It's the disguise used by those who wish to exploit without restraint, denying the need for the state to protect the 99%Read it at The Guardian (UK)
This bastardised libertarianism makes 'freedom' an instrument of oppression
by George Monbiot
(h/t Lars Syll at Lars P. Syll's Blog)
George Monbiot is not distinguishing between voluntary behavior and coercive behavior.
ReplyDeleteEnforcing minimum wage laws is coercive, therefore abolishing it increases voluntary behavior.
Banks becoming "unrestrained" is actually an increase of coercion from the state, since the state backs the banks' credit expansion.
Lower taxes are good for everyone in the long run, and in the short run it is good for those who used to pay them, and not good for those who took them by force, and those who were given the money by the coercive takers of money. This is a reduction of exploitation, not an increase in exploitation.
Public healthcare is coercive, because it rests on force, not consent. Therefore, "US insurers lobbying to "thwart" public healthcare" may have insidious intentions, but that doesn't mean thwarting public healthcare is exploitation. Healthcare exploitation is removed when state violence (laws mandating everyone pays whether they want it or not) is removed.
Ripping up planning laws that favor certain pressure groups, who probably wrote the new laws, is not libertarianism, since the new planning laws are more coercion.
"Big business trashing the biosphere" is only coercive if they violate private property rights. The state prevents private property rights to certain areas of land and then lets businesses lay their waste. That isn't libertarianism either. Libertarianism would have those areas privately owned, so that there is a case against the businesses who lay their waste there. If it's their own property, then they are not exploiting anyone.
This author falsely represents the "great political conflict of our age" as a neoMarxist battle: "neocons and the millionaires and corporations they support on one side, and social justice campaigners and environmentalists on the other". Capitalists versus proletariats. Snore.
The actual political conflict is those who initiate force with impunity (the state, and their civilian friends), and those who victimized by it (civilians, wealthy and poor, who are not politically connected).
This something for Major Freedom to read!And maybee he even read up Isaih Berlin?It will broaden his knowledge.
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism = Neoclassism = Freedon to steal
ReplyDeleteMajor Freedom,you belong to a very loud but small group of people that define freedom in a very limited negative way connected to only property rights and taxes.Your even belong to tiny minority among classical liberals.Milton Friedman as well as the majority of advocates for Freemarket simply think you are nutty.Well it shown that people don´t pay much attencion to you even though you are runnin over internet since it started. Libertarian Party get only about 0,5% of US voter (500 000)in each presidential election even with Ron Paul as candidate.All your writing and time spending simply don´t pay of?But rave on Major Freedom,your amusing.
ReplyDeleteIck. Yet Monbiot article with nothing to say.
ReplyDeleteI don't think libertarians believe that A's rights conflict with B's rights. Rights are a system established to _resolve_ conflicts over scarce stuff. A rights system says *that* is yours and *this* is mine. It says that you can do *that* with your property, but you can't do *this.*
Monbiot would do much better if he focused on the question he really wanted to ask: is it OK for some smelting plant to dump toxic material into the air? No. And a property rights approach to fixing this problem involves the harmed people suing the plant for pollution. After all, if your neighbor dumped crap on your lawn, wouldn't you have a right to take him to court?
Rather than focus on this *strong* argument for resolution through property rights, we have the author running around in circles.
"Capitalists versus proletariats. Snore."
ReplyDeleteLol.
Thomas Jefferson, NeoMarxist proletarian:
ReplyDelete"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
28 Oct. 1785 Papers 8:68-82
in The Founders' Constitution
19 June 1786 Papers 9:76--77
Volume 1, Chapter 15, Document 32
University of Chicago Press
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Julian P. Boyd et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism = Neoclassism = Freedon to steal
Libertarianism != neoclassism != Advocacy of theft.
Libertarianism = non-aggression principle = condemnation of theft.
Major Freedom,you belong to a very loud but small group of people
No, I am a unique individual who has characteristics that 7 billion other beings share with me.
that define freedom in a very limited negative way connected to only property rights and taxes.
Human rights make no sense without property rights.
Your even belong to tiny minority among classical liberals.
I am not a classical liberal.
Milton Friedman as well as the majority of advocates for Freemarket simply think you are nutty.
I think classical liberals are nutty. They believe the contradictory proposition that the state protects people's property, by stealing from them.
Well it shown that people don´t pay much attencion to you even though you are runnin over internet since it started.
It is the exact opposite. The fact that an illiterate random internet poster at least knows the word libertarianism, means it has become mainstream.
Libertarian Party get only about 0,5% of US voter (500 000)in each presidential election even with Ron Paul as candidate.
I am a political atheist, as are most libertarians.
All your writing and time spending simply don´t pay of?But rave on Major Freedom,your amusing.
They are paying off. A whole new generation knows libertarianism because of it. But please, keep gauging success by how willing statists are receptive to it. It only proves us right.
y:
ReplyDeleteThe writers and enforcers of the constitution instituted a coup over the independent states. The purpose of the constitution was not to limit government power, but to increase it. it created a powerful new government with a cover of individual liberty.
Major i count your use of the word force and constiution and freedom,empty emotional words often used by libertarian zealots to justify all from child labor,even a child market (as in the case of Murray Rothbard) to goldstandard abolition of civil rights and even central and fractional banking.Do you actually believe that the readers of THIS blog are indeed so stupid that they buy your cheap rhetorical word games?I think your on the wrong blog.Your are seen as a joke by the readers here.
ReplyDelete'Freedom' is a feeling. If I am sitting in a jail and I feel free - that's it. If I am on the battle field and I feel free - that's it. Of course, if I am conscious, I will not end up involuntarily in those places.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteMajor i count your use of the word force and constiution and freedom,empty emotional words
No, those words refer to concrete events in reality.
often used by libertarian zealots to justify all from child labor,even a child market (as in the case of Murray Rothbard)
It is evil to force children not to work by pointing guns at them, employers, and their parents, when poor families need the extra income to even survive. You are not all high and mighty by being against child labor. You are only moral to the extent that you provide charity and assistance to the poor yourself on your own volition, so that they don't have to work in order to live. Hiding behind the government's skirt and yammering that you're in favor of the guns pointed at innocent people, is cowardly and not virtuous.
to goldstandard abolition of civil rights
That does not even make sense. Gold standard abolition of human rights makes no sense. Let individuals choose which money to use, and let individuals choose whether or not they send their children to work.
and even central and fractional banking.
Central banking is antithetical to libertarian principles.
Do you actually believe that the readers of THIS blog are indeed so stupid that they buy your cheap rhetorical word games?
Do you still beat your wife?
I think your on the wrong blog.Your are seen as a joke by the readers here.
At least I can spell "you're". I do not mind being considered a "joke" to those who are illiterate, who don't understand economics, and who are advocates of initiations of force. It's all the more amusing to me.
jrbarch
'Freedom' is a feeling.
Freedom is a thought.
If I am sitting in a jail and I feel free - that's it. If I am on the battle field and I feel free - that's it. Of course, if I am conscious, I will not end up involuntarily in those places.
Ah, the key word is "involuntarily" (vis a vis "voluntary").
Sorry:
ReplyDeleteFreedom is a feeling.
Thoughts are vapour.
Although you can think about that if you want to!
Most people want to feel, truly free ....
Ahem!
If you could think your way to freedom you would have been free a long time ago ...?
Since that's all you do all day long ...?
Mind usually jumps in and starts telling you what to do, when to do it, who you are, what to think about - from the moment you wake up! And are you not its obedient servant?
So ... thinking is freedom ?????
Freedom is a thought ?????
LoL ..... (not at you; just at the idea) ...!!!!!
Quote from Major Slavery: "George Monbiot is not distinguishing between voluntary behavior and coercive behavior."
ReplyDeleteVoluntary versus coercive behavior is hogwash.
Should Congressmen have the libertarian freedom to voluntarily sell their vote to the highest bidder?
According to you because such an action would be voluntary and thus perfectly moral.
The "non-liberal" sane would call such actions corrupt.
Quote from Major Slavery: "Enforcing minimum wage laws is coercive, therefore abolishing it increases voluntary behavior."
Non-sequitur and irrelevant. Congrats! You have made two logical fallacies in a single sentence.
First, as I proved ealier more voluntary action doesn't means ether more moral or economic course of action. Second, if minimum wage laws increase the consumption power of worker which necessarily means that they have more power to act and that increases their freedom. You might argue that it diminishes the freedom of the employer to pay what he can get away with but the question is who's freedom is more important? But logically since worker outnumber employers then a basic calculus would cause to believe that what action increase the freedom of the greatest number of individuals minimum wage laws increase freedom and voluntary action.
Quote: "Public healthcare is coercive, because it rests on force, not consent."
So we are to as a society act like the priest and Levite and leave the those victims of illness, injury, disease to die on the roadside?
How can you say that fighting against the most common enemies of humanity i.e. illness, injury, and disease isn't something of public concern but possible foreign conflicts or domestic crime which are orders of magnitude less significate do require the public concern?
Why do you consider public funded armies, the police, and prisons i.e. the very instruments of state violence to be more valid than public paid doctors, nurses, firefighter i.e. professions that are dedicated to cleaning up, healing, repairing the results of male violence and civil breakdown?
Major Slavery focuses so much energy on attacking the public servants direct for healing and care (feminine) rather than the public servants direct for violence (macho male) because he values violence and coercion when used to secure the chauvinistic claims of the male propertied classes.
Major Slavery's "freedom" consists entirely of a juvenile male power fantasy fighting against the imaginary state oppression when the power the state takes on a nurturing or feminine role rathering that of role of a male dog protecting his owner's property.
So the question is why does Major Slavery hate women? Major probably likes hanging around the rapist "pick-up artist" libertarian women hater clubs that seems to be popular with fascist type.
Basically, every time Major Slavery post his drivel here it the equivalent of public masturbation to prove how manly his "libertarian" fight for chauvinistic male/pig freedom.
That is why all his posts are mindless talking points which he repeats over and over again. He's simply pleasuring himself absent thought.
He's never going to read that other folks post because he's not here for that purpose.
Septeues7!Yes as you shown here Major Slavery belong in a asylum or maybee in Freemarket Somalia,if he manage to survive there!I guess he is one those Atroturf that get paid to post drivel and spam.
ReplyDelete"The writers and enforcers of the constitution instituted a coup over the independent states."
ReplyDeleteThe United States is a secret communist plot?
(You did say progessive taxation was communist.)
jrbarch:
ReplyDeleteFreedom is a feeling.
Sorry, but freedom grounded in praxeology is practical.
Thoughts are vapour.
Then that thought is vapour only, and so is your thought that freedom is but a feeling.
Although you can think about that if you want to!
I have nothing to go by with your claims. They're too shallow.
Most people want to feel, truly free
Most people like to conflate freedom with slavery, to justify slavery.
If you could think your way to freedom you would have been free a long time ago ...?
Not if people aren't thinking of freedom, but slavery in the name of freedom.
Since that's all you do all day long ...?
Writing is not just thinking. It influences. Yes, I am not pointing a gun at you, but that doesn't mean I am only thinking of freedom.
Mind usually jumps in and starts telling you what to do, when to do it, who you are, what to think about - from the moment you wake up! And are you not its obedient servant?
No, I am the master of my thoughts. They are mine. I am not theirs.
So ... thinking is freedom ?????
No. Freedom is the ability to make choices and act on them, without initiations of force.
Freedom is a thought ?????
No, freedom is a practise.
LoL ..... (not at you; just at the idea) ...!!!!!
You're not grounding your thoughts in action. You are staying in thought land.
Septeus7:
ReplyDelete"George Monbiot is not distinguishing between voluntary behavior and coercive behavior."
Voluntary versus coercive behavior is hogwash.
What a profound and enlightening comment.
Should Congressmen have the libertarian freedom to voluntarily sell their vote to the highest bidder?
Congressional action is not voluntary, because they initiate force. Obviously those who are against force will not support such a thing as you describe.
According to you because such an action would be voluntary and thus perfectly moral.
Straw man. You are conflating libertarianism with corporatism.
The "non-liberal" sane would call such actions corrupt.
The libertarian would call 51% imposing their will on the remaining 49% when it comes to the property of the 49% as corrupt.
"Enforcing minimum wage laws is coercive, therefore abolishing it increases voluntary behavior."
Non-sequitur and irrelevant.
No, it is a sequitur because it follows from abolishing initiations of force. The state pointing guns at people preventing them from trading money for labor below the state's desired price floor, which is not the price floor of the parties concerned, is an initiation of force.
It is also relevant because it is George Manbiot who brought minimum wages up in his article.
Congrats! You have made two logical fallacies in a single sentence.
Or you just learned those two logical fallacies last week and you're only finding an excuse to use them, no matter how fallacious such usage really is.
First, as I proved ealier more voluntary action doesn't means ether more moral or economic course of action.
You didn't prove that at all.
Second, if minimum wage laws increase the consumption power of worker which necessarily means that they have more power to act and that increases their freedom.
Minimum wages don't increase the consumption power "of worker" (learn proper grammar please, it's burning my eyes). Minimum wage laws prevent people whose market value of labor is below the price floor, from getting work. These people's incomes drop to zero. How can zero income be an increase in consumption power "of worker" over some income? Oh that's right, it can't.
Minimum wage laws were designed by unions so as to prevent competition from non-union workers, who are willing to work for less. It doesn't help the working class poor, it hurts the working class poor. Making potential wage earning contracts illegal does not mean that employers will simply pay a higher wage to everyone. They will in fact just not hire as many people, which means some people will have their consumption power drop to zero.
Septeus7:
ReplyDeleteYou might argue that it diminishes the freedom of the employer to pay what he can get away with but the question is who's freedom is more important?
I can also argue it diminishes the freedom of the worker too, because those workers who are willing to work for less than the minimum wage, but are legally prevented from working for less than the minimum wage, their economic freedom has been diminished. No, I am not just trying to find excuses to lower wage rates. I am trying to MAXIMIZE wages, and that happens when the supply of labor and demand for labor can clear the entire market of potential labor. For that to occur, the price must be flexible.
But logically since worker outnumber employers then a basic calculus would cause to believe that what action increase the freedom of the greatest number of individuals minimum wage laws increase freedom and voluntary action.
Nonsense. Minimum wage laws pit workers against workers. When there is a fixed pie to go around, and some workers, namely those whose market value is close to or above the minimum wage rate, rabble rouse the state to prevent competition from other workers, so that the given pie can be cut into fewer, hence larger pieces for each rabble rousing worker. Those workers who are willing to work for less than the minimum wage, but can't, end up with no income at all because employers simply won't hire them.
"Public healthcare is coercive, because it rests on force, not consent."
So we are to as a society act like the priest and Levite and leave the those victims of illness, injury, disease to die on the roadside?
No, you help them. Just don't pretend to be all moral and ethical by hiding behind the government's skirt and demand that they point their guns at people because you're too chickenshit to do it yourself.
How can you say that fighting against the most common enemies of humanity i.e. illness, injury, and disease isn't something of public concern but possible foreign conflicts or domestic crime which are orders of magnitude less significate do require the public concern?
Who said that fighting against illness, injury and disease can only be done through the state? The state doesn't even do a good job of it.
Why do you consider public funded armies, the police, and prisons i.e. the very instruments of state violence to be more valid than public paid doctors, nurses, firefighter i.e. professions that are dedicated to cleaning up, healing, repairing the results of male violence and civil breakdown?
I never said they were "more valid", whatever that is supposed to mean. Your grammar and English are deplorable. It's almost impossible to know what the heck you're trying to spew out.
Septeus7:
ReplyDeleteMajor Slavery focuses so much energy on attacking the public servants direct for healing and care (feminine) rather than the public servants direct for violence (macho male) because he values violence and coercion when used to secure the chauvinistic claims of the male propertied classes.
False. I do the reverse. I focus on initiations of violence, and less so those who benefit from such violence.
Major Slavery's "freedom" consists entirely of a juvenile male power fantasy fighting against the imaginary state oppression when the power the state takes on a nurturing or feminine role rathering that of role of a male dog protecting his owner's property.
State violence is not imaginary.
You just proved you view the state as your mommy. Your psychology is now exposed for all to see. You never grew up mentally, so you transferred your emotional and intellectual dependency from your birth mother, to the state mother. Mommy will take care of you, by sending SWAT teams to people's doors, and by dropping bombs on families who live on oil fields.
That's some mommy you have there.
So the question is why does Major Slavery hate women?
Do you still beat your wife?
Major probably likes hanging around the rapist "pick-up artist" libertarian women hater clubs that seems to be popular with fascist type.
Septeus7 is probably a virgin.
Basically, every time Major Slavery post his drivel here it the equivalent of public masturbation to prove how manly his "libertarian" fight for chauvinistic male/pig freedom.
No, libertarianism is individual freedom, not just male or female freedom.
That is why all his posts are mindless talking points which he repeats over and over again.
As opposed to what, your "the state is my mommy" talking point?
He's simply pleasuring himself absent thought.
Internet diagnosis FTW.
He's never going to read that other folks post because he's not here for that purpose.
I read what others post. Half the time I am quoting what the posters say.
Anonymous:
Septeues7! Yes as you shown here Major Slavery belong in a asylum or maybee in Freemarket Somalia,if he manage to survive there!I guess he is one those Atroturf that get paid to post drivel and spam.
Somalia has actually improved quite a bit since the collapse of the Somali state. Google the paper "Better off Stateless."
y:
"The writers and enforcers of the constitution instituted a coup over the independent states."
The United States is a secret communist plot?
No, it was an overt statist plot by a small group of private land property owners.
(You did say progessive taxation was communist.)
Progressive taxation is one of the ten planks of communism in Marx's "Communist Manifesto."
Quote: "Congressional action is not voluntary, because they initiate force. Obviously those who are against force will not support such a thing as you describe."
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant again. The fact that what Congress may be involve the authorization of force cannot be used to call voting itself a use of force and neither can the voluntary selling of such a vote. I am merely pointing that rightness or wrongness of something has nothing to with how "voluntary" the action is.
Quote: "Straw man. You are conflating libertarianism with corporatism."
I said nothing about corporatism, corporations, nor did say any that could be inferred as relating to that topic.
How does one conflate something with without mention any attributes of it? You can''t formulate a logical response.
Quote: "The libertarian would call 51% imposing their will on the remaining 49% when it comes to the property of the 49% as corrupt."
Ergo a libertarian is irrational.
A rational person wouldn't make an apriori judgement about one group imposing their will to restricted the claims of property or another group regardless of the ratio. A rational person would consider of the facts and nature of the contested claims and determine the cause the the dispute before taking sides.
You are correct, the "libertarian" or more correctly "propertarian" automatically says the claims of the property holding class is beyond disputed. Traditionally that form of government that results is called plutocracy and generally considered the most form government.
Quote: "No, it is a sequitur because it follows from abolishing initiations of force. The state pointing guns at people preventing them from trading money for labor below the state's desired price floor, which is not the price floor of the parties concerned, is an initiation of force."
So what? You haven't proven that the initiation of force in the case of a price floor means that everyone is worse off in terms of their ability to act. It simple doesn't follow. There is no law of universe that says that forcing people to make some decision right now means that they therefore have fewer actions left to them in the future. It is non-sequitor because the absence of the presence of force has absolutely nothing to with whether or not we get good future results.
Quote: " You didn't prove that at all. "
Yes I did. I showed to that people can voluntarily make both immoral and uneconomical decisions voluntarily proving that whether or a decision is voluntary has no relevance to it's economic effects or moral status.
Quote: " You didn't prove that at all. "
ReplyDeleteYes I did. I showed to that people can voluntarily make both immoral and uneconomical decisions voluntarily proving that whether or a decision is voluntary has no relevance to it's economic effects or moral status.
Quote: " Minimum wages don't increase the consumption power "of worker" (learn proper grammar please, it's burning my eyes). Minimum wage laws prevent people whose market value of labor is below the price floor, from getting work. These people's incomes drop to zero. How can zero income be an increase in consumption power "of worker" over some income? Oh that's right, it can't."
OMG! You are an absolute idiot. . Higher wages do not drop incomes. Every empirical study shows that increasing wages increases income which then increase sales which employs more people. Lack of employment has nothing to do with wages being too high.
The proof that is the fact you the economy produces many nonpaying jobs for which people are "employed." The number of people those jobs can have nothing to with wages by definition and if employment isn't related to wages when wages=zero then limitation of employment has nothing to wages being greater than zero either.
Quote: "Minimum wage laws were designed by unions so as to prevent competition from non-union workers, who are willing to work for less."
Minimum wages actually go back to the Catholic social doctrine of just price but you are to ignore to understand the actual history of labor relations and thought.
Quote: "Making potential wage earning contracts illegal does not mean that employers will simply pay a higher wage to everyone. They will in fact just not hire as many people, which means some people will have their consumption power drop to zero"
False. You simply historically wrong. Freeing the slaves i.e. workers with a "voluntary" contract paying zero or negative insured that they made a positive wage and have earnings for themselves.
Making certain wage contract illegal forcing employers to pay a fair price for labor work because rather than undervaluing labor and thus devaluing the labor of everyone else in the economy which decreases productivity. It's called the doctrine of high wages and its the core of the traditional American capitalism i.e. " honest pay for an honest day's work."
The reason workers unions and good people fought for minimum wages law was to provide a price floor to price of labor so that dishonest employers who would manipulate the market price of labor to effectively zero and thus destroy any ability of workers to avoid odious contracts. If you are against minimum wage you are by definition pro-slavery because without a legal floor for the price of labor then by definition absolute slavery must be valid "market price" for labor as well.
Quote: "I can also argue it diminishes the freedom of the worker too, because those workers who are willing to work for less than the minimum wage, but are legally prevented from working for less than the minimum wage, their economic freedom has been diminished. "
That is an absolute joke. They are aren't "choosing" to work for below minimum wage because then their labor is so worthless. They do so because they given a a Hobson's choice starve or the sweat shop and if you protest or unionize the propertied classes call in the army or other thugs. Apparently, Major Slavery there are a lot of people complaining " I think my barely above minimum wage service job pay is too high for the work I do. It's a shame that Wall-Mart overpays so!"
Quote from Major Slavery: "Who said that fighting against illness, injury and disease can only be done through the state? The state doesn't even do a good job of it."
ReplyDeleteMost developed countries disagree and so does every major empirical study of health systems throughout the world. You are willing to openly lie because you don't have morals only a love of property and money.
Quote from Major Slavery: "False. I do the reverse. I focus on initiations of violence, and less so those who benefit from such violence."
Yes, because when folks say "Medicare" they think of great examples of State "initiations of violence."
You fail to mention the primary use of violence against all others i.e. the exclusive claim to own property which none can use without your almighty authority.
Quote: "You just proved you view the state as your mommy."
No. You know that is not what I said or meant and now you are lying against because you immoral and immature scum.
The state is a human institution. It has aspects of many social roles some of which can characterized along gender roles.
I was just pointing out that you example of state violence are more like the "oppression" of an overbearing mother rather example of real state violence such as poisoning millions of Chinese and then starting a war in the name of "Free Trade." Or state violence in disappearing trade unionists? Or the billion or so deaths caused the imperial imposition of an European style property rights system.
Normal people think of marching armies, police patrols, and mass imprisonment when the phrase "state violence" is used not Medicaid or Social Security. Only, a brainwashed libertarian dupe would constantly use social programs that where created to try and balance the system against the aggressive use of state violence in the interest of the properties classes as the primary examples of state violence.
Quote: "Septeus7 is probably a virgin."
And Major proves the women hating diagnosis. Virginity is traditionally consider a feminine virtue so to insult me Major suggest having a feminine virtue as something shameful. The only logical conclusion is that Major Slavery really does think less of the feminine. You fell for my trap... Major.
Quote: "
Somalia has actually improved quite a bit since the collapse of the Somali state. Google the paper "Better off Stateless.""
Ah, a joke of paper written a profession educated at the fascist Koch-Sucker U (George Mason). Shill is as Shill does and imperialist is imperialist does. The US Imperialist foreign policy wants Africa stateless and weak and then a imperialist lackey economists produces white papers saying that imperialist policy is good for colony err country.
"Progressive taxation is one of the ten planks of communism in Marx's "Communist Manifesto."
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't make sense. In a communist system there would be no taxation.
A heavy progressive/graduated income tax was one of the short term demands put forward by Marx and Engels in the manifesto.
"the ten planks of communism" appears to be a phrase invented by libertarian bloggers.
Septeus7:
ReplyDelete"Congressional action is not voluntary, because they initiate force. Obviously those who are against force will not support such a thing as you describe."
Irrelevant again.
Dodging the issue again.
The fact that what Congress may be involve the authorization of force cannot be used to call voting itself a use of force and neither can the voluntary selling of such a vote.
I didn't call voting itself coercive. But voting is voting for coercive action.
I am merely pointing that rightness or wrongness of something has nothing to with how "voluntary" the action is.
So gang rape is not wrong, if 9 men vote to rape 1 woman?
"Straw man. You are conflating libertarianism with corporatism."
I said nothing about corporatism, corporations, nor did say any that could be inferred as relating to that topic.
I didn't say you did. I said what you are describing is corporatism, not libertarianism.
How does one conflate something with without mention any attributes of it? You can''t formulate a logical response.
Are you retarded? If someone told me that "liberalism is being anti-gay marriage", and I said that this person is conflating liberalism with some other ideology, then they don't have to positively mention that other ideology. I can tell them what they are describing inadvertantly.
"The libertarian would call 51% imposing their will on the remaining 49% when it comes to the property of the 49% as corrupt."
Ergo a libertarian is irrational.
Non sequitur.
Septeus7:
ReplyDeleteA rational person wouldn't make an apriori judgement about one group imposing their will to restricted the claims of property or another group regardless of the ratio.
A "rational person" isn't someone who "agrees with you".
I am not talking about your made up "rational man." It's too much like what would Jesus do.
I am saying that 51% imposing their will on the remaining 49% when it comes to the property of the 49%, is corrupt.
What say you?
A rational person would consider of the facts and nature of the contested claims and determine the cause the the dispute before taking sides.
You can't do that UNLESS you presuppose a particular set of property rights tied up in the process of "considering the facts" and "determining the causes" of the dispute. These actions necessarily presuppose a property rights system.
You are correct, the "libertarian" or more correctly "propertarian" automatically says the claims of the property holding class is beyond disputed. Traditionally that form of government that results is called plutocracy and generally considered the most form government.
It is not a form of government. It is an individual ethic.
"No, it is a sequitur because it follows from abolishing initiations of force. The state pointing guns at people preventing them from trading money for labor below the state's desired price floor, which is not the price floor of the parties concerned, is an initiation of force."
So what?
So you are wrong to say it is a non sequitur.
You haven't proven that the initiation of force in the case of a price floor means that everyone is worse off in terms of their ability to act.
I didn't say everyone was worse off. Of course price floors benefit those who no longer have to compete with others who offer a lower price. But their benefit comes at the expense of those who can't find work because their market wage is illegal in actual exchanges.
It does however make everyone worse off in the long run, if people value more material wealth over less material wealth, because with fewer people working, and with more people being supported by taxpayer money because the state makes it illegal for them to work, then the production of real wealth declines.
There is no law of universe that says that forcing people to make some decision right now means that they therefore have fewer actions left to them in the future.
By definition that is exactly what it does mean. Using force by definition limits people's options. The force is directly applied against people's voluntary actions, and limits their potential actions to those that don't receive force.
It is non-sequitor because the absence of the presence of force has absolutely nothing to with whether or not we get good future results.
So you believe in the myth that initiating violence against people makes them better off?
Septeus7:
ReplyDelete" You didn't prove that at all. "
Yes I did.
No, you didn't.
I showed to that people can voluntarily make both immoral and uneconomical decisions voluntarily proving that whether or a decision is voluntary has no relevance to it's economic effects or moral status.
If by "immoral and uneconomical" you mean initiating violence against people, or threatening to confiscate or manipulate their property against their consent, is NOT "voluntary". It is INvoluntary.
" Minimum wages don't increase the consumption power "of worker" (learn proper grammar please, it's burning my eyes). Minimum wage laws prevent people whose market value of labor is below the price floor, from getting work. These people's incomes drop to zero. How can zero income be an increase in consumption power "of worker" over some income? Oh that's right, it can't."
OMG! You are an absolute idiot.
Coming from you that is a compliment.
Higher wages do not drop incomes.
There is no higher wages you fool. Higher minimum wage isn't higher actual incomes paid. It is a rule, not a money gift. Telling employers that they can't hire people for less than the price floor doesn't mean employers actually hire everyone they otherwise would have hired, at above the price floor. Employers simply hire fewer people. Raising the price floor for wage rates doesn't increase employer's cash balances such that they can afford to pay higher wage rates.
Every empirical study shows that increasing wages increases income which then increase sales which employs more people.
I didn't deny that increasing wages increased incomes, all else equal.
Lack of employment has nothing to do with wages being too high.
Sure it does. With lower wage rates, the existing demand for labor can purchase more labor hours. It will also almost certainly result in a higher overall demand for labor, as investments which have been postponed because they're not profitable at higher costs, become profitable with lower costs.
"Minimum wage laws were designed by unions so as to prevent competition from non-union workers, who are willing to work for less."
Minimum wages actually go back to the Catholic social doctrine of just price
The doctrine of just price is fallacious, because it treats prices as objective values, when prices are a reflection of subjective values. See economic science since the middle ages.
but you are to ignore to understand the actual history of labor relations and thought.
You haven't even tested my knowledge of economic history. It would be like me ad hoc bringing up some random fact and then without waiting for you to respond, say "See? You didn't even know that!"
Septeus7:
ReplyDelete"Making potential wage earning contracts illegal does not mean that employers will simply pay a higher wage to everyone. They will in fact just not hire as many people, which means some people will have their consumption power drop to zero"
False.
No, it's actually quite true.
Freeing the slaves i.e. workers with a "voluntary" contract paying zero or negative insured that they made a positive wage and have earnings for themselves.
Red herring.
Making certain wage contract illegal forcing employers to pay a fair price for labor work because rather than undervaluing labor and thus devaluing the labor of everyone else in the economy which decreases productivity.
Minimum wage doesn't force employers to pay more. It only prevents them from paying a lower wage rate. Telling me that I will go to jail if I pay less than the minimum wage to every employee, doesn't mean that I will actually pay each employee more than what their market rate is worth. I will simply not hire as many workers. I will lay off workers so that the money I do have to pay wages, can be paid.
It's called the doctrine of high wages and its the core of the traditional American capitalism i.e. " honest pay for an honest day's work."
The core of traditional American capitalism is free trade, not pointing guns at people at telling them how to trade, which ends up hurting the poor. Unions agitated for minimum wages because they didn't want to compete with lower prices workers.
The reason workers unions and good people fought for minimum wages law was to...
Prevent lower prices workers from competing with them. It was to benefit the union at the expense of these other workers, and of the consumers, who end up paying higher prices due to declining productivity on account of fewer workers working and more workers on the dole.
There is no "just price". Prices are a function of subjective values of individuals.
Your creationism has no business in economic science.
"I can also argue it diminishes the freedom of the worker too, because those workers who are willing to work for less than the minimum wage, but are legally prevented from working for less than the minimum wage, their economic freedom has been diminished."
That is an absolute joke.
That is an absolute non-argument.
They are aren't "choosing" to work for below minimum wage because then their labor is so worthless.
That doesn't follow. Workers who are willing to work for less than the minimum wage are not offering "worthless" labor. For if it were worthless, it would command no price. But it does command a price, so it is worth something.
You need to wake up and stop being so dogmatic when it comes to prices and incomes. You don't see me saying that there should be a price floor on the prices of goods that evil greedy capitalists sell, because if they sell goods at less than that price, then the poor poor capitalists will be selling "worthless" goods, and THEY ARE NOT WORTHLESS GOODS DAMMIT!
They do so because they given a a Hobson's choice starve or the sweat shop and if you protest or unionize the propertied classes call in the army or other thugs.
How is making less wage rate equivalent to a sweatshop? You're out of your mind. With lower wage rates, business costs fall, and prices fall. Those who can find work at lower wage rates can find work, and there will not be unnecessary unemployment.
You're just engaging in nonsensical hyperbole like an old cranky 20th century communist.
Apparently, Major Slavery there are a lot of people complaining " I think my barely above minimum wage service job pay is too high for the work I do. It's a shame that Wall-Mart overpays so!"
Those who are making ZERO wages because of minimum wage laws, what of them? Screw them, right?
Septeus7:
ReplyDelete"Who said that fighting against illness, injury and disease can only be done through the state? The state doesn't even do a good job of it."
Most developed countries disagree and so does every major empirical study of health systems throughout the world.
Fallacy ad populum.
You are willing to openly lie because you don't have morals only a love of property and money.
Lie about what? And you're the one who loves money. That's why you support the minimum wage. For the love of the money you think it gets the angelic workers around the country.
"False. I do the reverse. I focus on initiations of violence, and less so those who benefit from such violence."
Yes, because when folks say "Medicare" they think of great examples of State "initiations of violence."
Fallacy ad populum. Many slaves didn't know their slavery was based on violence. They were conditioned to believe that this was normal life for blacks.
It took people like me to show such unfortunately naive victims that they are being victimized.
You fail to mention the primary use of violence against all others i.e. the exclusive claim to own property which none can use without your almighty authority.
I "fail to mention" it because it is false.
You are the one who wants the state to exclusively control all property. You want the state to control people's money property, and to tell them what prices they can and cannot pay to others, and what prices those who provide goods and services can and cannot offer.
You are the violence advocate, not me.
Resources are scarce. Without property rules, conflict is inevitable. One commune cannot use their resources if other communes are constantly stealing them.
Defending property from violence is not a primary use of violence. It takes aggressive violence for defensive violence to be justified.
"You just proved you view the state as your mommy."
No.
...Yes.
You know that is not what I said or meant and now you are lying against because you immoral and immature scum.
It is what you said. It's in black and white you immature, immoral, evil, uneducated, violence advocating liar.
The state is a human institution. It has aspects of many social roles some of which can characterized along gender roles.
The state is a violent institution. Individuals initiate violence in its name.
Septeus7:
ReplyDeleteI was just pointing out that you example of state violence are more like the "oppression" of an overbearing mother rather example of real state violence such as poisoning millions of Chinese and then starting a war in the name of "Free Trade."
Except I do not consent to your mommy being my ruler.
Or state violence in disappearing trade unionists? Or the billion or so deaths caused the imperial imposition of an European style property rights system.
Imperialism is not free trade.
Normal people think of marching armies, police patrols, and mass imprisonment when the phrase "state violence" is used not Medicaid or Social Security.
You mean state conditioned people.
Only, a brainwashed libertarian dupe would constantly use social programs that where created to try and balance the system against the aggressive use of state violence in the interest of the properties classes as the primary examples of state violence.
Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist, said the same thing.
You don't have a monopoly on what's "normal" and what isn't.
"Septeus7 is probably a virgin."
And Major proves the women hating diagnosis.
How is suspecting you to be a virgin, misogyny?
You just have nothing left in the tank, so you can only relegate yourself to calling me misogynistic.
Next thing you'll say is that I am racist.
Virginity is traditionally consider a feminine virtue
I am not a traditionalist.
so to insult me Major suggest having a feminine virtue as something shameful.
That's sexist. Virginity is not something that only applies to women.
The only logical conclusion is that Major Slavery really does think less of the feminine. You fell for my trap... Major.
Non sequitur. You are just engaging in ad hominem because you know you can't argue against me using actual logic or evidence.
"Somalia has actually improved quite a bit since the collapse of the Somali state. Google the paper "Better off Stateless.""
Ah, a joke of paper written a profession educated at the fascist Koch-Sucker U (George Mason).
Ad hominem. You can't argue against it, so you just spew vitriol.
You're empty on the inside.
y:
"Progressive taxation is one of the ten planks of communism in Marx's "Communist Manifesto."
That doesn't make sense.
A fact doesn't make sense? Egads.
In a communist system there would be no taxation.
So the Communist Manifesto as written by Marx, is not a manifesto of communism? That's news.
A heavy progressive/graduated income tax was one of the short term demands put forward by Marx and Engels in the manifesto.
Short term that can only last for an eternity, or else the entire communist stage progression is abandoned. Dictators don't give up their power willingly.
"the ten planks of communism" appears to be a phrase invented by libertarian bloggers.
Um, you might want to actually READ the Communist Manifesto. It's right there in black and white.