A Green-Libertarian Alliance

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

What I do not understand is how some of these posters can think freedom equates getting free stuff(which the Green Party and Justice Party argues for) or getting a job, health care, education or whatever.

Because they're confusing economic freedom with economic security.

But once they'll get economic security, they'll probably still say it's not enough. After they blow their money on irresponsible things, they'll start the rehashed 'means of production' arguments people love to project onto.

They won't be happy either way. Mainly because I don't think they even have any idea on what methodology or practicality their outlook vaguely resembles. It's just textbook anti-capitalist rehashes, for the same of anti-capitalist rehashes.

It's this kind of thing that gives the left wing a bad name. But why advocators of socialism would willingly play right into conservative stereotypes, of people being work-shy, is something I'm having trouble understanding.

[Meryuma]

1. Do you actually know anyone who's poor or lower middle-class?
2. I didn't say everyone unemployed starves to death or becomes suicidally depressed or some shit, I just said that it does, in fact, interfere with one's life. Don't change the goalposts.
3. Rather than thinking ideologies are wrong because of faulty arguments, you apparently think arguments are wrong because they support ideologies that you view as wrong a priori. That's not how logic works.

1) Yes. I know people who are poor, the underclass, working class, lower-middle class, average middle class, people who are middle class but try and pretend to be working class to paint themselves as moral heroes, working classes who try and make themselves adopt middle class mannerisms, the entire package. But how about this for AN EVEN MORE WACKY NOTION... sit down, are you ready for it, good, it seems there is no universal determinist law that forces people to have to be identified by socioeconomic status. No really, we are all people, we can choose what hobbies we want, what food we eat, what music we listen to. In fact some may say our identity can even be SHAPED by our hobbies, cuisine or musical tastes. Just like it is with standard superficial stuff like gender roles, ethnicity, race etc. Turns out there's a whole lot of characteristics and demographics that can define a person in their life. Some scientists are even saying that your socioeconomic status, apparently doesn't solely define you as an entire person in any light, and that the characteristics outside of that are even more important.

2) Well yeah... everything can interfere with someone's life in some way, doesn't mean it's intrinsically against all freedom. A teenager purposely alienating himself from his family, because he adopts radical anarchist, socialist and anti-capitalist views could, in a similar trail of logic, say that anarchism and socialism is an aspect of political discourse that interferes with these people's lives. But you wouldn't say this hinders a person's economic or personal freedom would you? Same logic though, or are we adopting selective double standards to try and give one argument more prestige? If so, sounds like fun, remind me when I can join in on it.

3) Well for starters, if an ideology isn't empirical or pragmatic enough to take seriously, yes... it tends to be unfavorable and not taken as seriously. Mainly because, of selective double standards again, that same trail of thought probably isn't something you'd allow for other outlooks.

1. After spending half the thread rhapsodizing about the wonders of firing people for being uppity, you turn around and accuse me of being classist for acknowledging that doing so isn't nice. Lovely.
2. If one's parents were constantly grounding their kid for their political beliefs, restricting their access to this or that, etc. then yes, that would be limiting the kid's freedom. I picked up on the thinly-veiled ageist insult, BTW (so much for you being so against stereotyping).
3. So if an ideology seems unfavorable to you, any argument that could support it is wrong a priori? That's not how logic works.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

1) Yes. I know people who are poor, the underclass, working class, lower-middle class, average middle class, people who are middle class but try and pretend to be working class to paint themselves as moral heroes, working classes who try and make themselves adopt middle class mannerisms, the entire package. But how about this for AN EVEN MORE WACKY NOTION... sit down, are you ready for it, good, it seems there is no universal determinist law that forces people to have to be identified by socioeconomic status. No really, we are all people, we can choose what hobbies we want, what food we eat, what music we listen to. In fact some may say our identity can even be SHAPED by our hobbies, cuisine or musical tastes. Just like it is with standard superficial stuff like gender roles, ethnicity, race etc. Turns out there's a whole lot of characteristics and demographics that can define a person in their life. Some scientists are even saying that your socioeconomic status, apparently doesn't solely define you as an entire person in any light, and that the characteristics outside of that are even more important.

2) Well yeah... everything can interfere with someone's life in some way, doesn't mean it's intrinsically against all freedom. A teenager purposely alienating himself from his family, because he adopts radical anarchist, socialist and anti-capitalist views could, in a similar trail of logic, say that anarchism and socialism is an aspect of political discourse that interferes with these people's lives. But you wouldn't say this hinders a person's economic or personal freedom would you? Same logic though, or are we adopting selective double standards to try and give one argument more prestige? If so, sounds like fun, remind me when I can join in on it.

3) Well for starters, if an ideology isn't empirical or pragmatic enough to take seriously, yes... it tends to be unfavorable and not taken as seriously. Mainly because, of selective double standards again, that same trail of thought probably isn't something you'd allow for other outlooks.

1. After spending half the thread rhapsodizing about the wonders of firing people for being uppity, you turn around and accuse me of being classist for acknowledging that doing so isn't nice. Lovely.
2. If one's parents were constantly grounding their kid for their political beliefs, restricting their access to this or that, etc. then yes, that would be limiting the kid's freedom. I picked up on the thinly-veiled ageist insult, BTW (so much for you being so against stereotyping).
3. So if an ideology seems unfavorable to you, any argument that could support it is wrong a priori? That's not how logic works.

1) How did I say you were being classist? Maybe a tad narrow minded and stereotypical, but classist would imply negativity to certain classes. Unless we say that you're being reversed classist to the middle class for having the right to fire workers they don't want in their company? I never identified people as LOWER CLASS. I simply said if I am employing people that happened to be up themselves, and being a pain, I would sack them. I don't care what their identity or socioeconomic status is, they're still a pain. If it's an employer's company, they own the company, they can do what they DAMN WANT with it.

2) I think you missed the point I was making. Like, majorly. Examples are examples.

3) It's not about it seeming 'unfavourable' to me, it's that it doesn't work, and none of you yet have still provided any sort of methodology of practicality over how you would claim desired economic freedom and survival, if the state and market were to disappear over night. That's why I'm saying you're being anti-capitalist for the sake of being anti-capitalist. If you really want to push this a priori thing, then as long as something seems reasonable to me or you, then either of us pretty much say that it has to make sense because there is no other way it can't be? Because that is literally the framework it seems you're adopting right now, to give your argument over economic and social freedom being intrinsically connected, validity.

Ok fine, but I'm still waiting on your methodology and practicality over how the absence of the state and market would ensure everyone's intrinsic survival, and I'll adopt both a priori and a posteriori to express how it's terrible.

[Liberty of Republic]

1) Yes. I know people who are poor, the underclass, working class, lower-middle class, average middle class, people who are middle class but try and pretend to be working class to paint themselves as moral heroes, working classes who try and make themselves adopt middle class mannerisms, the entire package. But how about this for AN EVEN MORE WACKY NOTION... sit down, are you ready for it, good, it seems there is no universal determinist law that forces people to have to be identified by socioeconomic status. No really, we are all people, we can choose what hobbies we want, what food we eat, what music we listen to. In fact some may say our identity can even be SHAPED by our hobbies, cuisine or musical tastes. Just like it is with standard superficial stuff like gender roles, ethnicity, race etc. Turns out there's a whole lot of characteristics and demographics that can define a person in their life. Some scientists are even saying that your socioeconomic status, apparently doesn't solely define you as an entire person in any light, and that the characteristics outside of that are even more important.

2) Well yeah... everything can interfere with someone's life in some way, doesn't mean it's intrinsically against all freedom. A teenager purposely alienating himself from his family, because he adopts radical anarchist, socialist and anti-capitalist views could, in a similar trail of logic, say that anarchism and socialism is an aspect of political discourse that interferes with these people's lives. But you wouldn't say this hinders a person's economic or personal freedom would you? Same logic though, or are we adopting selective double standards to try and give one argument more prestige? If so, sounds like fun, remind me when I can join in on it.

3) Well for starters, if an ideology isn't empirical or pragmatic enough to take seriously, yes... it tends to be unfavorable and not taken as seriously. Mainly because, of selective double standards again, that same trail of thought probably isn't something you'd allow for other outlooks.

1. After spending half the thread rhapsodizing about the wonders of firing people for being uppity, you turn around and accuse me of being classist for acknowledging that doing so isn't nice. Lovely.
2. If one's parents were constantly grounding their kid for their political beliefs, restricting their access to this or that, etc. then yes, that would be limiting the kid's freedom. I picked up on the thinly-veiled ageist insult, BTW (so much for you being so against stereotyping).
3. So if an ideology seems unfavorable to you, any argument that could support it is wrong a priori? That's not how logic works.

1. Oh please. He was exactly telling you how the real world works and how you should act at a job. Now do not get me wrong there is PLENTY of bosses that are jerks. But simply firing someone for not be productive after countless times couching and telling them they are not productive is NOT restricting their freedoms.
2. If those political beliefs are endangering the family with actions like oh I do not know bringing home drugs, bringing home irresponsible friends who do not care for ground rules of that home. No, never.
3. I am sorry, what is good about socialism or communism or fascism or authoritarianism again? Oh that is right, law and order. But are you not against those too though?

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

From the sound of things, it seems like alot of people here have ended up fired from their jobs enough times, to warrant such a defensive stance.

I'unno, but I'd look into that. if it's happened enough times, maybe it's not always the employer's fault. Maybe it's not capitalism's fault. Maybe you keep getting fired because of your attitude and general non self-accountability. Maybe you'll still be a terrible worker when it comes to the Marxist commune too.

Economic models and systems of thoughts are terrible things to project your own life insecurities onto.

[Kannap]

As a Libertarian, I am against a Green-Libertarian Alliance. The Libertarian Party would only lose more than it could gain from the possibility.

[Ceannairceach]

As a Libertarian, I am against a Green-Libertarian Alliance. The Libertarian Party would only lose more than it could gain from the possibility.

I'd argue the same from a Green point of view.

[Ceannairceach]

From the sound of things, it seems like alot of people here have ended up fired from their jobs enough times, to warrant such a defensive stance.

I'unno, but I'd look into that. if it's happened enough times, maybe it's not always the employer's fault. Maybe it's not capitalism's fault. Maybe you keep getting fired because of your attitude and general non self-accountability. Maybe you'll still be a terrible worker when it comes to the Marxist commune too.

Economic models and systems of thoughts are terrible things to project your own life insecurities onto.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

From the sound of things, it seems like alot of people here have ended up fired from their jobs enough times, to warrant such a defensive stance.

I'unno, but I'd look into that. if it's happened enough times, maybe it's not always the employer's fault. Maybe it's not capitalism's fault. Maybe you keep getting fired because of your attitude and general non self-accountability. Maybe you'll still be a terrible worker when it comes to the Marxist commune too.

Economic models and systems of thoughts are terrible things to project your own life insecurities onto.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Don't worry. I get that.

That's why I was making it a vague, non specifically targeted remark. It's more an observation.

[Ceannairceach]

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Don't worry. I get that.

That's why I was making it a vague, non specifically targeted remark. It's more an observation.

Rather, it seems like you're insinuating that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a lackwit and is unable to work effectively. I, as a fellow poster, suggest you stop before you get in trouble.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

Don't worry. I get that.

That's why I was making it a vague, non specifically targeted remark. It's more an observation.

Rather, it seems like you're insinuating that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a lackwit and is unable to work effectively. I, as a fellow poster, suggest you stop before you get in trouble.

Fair enough, but it's relevant to my point though which is why I wanted to bring it up. If someone continues to get fired, over and over again, whether real, exaggerated real, fictional, strawman, it cannot be EVERY employer's fault, or the entire capitalist model's fault. An employee is obviously doing something wrong, that leads to the same treatment each time.

There's probably an important correlation that needs to be addressed.

Hence my earlier skeptism over the hypothetical idea, of thinking a worker should be completely infallible from ever self reflecting. Which I don't agree with.

I appreciate the concern though.

[Ceannairceach]

Rather, it seems like you're insinuating that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a lackwit and is unable to work effectively. I, as a fellow poster, suggest you stop before you get in trouble.

Fair enough, but it's relevant to my point though which is why I wanted to bring it up. If someone continues to get fired, over and over again, whether real, exaggerated real, fictional, strawman, it cannot be EVERY employer's fault, or the entire capitalist model's fault. An employee is obviously doing something wrong, that leads to the same treatment each time.

There's probably an important correlation that needs to be addressed.

Hence my earlier skeptism over the hypothetical idea, of thinking a worker should be completely infallible from ever self reflecting. Which I don't agree with.

I appreciate the concern though.

The idea that, in the 1960's for example, it was the black guy's fault for not being able to get a job in Georgia is ludicrous. Similarly, there are exceptions to your quite frankly idiotic notion that the system, be it the system of capitalism or employment, cannot be rigged against an individual, even unintentionally.

[Meryuma]

1. After spending half the thread rhapsodizing about the wonders of firing people for being uppity, you turn around and accuse me of being classist for acknowledging that doing so isn't nice. Lovely.
2. If one's parents were constantly grounding their kid for their political beliefs, restricting their access to this or that, etc. then yes, that would be limiting the kid's freedom. I picked up on the thinly-veiled ageist insult, BTW (so much for you being so against stereotyping).
3. So if an ideology seems unfavorable to you, any argument that could support it is wrong a priori? That's not how logic works.

1) How did I say you were being classist? Maybe a tad narrow minded and stereotypical, but classist would imply negativity to certain classes. Unless we say that you're being reversed classist to the middle class for having the right to fire workers they don't want in their company? I never identified people as LOWER CLASS. I simply said if I employing people that happened to be up themselves, and being a pain, I would sack them. I don't care what their identity or socioeconomic status is, they're still a pain.

2) I think you missed the point I was making. Like, majorly. Examples are examples.

3) It's not about it seeming 'unfavourable' to me, it's that it doesn't work, and none of you yet have still provided any sort of methodology of practicality over how you would claim desired economic freedom and survival, if the state and market were to disappear over night. That's why I'm saying you're being anti-capitalist for the sake of being anti-capitalist. If you really want to push this a priori thing, then as long as something seems reasonable to me or you, then either of us pretty much say that it has to make sense because there is no other way it can't be? Because that is literally the framework it seems you're adopting right now, to give your argument over economic and social freedom being intrinsically connected, validity.

Ok fine, but I'm still waiting on your methodology and practicality over how the absence of the state and market would ensure everyone's intrinsic survival, and I'll adopt both a priori and a posteriori to express how it's terrible.

1. The point is that I don't see how I'm being stereotypical or whatever and it seems like you brought that up to derail the argument.
2. It's a bit suspicious, however, that you'd use that of all examples.
3. Missing the point. You were dismissing my argument because of my ideology. It's an ad hominem. I don't want to open some whole other can of worms about whether anarchy and a gift economy can be successful, I just want you to stop using fallacies.

1. Oh please. He was exactly telling you how the real world works and how you should act at a job. Now do not get me wrong there is PLENTY of bosses that are jerks. But simply firing someone for not be productive after countless times couching and telling them they are not productive is NOT restricting their freedoms.
2. If those political beliefs are endangering the family with actions like oh I do not know bringing home drugs, bringing home irresponsible friends who do not care for ground rules of that home. No, never.
3. I am sorry, what is good about socialism or communism or fascism or authoritarianism again? Oh that is right, law and order. But are you not against those too though?

1. He didn't say anything about "countless times couching [sic]". In any case, being a boss is still essentially a job focused around controlling others, and firing people is part of that.
2. For one thing, left-wing beliefs have no innate connection to drugs and debauchery. For another, your hypothetical kid smoking weed or having sex at 15 or whatever you're so afraid of is no excuse for authoritarian dickery.
3. Are you accusing me of supporting lawlessness or fascism?

From the sound of things, it seems like alot of people here have ended up fired from their jobs enough times, to warrant such a defensive stance.

I'unno, but I'd look into that. Maybe it's not always the employer's fault. Maybe it's not capitalism's fault. Maybe you'll still be a terrible worker when it comes to the Marxist commune either.

Economic models and systems of thoughts are terrible things to project your own life insecurities onto.

That's incredibly presumptuous. You know nothing about how old I am, what I do with my life, or anything other than me being lower middle-class and viewing capitalism as an unfree system. It appears you define success in a debate by how much one can dismiss their opponent's opinions.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

Fair enough, but it's relevant to my point though which is why I wanted to bring it up. If someone continues to get fired, over and over again, whether real, exaggerated real, fictional, strawman, it cannot be EVERY employer's fault, or the entire capitalist model's fault. An employee is obviously doing something wrong, that leads to the same treatment each time.

There's probably an important correlation that needs to be addressed.

Hence my earlier skeptism over the hypothetical idea, of thinking a worker should be completely infallible from ever self reflecting. Which I don't agree with.

I appreciate the concern though.

The idea that, in the 1960's for example, it was the black guy's fault for not being able to get a job in Georgia is ludicrous. Similarly, there are exceptions to your quite frankly idiotic notion that the system, be it the system of capitalism or employment, cannot be rigged against an individual, even unintentionally.

I'm basing this around the idea that madness is repeating the same behaviour, and expecting a different outcome.

What's to say the same 'extortion' one may face with being fired continuously in capitalism, will magically cease to exist in a hypothetical Marxist commune? I think that's the framework that's trying to be implemented here.

Your example, I can see what you're trying to do, but I don't think it's applicable, mainly because I don't see people being denied a job, because of prejudice to different socioeconomic classes, is as apparent or at all existing on the scale people vaguely claim.

Sure, you can get employers that are dicks. Big deal? You can get environmentalists or socialists that are greedy. But the entire doctrines don't support that do they? To say that one employment being rigged against a certain demographic, means that employment is generally intrinsically rigged to oppress demographics in general, is a bit silly.

It's like the discussion earlier that tried to equate employment with being held hostage. And I think, no... you're getting PAID to provide your skills. If you don't get the job, you don't have the skill the employer wants.

[Blakk Metal]

From the sound of things, it seems like alot of people here have ended up fired from their jobs enough times, to warrant such a defensive stance.

I'unno, but I'd look into that. if it's happened enough times, maybe it's not always the employer's fault. Maybe it's not capitalism's fault. Maybe you keep getting fired because of your attitude and general non self-accountability. Maybe you'll still be a terrible worker when it comes to the Marxist commune too.

Economic models and systems of thoughts are terrible things to project your own life insecurities onto.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

He has no argument. He is trying to make himself look individualist for ignoring the obvious, and trying to make us look retarded for giving a shit.

[Ceannairceach]

I'm basing this around the idea that madness is repeating the same behaviour, and expecting a different outcome.

That isn't the definition of madness. Considering the fact that men like Edison, Tesla and other such inventors repeated the same "behavior" and ultimately did receive different outcomes disproves this idea. Perhaps you meant "action"? Because that is a different ball game.

What's to say the same 'extortion' one may face with being fired continuously in capitalism, will magically cease to exist in a hypothetical Marxist commune? I think that's the framework that's trying to be implemented here.

The theory is that Marxism forces you to work as hard as you can if you want to receive the rewards for your work, with no class above or below you to manipulate you or for you to manipulate. Now, I am not a Marxist, but I can see the value in this system. One cannot be fired in Marxism: You will simply not receive the fruits of your labor.

Your example, I can see what you're trying to do, but I don't think it's applicable, mainly because I don't see people being denied a job, because of prejudice to different socioeconomic classes, being particularly a big thing.

How is it not applicable? It is, in essence, the same thing: an example of a rigging of the market against an individual, or a group of individuals. The only key difference is that it may or may no be intentional.

Sure, you can get employers that are dicks. Big deal? You can get environmentalists or socialists that are greedy. But the entire doctrines don't support that do they? To say that one employment being rigged against a certain demographic, means that employment is generally intrinsically rigged to oppress demographics in general, is a bit silly.

Theoretically, capitalism is the method by which you rise on the backs of those you conquer. Now, I manage to work with capitalism: I don't much care for it one way or another, really. So don't take that line as a criticism per se. But capitalism is intrinsically based upon crushing your opponents in economic combat, in order to climb the mountain of the fallen until you reach the top or are defeated yourself, if you'll allow the metaphor.

It's like the discussion earlier that tried to equate employment with being held hostage. And I think, no... you're getting PAID to provide your skills.

Those who are not employed with disposable income are, in a manner, hostages to their employers. If they didn't have a job, and assuming for a moment that welfare was lackluster in its support for the common unemployed person or family, they would wither into complete destitution. So, yes, employment is bondage, in a certain manner.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

1) How did I say you were being classist? Maybe a tad narrow minded and stereotypical, but classist would imply negativity to certain classes. Unless we say that you're being reversed classist to the middle class for having the right to fire workers they don't want in their company? I never identified people as LOWER CLASS. I simply said if I employing people that happened to be up themselves, and being a pain, I would sack them. I don't care what their identity or socioeconomic status is, they're still a pain.

2) I think you missed the point I was making. Like, majorly. Examples are examples.

3) It's not about it seeming 'unfavourable' to me, it's that it doesn't work, and none of you yet have still provided any sort of methodology of practicality over how you would claim desired economic freedom and survival, if the state and market were to disappear over night. That's why I'm saying you're being anti-capitalist for the sake of being anti-capitalist. If you really want to push this a priori thing, then as long as something seems reasonable to me or you, then either of us pretty much say that it has to make sense because there is no other way it can't be? Because that is literally the framework it seems you're adopting right now, to give your argument over economic and social freedom being intrinsically connected, validity.

Ok fine, but I'm still waiting on your methodology and practicality over how the absence of the state and market would ensure everyone's intrinsic survival, and I'll adopt both a priori and a posteriori to express how it's terrible.

1. The point is that I don't see how I'm being stereotypical or whatever and it seems like you brought that up to derail the argument.
2. It's a bit suspicious, however, that you'd use that of all examples.
3. Missing the point. You were dismissing my argument because of my ideology. It's an ad hominem. I don't want to open some whole other can of worms about whether anarchy and a gift economy can be successful, I just want you to stop using fallacies.

1) Because I do not define people by their socioeconomic status. I define them as people. If I lose my job, I haven't lost my entire identity.
2) I think it applies.
3) I was not dismissing your argument. I just wasn't taking it seriously, because it was becoming a typical "workers should be infallible and never self reflect" rehash.

1. Oh please. He was exactly telling you how the real world works and how you should act at a job. Now do not get me wrong there is PLENTY of bosses that are jerks. But simply firing someone for not be productive after countless times couching and telling them they are not productive is NOT restricting their freedoms.
2. If those political beliefs are endangering the family with actions like oh I do not know bringing home drugs, bringing home irresponsible friends who do not care for ground rules of that home. No, never.
3. I am sorry, what is good about socialism or communism or fascism or authoritarianism again? Oh that is right, law and order. But are you not against those too though?

1. He didn't say anything about "countless times couching [sic]". In any case, being a boss is still essentially a job focused around controlling others, and firing people is part of that.
2. For one thing, left-wing beliefs have no innate connection to drugs and debauchery. For another, your hypothetical kid smoking weed or having sex at 15 or whatever you're so afraid of is no excuse for authoritarian dickery.
3. Are you accusing me of supporting lawlessness or fascism?

1) It's not controlling others, it's running a business. If you are hired by an employer, you're on their time, and you've consented to a job. If they want to fire you, they can, because it's their company.

From the sound of things, it seems like alot of people here have ended up fired from their jobs enough times, to warrant such a defensive stance.

I'unno, but I'd look into that. Maybe it's not always the employer's fault. Maybe it's not capitalism's fault. Maybe you'll still be a terrible worker when it comes to the Marxist commune either.

Economic models and systems of thoughts are terrible things to project your own life insecurities onto.

That's incredibly presumptuous. You know nothing about how old I am, what I do with my life, or anything other than me being lower middle-class and viewing capitalism as an unfree system. It appears you define success in a debate by how much one can dismiss their opponent's opinions.

To be honest, you were the one earlier asking me whether I knew of anyone working class. You hardly implied that with a non-patronizing tone.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

He has no argument. He is trying to make himself look individualist for ignoring the obvious, and trying to make us look retarded for giving a shit.

Oh I apologise, I didn't realize "hurr durr capitalism and state bad, rant for the sake of rant, but we won't provide a practical outlined alternative methodology to what we think we want hurr durr" was a valid, objective and obvious, credible argument...

Coincidentally, I'm still waiting on that alternative methodology. People seem very quick to criticize the old, but never to provide anything new. People always go silent when you ask for it... Surely it's not outside the capability for the 'obvious'.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

I'm basing this around the idea that madness is repeating the same behaviour, and expecting a different outcome.

That isn't the definition of madness. Considering the fact that men like Edison, Tesla and other such inventors repeated the same "behavior" and ultimately did receive different outcomes disproves this idea. Perhaps you meant "action"? Because that is a different ball game.

It's an expression.

What's to say the same 'extortion' one may face with being fired continuously in capitalism, will magically cease to exist in a hypothetical Marxist commune? I think that's the framework that's trying to be implemented here.

The theory is that Marxism forces you to work as hard as you can if you want to receive the rewards for your work, with no class above or below you to manipulate you or for you to manipulate. Now, I am not a Marxist, but I can see the value in this system. One cannot be fired in Marxism: You will simply not receive the fruits of your labor.

There's still a communitarian commitment.

What if one worker decides he doesn't want to work, will he starve? Will the others have to do twice as much in his place?

How is it not applicable? It is, in essence, the same thing: an example of a rigging of the market against an individual, or a group of individuals. The only key difference is that it may or may no be intentional.

I'd say it was actually the opposite, the labour force of the lower classes can be intrinsic to a workforce.

Theoretically, capitalism is the method by which you rise on the backs of those you conquer. Now, I manage to work with capitalism: I don't much care for it one way or another, really. So don't take that line as a criticism per se. But capitalism is intrinsically based upon crushing your opponents in economic combat, in order to climb the mountain of the fallen until you reach the top or are defeated yourself, if you'll allow the metaphor.

I get the metaphor, but it's more in the sense of allowing the freedom of opportunism. For opportunism always manifests, it needs a healthy outlet, short of everyone becoming a physical predator and us going back to our caveman roots... but seeing each other as prey. Humans are competitive creatures.

I'd rather independent livelihood, than THAT, or a dictatorship. Opportunism doesn't disappear, it just about finding a healthy outlet.

Those who are not employed with disposable income are, in a manner, hostages to their employers. If they didn't have a job, and assuming for a moment that welfare was lackluster in its support for the common unemployed person or family, they would wither into complete destitution. So, yes, employment is bondage, in a certain manner.

Not at all comparable. You're consenting to be employed, and you get rewarded afterwards. I have never heard of a hostage situation that someone has willingly consented to, and gotten a reward from the hostage at the end.

[Ceannairceach]

It's an expression.

And the expression is wrong, factually. It may be cute, but it isn't correct.

There's still a communitarian commitment.

What if one worker decides he doesn't want to work, will he starve? Will the others have to do twice as much in his place?

No, he will starve, until he gets his act together. if he refuses to work, he isn't part of the community any more, theoretically. The drive of self interest is still there in communism, despite the rhetoric; It is just applied towards community work than self advancement.

I'd say it was actually the opposite, the labour force of the lower classes can be intrinsic to a workforce.

I don't get your meaning.

I get the metaphor, but it's more in the sense of allowing the freedom of opportunism. For opportunism always manifests, it needs a healthy outlet, short of everyone becoming a physical predator and us going back to our caveman roots... but seeing each other as prey. Humans are competitive creatures.

Humans are also, many say, inherently altruistic. Altruism is a common, unifying trait in humans at their base. Which is what Marxism seeks to promote, just as capitalism seeks to promote competition. Both have their merits and downsides, but I'd be strained to call either way better.

Not in the lick of sense. You're consenting to be employed, and you get rewarded after wards. I have never heard of a hostage situation that someone has willingly consented to, and gotten a reward from the hostage at the end.

I said a bondage in a certain manner. If the employees didn't work, they'd starve. And if they started to starve, they'd have to find a line of work. And since the employer holds all the leverage in such an arrangement, the employee is at the hands of the employer and must accept any terms he offers, lest he run the risk of starving. This is comparable to the Encomienda system of Colombian times; Natives had to offer tributes, or lose a limb. Who holds the power here, the employee, or the employer? Workers who are working to sustain themselves alone hold absolutely no power in a employee-employer relationship.

[Liberty of Republic]

The theory is that Marxism forces you to work as hard as you can if you want to receive the rewards for your work, with no class above or below you to manipulate you or for you to manipulate. Now, I am not a Marxist, but I can see the value in this system. One cannot be fired in Marxism: You will simply not receive the fruits of your labor.

Not sure what readings you did of Marxism, but that is not what he wanted. And even so, giving someone a job is not a right. Not only do you have no rights under this philosophy because you do not have a choice to move to a different job if you wanted to under a communist/socialist system if they deem you not worthy to move.

Theoretically, capitalism is the method by which you rise on the backs of those you conquer. Now, I manage to work with capitalism: I don't much care for it one way or another, really. So don't take that line as a criticism per se. But capitalism is intrinsically based upon crushing your opponents in economic combat, in order to climb the mountain of the fallen until you reach the top or are defeated yourself, if you'll allow the metaphor.

So, that is the real world for you. Not only would it be a dull world working the same job you are not qualified for but put there by the overreaching government/society, but it would be a world with no individualism or thought that can be independent.

Those who are not employed with disposable income are, in a manner, hostages to their employers. If they didn't have a job, and assuming for a moment that welfare was lackluster in its support for the common unemployed person or family, they would wither into complete destitution. So, yes, employment is bondage, in a certain manner.

And who gets to decide what is "disposable"? Nations government? UN? When you get down to it, it is oppression by one group over another in a society. Meanwhile, in a capitalist or free-market society, you have a chance and mobility to move from one job to the next if needed. In a free-market system YOU as the worker have a choice to either make something of yourself or fail. No one can make you fail except you.
Besides, as a boss, I KNOW that most contracts between the worker and the employer have outlines of what is acceptable and what is NOT acceptable and what can get you fired. Period.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

It's an expression.

And the expression is wrong, factually. It may be cute, but it isn't correct.

Alright, be pedantic then. Madness is repeating the same ACTION, and expecting the same results.

There's still a communitarian commitment.

What if one worker decides he doesn't want to work, will he starve? Will the others have to do twice as much in his place?

No, he will starve, until he gets his act together. if he refuses to work, he isn't part of the community any more, theoretically. The drive of self interest is still there in communism, despite the rhetoric; It is just applied towards community work than self advancement.

That contradicts the idea of working class solidarity.

Or does that only apply up to the world revolution and withering of the state. After that, does the working class solidarity wither as well?

I don't get your meaning.

You cannot have a labour force without workers. It would be silly of an employer to deny workers a post, because of socioeconomic background, because you wouldn't get your workers.

Humans are also, many say, inherently altruistic. Altruism is a common, unifying trait in humans at their base. Which is what Marxism seeks to promote, just as capitalism seeks to promote competition. Both have their merits and downsides, but I'd be strained to call either way better.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't buy the extent of altruism as people claim it. I admit everyone has the CAPACITY to be altruistic, and I admit there are rare people out there that can BE altruistic, but however I make a firm stance that I do not want to rest the livelihood or future of humans as a whole, on the idealistic hope that humans will be naturally altruistic, after you take away certain 'designated' cancerous elements, because that is the 'determinist' way to go. It's too big of a risk.

I said a bondage in a certain manner. If the employees didn't work, they'd starve. And if they started to starve, they'd have to find a line of work. And since the employer holds all the leverage in such an arrangement, the employee is at the hands of the employer and must accept any terms he offers, lest he run the risk of starving. This is comparable to the Encomienda system of Colombian times; Natives had to offer tributes, or lose a limb. Who holds the power here, the employee, or the employer? Workers who are working to sustain themselves alone hold absolutely no power in a employee-employer relationship.

The employer has the power because it's their company, but they also have more responsibility. It's swings and roundabouts. If their company goes tits up, unless it's a monopoly, unless it's a private or public limited company, an entrepreneur is liable for everything. It's not quite the luxury, golden mansion, dream people portray it as. There's a degree of a power relation, because of the way the company is organized. But it is not power, for the sake of power.

[Meryuma]

1. The point is that I don't see how I'm being stereotypical or whatever and it seems like you brought that up to derail the argument.
2. It's a bit suspicious, however, that you'd use that of all examples.
3. Missing the point. You were dismissing my argument because of my ideology. It's an ad hominem. I don't want to open some whole other can of worms about whether anarchy and a gift economy can be successful, I just want you to stop using fallacies.

1) Because I do not define people by their socioeconomic status. I define them as people. If I lose my job, I haven't lost my entire identity.
2) I think it applies.
3) I was not dismissing your argument. I just wasn't taking it seriously, because it was becoming a typical "workers should be infallible and never self reflect" rehash.

That's incredibly presumptuous. You know nothing about how old I am, what I do with my life, or anything other than me being lower middle-class and viewing capitalism as an unfree system. It appears you define success in a debate by how much one can dismiss their opponent's opinions.

To be honest, you were the one earlier asking me whether I knew of anyone working class. You hardly implied that with a non-patronizing tone.

1. Did I ever claim that losing your job = losing your identity?
2. How does it apply?
3. How the hell does thinking capitalism is an unfree system mean you believe workers are infallible?
4. I understand where you think that's comparable, but I asked you that because you showed a noticeable lack of understanding or empathy towards unemployed people which suggests naivete and removal from that situation. On the other hand, you were making an ad hominem based on your assumptions about my life.

This is Youtube-tier debating.

To say that one employment being rigged against a certain demographic, means that employment is generally intrinsically rigged to oppress demographics in general, is a bit silly.

They didn't say that, though. Can you stop being so underhanded?

Also, to that Liberty of Republic guy, employment isn't all that voluntary when for one thing capitalism is held up through coercion and for another many people have to either be employed or starve.

[Ceannairceach]

Not sure what readings you did of Marxism, but that is not what he wanted. And even so, giving someone a job is not a right. Not only do you have no rights under this philosophy because you do not have a choice to move to a different job if you wanted to under a communist/socialist system if they deem you not worthy to move.

What Marx wrote is, in effect, irrelevant. What Marxism would be like in practice is what truly matters.

And no one says you can't move to a different job. Who said you couldn't? Marxism removes the chains of society, in theory. You'd be free to change professions if you felt like it, but one couldn't promise you'd receive the same share of the community's goods in return for your work. One doesn't need to be deemed "worthy", though; Marxism in practice would be stateless, based on small-group societies in which one would take as much as they give.

But, again, I am not a Marxist.

So, that is the real world for you. Not only would it be a dull world working the same job you are not qualified for but put there by the overreaching government/society, but it would be a world with no individualism or thought that can be independent.

Correction: That is the real world under capitalistic domination. And while, again, I have no intrinsic problem with that, I can see equally the value in alternative systems. And, again, your point about being unable to move professions is totally unwarranted. And why you are referencing government when Marxism is stateless, and society when you are society, is also confusing. Individualism exists in Marxism, but individuals must work for the benefit of the community in order to succeed.

And who gets to decide what is "disposable"? Nations government? UN? When you get down to it, it is oppression by one group over another in a society. Meanwhile, in a capitalist or free-market society, you have a chance and mobility to move from one job to the next if needed. In a free-market system YOU as the worker have a choice to either make something of yourself or fail. No one can make you fail except you.

Stop referencing job movement. That has neither here nor there. Now, disposable income is merely defined as more than you need to live. Society, as a whole, would define that. If the society is largely rich, then a sports car and million dollar home might fit in. If it is poor, then maybe not. But it varies. Not everyone has the freedom of social advancement in a free market, capitalist society, and it is idiotic to pretend that everyone does. There are many variables that can make a worker fail, and it isn't solely their fault for doing so, and it is once again idiotic to pretend it is.

Besides, as a boss, I KNOW that most contracts between the worker and the employer have outlines of what is acceptable and what is NOT acceptable and what can get you fired. Period.

Not all do. And many contracts can and are arbitrary in terms of what can and can't get you fired.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

1. Did I ever claim that losing your job = losing your identity?

When you start to focus on the phases of 'working class', or 'classist' as rigid demographic outlooks to identity people, and construct/support arguments that equate firing employees to taking away the economic and personal freedom of a person completely, then yes you start to step into that territory.

2. How does it apply?

Because it's still a system of thought, that interferes with a person's life to hazardous ends. And you were equating that logic, to being incompatible with freedom.

3. How the hell does thinking capitalism is an unfree system mean you believe workers are infallible?

By arguing it's wrong for an employer to sack an employee within his own company, if the employee is being a pain.

4. I understand where you think that's comparable, but I asked you that because you showed a noticeable lack of understanding or empathy towards unemployed people which suggests naivete and removal from that situation. On the other hand, you were making an ad hominem based on your assumptions about my life.

And you started implying that I had never met someone from a working class background, because I implied it was possible for someone to have a career change. And then got upset when I mention that people that happened to be fired alot, tend to get a bit defensive with using capitalism as a blame outlet. I never specifically stated your username, as I don't know you from Adam, I meant generally. I observe correlations.

This is Youtube-tier debating.

Well it's a two way effort.

To say that one employment being rigged against a certain demographic, means that employment is generally intrinsically rigged to oppress demographics in general, is a bit silly.

They didn't say that, though. Can you stop being so underhanded?

Isn't that what most radical anti-capitalist frameworks basically highlight on? I'm pretty sure it is.

I mean we've already had Blakk Metal imply misogynist or fascist conspiracies already. Whether he realized he did it, or whether he was trolling or not, I don't know.

[Meryuma]

But, again, I am not a Marxist.

I'd like to add that I'm not a Marxist either.

Also, I think you mean that communism is stateless, not that Marxism is.