Re: Hunting with Mark Monson
- From: "The Trucker" <mikcob@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 17:08:37 -0700
"Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1116592624.414495.164340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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, and as such, must conform to the
> conventions of the social institutions.
Those "rights" agreed to by the universal supermajority do not
confer privilege on one class or individual over another. The
"authority of social institutions" is exactly what separates mutually
accepted "rights" from individual "privilege". It is this agreement
among the governed that constitutes the rules of ownership and
trade.
> "Government duty" is dependent on the social model, the one you would
> have is not the only one.
Yet it is as it is. And so it will remain until "we the people" agree
on something else and enforce our agreement by replacing the
current enforcers.
> As for the "stop lying" bit that you choose to repeat at nauseum, it
> can serve no logical purpose other than to be antagonistic, and and as
> such, I'm not sure what you think it adds to your argument. That will
> be my last comment regarding it.
>
>> >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, if you believe that it
> is, then you ought to believe that indentured servitude was also an
> inherently valaid practice. Do you?
>
Coerced transaction, and voluntary transaction are different
things. There is no argument or disagreement here.....
>> >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.
>
> You seem to believe that appropriation inherently //unjust//
> appropriation, which is false.
Perhaps it is the word "take" that has you confused. It implies
something other than a voluntary trade.
> As stated previously, and for some reason ignored, it is weather this
> appropriation is rightfull or not that is the topic.
>
Why not use a different word that would mean _rightful_
transfer of ownership. The word "take" means to _get_
whatever you want regardless of whether the current
holder or owner or society disagrees or agrees.
>> >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. This is what I
> mean by privilege.
But "we the people" have agreed to respect the rights of
others in this regard. It _is_ the current social convention.
The hunter and the spear maker come to terms so long
as it is possible for the hunter to realize a spear in
some way other than with one particular spear maker
and so long as it is possible for the spear maker to make
use of the spear himself.
> You seem obsessed with semantic diversions and uninterested in actually
> discussing this topic. 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. I'm here to learn, not to promote
> my beliefs.
Then learn this: The vast majority of the people in the USA
believe that it is "right" for one to _earn_ property and to
have the ownership of that property enforced by a state that
is representative of the people. There is a lot of disagreement
over whether or not the current government actually
represents the people, but that is a different issue.
>> This is Usenet. Anyone can respond.
>
> True enough, but what I was wondering is why you would bother, just to
> bristle at the topic, and make mainly unsubstantiated categorical
> statements surrounded by semantic quibbling. Surely a less antagonistic
> style would be more pleasent for both of us, given you are electing to
> join this thread, not defending your own position. But as you like.
>
>> >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.
Given access to nature, the worker can make his own spear
and the spear maker can go hunting.
> If a deal can not be made, they both starve.
Nope. Given access to nature the spear owner learns to
hunt and the hunter learns to make spears. OR, even
better, they come to a mutually advantageous agreement.
> However social conventions regarding property form the context.
Of course....
> 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.
It is true that current social convention produces this
effect. But it is because the "Hunter" does not have
access to information and land and credit so as to
fashion his own spear.
> 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, as it was the Spear owner
> who refused to sell it to him, in this case, would you say the owner
> should be grateful for any scraps the Hunter offers him?
Unfortunately, that would mean that all persons would
become part time spear makers and the blessings of
division and specialization would be lost. What if the
spear maker _RENTED_ the spear to the hunter for
some amount of produce? What if the hunter took
shares in the enterprise as opposed to a salary, but that
the shares allowed him much more than sustenance?
> 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.
Yep.... All become part time spear makers. The proper
solution is a combination of access to land and information
and credit.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/credit.php
>> >> 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.
The current "Capitalists" (actually Republican thieves)
are trying to control information, create fear and hatred,
and destroy education so as to promote their aristocracy.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/aristocracy.php
> 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.
How was the food??? I REALLY like Red Robin Burger
Emporium hamburgers a lot more than McBurger.
> 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.
As the monopolist (Bill Gates, Donald Dell, etc.) bribe the
congress to get richer and richer while we suck eggs. It
is done with MONOPOLY privilege and RENT. Not
with _real_ capital and interest.
> It is exactly the worker with the _minimum_ skill needed to the job
> that is most desirable for the Capitalist.
The current definition of capitalism makes this so. _real_
capitalism does not make it so. _real_ capitalism focuses
on _real_ capital and interest as opposed to privilege
and rent.
> And it is exactly this worker who has no leverage by which to drive his
> wage above subsistense.
Welcome to Republican heaven.
>> >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.
Nothing worth doing is trivial.
>> >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. 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.
>
> No doubt you are able to read "The Iron Law of Wages" yourself for the
> longer version, but here is what the introduction says:
>
> David Ricardo (1772-1823), an English banker was also an important
> early
> economist. His most well-known argument was that wages "naturally"
> tended towards a minimum level corresponding to the subsistence needs
> of
> the workers.
And then came Henry George (and others before him actually)
that saw land rent for what it was.
>> >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.
The return to _real_ capital is based on the use of _real_ capital
and it is called interest. Barriers to entry that prevent people
from creating _real_ capital or becoming shareholders in
enterprises that create _real_ capital (e.g. monopoly, patent,
copyright, etc.) create economic RENT as opposed to
interest.
> And it is not wrong, but clearly true, that Capital ownership, like
> land, tends to centralize in to fewer and fewer hands.
There is no real _reason_ for it other than enforced
ignorance and lying.
>> >"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.
Even better, a person should be able to make use of
available capital by virtue of credit and thus be able
to increase his productivity in such a way as to devote
some of his labors to the creation of his own capital.
> However, that part maybe insufficient to acquire enough Capital to be
> able to stop selling their labour.
If I buy my own truck (ON CREDIT) and do business
directly with load brokers am I selling my labor?
>> >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.
But if there is access to information, credit and to land then
your version of a capitalist is SOL.
> Again, this fact is quite visible is so-called Globalization.
In the current version Gates is able to extort much
rent by virtue of his monopoly while using technoids
from India and Pakistan. Bush is just gushing over
the prospect of Mexican nationals taking over the
long haul truck driving in the USA. The Mexican
national lives in the truck and visits his wife every
few months. His family lives like nobility among
the other Mexican peasants and the trucking
companies love it.
> 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.
Correct. But the solution may be to make Mr. Business
MOVE to where the workers are and become a citizen
of that place as opposed to remainig as an American citizen
controlling the lives of non Americans. The CEO's and all
the officers must be outsourced. In reality this does not
really mean that the individuals need to be expatriated.
It means that the tax burden they would suffer if they
remained American citizens should be made very heavy
indeed. They can renounce their American citizenship
and thereby avoid the tax and at the same time become
inelligible to donate any campaign funds to the
congress. Personal visits to Washington so as to speak
directly to the congress in the nature of what Bill Gates
just did would not be tenable by these non US citizen.
I really do care who runs Microsoft. I wish it were
officers in India with the stock owned by Chinese
people. That would be a much better arrangement for
MOST Americans.
>> >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 ). 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.
>
> 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.
If he doesn't know the meaning of the word "take" then
he is having a problem.
>> >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."
You seem to be unaware of the meaning of "take".
Let's start with the little words and work up to the
big ones...
>> >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 have no idea why you want to engage in these nonsensical sementic
> distractions.
>
> I fail to see what point you imagine you are making here.
>
>> >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, 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.
Why?
>> >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.
>
> What was the economic share of labour in German Tsing Tao?
>
>> 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.
And now you are talking about privilege and monopoly
and economic rent. Not _real_ capital and _interest_.
>> >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.
>
> And this is yet another fallacy of distraction, your statement was a
> non sequitur, and your attack on my general logic is yet another one.
>
> Your use of so many well known fallacies, make it seem like you are
> having trouble refuting my "zero logic" or else you would not need to
> so heavily employ Controversy.
>
>> 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.
>
>> The hunter is not exploited. You have provided zero support for your
>> claim that he is.
>
>> >He can hire deal makers too.
>>
>> But that in itself is making a deal. Duh.
>
> Hardly a noteworthy contribution though. I have met many rich people
> who are quite stupid, yet have competent hired help.
>
>> >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?
>
>> >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?
This is an error. It does not take a personal
accumulation of wealth to enable production.
THAT is an erroneous social convention or
a religious position.
> Because the wealth is often not a result of their own contribution to
> production.
All the more reason that the current wealth
holders should NOT be able to control
credit.
>> >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.
If the protection is funded by an assets tax and the
laws are written by those who represent the majority
then we do not have a problem with this.
>> >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.
So I should buy a truck on credit and just "do it"?
>> >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?
Then get it from a different owner or make it yourself.
>> >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.
>
> The question is who retains the Capital yield?
The capital yield is called interest and the "privilege" part
is competed away. The spear makers are good at
making spears and can make more spears and better
spears than the hunters. And the hunters are more adept
at hunting and they produce more product than would
the spear makers. It is fair to speak of these personal
characteristics as personal capital or as natural talent
(meaning the excess above subsistence wages is called
interest or rent respectively). But the increase in overall
output is absolutely called INTEREST. And the interest
comes out as more product and it is split between the
spear maker and the hunter as they both PAY LESS
for the food that is now more available than it would
have been absent the innovation and production of
the spear.
>> >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.
All true. Now how do we do away with these RENT SEEKING
DEVICES.
>> >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.
>
>> >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.
If appropriation means voluntary trade then we don't have
an argument.
>> >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?? Wow, that is an
> expensive spade!
The value is the labor saved. But there are a lot of
other costs here: You must move the labor to the
garden and you must pay land rent and you must
pay for all the seeds and fertilizer and such. The
value of the spade is the cost of
labor (your own labor perhaps) that would be
required absent the spade.
> Quit kidding.
I'm not.
>> 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.
>
>> > 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.
>
> What percentage of the world's workers has enough wealth to accumulate
> enough productive Capital to stop selling their labour? Not many that I
> know, and I know the relatively well paid ones.
If I buy a truck on credit and get my loads via all the many
competing brokers am I selling my labor? Are the truck
makers ripping me off? There are several and then there
are used trucks too. It ain't one spear.
>> > 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." However that "contribution" is only needed because
> of a bad arrangement to begin with.
>> >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, 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.
If Anarchy is actually a representative democracy then
we have no problem.
>> >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
>
> Anyway, I hope by now you understand the meaning of the word
> "appropriating."
I do, and you are using it inappropriately. You seem to
think you can appropriate the word "appropriate". I
try to put the word _real_ in front of "capitalism"
to acknowledge that I am appropriating the word and
giving it special meaning. Maybe you should try
something like that.
>> >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 "example" is nonsense.
> The market value is determined when the spade is sold, it is not its
> yield when used by labour.
>
The market value includes the anticipated returns
to use.
>> > 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, 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.
Now you have stumbled onto a real problem.
The RENT on money.
> Although if you wish to explain how the _sole_ source of is landowner
> privilege, I would be interested in your reasoning, as always.
You finally found something valid. It is called the control
of credit and it is a very big rent taking facility in our world
just as land ownership is. But it is important to say that
money and credit are not _real_ capital any more than
land is not _real_ capital.
>> >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.
Assuming reasonable credit terms and proper
education and information this is a fact.
>
> Only those that had skills that where applicable to being applied to
> this land, which is not everybody, and the wealth needed to bring these
> lands into profitable use, which is not everybody.
I should have read ahead....
>> >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.
>
>> 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.
>
> The Capitalist does not have any inherent Capital forming magic, only a
> mode of production that allows him to accumulate unearned wealth.
>
The exploitation comes when Bill Gates uses his
larger share to pay the congress to make his share
even larger.
>> >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, it is thus a privilege that the
> spear Owner has the State to stop the Hunter form doing just that.
>
> Further, if they can't make a deal, they both Starve, 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. The choice is under what terms, those dictated by the
> Owner, by the Hunter, or somewhere in between.
It spose to be one of them tweeners.
>> >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.
NO!!! It requires knowledge and credit.
>> >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.
> Thus there is no "Employer" or "Boss" as its more frequently put.
Let us suppose that the non owners of capital could
acquire capital on credit. What then? It is really
a question of _who_ gets to use the current excess of
production in the realization of more _real_ capital.
Do we insist that only anal retentive conservative
steel heads get to call the shots or do we let the
intuitive and intelligent people build their dreams.
>> >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.
How much credit????
>> >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.
They are the basis of communism for sure.
> Just not organized for the purposes of collective bargaining, organized
> for the purposes of acquiring their own Capital.
Why not organize for the sake of democratic money?
>> >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.
>
>> >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. Only a small percentage of the worlds workers have skills
> that differentiate them from "Replacement Value" workers.
>
> Employers will always seek the workers with the lowest wages, they will
> even modify their production cycle to enable the elimination of higher
> paid workers and the employment of lower paid workers whenever
> possible.
I believe this to actually be the case. It seems to be
a Republican sort of thing. They really do not care
about their own comfort except for the security they
feel when they have control and everyone else is
flat broke.
>> >> Marxist claptrap.
>
>> >Unreasoned fallacy.
>>
>> Your claim, above, that wage labor becomes "a mere alienated
>> commodity" is nothing but meaningless Marxist claptrap. Deal with
> it.
>
> And your statement above "meaningless Marxist claptrap" is nothing
> other than unreasoned fallacy. Deal with it.
>
> Sorry this response is so long, on issues here regarding what have
> become our recurring central disagreement, this will be my closing
> statements, and while I look forward to your responses, as always, I
> will not belabour them any further for now.
>
> I'll try to blend in as Liberal for a while now, these anarchist vs
> liberal discussions with you are too time consuming. :)
>
> (and you still know that I will use all the information you give me to
> advance the Anarchist cause in any case)
>
> Thanks and Regards.
You will have a very difficult time with your anarcho-communism.
That is not intended as a smear. It really is the best way I can
see to describe what you are trying to do.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
.
- 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: Re: "Property Taxes Questioned As Prices Zoom"
- Next by Date: Re: "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
|
|
