Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Telconi]

But price doesn't oscillate around any man-hour value. It oscillates around a perceived value based largely upon supply and demand.

If I spend five hundred hours making a product that doesn't work, the price doesn't just gravitate towards whatever arbitrary value 500 of my hours is worth.

If you make a defective product, your labor might as well have never been done. Price oscillates around equilibrium price - which is value. Price does not automatically gravitate towards value. It only revolves around it.

So, then the afore mentioned Pontiac Aztek is of zero value?

[The Liberated Territories]

Hi, I am not a libertarian at all. I just have one question. Did this Austin Peterson guy actually, seriously, call for letters of marque against ISIS? How would that even work?

I think he explains it in the 2016 Libertarian Party debate with Stossel. The idea originated from Ron Paul iirc.

[Orostan]

If you make a defective product, your labor might as well have never been done. Price oscillates around equilibrium price - which is value. Price does not automatically gravitate towards value. It only revolves around it.

So, then the afore mentioned Pontiac Aztek is of zero value?

Depends. Does the car still operate? If it can move then it has value, its price is another story.

[Nulla Bellum]

I'm not sure what you're asking here. How to issue a letter of marque and reprisal, or if the tactic would work against ISIS?

Both?

It's basically contracting out mercenaries to attack targets of opportunity. As far as if the tactic would work, it's generally accepted among the scientific community that people can't be terrorists when they are dead.

[Nulla Bellum]

If you make a defective product, your labor might as well have never been done. Price oscillates around equilibrium price - which is value. Price does not automatically gravitate towards value. It only revolves around it.

So, then the afore mentioned Pontiac Aztek is of zero value?

Its value depreciated as soon as you drove it off the lot. Those union laborers never make anything worth using.

How long are we going to bat this guy's bifurcation fallacy around until we get bored with it?

Pop it. Like a zit.

"The strange thing about the value theory is that it considers human labour as fundamentally different from all other processes in nature, for example, from the labour of animals." - Karl Popper

Keep in mind, Marx rejected "human nature." This mythos / religion has no legs. The nonsensical ravings of a man who wouldn't even labor to take a bath.

[Jordkloden]

Hi, I am not a libertarian at all. I just have one question. Did this Austin Peterson guy actually, seriously, call for letters of marque against ISIS? How would that even work?

I think he explains it in the 2016 Libertarian Party debate with Stossel. The idea originated from Ron Paul iirc.

Thank you, I will look into that.

[Orostan]

So, then the afore mentioned Pontiac Aztek is of zero value?

Its value depreciated as soon as you drove it off the lot. Those union laborers never make anything worth using.

How long are we going to bat this guy's bifurcation fallacy around until we get bored with it?

Pop it. Like a zit.

"The strange thing about the value theory is that it considers human labour as fundamentally different from all other processes in nature, for example, from the labour of animals." - Karl Popper

Keep in mind, Marx rejected "human nature." This mythos / religion has no legs. The nonsensical ravings of a man who wouldn't even labor to take a bath.

The reason why a machine's value depreciates as it's used is because the machine is 'using up' the labor that went into making it. If we have a factory machine that took 1000 hours to create, and over a span of time where maintenance amounts to replacing every part of the machine will make 1 million products, it has 'transmitted' .1 hours of labor into every product. The car is the same. As it is used, the labor 'contained' within it is used up too. The reason why the LTV considers human labor different from everything else is because only humans can labor. Only humans can consciously make something with a certain purpose and goal in mind.

Also, attacks on Marx and not what he wrote are not a valid argument.

[Telconi]

Its value depreciated as soon as you drove it off the lot. Those union laborers never make anything worth using.

How long are we going to bat this guy's bifurcation fallacy around until we get bored with it?

Pop it. Like a zit.

"The strange thing about the value theory is that it considers human labour as fundamentally different from all other processes in nature, for example, from the labour of animals." - Karl Popper

Keep in mind, Marx rejected "human nature." This mythos / religion has no legs. The nonsensical ravings of a man who wouldn't even labor to take a bath.

The reason why a machine's value depreciates as it's used is because the machine is 'using up' the labor that went into making it. If we have a factory machine that took 1000 hours to create, and over a span of time where maintenance amounts to replacing every part of the machine will make 1 million products, it has 'transmitted' .1 hours of labor into every product. The car is the same. As it is used, the labor 'contained' within it is used up too. The reason why the LTV considers human labor different from everything else is because only humans can labor. Only humans can consciously make something with a certain purpose and goal in mind.

Also, attacks on Marx and not what he wrote are not a valid argument.

Implying it's necessary to make a valid argument contrary to your position.

[Orostan]

The reason why a machine's value depreciates as it's used is because the machine is 'using up' the labor that went into making it. If we have a factory machine that took 1000 hours to create, and over a span of time where maintenance amounts to replacing every part of the machine will make 1 million products, it has 'transmitted' .1 hours of labor into every product. The car is the same. As it is used, the labor 'contained' within it is used up too. The reason why the LTV considers human labor different from everything else is because only humans can labor. Only humans can consciously make something with a certain purpose and goal in mind.

Also, attacks on Marx and not what he wrote are not a valid argument.

Implying it's necessary to make a valid argument contrary to your position.

If you don't even want to try and make a good argument against Marxism, you may as well admit to conceding the debate.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Its value depreciated as soon as you drove it off the lot. Those union laborers never make anything worth using.

How long are we going to bat this guy's bifurcation fallacy around until we get bored with it?

Pop it. Like a zit.

"The strange thing about the value theory is that it considers human labour as fundamentally different from all other processes in nature, for example, from the labour of animals." - Karl Popper

Keep in mind, Marx rejected "human nature." This mythos / religion has no legs. The nonsensical ravings of a man who wouldn't even labor to take a bath.

The reason why a machine's value depreciates as it's used is because the machine is 'using up' the labor that went into making it. If we have a factory machine that took 1000 hours to create, and over a span of time where maintenance amounts to replacing every part of the machine will make 1 million products, it has 'transmitted' .1 hours of labor into every product. The car is the same. As it is used, the labor 'contained' within it is used up too. The reason why the LTV considers human labor different from everything else is because only humans can labor. Only humans can consciously make something with a certain purpose and goal in mind.

Also, attacks on Marx and not what he wrote are not a valid argument.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

[Telconi]

Implying it's necessary to make a valid argument contrary to your position.

If you don't even want to try and make a good argument against Marxism, you may as well admit to conceding the debate.

It's literally too absurd to bother. I don't have to debunk your positions, because anyone with the logic God gave a potato can do that for themselves.

[Jordkloden]

Hi, I am not a libertarian at all. I just have one question. Did this Austin Peterson guy actually, seriously, call for letters of marque against ISIS? How would that even work?

I think he explains it in the 2016 Libertarian Party debate with Stossel. The idea originated from Ron Paul iirc.

Okay, I looked into it more thoroughly and Peterson didn't really explain his idea. He just said that we should listen to Ron Paul and that grizzled veterans would be willing to do it. Maybe a better explanation is out there somewhere but I haven't found it. I found that Ron Paul had proposed letters of marque and reprisal for pirates but did not find him suggesting it for fighting ISIS.

Sources:
https://youtu.be/sXLe0Sw8NUY?t=2m
https://www.politico.com/story/2009/04/ron-pauls-plan-to-fend-off-pirates-021245

[Orostan]

If you don't even want to try and make a good argument against Marxism, you may as well admit to conceding the debate.

It's literally too absurd to bother. I don't have to debunk your positions, because anyone with the logic God gave a potato can do that for themselves.

>I will now not make an argument.

Make an argument, potato.

The reason why a machine's value depreciates as it's used is because the machine is 'using up' the labor that went into making it. If we have a factory machine that took 1000 hours to create, and over a span of time where maintenance amounts to replacing every part of the machine will make 1 million products, it has 'transmitted' .1 hours of labor into every product. The car is the same. As it is used, the labor 'contained' within it is used up too. The reason why the LTV considers human labor different from everything else is because only humans can labor. Only humans can consciously make something with a certain purpose and goal in mind.

Also, attacks on Marx and not what he wrote are not a valid argument.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

Yes it is. We can measure the average time it takes for a manual laborer to produce a unit of product. We can measure the average amount of time it takes to design a nuclear missile or make any other kind of intellectual product. We can equate these averages. We can also add on labor money to a persons pay based on their education. While intellectual labor and manual labor are different, they are both labor.

[36 Camera Perspective]

It's literally too absurd to bother. I don't have to debunk your positions, because anyone with the logic God gave a potato can do that for themselves.

>I will now not make an argument.

Make an argument, potato.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

It is not possible to turn labor into a homogenous unit.

Yes it is. We can measure the average time it takes for a manual laborer to produce a unit of product. We can measure the average amount of time it takes to design a nuclear missile or make any other kind of intellectual product. We can equate these averages. We can also add on labor money to a persons pay based on their education. While intellectual labor and manual labor are different, they are both labor.

The problem with turning labor into a homogenous unit is not that you can't determine the socially necessary amount of labor needed to produce a good or service. I agree that you could average out everybody's labor and come to a number (although, on capitalism, we could do the same thing with a price system and avoid having to make these calculations altogether, but that's not my main point). The problem is that you cannot equate these averages. I agree that, hypothetically, you could say that a hamburger is worth 5 minutes of labor, or that the components of a cell phone are worth two hours of labor. The problem is that you cannot equate these averages.

Let's say that I work for an hour and use X amount of productive resources. Now let's say that somebody else works for an hour and uses X+1 productive resources. We both earn a labor voucher worth an hour, which implies that our labor was equally valuable. However, that's evidently not the case, because the other person's labor used more productive resources. Thus, to say that our labor was equally valuable would be completely incorrect, but that's exactly what would transpire under your system.

An hour spent conducting neurosurgery is more valuable than an hour spent flipping burgers.

[Orostan]

>I will now not make an argument.

Make an argument, potato.


Yes it is. We can measure the average time it takes for a manual laborer to produce a unit of product. We can measure the average amount of time it takes to design a nuclear missile or make any other kind of intellectual product. We can equate these averages. We can also add on labor money to a persons pay based on their education. While intellectual labor and manual labor are different, they are both labor.

The problem with turning labor into a homogenous unit is not that you can't determine the socially necessary amount of labor needed to produce a good or service. I agree that you could average out everybody's labor and come to a number (although, on capitalism, we could do the same thing with a price system and avoid having to make these calculations altogether, but that's not my main point). The problem is that you cannot equate these averages. I agree that, hypothetically, you could say that a hamburger is worth 5 minutes of labor, or that the components of a cell phone are worth two hours of labor. The problem is that you cannot equate these averages.

Let's say that I work for an hour and use X amount of productive resources. Now let's say that somebody else works for an hour and uses X+1 productive resources. We both earn a labor voucher worth an hour, which implies that our labor was equally valuable. However, that's evidently not the case, because the other person's labor used more productive resources. Thus, to say that our labor was equally valuable would be completely incorrect, but that's exactly what would transpire under your system.

An hour spent conducting neurosurgery is more valuable than an hour spent flipping burgers.

1)We can determine SNLT. Let's take iron ore. If it takes 1 hour to mine 1 pound of ore, we have a staring point. If it takes 2 hours to refine that iron, and another hour to turn that into a pick we now know that it takes 3 hours to make a pickaxe on average, and 1 hour to use they pick to mine 1 pound of iron. Let's say the pick breaks on average after 100 pounds of iron have been mined. That means it 'transmits' on average .03 hours of labor to each pound of iron ore mined. So that means the labor value of iron ore is 1.03 hours a pound. Of course, some pickaxes will break early and some will break late, and some people will mine more than others and some will produce less, but measuring this as an average means these things balance out. We now know that despite refining iron into steel is different labor than mining iron that they are still both labor. The only difference was what they did with that labor. Two people doing different things doesn't mean that their labor is incomparable. Labor is labor, whatever form it takes.

Read Cockshott.

2) But you have both added the same value. One of you was working with more valuable materials, but that doesn't mean they worked harder. You both have added the same value, so will be paid the same.

3) An hour of neurosurgery is generally way more intensive than one hour of flipping burgers. Pay for being a neurosurgeon would be determined by the neurosurgeons themselves.

[36 Camera Perspective]

1)We can determine SNLT. Let's take iron ore. If it takes 1 hour to mine 1 pound of ore, we have a staring point. If it takes 2 hours to refine that iron, and another hour to turn that into a pick we now know that it takes 3 hours to make a pickaxe on average, and 1 hour to use they pick to mine 1 pound of iron. Let's say the pick breaks on average after 100 pounds of iron have been mined. That means it 'transmits' on average .03 hours of labor to each pound of iron ore mined. So that means the labor value of iron ore is 1.03 hours a pound. Of course, some pickaxes will break early and some will break late, and some people will mine more than others and some will produce less, but measuring this as an average means these things balance out. We now know that despite refining iron into steel is different labor than mining iron that they are still both labor. The only difference was what they did with that labor. Two people doing different things doesn't mean that their labor is incomparable. Labor is labor, whatever form it takes.

I explicitly stated that my argument was NOT about whether or not one can calculate SNLT. I already told you the SNLT in this scenario--it was one hour. The problem is that one hour of SNLT is not a homogenous unit because that hour can make use of different types and amounts of productive resources. As I said, Good A takes X amount of productive resources, and Good B takes X+1 amount of productive resources, yet the SNLT for both goods is one hour. When I talk about one hour of SLNT for Good A, that means X amount of resources. When I talk about one hour of SNLT for Good B, that means X+1 amount of resources. Thus the units are not homogenous. They refer to different amounts and types of productive resources.

Additionally, the issue is not whether one form of labor can be compared to another form of labor. Obviously we can compare forms of labor by the amount of time they took, or the amount of productive resources they utilized. The issue is whether or not we are to compare different forms of labor by using SNLT. The issue is whether or not all labor is to be equated, not that labor can't be compared at all.

2) But you have both added the same value. One of you was working with more valuable materials, but that doesn't mean they worked harder. You both have added the same value, so will be paid the same.

This is just absurdity. You keep trying to concede that there are differences between the two types of labor we are considering, but then trying to insist that they were the same type of labor at the end of the day. It's like "yeah, one of them may have used more resources to produce their good, but at the end of the day, it was the same labor." Nonsense.

It's very obvious to anybody with any degree of common sense that these two types of labor are not equal. When I explain SNLT to everyday people, they think it's the most ridiculous idea they've ever heard. They're also right.

3) An hour of neurosurgery is generally way more intensive than one hour of flipping burgers. Pay for being a neurosurgeon would be determined by the neurosurgeons themselves.

No, it would be determined by SNLT in your system. It's always good to spend eight or more years in medical school only to have my labor equated with somebody who works at Arby's, right?

[Orostan]

1)We can determine SNLT. Let's take iron ore. If it takes 1 hour to mine 1 pound of ore, we have a staring point. If it takes 2 hours to refine that iron, and another hour to turn that into a pick we now know that it takes 3 hours to make a pickaxe on average, and 1 hour to use they pick to mine 1 pound of iron. Let's say the pick breaks on average after 100 pounds of iron have been mined. That means it 'transmits' on average .03 hours of labor to each pound of iron ore mined. So that means the labor value of iron ore is 1.03 hours a pound. Of course, some pickaxes will break early and some will break late, and some people will mine more than others and some will produce less, but measuring this as an average means these things balance out. We now know that despite refining iron into steel is different labor than mining iron that they are still both labor. The only difference was what they did with that labor. Two people doing different things doesn't mean that their labor is incomparable. Labor is labor, whatever form it takes.

I explicitly stated that my argument was NOT about whether or not one can calculate SNLT. I already told you the SNLT in this scenario--it was one hour. The problem is that one hour of SNLT is not a homogenous unit because that hour can make use of different types and amounts of productive resources. As I said, Good A takes X amount of productive resources, and Good B takes X+1 amount of productive resources, yet the SNLT for both goods is one hour. When I talk about one hour of SLNT for Good A, that means X amount of resources. When I talk about one hour of SNLT for Good B, that means X+1 amount of resources. Thus the units are not homogenous. They refer to different amounts and types of productive resources.

Additionally, the issue is not whether one form of labor can be compared to another form of labor. Obviously we can compare forms of labor by the amount of time they took, or the amount of productive resources they utilized. The issue is whether or not we are to compare different forms of labor by using SNLT. The issue is whether or not all labor is to be equated, not that labor can't be compared at all.

I see what you mean now. But my using more prpductive resources, the aggregate amount of labor in the product will increase. Whied you individually may spend an hour on making the product, that doesn't mean the product will have only one hour of labor as its SNLT. Socially neccesary labor time is agrregate. If you can do twice as much labor in an hour than your neighbor, you will be paid twice as much not because you are working with twice as much value, but because you are adding twice as much.

[Orostan]

2) But you have both added the same value. One of you was working with more valuable materials, but that doesn't mean they worked harder. You both have added the same value, so will be paid the same.

This is just absurdity. You keep trying to concede that there are differences between the two types of labor we are considering, but then trying to insist that they were the same type of labor at the end of the day. It's like "yeah, one of them may have used more resources to produce their good, but at the end of the day, it was the same labor." Nonsense.

It's very obvious to anybody with any degree of common sense that these two types of labor are not equal. When I explain SNLT to everyday people, they think it's the most ridiculous idea they've ever heard. They're also right.

3) An hour of neurosurgery is generally way more intensive than one hour of flipping burgers. Pay for being a neurosurgeon would be determined by the neurosurgeons themselves.

No, it would be determined by SNLT in your system. It's always good to spend eight or more years in medical school only to have my labor equated with somebody who works at Arby's, right?

1) I have only said that there is a difference between the amount of resources being used. Not the amount of labor. If you add 1 hour of labor to a 4 hour product, you will be paid the same as someone who adds 1 hour of labor at the same intensity to a 400 hour product.

"When I explain SNLT"

You clearly cannot explain it, as you don't seem to know what it is.

2) You are telling me, a socialist, that i am wrong about how pay is determined in socialism? If you spend eight years in Med school, you will either have a multiplier added to whatever job you get, or will just be paid for learning how to be a doctor. Your labor is much more valuable than someone flipping burgers at CommieBurger, so you will be paid more. For being a neurosurgeon it may be that you work 20 times longer per unit (in this case a brain surgery) and either that your job just takes 20 times longer to complete, or is 20 times harder.

Even if we go with Neurosurgery just taking longer, people will still do it and voluntarily choose to under socialism. People don't become doctors for money.

[Nulla Bellum]

Its value depreciated as soon as you drove it off the lot. Those union laborers never make anything worth using.

How long are we going to bat this guy's bifurcation fallacy around until we get bored with it?

Pop it. Like a zit.

"The strange thing about the value theory is that it considers human labour as fundamentally different from all other processes in nature, for example, from the labour of animals." - Karl Popper

Keep in mind, Marx rejected "human nature." This mythos / religion has no legs. The nonsensical ravings of a man who wouldn't even labor to take a bath.

The reason why a machine's value depreciates as it's used is because the machine is 'using up' the labor that went into making it. If we have a factory machine that took 1000 hours to create, and over a span of time where maintenance amounts to replacing every part of the machine will make 1 million products, it has 'transmitted' .1 hours of labor into every product. The car is the same. As it is used, the labor 'contained' within it is used up too. The reason why the LTV considers human labor different from everything else is because only humans can labor. Only humans can consciously make something with a certain purpose and goal in mind.

Also, attacks on Marx and not what he wrote are not a valid argument.

I directly and precisely attacked what Marx wrote. It's odd to say "only humans do labor" when even Marx wrote in a time when horses were still the primary land transport and engine of cargo conveyance. Hell, we still measure "horsepower."

So no, you can't moralize about there being no human nature to distinguish them from animals while the beavers are out building dams and birds are building nests and then claim "only humans labor." It is a glaring and inherent flaw in Marxism in general and the LTV in specific.

It really is no one's fault Marxism is stupid. Why Marxism's stupidity is accepted and revered by some is rather self-explanatory.

But, go ahead, as you will, and explain the labor value of a spider building a web.

[Nulla Bellum]

Here's a head scratcher for the LTV commies:

Should a laborer be held personally responsible for civil damages claims if he made a defective product that injured someone? Other laborers beside him at the same factory made the same product, but their work produced no harmful defects, while his did. Who should pay?

[Elwher]

Here's a head scratcher for the LTV commies:

Should a laborer be held personally responsible for civil damages claims if he made a defective product that injured someone? Other laborers beside him at the same factory made the same product, but their work produced no harmful defects, while his did. Who should pay?

In most non-craft production facilities, a single workman does not make a product but only his piece of it. Therefore, assigning responsibility would be extremely difficult, making attaching civil responsibility almost impossible.

[Orostan]

The reason why a machine's value depreciates as it's used is because the machine is 'using up' the labor that went into making it. If we have a factory machine that took 1000 hours to create, and over a span of time where maintenance amounts to replacing every part of the machine will make 1 million products, it has 'transmitted' .1 hours of labor into every product. The car is the same. As it is used, the labor 'contained' within it is used up too. The reason why the LTV considers human labor different from everything else is because only humans can labor. Only humans can consciously make something with a certain purpose and goal in mind.

Also, attacks on Marx and not what he wrote are not a valid argument.

I directly and precisely attacked what Marx wrote. It's odd to say "only humans do labor" when even Marx wrote in a time when horses were still the primary land transport and engine of cargo conveyance. Hell, we still measure "horsepower."

So no, you can't moralize about there being no human nature to distinguish them from animals while the beavers are out building dams and birds are building nests and then claim "only humans labor." It is a glaring and inherent flaw in Marxism in general and the LTV in specific.

It really is no one's fault Marxism is stupid. Why Marxism's stupidity is accepted and revered by some is rather self-explanatory.

But, go ahead, as you will, and explain the labor value of a spider building a web.

1)

"The nonsensical ravings of a man who wouldn't even labor to take a bath."

sounds like an attack on Marx to me.

2) The horse doesn't know what it's doing. It just knows to do a certain thing when exposed to certain stimuli. Maybe it remembers the places it goes and the things it sees, but it doesn't know why it sees these things and goes to these places. The horse is not consciously working towards a goal. It's actions are much closer to that of a machine, when we look at labor. The Spider is similar. It only builds a web out of instinct, and a vague 'knowledge' of why it needs to. It doesn't consciously decide to construct a web in a certain shape in a certain way to accomplish a specific goal. It doesn't know how to. When a beaver builds a dam or a bird builds a nest, it isn't trying to make something consciously for the purpose of fulfilling a specific need. It is only building something for survival, and that is a very, very, general need. Even if animals purposely build structures and products to fulfill specific needs they do not have an economy, so discussing the values of these items is useless.

3) You clearly don't know what Marxism is if you think it is stupid.

Here's a head scratcher for the LTV commies:

Should a laborer be held personally responsible for civil damages claims if he made a defective product that injured someone? Other laborers beside him at the same factory made the same product, but their work produced no harmful defects, while his did. Who should pay?

Did he know the product was defective? Is it like a microscopic fracture in a valve that cannot be detected until it fails? And there are multiple workers who worked on that product too. How do we know who made the defective part or material that went into the product?

It makes much more sense to simply have insurance cover that cost rather than tracking down a specific person who doesn't even know what happened.

[Great Minarchistan]

I directly and precisely attacked what Marx wrote. It's odd to say "only humans do labor" when even Marx wrote in a time when horses were still the primary land transport and engine of cargo conveyance. Hell, we still measure "horsepower."

So no, you can't moralize about there being no human nature to distinguish them from animals while the beavers are out building dams and birds are building nests and then claim "only humans labor." It is a glaring and inherent flaw in Marxism in general and the LTV in specific.

It really is no one's fault Marxism is stupid. Why Marxism's stupidity is accepted and revered by some is rather self-explanatory.

But, go ahead, as you will, and explain the labor value of a spider building a web.

1)

"The nonsensical ravings of a man who wouldn't even labor to take a bath."

sounds like an attack on Marx to me.

2) The horse doesn't know what it's doing. It just knows to do a certain thing when exposed to certain stimuli. Maybe it remembers the places it goes and the things it sees, but it doesn't know why it sees these things and goes to these places. The horse is not consciously working towards a goal. It's actions are much closer to that of a machine, when we look at labor. The Spider is similar. It only builds a web out of instinct, and a vague 'knowledge' of why it needs to. It doesn't consciously decide to construct a web in a certain shape in a certain way to accomplish a specific goal. It doesn't know how to. When a beaver builds a dam or a bird builds a nest, it isn't trying to make something consciously for the purpose of fulfilling a specific need. It is only building something for survival, and that is a very, very, general need. Even if animals purposely build structures and products to fulfill specific needs they do not have an economy, so discussing the values of these items is useless.

3) You clearly don't know what Marxism is if you think it is stupid.

Here's a head scratcher for the LTV commies:

Should a laborer be held personally responsible for civil damages claims if he made a defective product that injured someone? Other laborers beside him at the same factory made the same product, but their work produced no harmful defects, while his did. Who should pay?

Did he know the product was defective? Is it like a microscopic fracture in a valve that cannot be detected until it fails? And there are multiple workers who worked on that product too. How do we know who made the defective part or material that went into the product?

It makes much more sense to simply have insurance cover that cost rather than tracking down a specific person who doesn't even know what happened.

I love how you say that attacking Marx is not a valid argument but you say that Nulla doesn't know marxism if he thinks it's stupid (implying marxism is inherently good)

[Nulla Bellum]

1)

"The nonsensical ravings of a man who wouldn't even labor to take a bath."

sounds like an attack on Marx to me.

2) The horse doesn't know what it's doing. It just knows to do a certain thing when exposed to certain stimuli. Maybe it remembers the places it goes and the things it sees, but it doesn't know why it sees these things and goes to these places. The horse is not consciously working towards a goal. It's actions are much closer to that of a machine, when we look at labor. The Spider is similar. It only builds a web out of instinct, and a vague 'knowledge' of why it needs to. It doesn't consciously decide to construct a web in a certain shape in a certain way to accomplish a specific goal. It doesn't know how to. When a beaver builds a dam or a bird builds a nest, it isn't trying to make something consciously for the purpose of fulfilling a specific need. It is only building something for survival, and that is a very, very, general need. Even if animals purposely build structures and products to fulfill specific needs they do not have an economy, so discussing the values of these items is useless.

3) You clearly don't know what Marxism is if you think it is stupid.


Did he know the product was defective? Is it like a microscopic fracture in a valve that cannot be detected until it fails? And there are multiple workers who worked on that product too. How do we know who made the defective part or material that went into the product?

It makes much more sense to simply have insurance cover that cost rather than tracking down a specific person who doesn't even know what happened.

I love how you say that attacking Marx is not a valid argument but you say that Nulla doesn't know marxism if he thinks it's stupid (implying marxism is inherently good)

The fact that he insists on positing the existence of human nature to explain the labor theory of value is as good as an unwitting rejection of Marx as we'll get from this "Marxist."

We're being trolled by someone who's never read Marx.

[Nulla Bellum]

I directly and precisely attacked what Marx wrote. It's odd to say "only humans do labor" when even Marx wrote in a time when horses were still the primary land transport and engine of cargo conveyance. Hell, we still measure "horsepower."

So no, you can't moralize about there being no human nature to distinguish them from animals while the beavers are out building dams and birds are building nests and then claim "only humans labor." It is a glaring and inherent flaw in Marxism in general and the LTV in specific.

It really is no one's fault Marxism is stupid. Why Marxism's stupidity is accepted and revered by some is rather self-explanatory.

But, go ahead, as you will, and explain the labor value of a spider building a web.

1)

"The nonsensical ravings of a man who wouldn't even labor to take a bath."

sounds like an attack on Marx to me.

Marx was never a laborer. What does he know about labor?

2) The horse doesn't know what it's doing. It just knows to do a certain thing when exposed to certain stimuli. Maybe it remembers the places it goes and the things it sees, but it doesn't know why it sees these things and goes to these places. The horse is not consciously working towards a goal. It's actions are much closer to that of a machine, when we look at labor. The Spider is similar. It only builds a web out of instinct, and a vague 'knowledge' of why it needs to. It doesn't consciously decide to construct a web in a certain shape in a certain way to accomplish a specific goal. It doesn't know how to. When a beaver builds a dam or a bird builds a nest, it isn't trying to make something consciously for the purpose of fulfilling a specific need. It is only building something for survival, and that is a very, very, general need. Even if animals purposely build structures and products to fulfill specific needs they do not have an economy, so discussing the values of these items is useless.

Previously you spent a few posts insisting on a definition of "value" that you just threw out the window. Are you sure you've read Marx?

3) You clearly don't know what Marxism is if you think it is stupid.

It meets the relevant criteria for stupid. Read some Marx and you'll see.

Here's a head scratcher for the LTV commies:

Should a laborer be held personally responsible for civil damages claims if he made a defective product that injured someone? Other laborers beside him at the same factory made the same product, but their work produced no harmful defects, while his did. Who should pay?

Did he know the product was defective? Is it like a microscopic fracture in a valve that cannot be detected until it fails? And there are multiple workers who worked on that product too. How do we know who made the defective part or material that went into the product?

It makes much more sense to simply have insurance cover that cost rather than tracking down a specific person who doesn't even know what happened.

Huh? So a laborer should be paid an outsize compensation for his "transmitted labor" but not held to account for transmitting harm and damage? The lineage of his "transmitted labor" has to be tracked so that said laborer is not being "exploited," but someone else is responsible if his labor kills someone?

Cuckoo.