Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Hammer Britannia]

Workers owning the means of production means the workers are owners, yes, but they are not exploiters. Because the Capitalists, which by definition are parasites, aren't there, everyone is a worker. That means that the social relations of Capitalist production aren't there either. Calling worker's just another owner under a socialist system isn't correct.

By owning the means of production you live off of the people who are actually making stuff and doing useful things. While small owners do produce at least a little, they still are able to accumulate wealth that others generated.

"But, but, muh parasitic exploitative Capitalist"

Not every single capitalist is the strawman you put them out to be. And who's to say a Worker wouldn't be exploitative? If there is no hierarchy, nobody would work productively as nobody would be controlled on what to do. But, if there is a hierarchy, good chance that it's going to be exploited if everyone is as evil as you say they are under capitalism.

[The Liberated Territories]

Except replace "public" with "personal."

[Orostan]

Because the Capitalists, which by definition are parasites, aren't there, everyone is a worker.

By whose definition? Any dictionary I have consulted does not include parasite in its definition of capitalist.

cap·i·tal·ist (kăp′ĭ-tl-ĭst)
n.
1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

capitalist (ˈkæpɪtəlɪst)
n
1. (Economics) a person who owns capital, esp capital invested in a business
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) politics a supporter of capitalism
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

cap•i•tal•ist (ˈkæp ɪ tl ɪst)

n.
1. a person who invests capital in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

I am interested in what dictionary you are using that includes the term parasite.

I am using the Marxist definition. The bourgeois, the class of capitalists, own the means of production and derive most of their income of the money generated by workers who use those means of production. They do no useful labor. The petty-bourgeois are the 'middle class' in Marxist Economics, and derive a small amount of money off of ownership of the means of production, but still need to work in order to support themselves and their business. The only thing illegitimate about the petty-bourgeois is their small accumulations.

Workers owning the means of production means the workers are owners, yes, but they are not exploiters. Because the Capitalists, which by definition are parasites, aren't there, everyone is a worker. That means that the social relations of Capitalist production aren't there either. Calling worker's just another owner under a socialist system isn't correct.

By owning the means of production you live off of the people who are actually making stuff and doing useful things. While small owners do produce at least a little, they still are able to accumulate wealth that others generated.

"But, but, muh parasitic exploitative Capitalist"

Not every single capitalist is the strawman you put them out to be. And who's to say a Worker wouldn't be exploitative? If there is no hierarchy, nobody would work productively as nobody would be controlled on what to do. But, if there is a hierarchy, good chance that it's going to be exploited if everyone is as evil as you say they are under capitalism.

>strawman
So, you don't understand what I mean? See my earlier bit explaining that in this post. A "worker" can only exploit another person in the economic sense if they are forcing another to give up what they generate involuntarily, and that would make them part of the lumpenproleteriat. I also never said everyone was evil, or anyone was evil at all. No actual Marxist would ever say that. Ever. Your last sentence also shows me that you aren't familiar with what exploitation is, in the sense of wage labor. I'll explain.

Let's take a weaver. Every day, they weave 10 yards of Linen. Now, let's say those yards are worth 100 dollars total. 10 dollars a yard. If the worker is paid 50 dollars a day, that means half of the linen they make is paying their wage, the other half's value goes to the company. This is surplus value. It means that half of the weaver's labor is unpaid as well. The laborer has no input over how their surplus value is used. They are also not giving it up voluntarily, as it is either give it up or be out on the street. This is exploitation.

[Elwher]

Let's take a weaver. Every day, they weave 10 yards of Linen. Now, let's say those yards are worth 100 dollars total. 10 dollars a yard. If the worker is paid 50 dollars a day, that means half of the linen they make is paying their wage, the other half's value goes to the company. This is surplus value. It means that half of the weaver's labor is unpaid as well. The laborer has no input over how their surplus value is used. They are also not giving it up voluntarily, as it is either give it up or be out on the street. This is exploitation.

Someone, not the weaver, supplies the flax they weave into yarn. Someone, not the weaver, bought the loom they use. Someone, not the weaver, takes the product and sells it to the user. Your theory does not account for any of these other inputs. This is not exploitation, this is the realization that there are other factors besides labor in production.

All the labor in the world cannot make mud into apple pies.

[Nulla Bellum]

By whose definition? Any dictionary I have consulted does not include parasite in its definition of capitalist.

cap·i·tal·ist (kăp′ĭ-tl-ĭst)
n.
1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

capitalist (ˈkæpɪtəlɪst)
n
1. (Economics) a person who owns capital, esp capital invested in a business
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) politics a supporter of capitalism
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

cap•i•tal•ist (ˈkæp ɪ tl ɪst)

n.
1. a person who invests capital in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

I am interested in what dictionary you are using that includes the term parasite.

I am using the Marxist definition.

But Marx was an idiot.

[Hammer Britannia]

. I also never said everyone was evil, or anyone was evil at all. No actual Marxist would ever say that.

Yeah, because calling them a parasite totally means they're also not evil. It's almost like baseless insults comparing people to things that have killed thousands make you sound like your calling everyone you don't like evil.

[Irona]

. I also never said everyone was evil, or anyone was evil at all. No actual Marxist would ever say that.

1. You're not a Marxist. Far from it
2. Yeah, because calling them a parasite totally means they're also not evil. It's almost like baseless insults make you sound like your calling everyone you don't like evil.

You think any insult = evil?

[Hammer Britannia]

1. You're not a Marxist. Far from it
2. Yeah, because calling them a parasite totally means they're also not evil. It's almost like baseless insults make you sound like your calling everyone you don't like evil.

You think any insult = evil?

No, calling someone a faggot doesn't mean they think they're evil

Calling someone a blood and resource sucking killer of millions on the other hand...

[Hammer Britannia]

I am using the Marxist definition.

AKA: "I am going to use these definitions for real words, that had already exist for years, that some guy with a sexy beard and ideas I like made up."

[Irona]

I am using the Marxist definition.

AKA: "I am going to use these definitions for real words, that had already exist for years, that some guy with a sexy beard and ideas I like made up."

Say what you want, but Marxist definitions are perfectly valid definitions to use in an economic debate.

[Hammer Britannia]

AKA: "I am going to use these definitions for real words, that had already exist for years, that some guy with a sexy beard and ideas I like made up."

Say what you want, but Marxist definitions are perfectly valid definitions to use in an economic debate.

How so?

Karl Marx was just a man with ideas, not an expert on language. I am a Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I can write a book with a bunch of made up definitions (IE Socialists: "Hella gay retards") and be used as actual definitions

[Orostan]

Let's take a weaver. Every day, they weave 10 yards of Linen. Now, let's say those yards are worth 100 dollars total. 10 dollars a yard. If the worker is paid 50 dollars a day, that means half of the linen they make is paying their wage, the other half's value goes to the company. This is surplus value. It means that half of the weaver's labor is unpaid as well. The laborer has no input over how their surplus value is used. They are also not giving it up voluntarily, as it is either give it up or be out on the street. This is exploitation.

Someone, not the weaver, supplies the flax they weave into yarn. Someone, not the weaver, bought the loom they use. Someone, not the weaver, takes the product and sells it to the user. Your theory does not account for any of these other inputs. This is not exploitation, this is the realization that there are other factors besides labor in production.

All the labor in the world cannot make mud into apple pies.

And where does the money for those products come from? From money generated by what the weaver makes.

I am using the Marxist definition.

But Marx was an idiot.

nob an argumenb xxxddd

. I also never said everyone was evil, or anyone was evil at all. No actual Marxist would ever say that.

Yeah, because calling them a parasite totally means they're also not evil. It's almost like baseless insults comparing people to things that have killed thousands make you sound like your calling everyone you don't like evil.

A parasite is not evil. A Parasitic organism is just trying to grow and replicate itself, same as every other kind of life we know of. They way it does so is what makes it unpleasant to us, but the Parasite itself is never "evil". It is the same with the Capitalist class. What it does as a whole does not benefit the majority of people, quite the opposite, but that doesn't make the bourgeois as a class evil. It just means that my interests are the opposite of theirs.

And besides, Capitalism has killed way more than thousands through conditions that only exist because of it.

a blood and resource sucking killer of millions

yes

I am using the Marxist definition.

AKA: "I am going to use these definitions for real words, that had already exist for years, that some guy with a sexy beard and ideas I like made up."

If you're using age as a measure of a definition's accuracy, than Marx's definitions would be pretty damn accurate.

Also;

Say what you want, but Marxist definitions are perfectly valid definitions to use in an economic debate.

Say what you want, but Marxist definitions are perfectly valid definitions to use in an economic debate.

How so?

Karl Marx was just a man with ideas, not an expert on language. I am a Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I can write a book with a bunch of made up definitions (IE Socialists: "Hella gay retards") and be used as actual definitions

Every school of economics lays down some terms and what those terms mean. So what if Marx said "profit" instead of "marginal efficiency of capital"?

[Orostan]

(Image)

Except replace "public" with "personal."

So, you don't understand what either type of property is?

[Irona]

Say what you want, but Marxist definitions are perfectly valid definitions to use in an economic debate.

How so?

Karl Marx was just a man with ideas, not an expert on language. I am a Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I can write a book with a bunch of made up definitions (IE Socialists: "Hella gay retards") and be used as actual definitions

It’s deemed an actual definition in economics because it’s accepted as such by acidemics and economists.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Flat earth also has an accepted definition fwiw

[The Liberated Territories]

(Image)

Except replace "public" with "personal."

So, you don't understand what either type of property is?

Speak for yourself. I'm not the one trying to push arbitrary distinctions about property. So long as I for example, own an apple tree, I can use it to turn a profit or enjoy the benefits for myself, but it meets the definition of private (e.g. non collectively owned) property either way. So I agree with Molinari's original point, that all property is private unless it was collectivized under force.

[The Liberated Territories]

From Wikipedia

"Private property can be either personal property (consumption goods) or capital goods."

[Hammer Britannia]

Yeah, because calling them a parasite totally means they're also not evil. It's almost like baseless insults comparing people to things that have killed thousands make you sound like your calling everyone you don't like evil.

A parasite is not evil. A Parasitic organism is just trying to grow and replicate itself, same as every other kind of life we know of. They way it does so is what makes it unpleasant to us, but the Parasite itself is never "evil". It is the same with the Capitalist class. What it does as a whole does not benefit the majority of people, quite the opposite, but that doesn't make the bourgeois as a class evil. It just means that my interests are the opposite of theirs.

And besides, Capitalism has killed way more than thousands through conditions that only exist because of it.

Comparing a human, a living breathing man, to a creature that killed millions? Yeah no. That's calling them evil. Nay, not just a man, a bunch of men. From the poor owner of a factory who tries to help his employees to bill gates, you called them all parasites.

a blood and resource sucking killer of millions

yes

No

How so?

Karl Marx was just a man with ideas, not an expert on language. I am a Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I can write a book with a bunch of made up definitions (IE Socialists: "Hella gay retards") and be used as actual definitions

Every school of economics lays down some terms and what those terms mean. So what if Marx said "profit" instead of "marginal efficiency of capital"?

So, that invalidates everything you just said. You just admited that no word can have true commonly accepted meaings. Therefore, "Communists are gay cunts" would be a true defintion because my school of economics says so.

[Orostan]

From Wikipedia

"Private property can be either personal property (consumption goods) or capital goods."

So then, they agree that personal property can be distinguished from other kinds of property?

So, you don't understand what either type of property is?

Speak for yourself. I'm not the one trying to push arbitrary distinctions about property. So long as I for example, own an apple tree, I can use it to turn a profit or enjoy the benefits for myself, but it meets the definition of private (e.g. non collectively owned) property either way. So I agree with Molinari's original point, that all property is private unless it was collectivized under force.

I'd hardly call the distinction arbitrary. It's easily measurable. If you have an apple tree, and you alone pick the apples and care for the tree, then it's personal property because you alone are using it. If you hired someone else to pick the apples and care for the tree, it's private property. If you own the tree with the guy who cares for it while you pick the apples, it's collective property. All of these types of property are easily distinguishable from another.

[The Liberated Territories]

So then, they agree that personal property can be distinguished from other kinds of property?

Yes, under the collective noun "private property," since that is what it is.

I'd hardly call the distinction arbitrary. It's easily measurable. If you have an apple tree, and you alone pick the apples and care for the tree, then it's personal property because you alone are using it. If you hired someone else to pick the apples and care for the tree, it's private property. If you own the tree with the guy who cares for it while you pick the apples, it's collective property. All of these types of property are easily distinguishable from another.

Now you are moving goalposts. Both the first two examples are private property. The distinction between use is meaningless to this label. Arguably the third can also be a form of private property if you consider joint-use ownership.

[Orostan]

A parasite is not evil. A Parasitic organism is just trying to grow and replicate itself, same as every other kind of life we know of. They way it does so is what makes it unpleasant to us, but the Parasite itself is never "evil". It is the same with the Capitalist class. What it does as a whole does not benefit the majority of people, quite the opposite, but that doesn't make the bourgeois as a class evil. It just means that my interests are the opposite of theirs.

And besides, Capitalism has killed way more than thousands through conditions that only exist because of it.

Comparing a human, a living breathing man, to a creature that killed millions? Yeah no. That's calling them evil. Nay, not just a man, a bunch of men. From the poor owner of a factory who tries to help his employees to bill gates, you called them all parasites.

yes

No

Every school of economics lays down some terms and what those terms mean. So what if Marx said "profit" instead of "marginal efficiency of capital"?

So, that invalidates everything you just said. You just admited that no word can have true commonly accepted meaings. Therefore, "Communists are gay cunts" would be a true defintion because my school of economics says so.

1. Does a parasite not live and breathe? If the owner of a factory tries to help his workers, great. He's acting against his own interest for his worker's interests, but even so the money he accumulates off of others without working is still illegitimate. If the position of manager were an elected one, and he was the elected manager, I wouldn't have a problem.

Bill Gates is a parasite. It doesn't matter how much of his money he gives to charity if that money was taken from people who actually do stuff. The problems that many charities are trying to solve (world hunger, poverty. etc.) only exist because of the practices of Capitalist firms like Microsoft.

But that doesn't make Bill Gates a bad person or evil. He's just doing his job.

2. yes

3. Yeah sure it would be true according to your book. But not according to anything actually written about communism by any communists. The problem here is judging which definition is accurate. Either the one you wrote, or the one that the inventors of modern communism wrote. I am using definitions laid out in Marx's works. If you would like me to use different words, please tell me.

[Orostan]

So then, they agree that personal property can be distinguished from other kinds of property?

Yes, under the collective noun "private property," since that is what it is.

Now you are moving goalposts. Both the first two examples are private property. The distinction between use is meaningless to this label. Arguably the third can also be a form of private property if you consider joint-use ownership.

1. So, according to you everything is private property. Your argument is semantic and doesn't refute anything I have said.
2. Why is use meaningless? Can use not be measured? Can use not be objectively defined? If so, why can we not use that to distinguish different types of property from each other?

[The Liberated Territories]

1. So, according to you everything is private property. Your argument is semantic and doesn't refute anything I have said.

This is because you've made no argument except for the idea that personal property is somehow different from private property, when that is not the case.

2. Why is use meaningless? Can use not be measured? Can use not be objectively defined? If so, why can we not use that to distinguish different types of property from each other?

You can draw a distinction between the two, but you enter a new conundrum: either the Marxist is against all types of private (personal and for profit) property, or allows the existence of private property and consequentially, for me to use the apple tree in a manner not consistent with Marxist dogma. Because the only way you'd be able to prevent me from exploiting the tree for profit is to have some sort of regulations on the use of property. The result is tyrannical either way.

[Hammer Britannia]

but even so the money he accumulates off of others without working is still illegitimate.

So, Man works for other man for an incentive (that is controlled by the government) = illegitimate?

In other words, why work? If it's all illegitimate, then why work for anything? Is it the completion at the end? I am a working man, 30K a year, the man your trying to protect. I want to rest at home all day instead of work.

[Orostan]

1. So, according to you everything is private property. Your argument is semantic and doesn't refute anything I have said.

This is because you've made no argument except for the idea that personal property is somehow different from private property, when that is not the case.

2. Why is use meaningless? Can use not be measured? Can use not be objectively defined? If so, why can we not use that to distinguish different types of property from each other?

You can draw a distinction between the two, but you enter a new conundrum: either the Marxist is against all types of private (personal and for profit) property, or allows the existence of private property and consequentially, for me to use the apple tree in a manner not consistent with Marxist dogma. Because the only way you'd be able to prevent me from exploiting the tree for profit is to have some sort of regulations on the use of property. The result is tyrannical either way.

1. Yes I have, I've stated the distinction at least twice.

2. Here you are trying to apply your definition of private property to what Marxists define private property as. It's like calling an apple a pear, it doesn't make any sense. In addition, your sentence about profit tells me that you don't understand how a real economy works or how a planned economy would work, or how communism works. In a Socialist system, you'd be able to sell as many apples as you like, either to a distribution cooperative or to a supermarket. Either way, you wouldn't be able to charge any more than the larger orchards are charging (which is based on how much labor it took to harvest the apples and care for the trees).