.
>
>You seem to be having trouble with the meaning of word "equivocation."
>(as we have seen before ).
You are free to benefit by my identifications of the facts or not, as
you choose.
>If I where equivocating, then you should be
>able to quote me using the word differently then how I am defining it.
>Which you can't.
?? Of course I can. Above, you claim to be using "appropriate" to
mean "take exclusive possession of." But when you object to payment
of interest, you use it to mean "take unilaterally, without just
compensation." This is proved by the fact that you do _not_ use
"appropriate" to denote a spear owner's action in acquiring the
proceeds of a _sale_ of a spear, or a hunter's action in buying a
spear, but only to describe the proceeds of lending one at interest,
even though all involve nothing other than taking exclusive possession
of something.
>In anycase, I prefer to take my cues from David Ellerman on how to use
>language when discussing labour issues, as he is far more often cited
>than you or I.
Let him come here and try to justify such usage. I'll demolish him,
just as I have demolished you, above; and I could not care less how
many times he's been cited by equally foolish and dishonest people.
>> >The owner of the spear, in my example, is appropriating the product,
>> >that is not in dispute here.
>>
>> Yes, it most certainly is in dispute.
>
>Only because you refuse to know the meaning of the word
>"appropriating."
It has a number of senses, most of which are not relevant. See above.
If "take exclusive possession of" is the meaning you intend, why are
you unwilling to use "apppropriate" to denote the hunter's action when
buying a spear outright?
The answer is all too obvious.
>> >It is wether the appropriation is
>> >rightfull that is being discussed, your comment serves no function
>> >except to distract from the point.
>
>> Your use of the word, "appropriate" serves no function except
>> propaganda.
>
>Yet is derived from, and used identically to Ellerman, who is one of
>the best know scholars in the field.
I couldn't care less how well known he is. George Bush and Karl Marx
are pretty well known, too. Deliberately misusing words makes him a
dishonest propagandist.
>I have no idea why you want to engage in these nonsensical sementic
>distractions.
See above. It is not nonsensical. I have identified the salient
fact: you use "appropriate" to denote the return to lending capital at
interest, but not to denote the return to outright sales or purchases
of capital.
>I fail to see what point you imagine you are making here.
What is the point of using "appropriate" to describe lending at
interest, but not an outright sale?
>> >And if the Hunter's alternative to accepting the trade is
>starvation, I
>> >would not consider that voluntary, any more than giving a mugger
>your
>> >money when offered "your money or your life" is voluntary.
>>
>> The mugger only takes, leaving you worse off than if you had not met
>> him. The trader can only trade, leaving you, at worst, no worse off
>> than if you had not met him. Stop lying.
>
>Yet it is the refusal of the owner to trade that we are discussing,
?? He does not refuse to trade. He is willing to sell; and not
getting his price, he is willing to make even further accommodations
to the hunter, and lend at interest.
>and
>if the mugger where to give you whatever lint he had in his pocket.
>Would that make a difference? The point is the deal is coercive.
Yes, the mugger's "deal" is. But if not accepting the deal leaves you
no worse off than if the deal was never offered, it is by definition
_not_ coercive. That is what the mugger does not allow, but the
capitalist does: no transaction.
>> >The use of spear is figurative, as was explained along with the
>other
>> >assumptions, not just anybody can make Capital, you first need to
>> >acquire wealth, that puts the Hunter in an exploitable situation, as
>he
>> >can not command enough for his labour to accumulate wealth.
>>
>> That is merely an assumption. When has it ever been the case,
>> _except_ when the laborer is denied his right of access to natural
>> opportunities?
>
>The number of examples where laborer is NOT denied his right of access
>to natural opportunities, but only denied access to Capital are
>historcal anomalies far to small to comment, and likely lacking in
>available details by which to derive comment, however any examples you
>may want to bring up are appreciated as always.
It has been perfectly routine in pre-agricultural societies where
private land ownership is unknown. Capital has tended to concentrate
in some such societies (especially nomadic herding societies), but not
in others. Probably the concentration of livestock ownership in
herding societies is the result of de facto landowner privilege: each
owned animal is effectively using a certain amount of land for
grazing, and its owner effectively captures the yield of the land it
grazes.
>What was the economic share of labour in German Tsing Tao?
I don't know, but people _and_capital_ flocked there, building a
substantial city almost overnight, so that should tell you something.
>> He has no such ability. All are free to access the same natural
>> resources. His ability to trade for some of the hunter's product
>> comes from nothing other than supplying the capital that makes the
>> hunter's product greater. Stop lying.
>
>Perhaps this is true on day one, but after a few generations the
>accumulated Capital wealth does pose an obstacle to entry, and you know
>it.
People do try to give their children advantages, with varying degrees
of success. A large accumulation of capital functions as a
competitive hurdle to becoming a successful capitalist from scratch,
but also provides many more opportunities for using others' capital to
one's own advantage (the principle of "other people's money").
>> >You ignore the point here about the owner not being the maker in
>order
>> >to merely repeat your already stated contention that the hunter is
>not
>> >exploited, thus your statement is a non sequitur.
>
>> Garbage. You are the one who simply chants "exploitation" like a
>> mantra, with zero evidence or logic to support it.
>
>Logic you disagree with is not zero logic.
Unsupported claims are not logic.
>> Even if the owner is not the maker, he has nevertheless paid the
>maker, and > has thus brought the capital into the production process,
>thereby
>> contributing to production and _earning_ his return.
>
>Potentially, but in my example he has paid the maker with the yield of
>the Hunter, I do not consider this _earning_ his return.
If the owner contributes nothing, why didn't the maker and hunter just
deal directly?
>> >He can hire deal makers too.
>>
>> But that in itself is making a deal. Duh.
>
>Hardly a noteworthy contribution though.
Wrong. It could well be crucial, which is why it earns a return.
Your opinion of its noteworthiness cuts no ice.
>I have met many rich people
>who are quite stupid, yet have competent hired help.
Who sometimes take them to the cleaners...
If it is so easy for the rich to place their affairs in the care of
competent hired help, why do so many lottery winners, sports and
entertainment stars, etc. quickly end up poor again?
>> >In fact he can be in a coma and outsource
>> >the management of his entire estate.
>
>> ?? While in a coma?
>
>Sure, he could have a living will :)
>
>Anyway, you know what I am getting at here, why the nit picking?
Because he had to make an active decision to delegate responsibility
to someone, and will take the consequences of the quality of his
decision, for good or ill.
>> >Only if they have sufficient accumulation of wealth, which is what
>you
>> >are consistently ignoring or minimizing.
>
>> I am not ignoring it or minimizing it. If it takes an accumulation
>of
>> wealth to enable production, why demonize those who have contributed
>> to production by accumulating it?
>
>Because the wealth is often not a result of their own contribution to
>production.
OK, we agree that _in_fact_, most _current_ private accumulations of
wealth are unjust, the result of private privilege: pocketing publicly
created land rents, etc. But that is not the situation where
everyone's rights are respected, and is not really relevant to the
issue, as Henry George proved in "The Great-Great-Grandson of Captain
Kidd."
>> >The problem is when they do not trade, but use the privilege of
>> >ownership to exploit others.
>
>> Ownership of the products of one's labor is a right, not a privilege.
>> Stop lying.
>
>In my oppinion, having society enforce property rights according to the
>interests of your mode of production is a privilege.
"Your mode of production" is nothing but Marxist claptrap.
>> >The Hunter is entitled to his entire yield,
>>
>> As long as he uses only his own labor and capital. As soon as he
>uses
>> capital belonging to another, he is no longer entitled to the entire
>> yield, because it is no longer the yield only of _his_ contributions.
>
>I agree. Which is why I propose that he should only apply his labour to
>his own Capital, and refuse to apply his labour to the Capital owner by
>others.
Well, he is welcome to thus impoverish himself, I suppose.
>> >and owes the spear owner
>> >only the market value of the spear, nothing more.
>
>> ?? The market value of the spear is exactly what the hunter pays the
>> spear owner. Duh.
>
>Exactly, but if the Owner will not sell it?
You repeatedly claim he won't, but of course he will. Just not always
at a price the worker wants or is able to pay -- and I suspect risk
aversion is as much a factor in that as lack of money.
>> >The exploitation begins when the yield is appropriated by the Spear
>> >owner, who then only pays the Hunter the market value of his labour.
>
>> He has no power to appropriate anything. He pays the hunter the
>> market value of his labor, and the hunter pays the spear owner the
>> market value of the spear. I'm not sure how you are preventing
>> yourself from knowing these facts.
>
>I believe that the Hunter gets far more when he retains the yield of
>the hunt and pays market value from the Spear, and get much less when
>the owner of the Spear retains the yield and pays the Hunter the market
>value of the Hunter's labour.
Maybe. And maybe the hunter does not want to accept the risk that he
will get less rather than more. The fact is, people who start
businesses usually fail, and most people don't have the guts to risk
substantial amounts of their own capital on such ventures.
>The question is who retains the Capital yield?
Like the rest of the product, it is divided among interest, rent and
wages. Hello?
>> >Because doing so will drive their wage towards subsistense.
>
>> No, it won't, because unlike the supply of land, the supply of
>capital
>> is elastic, and its return constantly being driven down by
>> competition. Your claim has zero factual or logical basis.
>
>Yes, it is being driven down by competition, and it is being driven up
>by collusion, tethering, intellectual property, specious regulatory
>barriers, etc, etc, etc.
I agree. But if we get rid of the government interventions that
enable those, along with landowner privilege, your argument
evaporates.
>> >Trading some of it is fine, as long as that some represents the
>market
>> >value of the Capital.
>
>> It's a market transaction. All the values are market values.
>
>If the owner of the Capital does not sell the Capital, there is no
>transaction.
Of course there is. He lends it to the hunter at interest.
>> >Allowing the Capitalist to appropriate the whole
>> >thing,
>
>> It is a voluntary trade. There is no appropriation. Stop lying.
>
>I have defined my terms, including explained what is meant my
>appropriation, stop playing dumb.
Then you agree that a hunter who buys a spear also appropriates it
from the capitalist, while if he works for wages, he appropriates his
wages from the capitalist?
If we're all appropriating all around, the word no longer has any
significance, and you might as well say, "get."
>> >and in turn merely pay them wages, will make sure that they are
>> >forever subjugated by the Capitalist.
>
>> Garbage. The market value of the capital _is_ the residual after the
>> wages are paid.
>
>So the market value of my spade is the entire yield of my Garden, minus
>the market value of unskilled agricultural labour??
And the rent. Right.
>Wow, that is an expensive spade!
Not really. You can get one for a few dollars, say an hour's worth of
labor. Of course, 5000 years ago, that same spade might have been
worth several average lifetimes of labor. You might want to consider
what that implies.
>> It is not against their personal interests; they have no "class
>> interests"; and necessary or not, it is more profitable to pay
>workers
>> market wages and make a profit than to offer only subsistence wages
>> and watch your capital molder away unused.
>
>It is not more profitable to pay any more than the absolute minimum you
>can pay, and that is subsistense.
That is simply false, and obviously so: almost everybody working for a
private employer in the advanced industrialized countries that have
large accumulations of capital earns much more than subsistence just
_because_ it is more profitable to pay that much.
>> > Again, I wont accuse you of lying, but the belief that all workers
>> > have the ability to accumulate Capital is an obvious falsehood.
>
>> All but a tiny minority do, which is enough to guarantee the
>> competition that prevents capital owners from reducing the wages of
>> the remaining workers to subsistence.
>
>An obvious falsehood is not substantiated by more insistence.
?? It is obviously true.
>What percentage of the world's workers has enough wealth to accumulate
>enough productive Capital to stop selling their labour?
Hehe. Why would enough to retire on be the criterion? You claimed
_any_ accumulation was effectively impossible, not accumulating enough
to retire on. The spear owner can't retire on the interest yield of
one spear, either. Stop moving the goalposts.
>Not many that I
>know, and I know the relatively well paid ones.
Not heard of retirement?
>> > Nope, being a "deal maker" is also not being a Capitalist, deal
>> > makers can also be hired for wages.
>
>> Hiring them is also making a deal. Finding the best people to do
>> particular jobs contributes greatly to production. Duh.
>
>Centrally Planning the Economy on a committee of the Supreme Soviet is
>also "contributing."
No, it is coercion.
>However that "contribution" is only needed because
>of a bad arrangement to begin with.
No, it is needed because other arrangements are forcibly forbidden.
>> >The hunter has been exploited as the Owner is using the privilege of
>> >ownership of the spear
>
>> It is a right, not a privilege. Stop lying.
>
>Having a right to direct how others employ Capital according to one
>mode of production or another is a Government granted privilege,
No, it most certainly is not, as long as those others are involved
voluntarily.
>the
>Soviet Apparatchik has the privilege of directing the economy because
>of the Communist Mode, the Capitalist because of the Capitalist mode,
>or the Syndicate/Commune because of the Anarchist Mode.
No. The apparatchik has that privilege because the _police_ will
enforce his orders. Being free to engage others' voluntary
cooperation on mutually agreed terms is not a privilege.
>> >to appropriate the product
>
>> He is trading, not appropriating. Stop lying.
>
>He is refusing to trade, and instead forcing to Hunter to sell his
>labour as a commodity
No. He is not refusing to trade. He is trading use of the capital
for a portion of the product. Moreover, he is perfectly willing to
sell the capital outright, but the worker is not willing and/or able
to meet his price.
>Anyway, I hope by now you understand the meaning of the word
>"appropriating."
<yawn> I do indeed. See above.
>> >and retain more of it
>> >than is the market value of the spear.
>
>> Flat false. He gets the market value by definition.
>
>Wrong, as my spade example demonstrates earlier, the market value of a
>Spade is far less than the yield of a Garden minus the market value of
>an unskilled agricultural worker.
Your spade example demonstrates no such thing, because you left out
the rent, and have given us no reason to believe the garden's yield
would even exceed the market value of the labor needed to obtain it.
>The market value is determined when the spade is sold, it is not its
>yield when used by labour.
That determines the market value of _use_ of the spade, which in that
case is what is being sold.
>> > Competition is not a strong force when there is excess supply, as
>> > their is whenever you have unemployment.
>
>> Unemployment is a function of landowner privilege, not of
>> accumulation of capital. Oviously, the more capital is accumulated,
>> the more workers will be paid to use it.
>
>Slothful induction. The dilemma is not "more capital is accumulated" it
>is that the ability to own capital is accumulated in fewer and fewer
>hands,
But that is a function of land ownership and other privileges, not
capital ownership. You have proposed no market mechanism whereby
capital would accumulate in fewer and fewer hands.
>and unemployment is a structural element of the Capitalist mode
>of production to keep inflation down, and, AFAIK, this is accomplished
>by control of the Money supply, not land.
Money supply control is not part of production.
>Although if you wish to explain how the _sole_ source of is landowner
>privilege, I would be interested in your reasoning, as always.
Landowner privilege is not the only factor that tends to concentrate
ownership. The banking and money systems, the corporate ownership
system, the IP system and other factors all contribute. But there is
no significant source of wealth concentration in the lending of
capital at interest, mainly because the natural rate of interest is so
low -- and may even be negative. _That_ is why capitalists try to
obtain government favors, monopolies and other privileges: it's the
only way they can make any real money.
>> >Which in the Capitalist mode of
>> >production is always.
>
>> Only because the "capitalist mode of production" includes landowner
>> privilege. If people had equal rights to access natural
>> opportunities, there would be no reason for involuntary unemployment.
>> People would always just be able to go to marginal land and set to
>> work.
>
>Only those that had skills that where applicable to being applied to
>this land, which is not everybody,
Anybody who can't work on marginal land can't work for a capitalist,
either, because his labor won't pay the capital depreciation and rent.
At that point, interest is purely academic.
>and the wealth needed to bring these
>lands into profitable use, which is not everybody.
If the use could be made profitable, the land would not be marginal,
because that profit would turn into rent. Marginal land will only pay
wages and interest, not rent.
>> >Further, negotiating for greater money wage increases does not
>> >guarantee a larger share of the product, as this increase can simply
>be
>> >lost to price increases.
>>
>> A larger _share_ of the product is irrelevant if the worker is
>getting
>> a larger _amount_ of the product.
>
>Maybe irrelevant to you, not irrelevant to me or anyone else interested
>in social justice.
Funny, but somehow I distrust anyone who needs to modify "justice"
with "social." To me it reeks of the Procrustean bed.
>> If a capitalist's investment
>> increases production from 5 to 10, wages from 4 to 6, and interest
>> from 1 to 4, labor's _share_ has declined and capital's has
>increased;
>> but where is the exploitation? Labor is better off being thus
>> "exploited"!
>
>Nonsense, the exact same investment could have been made in such a mode
>so that labour ended up the owner.
Sez who? Labor didn't have the money to invest, the capitalist did.
And anyway, the fact is, it _wasn't_ made by labor, so how would labor
end up the owner?
>The Capitalist does not have any inherent Capital forming magic,
Right. There is no magic involved. But it might as well be magic,
for all you understand of it.
>only a
>mode of production that allows him to accumulate unearned wealth.
The capitalist earns his return by his contribution to production.
All talk of a magically plenipotent "capitalist mode of production" is
IMO nothing but arrant Marxist twaddle. You have proposed no market
mechanism whereby the capital owner can accumulate any unearned
wealth.
>> >And inorder to agree to the terms, the worker can not be forced in
>an
>> >offer they can not refuse, as when the withholding of Capital can
>force them into starvation.
>>
>> Lie. A property right implies a right not to be robbed, even if it
>> means someone else might starve if they don't rob you. Declining a
>> trade is not "forcing" anyone into anything.
>
>And Robbing or even killing to save yourself or your family from
>starvation is also morally justifiable,
No, it is not, except in response to a violation of your own or
others' rights. Voluntary transactions do not violate anyone's
rights.
>it is thus a privilege that the
>spear Owner has the State to stop the Hunter form doing just that.
Nope. Privilege is not a right, and a right is not a privilege.
>Further, if they can't make a deal, they both Starve,
?? Then how does the owner have any more power over the hunter than
vice versa?
If they don't make a deal, they just don't produce as much as if they
had made a deal.
>and as this is
>all figurative, the entire society starves, so no deal is an
>impossibility, and the society can must arrangements so that the Hunter
>gets his spear.
Oh, so now it's "his" spear, is it, and the maker's and owner's rights
be damned?
>The choice is under what terms, those dictated by the
>Owner, by the Hunter, or somewhere in between.
The owner cannot dictate terms any more than the hunter can. Both
must compete with others offering similar deals.
>> >Yet, agreement on terms is hard to conduct when starvation is the
>> >consequence of refusal.
>
>> But that can only be the alternative if the worker is denied his
>right
>> to access natural opportunities.
>
>Even "Accessing natural opportunities" requires wealth and capital.
Wrong. If it did, no production could ever have been initiated.
>> >Only organized workers can undertake this
>> >negotiation effectively.
>>
>> Garbage. IME organized workers end up imposing large costs on
>> employers that do not gain commensurate benefits for the workers.
>
>If you mean workers organized into liberal Trade Unions, I agree. We
>have discussed this before. That is not what I mean, I mean worker's
>organized in the Anarchist sense, so that they own their own Capital.
OK. But I still don't see why unorganized workers can't be allowed to
negotiate on their own behalf, as free individuals.
>> >Only if the agreement is made between relative equals,
>
>> Worker and owner are equals in the only relevant sense: both have
>> equal rights and moral capacities.
>
>Yet, in the Capitalist mode, one has accumulated wealth, and the other
>does not.
So? That's what gives them something to make agreements _about_. If
neither has any capital, they both just go their separate ways. Duh.
>> >which it isn't
>> >unless the workers are organized.
>
>> Hehe. Workers must be organized? You're a funny kind of
>"anarchist,"
>> aren't you?
>
>I though we had already gone through this, organized workers are the
>basis of Anarchism.
>
>Just not organized for the purposes of collective bargaining, organized
>for the purposes of acquiring their own Capital.
But still _organized_.
>> >Onwers compete to drive their costs DOWN not UP.
>>
>> No, they do not. They compete to drive _their_own_returns_ up, not,
>> contrary to your claims, to drive wages down.
>
>And a common way to drive there returns up, is to drive wages down, we
>see this all the time.
Only as a result of government policy, not capitalist competition.
>> >Allowing me to keep a
>> >greater share of the yield of my Garden, or letting the Hunter
>retain
>> >more of the yield of the hunt will make them less, not more
>> >competitive.
>
>> Flat wrong. They become more competitive by employing the best
>> workers. That means offering them higher wages.
>
>Ridiculous.
It is fact, which you would know if you had any knowledge or
experience of business. Haven't you ever had a job with a private
employer that paid more than minimum wge?
>Only a small percentage of the worlds workers have skills
>that differentiate them from "Replacement Value" workers.
OTC, most of them do.
>Employers will always seek the workers with the lowest wages,
False. They will seek the best workers for a given wage, and will
almost _always_ be willing to pay more for a better worker who will do
a better job and/or can be given more responsibiilty.
>they will
>even modify their production cycle to enable the elimination of higher
>paid workers and the employment of lower paid workers whenever
>possible.
Nope. Only whenever it pays.
>I'll try to blend in as Liberal for a while now, these anarchist vs
>liberal discussions with you are too time consuming. :)
<sigh> You got that right....
-- Roy L
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
- From: Quirk
- Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
- References:
- Hunting with Mark Monson
- From: Quirk
- Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
- From: royls
- Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
- From: Quirk
- Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
- From: royls
- Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
- From: Quirk
- Hunting with Mark Monson
- Prev by Date: Hedging real estate: evaluating Hedgestreet options
- Next by Date: "Property Taxes Questioned As Prices Zoom"
- Previous by thread: Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
- Next by thread: Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
