Ayn Rand

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Duncan -

You said you got nothing from your parents, so it appears you're changing your story.

Your right, I didn't get anything from my parents, and I'm considering not supporting them when they get old (not really). At least the gov put their share in, because I won't have any choice in whether I pay taxes or not

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Not really - neither you nor anyone else provided a decent account of coercion in terms of liberty.

I defined the words freedom and coercion and showed why the robber in your scenario was using coercion and how that violates the freedom of the victim under libertarianism. That to me is a decent account of coercion in terms of liberty...

No because philosophical debate is often about the meaning of these words - whether the ordinary meanings assigned to them embody mistakes or contradictions. Since those who write dictionaries are generally not involved in these debates it's bad policy to look to dictionary definitions to solve the argument.

It's sure better than relying on the "philosophical" definitions you come up with. You claimed libertarianism advocates the right of a robber to coerce money from people and I showed how the definition of freedom does not allow for coercion and I got no response from you. Well, if your definition of freedom allows for coercion, then doesn't that mean it's your ideology that allows for the robber to coerce money from others? Changing the definition of freedom (in the name of "philosophy") and then attributing your fabricated definition to libertarianism is, as Wraith pointed out, a strawman. We libertarians don't believe a robber has a right to coerce money from others, yet you offered that scenario as an indictment of libertarianism claiming we do believe the robber has that right.

Two kinds of freedom have been argued for in the past.

You still haven't shown us where in the definition of freedom you found negative and positive freedoms, much less conflicting freedoms which is where you're going with this.

Some people think that freedom means non-interference

That is essentially the definition in the dictionary, the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action.

others think it means both that and the right to be given certain things in order to increase your actual control over what happens to you.

And that definition is in conflict with the above definition if this "right" to be given certain things involves interfering - coercion or constraint - with others.

Which one is worth having?

A brand new Mercedes would increase my control over what happens to me, so who should I see about what I'm supposed to be given? Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. It does not mean I have to give you whatever you think will increase your control over your destiny. Under your definition, the robber can coerce money from others if that will increase his control over his existence, true? Why, that's his "right" according to your defintion, so why turn that around and accuse libertarians of believing that when they obviously don't? To answer your question in other terms, the definition of freedom from the dictionary means I get to live my life as I see fit as long as I allow others the same status. Your "philosophical" definition means I am forced to give you what you claim will increase your control over your life. That's a no-brainer...but you might get a different answer depending on who is asked - the "giver" or the recipient of the "giver's" labor.

I think his point is that Rand's literal proof isn't true of the whole natural world.

I'd have to see a quote from Rand claiming that "selfishness" is the only instinct we have.

I think that your point is sound when applied to mantis' and the like but problematic when applied to humans, because we can predict the future with reasonable accuracy (e.g. I have good reason to believe that I'll live out this day. ). And given that we can plan for the future I think it is just false that we always act to further our own survival. There are plenty of courageous and admirable people that sacrifice themselves for others. Of course if you want to say that they are being irrational then you commit one of the logical leaps that Friedman complains about.

Survival is more complicated than "me, me, me". All social critters have hardwired instincts related to self-preservation and potentially conflicting goals, like survival of the species, etc. If Rand said "selfishness" is our only instinct, then I'd agree she was wrong. But I haven't seen proof for such a claim, only that she said selfishness is an instinct that factors into the decision making process. Changing the mantis scenario to humans, would human males mate with females knowing death was a very likely outcome as it is with the mantis? Sure, many people willingly sacrifice to help others, but they don't do this in a vacuum. They get some reward, at least in their minds. The accolades reserved for heroes, a religious belief in future rewards awaiting those who sacrifice, and avoiding the guilt of allowing a loved one to die. These are all "selfish" motivations, are they not? People who help others feel good about what they've done, they don't feel bad. Isn't that a "selfish" motive?
I don't know much about Rand's ideas, but I believe she said "selfishness" can result in what we'd call "good deeds" and that was not contrary to her morality.

Indeed so. But the problem is then, which instincts should we follow?

Depends on our goals. If we want to be free, then all instincts to interfere with others should be suppressed.

There is a tradition as old as Plato that holds the human being to be at war within himself. What Rand needs to show us is some reason why selfishness should override the others - and that's a jump from an "is" to an "ought".

Agreed, I'm not familiar with her writings to know how she deals with this. But IMO, freedom is more desirable than the absence of freedom.

While I think that gutter libertarianism of the kind seen on this forum is a silly and naive view

Gee, thanks.

that does not mean that when confronted with a well worked out version of the theory that admits where it it is weak, I think it is impossible for reasonable people to agree to disagree.

Showing this weakness is step 1.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's probably true.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

I'm not sure why you keep harping on this. Proof was implicit through my characterization of the process as enforcing capitalist property rights, and by referencing "most" blacks instead of all of them. In any case, the position that I have explained is the one I'm referring to.

I'm "harping" on it because you're harping on it. You said the liberals in the reparations movement were enforcing capitalist' property rights and that we "utlra capitalists were not, that isn't true for the reason I've stated. If you falsely accuse people of hypocrisy, it isn't "harping" for them to defend themselves against the accusation.

Right. I wasn't sure where you were going with this. Do you believe current inhabitants should give up their land when they contradict these treaties?

If possible, some of these lands have had vast investments and improvements made like cities so the rightful owners should be compensated for their land, but asking 100,000 people to pick up and move isn't feasible.

I already responded to your statement. Again: "Isn't it just as arbitrary for one person to own it as anyone else if was ultimately acquired through your definition of coercion? If a thief steals a trillion dollars from someone and kills off all of his relatives should he deserve to keep it? Why is it any different for descendents of the thief?"

Where in my statement did I mention coercion or this thief? And I've answered those questions...You added this coercion based on your admitted assumption that coercion probably existed.

I was simply refuting your assertion that I was bringing in new assumptions.

*sigh* You introduced your assumed coercion into my statement to refute it, you cannot refute an assertion by changing it to allow for the refutation.

Capitalism has been enforcing originally illegitimate property rights since its beginning.

Capitalism doesn't enforce anything.

Furthermore, capitalist systems often have great abuses of state power (don't argue that these aren't "real" capitalist systems because otherwise there haven't been any in existence).

Socialists don't like it when Stalin is held up as the altar boy of socialism, so why should I accept anti-capitalistic behavior as examples of capitalism?

Why is it moral to base property rights on initially illegitimate claims?

It is moral to end previous immoral systems even if every sin from the past is not corrected. Again, capitalism doesn't enforce anything, violence enforces property rights. Capitalism is just a way of exchanging labor/wealth.

Why should it matter if they profited or not from slavery?

Because the claim of reparations falls on it's face without someone profiting. If you didn't profit from an ancestor's investment in slavery, you have no moral liabilities.

The question of inheriting debt is only relevant when they don't own anything after their slaves are freed.

Huh?

1. I'm not defending any strawman reparation movement.

Where in that quote did I say strawman? I said you were defending a (an alleged) segment of the reparations movement that would seek reparations only from the descendents of slaveowners and others who profited like Aetna.

2. What you're asserting about descendents of slaves paying descendents of Union soldiers isn't consistent with capitalist property rights.

Why not? If capitalism requires the descendents of slaveowners to pay reparations for profiting from slavery, then capitalism requires the descendents of slaves to pay reparations to the descendents of people who sacrificed to free the slaves - slaves and their descendents who profited from their sacrifice. Two groups profited from the forced behavior of others - slaveowners and their descendents, and slaves and their descendents.

The reparation movement I was referring to is.

There is no reparations movement seeking reparations only from the descendents of slaveowners.

How does legality have to do with anything?

Laws have to be changed to reflect morality if they don't already.

*Sigh*
Once again, this portion of the post had absolutely nothing to do with the reparations movement. You asserted that paying for the sins of the dead is wrong. Now, in the case of me stealing your billions of dollars, etc., etc., is that not forcing people to pay for the sins of the dead?

Geez Ramo, I said it was wrong to compel people to pay for the sins of the dead and the context in which I made that statement was the reparations movement that seeks money from the treasury, not from slaveowners and their descendents. You then jumped in with a different scenario and changed the context.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ramo
You're missing my entire point. I don't have to answer these questions. You and other capitalists do. In capitalists terms, Amerindians have rights to most of the land in country. Most blacks have rights to reperations for slavery. In socialist terms, this is not necessarily the case.

My position is fairly simple: people should have the rights to property they own now, regardless of ancestral guilt. You have repeatedly said that the people have the right to take the property of the nobility like the Windors because of the crimes of the ancestors of the nobility, who took the common land of the peasants. By that logic, Native Americans have the right to take our land, since we are the usurping nobility and they are the disposessed peasants.

I can't imagine a case where an extreme measure like conscription would reduce net coercion, but no, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Just like there's nothing intrinsically wrong with any idea.

Think of Switzerland in World War 2. By building up their army, they managed to make themselves a hard target and greatly reduced the incentive for the Nazis to invade. So conscription prevented both a war and the imposition of a Fascist regime, which is a great net decrease in coercion.

I believe health and generally technology of society increase its freedom. Getting cancer or having to gather berries for food are serious constraints. This is why I can justify institutions like prisons.

After seeing you define your positions, I cannot think of you as an Anarchist. If I were to put a label on your beliefs, given the historical context and what I have seen you write, I would probably call them Populist.

You have basically said that the state has the right to impose any constraint on society, as long as it can be shown that its actions reduce the total constraint on the population. This is the case even if an artificial constraint is used to reduce a natural one.

You agree that the state has the right to compel seat belt laws, since dying in a car crash is a bigger constraint than not being able to cruise around without a seat belt:

The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles reported that occupant fatalities decreased 17% for the first 9 months after New York's law was enforced, for the lowest highway fatality rate (per 100 million miles driven) in several decades. If all states enacted MULs, if all states experienced a decrease in highway fatalities comparable to that in New York, and if the decrease in highway fatalities persisted, approximately 4,000 lives could be saved nationwide each year.

It also seems logical, according to your position, that the state has the right to try to use coercion to reduce cigarette smoking, since dying from cancer is a bigger constraint than not being able to smoke. Similarly, the state can use coercion to reduce drug use, since the constraint of dying form a drug overdose is bigger than the constrait of not being allowed to shoot toxic chemicals into one´s body.

Now the big question: Given the proven benefits of technological progress in reducing constraints, does the state have a right to use coercion to increase that technological progress? That is the key to the intellectual property debate.

I find it odd that you support liberty yet oppose the economic system that is a natural result of that liberty.

They are not. Corporations are incredibly authoritarian organizations. They are strictly hierarchial with minimal influcence by the workers. They are aurthority incarnate.

This proves my point. I say "capitalism" and you immediately think "corporation." Capitalism is an economic system where decisions about production and consumption are made by the free market instead of a central authority. That is what I am referring to when I talk about capitalism: the ability of people to freely make production and consumption decisions without the coercion of a central authority. Of course, I´m not a pure capitalist, there are many cases where a central authority is needed to account for externalities.

If there is no central authority like a feudal, fascist, or communist state, then the economic system will automatically be either capitalism or the consensus-driven ideal of libertarian socialism.

You must be either incredibly ignorant about the political history of the US or kidding.

Yes, I was kidding. I must remember to use smileys more often. Although I would consider the gains you mentioned to have come from populists, liberals, and socialists. Very few people would consider planned parenthood an anarchist organization.

History happens to be one of my main hobbies, and I am quite good at it. I´ve aced practically every history test I´ve ever taken, even though I know how meaningless those tests are. Most history classes I am in turn into a discussion between me and the professor, since they recognize me as one of the few people who knows and cares about the topic. I have even been known to amuse myself by going to the microfilm archive in the library in my free time and looking up old copies of newspapers so I can get a better idea of what people thought during important historical events.

I don't recall anything about stock exchanges being bombed, though.

I find it odd that you are ignorant of such an important and well-publicized event that made it into practically every history book. Unless you are also kidding. Although the crime was never solved, it was generally agreed that anarchists were responsible:

Between the 11:30 and 11:58 mail collections, just before the explosion, someone had deposited crudely printed circulars in the post box at Cedar St. and Broadway. They read:
Remember we will not tolerate any longer. Free the political prisoners or it will be sure death for all of you. American Anarchists Fighters.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Man, how you guys have the stamina for these long posts?

Are you taking ephedra?!?

My long posts come from two things: 1) a healthy attention span and 2) being stuck at school in the computer lab between classes.

Stamina has nothing to do with it. Sitting at a computer and typing for 30 minutes does not usually count as aerobic exercise

Originally posted by DuncanK
How are we going to evolve when we are taught to be selfish and exploitive? We would have to teach future generations to be unselfish and not to exploit others, and if we do that we can't justify capitalism.

Nobody has to be taught to be selfish. Any parent will tell you that selfishness is the natural state of a child. Capitalism, by itself, is not about exploitation. Exploitation is very difficult without government force to back it up. In countries where the governments work for teh people and properly enforce equal rights and rule of law, capitalism does not lead to exploitation.

I guess there wouldn't be any interest in teaching our children not to be self-interested when their survival depends on it. That's my point. Evolution is not possible. People have to be reeducated, and that has to come from a society (authority) which sees an interest in such education.

Nobody is forced into a cutthroat business world to survive. You are obviously surviving in spite of your aversion to self-interest.

And you should know that the word "reeducation" sends chills down the spines of most people. Such a thing is the ultimate in government power and manipulation.

[Ramo]

RB:

My position is fairly simple: people should have the rights to property they own now,r egardless of ancestral guilt.

But why?

You have repeatedly said that the people have the right to take the property of the nobility like the Windors because of the crimes of the ancestors of the nobility, who took the common land of the peasants. By that logic, Native Americans have the right to take our land, since we are the usurping nobility and they are the disposessed peasants.

Nope, that's precisely what I'm not saying. If the Windsors owned a quarter of the world like they did not so long ago, it is justifiable for the inhabitants to use force to gain the land they live on because such an action would immensely increase liberty. Actions by ancestors are irrelevent.

Think of Switzerland in World War 2. By building up their army, they managed to make themselves a hard target and greatly reduced the incentive for the Nazis to invade. So conscription prevented both a war and the imposition of a Fascist regime, which is a great net decrease in coercion.

Was conscription necessary to gain a large enough army to deter the Nazi's? I'd doubt that..

After seeing you define your positions, I cannot think of you as an Anarchist. If I were to put a label on your beliefs, given the historical context and what I have seen you write, I would probably call them Populist.
You have basically said that the state has the right to impose any constraint on society, as long as it can be shown that its actions reduce the total constraint on the population. This is the case even if an artificial constraint is used to reduce a natural one.

Nah, this is a very anarchistic idea. To paraphrase Chomsky, anarchism is the idea that authority has to be justified for it to exist. Some anarchists advocate no authority, but I personally think they're stuck a century ago when prisons and police were horrible, horrible unreformable institutions. Hell, if I lived during the heyday of anarchism, I probably would've thought exactly the same way.

Furthermore, the thing you need to keep in mind is that in a socialist society, the need for prisons, welfare, taxes, etc., etc. would be minimized. Thus, state coercion in general would be absolutely minimized in an actual anarchist society.

It also seems logical, according to your position, that the state has the right to try to use coercion to reduce cigarette smoking, since dying from cancer is a bigger constraint than not being able to smoke. Similarly, the state can use coercion to reduce drug use, since the constraint of dying form a drug overdose is bigger than the constrait of not being allowed to shoot toxic chemicals into one´s body.

What kind of coercion? Labels or propaganda is perfectly fine. When you start getting into things like prohibition, net coercion massively increases. Look at the war on drugs or (alcohol) Prohibition. Even "sin taxes" hurt much more than they help, particularly considering that it's the poor who have to pay the bulk of these taxes.

Now the big question: Given the proven benefits of technological progress in reducing constraints, does the state have a right to use coercion to increase that technological progress? That is the key to the intellectual property debate.

Yes, it does. I've been criticizing the implementation of intellectual property, not the idea of its existence.

This proves my point. I say "capitalism" and you immediately think "corporation." Capitalism is an economic system where decisions about production and consumption are made by the free market instead of a central authority.

1. Why can't corporations form in a free market? Maybe you'll have different liability laws than in our system for instance, but corporations would still exist.
2. This is a narrow libertarian definition. So free-market capitalism is a redundant idea? If you use this definition, the only capitalist societies have been socialist. And that's just plain silly.

That is what I am referring to when I talk about capitalism: the ability of people to freely make production and consumption decisions without the coercion of a central authority. Of course, I´m not a pure capitalist, there are many cases where a central authority is needed to account for externalities.

Then you aren't a capitalist since you don't support a free market system?

And by capitalism, I mean a system where the means of production are owned by private business and corporations not controlled by the workers.

If there is no central authority like a feudal, fascist, or communist state,

What about centrist systems like the US or social democracies like Sweden? They have coroporations too, BTW.

then the economic system will automatically be either capitalism or the consensus-driven ideal of libertarian socialism.

Well, if the economy is capitalist, it wouldn't stay a free market system for either the rich would hijack the system or the poor would rise in revolt to demand better conditions. If the economy is socialist, you might see it staying free market.

Yes, I was kidding.

I just got through reading Emma Goldman's autobiography (which is massive - 1000+ pages), so didn't feel like giving you the benefit of the doubt 'cuz I wanted to rant.

History happens to be one of my main hobbies

Yep, me too. I study math and physics, but consider myself a history buff - an amateur historian. But I've taken only one college history class so far, wish I had time for more.
Or maybe not. I have to write the other half of a 20 or so page history paper within the next 36 or so hours.

Although I would consider the gains you mentioned to have come from populists, liberals, and socialists.

Well, it's true that the entire leftist movement had a hand in it, but from what I've read, anarchists have been the most militant, been the most consistent, jumped on the bandwagon first, etc. After all, the chief martyrs of the domestic and world labour movement, the Haymarket Martyrs, were anarchists. I don't know how long it'd take to get these freedoms were it not for their work early in the century.

Very few people would consider planned parenthood an anarchist organization.

It's true that Margaret Sanger wasn't an anarchist, but ideas of contraception first flowered (pardon the pun) in the US within the anarchist movement. Their campaigning helped to popularize it.

Unless you are also kidding.

Yep, my tongue was firmly in my cheek.

Berz:

I'm "harping" on it because you're harping on it. You said the liberals in the reparations movement were enforcing capitalist' property rights and that we "utlra capitalists were not, that isn't true for the reason I've stated. If you falsely accuse people of hypocrisy, it isn't "harping" for them to defend themselves against the accusation.

For future reference, hypocrisy isn't the same thing as inconsistency. But I'm tired of arguing over this, so you can have the last world if you want.

If possible, some of these lands have had vast investments and improvements made like cities so the rightful owners should be compensated for their land, but asking 100,000 people to pick up and move isn't feasible.

If I steal some treasured possession of yours improve it in some way and then give you compensation based on the market value of its original state, is that ok?

Where in my statement did I mention coercion or this thief? And I've answered those questions...You added this coercion based on your admitted assumption that coercion probably existed.

Not just probably, almost certainly. In nearly every inhabited area too. This may be an assumption, but it's very, very reasonable assumption. Nothing is certain. For intance, the idea that reality exists, one needs to assume that even if it's almost certain.

Once again, can you answer my question?

*sigh* You introduced your assumed coercion into my statement to refute it, you cannot refute an assertion by changing it to allow for the refutation.

I didn't change any assertion. This assumption was perfectly good for the situation you cited.

Capitalism doesn't enforce anything.

Sure it does. Are you saying that capitalism is possible without the enforcement of property rights? In any case, this is irrelevent semantics.

Socialists don't like it when Stalin is held up as the altar boy of socialism, so why should I accept anti-capitalistic behavior as examples of capitalism?

Stalinist Communism is certainly a variant of socialism. I don't feel any compulsion to horde the term for my narrow ideology. But, if the only "capitalist" societies have been socialist, why do you cite them?

It is moral to end previous immoral systems even if every sin from the past is not corrected.

But the previous immoral system didn't end. It just continued. These socities are enforcing the same immoral property rights.

And in the switch to capitalist societies (using a real definition, not a libertarian one) not only failed to correct previous infringments on property rights, it expanded on them.

Because the claim of reparations falls on it's face without someone profiting. If you didn't profit from an ancestor's investment in slavery, you have no moral liabilities.

Why? Only the actual coercion is relevant, not the profits. Reparations are meant for the things coerced from them, not the profit made through them. If if I had slaves and had them farm dirt or something to that effect, I wouldn't make any profit from, but I controlled labor. So should I not pay for the labor I got through force?

Another example: if I steal a million dollars but own two million dollars, make a lot of idiotic investments with that million and lose it all, do I still have to give back a million from my original fortune? If I die, do my kids? After all, I didn't make any profits off that money. So my kids get to keep all that money without reprecussion from the state, right?

Huh?

1. The debt is for the forced labor, not the profits gained through the forced labor.
2. The inheritance of debts are cancelled only when the estate doesn't have enough money to pay them.

Where in that quote did I say strawman? I said you were defending a (an alleged) segment of the reparations movement that would seek reparations only from the descendents of slaveowners and others who profited like Aetna.

I explained the strawman in the previous quote.

Why not?

Because the slaves didn't draft the soldiers, the US government did. The slaves didn't tell the government to draft soldiers. The coercion is the element that is behind the reparations, not anything else.

If capitalism requires the descendents of slaveowners to pay reparations for profiting from slavery, then capitalism requires the descendents of slaves to pay reparations to the descendents of people who sacrificed to free the slaves - slaves and their descendents who profited from their sacrifice.

Because gaining indirectly from coercion doesn't imply you owe anyone anything. That's a logical fallacy. Unless you can back that up through your philosophy. Because I can't figure out the justification.

Geez Ramo, I said it was wrong to compel people to pay for the sins of the dead and the context in which I made that statement was the reparations movement that seeks money from the treasury, not from slaveowners and their descendents. You then jumped in with a different scenario and changed the context.

You said the reparation system was wrong because it compelled people to pay for the sins of the dead. Thus, any system is wrong if it compelled people to pay for the sins of the dead. Simple logic, here. I'm not taking anything out of context.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

For future reference, hypocrisy isn't the same thing as inconsistency. But I'm tired of arguing over this, so you can have the last world if you want.

Okay, if I advocate "A" and practice the opposite, that is inconsistent and hypocritical.

If I steal some treasured possession of yours improve it in some way and then give you compensation based on the market value of its original state, is that ok?

That is not analogous, if you stole something and that item passed through your hands to others in the future and they improve it, the original owners are not entitled to the improvements.

Not just probably, almost certainly. In nearly every inhabited area too. This may be an assumption, but it's very, very reasonable assumption.

But it is an assumption I did not make, and most of these cases of coercion do not appear in historical records so they are lost taking with them the legal line needed to determine ownership thereby making your assumption meaningless.

I didn't change any assertion. This assumption was perfectly good for the situation you cited.

Yes you did. Can you prove my plot of land here in Kansas was once owned by Indians? No, so why assume it was once owned by Indians who lost it via coercion when most of the land in the USA wasn't owned by anyone?

Sure it does. Are you saying that capitalism is possible without the enforcement of property rights? In any case, this is irrelevent semantics.

Capitalism doesn't enforce property rights, people do. Capitalism is just a system for exchanging labor.

But, if the only "capitalist" societies have been socialist, why do you cite them?

Where did I say that?

But the previous immoral system didn't end. It just continued. These socities are enforcing the same immoral property rights.

If stealing was rampant and we came along and said no more stealing from now on, would our system be immoral based on the immorality of the previous system? You'd say yes because we didn't return what was stolen, and I'd say we are not responsible for the crimes of others in the past. That doesn't mean we can't try to return the stolen goods, but our system doesn't live or die based on our success.

And in the switch to capitalist societies (using a real definition, not a libertarian one) not only failed to correct previous infringments on property rights, it expanded on them.

And that isn't the marketplace in action, that's still legalised theft.

Why? Only the actual coercion is relevant, not the profits.

But the slaveowner's descendent used no coercion, they have only the possible profits.

Reparations are meant for the things coerced from them, not the profit made through them.

If I coerce you into providing me with free labor, that transforms the coercion into a profit.

If if I had slaves and had them farm dirt or something to that effect, I wouldn't make any profit from, but I controlled labor. So should I not pay for the labor I got through force?

Sure, but slaveowners don't have slaves to do nothing but consume the owner's resources.

Another example: if I steal a million dollars but own two million dollars, make a lot of idiotic investments with that million and lose it all, do I still have to give back a million from my original fortune?

Yup.

If I die, do my kids?

It isn't rightfully theirs.

After all, I didn't make any profits off that money. So my kids get to keep all that money without reprecussion from the state, right?

Are you suggesting slavery made no profit for slaveowners?

1. The debt is for the forced labor, not the profits gained through the forced labor.

Then the reparations movement should seek to enslave the descendents of slaveowners, not monetary awards.

2. The inheritance of debts are cancelled only when the estate doesn't have enough money to pay them.

Yup.

Because the slaves didn't draft the soldiers, the US government did. The slaves didn't tell the government to draft soldiers. The coercion is the element that is behind the reparations, not anything else.

The descendents of slaveowners didn't tell their ancestors to enslave others either. So why are they financially liable but not the slaves and their descendents?

Because gaining indirectly from coercion doesn't imply you owe anyone anything. That's a logical fallacy. Unless you can back that up through your philosophy. Because I can't figure out the justification.

AH!!! Explain that one to the people pushing the reparations movement because they are claiming the descendents of slaveowners do owe something because they may have gained indirectly from coercion.

You said the reparation system was wrong because it compelled people to pay for the sins of the dead. Thus, any system is wrong if it compelled people to pay for the sins of the dead. Simple logic, here. I'm not taking anything out of context.

Notice how I said the reparation system was wrong and not any system? You took what I said about the reparation system and switched it to "any" system. The context matters... The sins of the dead in my statement are the sins of people most of us have no connection to, the sins of the dead in your example are a thief and his children to whom he gave the stolen money.
Would you agree the children should not get to keep that money? If so, do you also believe you should pay reparations to the descendents of slaves because my ancestor owned slaves? If you remove the context from what I said, then you should answer yes to both those questions...

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ramo
But why?

Because if property rights are not guaranteed, there is no incentive for investment. People with a lot of money would just hide it away in fear that they would be labelled a wealthy oppressor if they started spending it. You would have to be incredibly foolish to invest in new technology and build a factory to produce things if you knew your factory could be immediately confiscated by whoever you hired to work in it.

If the Windsors owned a quarter of the world like they did not so long ago, it is justifiable for the inhabitants to use force to gain the land they live on because such an action would immensely increase liberty.

Ok, I understand your position. I see that it is self-consistent and logical. But I still think it is wrong. The problem is, as usual, in the implementation. Who exactly judges whether an action would increase liberty? Do we have a right to sieze all the assets of the Walton family loot all their stores? If the issue was put to a simple majority vote, the confiscate and loot party would probably win. After all, capitalist conceptions of property rights have no meaning anymore, and if we decide that our liberty would be increased by this action, let´s go for it.

Was conscription necessary to gain a large enough army to deter the Nazi's? I'd doubt that..

There are many times where a country has the political will to do something right and proper even if the citizens lack the personal will to act individually. This was one of those times. They had to mobilize one out of every five men in order to raise a proper defense.

Nah, this is a very anarchistic idea. To paraphrase Chomsky, anarchism is the idea that authority has to be justified for it to exist.

Good grief. By that definition, Thomas Hobbes was an anarchist. Talk about the "big tent" approach to politics.

Furthermore, the thing you need to keep in mind is that in a socialist society, the need for prisons, welfare, taxes, etc., etc. would be minimized.

Obviously you are talking about a different kind of socialism than the generally accepted definition, where the government has to levy large taxes to support a welfare state. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, the scandanavians seem to be doing well for themselves.

Even "sin taxes" hurt much more than they help, particularly considering that it's the poor who have to pay the bulk of these taxes.

If these taxes reduce consumption, then the poor are actually much better off, since deadly diseases are prevented. If they can´t afford a sin tax, then they certainly won´t be able to afford a liver transplant. And if someone else has to pay their medical costs, then sin taxes still decrease net coercion, since the taxes required for expensive medical care are no longer needed, and the government is no longer coercing healthy people to pay for the stupidity of others.

1. Why can't corporations form in a free market? Maybe you'll have different liability laws than in our system for instance, but corporations would still exist.

Of course they would still exist. In an anarchist or libertarian society, people would presumably have the right to create any organization they want to. If someone wants to start a corporation and other people choose to work for that corporation, then the government as no right to stop that.

2. This is a narrow libertarian definition. So free-market capitalism is a redundant idea? If you use this definition, the only capitalist societies have been socialist. And that's just plain silly.

Capitalism is not a boolean variable, it is a scale. There is a big range between pure capitalism and pure socialism. Every country falls somewhere in the middle. Any government interference, form welfare to tarriffs, slides the goverment a little more towards the socialism end of the scale. Free-market capitalism is sort of a redundant term, since it would indicate a system closer to pure capitalism than the common standard.

Then you aren't a capitalist since you don't support a free market system?

I already said that I´m not a pure capitalist. I support an almost-free market system. I already said that the government needs to mess with some things, and that freedom is not the ultimate good. Again, I find it odd that you support freedom and yet despise an economic system based on freedom.

And by capitalism, I mean a system where the means of production are owned by private business and corporations not controlled by the workers.

That is an odd definition. It sounds like it comes straight from Marx. What would you call a free market where there are a large number of family operations and sole proprietors who all own their own shops and trade among each other? If that isn´t capitalist, what is it?

Well, if the economy is capitalist, it wouldn't stay a free market system for either the rich would hijack the system or the poor would rise in revolt to demand better conditions. If the economy is socialist, you might see it staying free market.

Are we even speaking the same language? Capitalism is when the government allows the free market to operate and socialism is when it interferes in the free market.

[Ramo]

Berz:

That is not analogous, if you stole something and that item passed through your hands to others in the future and they improve it, the original owners are not entitled to the improvements.

But the original owners are entitled to the original object, not just any compensation. Capitalist property rights are based on voluntary exchanges. Compensation for theft isn't a voluntary exchange.

But it is an assumption I did not make, and most of these cases of coercion do not appear in historical records so they are lost taking with them the legal line needed to determine ownership thereby making your assumption meaningless.

My argument isn't contingent on the establishment of "legal" property claims. Again, since the "legitimate" owner according to the principle of voluntary exchange is impossible to determine just about everywhere in the world, isn't it just as arbitrary for the state to accept one proeprty claim as another?

Yes you did. Can you prove my plot of land here in Kansas was once owned by Indians? No, so why assume it was once owned by Indians who lost it via coercion when most of the land in the USA wasn't owned by anyone?

1. Proof isn't needed in my argument. That's why I'm making the assumption.
2. Even the land you own in Kansas was ever considered the moral rights of Amerindians, Kansas has been settled by civilization for a century and a half. Most of the land in Kansas was likely sold by the gov't through the Homestead Act of 1862. Which was primarily an act of corporate welfare as it gave the land away to only people who could afford to buy 160 acres of land and cultivate it for 5 years. At the same time, millions of acres were given away to railroad companies free of charge. All of this is certainly not acquiring the land through voluntary exchange. And even if this were not true, there's clearly been a long history of coercion since then.
3. What about an older civilization, say Iraq, instead of Kansas? Clearly, all the land at some point had been acquired through coercion. In these situations, again, isn't it just as arbitrary to say one person has moral rights to the land as another?

Capitalism doesn't enforce property rights, people do. Capitalism is just a system for exchanging labor.

I would disagree with your definition. But then we'd just be arguing over semantics.

Where did I say that?

By saying the only capitalist societies are free market societies. And because the only free market societies have been socialist societies, I don't see this as a meaningful definition.

If stealing was rampant and we came along and said no more stealing from now on, would our system be immoral based on the immorality of the previous system?

What is stealing if no one has a legitimate claim to property?

You'd say yes because we didn't return what was stolen, and I'd say we are not responsible for the crimes of others in the past. That doesn't mean we can't try to return the stolen goods, but our system doesn't live or die based on our success.

The idea that one "isn't responsible for the crimes of others in the past" is clearly not a meaningful justification. I have given you many situations where under your system, one is responsible for the crimes of others in the past.

And that isn't the marketplace in action, that's still legalised theft.

Regardless of what you want to call it, there has been a long history of legalized "theft" continuing up to this day in nearly every society.

But the slaveowner's descendent used no coercion, they have only the possible profits.

But they inherited the labor of slaves, regardless of whether the labor of slaves ultimately lead to profit.

If I coerce you into providing me with free labor, that transforms the coercion into a profit.

But that doesn't make the coercion and the profit the same thing. If I hire someone to do a job, I may make significantly more profit off them than what I pay that person. I would be paying for their labor, not for the profit they make. Similarly, if I steal the wages for certain labor, I should under capitalism be required to give back those wages for the labor, not the profit I made from the labor.

Sure, but slaveowners don't have slaves to do nothing but consume the owner's resources.

Regardless of what they have done, the point of that example was to demonstrate that I have moral duties to pay for the labor, not for the profit.

It isn't rightfully theirs.

But they didn't inherit the money gained through force.

Are you suggesting slavery made no profit for slaveowners?

No. I was giving an example. I thought this is what you have been asserting.

Then the reparations movement should seek to enslave the descendents of slaveowners, not monetary awards.

Yep, that would be more consistent with capitalist property rights.

The descendents of slaveowners didn't tell their ancestors to enslave others either. So why are they financially liable but not the slaves and their descendents?

Because these descendents inherit a "legal" debt while the slaves did not. If I steal something from you, I have a "legal" debt of that theft to you. If you are forced to liberate me from slavery, you do not have a "legal" debt to me.

AH!!! Explain that one to the people pushing the reparations movement because they are claiming the descendents of slaveowners do owe something because they may have gained indirectly from coercion.

Regardless of what they're claiming, they have a point because descendents of slaves inherit the coercively acquired labour of slaves (unless the slave-owner went totally belly-up).

Notice how I said the reparation system was wrong and not any system? You took what I said about the reparation system and switched it to "any" system. The context matters... The sins of the dead in my statement are the sins of people most of us have no connection to, the sins of the dead in your example are a thief and his children to whom he gave the stolen money.

1. Then you should've said that in the first place.
2. Why does a property claim dilute after more than one generation? I don't see how that's relevant. I thought you agreed that property claims do not dilute when proof can be demonstrated.

Would you agree the children should not get to keep that money? If so, do you also believe you should pay reparations to the descendents of slaves because my ancestor owned slaves? If you remove the context from what I said, then you should answer yes to both those questions...

I'm not sure what you're asking...

RB:

Because if property rights are not guaranteed, there is no incentive for investment. People with a lot of money would just hide it away in fear that they would be labelled a wealthy oppressor if they started spending it. You would have to be incredibly foolish to invest in new technology and build a factory to produce things if you knew your factory could be immediately confiscated by whoever you hired to work in it.

But what of a thief who stole things a second ago? Should he not be forced to return this property for fear of under-investment?

The problem is, as usual, in the implementation. Who exactly judges whether an action would increase liberty?

Well, anyone has the capablity in "judging" whether an action would increase liberty. As for who has moral authority in judging whether an act of coercion would increase liberty, again anyone can. The actions define their moral legitimacy IMO. If Bill Gates steals my computer, I think it would increase liberty if I take it back.

It seems likes you're thinking within the constraint of the idea of the right of an authority like a state to do some action, which I consider an intellectual straight-jacket.

Do we have a right to sieze all the assets of the Walton family loot all their stores? If the issue was put to a simple majority vote, the confiscate and loot party would probably win. After all, capitalist conceptions of property rights have no meaning anymore, and if we decide that our liberty would be increased by this action, let´s go for it.

I don't believe that our state should be given such authority; i.e. to seize private property without constraint.

There are many times where a country has the political will to do something right and proper even if the citizens lack the personal will to act individually. This was one of those times. They had to mobilize one out of every five men in order to raise a proper defense.

The Swiss were pretty friendly to the Nazis, being their bankers and having internal and external fascist thugs with undue influence on society and government. It seems unlikely to me that conscription made a difference one way or the other. I think active resistance would've decreased net coercion in the world more than Swiss friendly relations and the draft.

Good grief. By that definition, Thomas Hobbes was an anarchist. Talk about the "big tent" approach to politics.

Not really. For authority need not be justified unless you presuppose that authority is morally wrong. Chomsky's description of anarchism is basically equivalent to the idea that anarchism is the belief that constraint is should be opposed. And yes, vary disparate opinions fit under the umbreall of anarchism.

Obviously you are talking about a different kind of socialism than the generally accepted definition, where the government has to levy large taxes to support a welfare state. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, the scandanavians seem to be doing well for themselves.

I'm using the definition of socialism I previously mentioned, namely the worker control of the means of production. Social democracy I think is a bastardization of this idea as it is worker control only in the very loosest sense, and therefore fits under the umbrella of capitalism much better than socialism.

If these taxes reduce consumption, then the poor are actually much better off, since deadly diseases are prevented.

But do they? I doubt it decreases consumption to any significant degree. Furthermore, you tend to see black markets to get around significant sin taxes, which tend to breed far more coercion than legal markets given the lack of legal protection for consumers, labor, and businesses.

Capitalism is not a boolean variable, it is a scale. There is a big range between pure capitalism and pure socialism. Every country falls somewhere in the middle. Any government interference, form welfare to tarriffs, slides the goverment a little more towards the socialism end of the scale. Free-market capitalism is sort of a redundant term, since it would indicate a system closer to pure capitalism than the common standard.

Government intervention is socialism? That's a pretty silly idea. Feudalism and fascism had strong public authorities, for instance. Does that make those systems socialist? The central qualification for socialism is worker control, although an ideal that tends to be undermined by state socialist ideologies. Capitalism in this context implies the lack of worker control. Both systems could have various degrees of state authority (you see anarchism and Stalinism as socialist systems, and libertarianism and fascism as capitalist systems).

Again, I find it odd that you support freedom and yet despise an economic system based on freedom.

Voluntary association is a property of a government, not an economy. In the context of a capitalist-socialist debate, it's meaningless to define capitalism as a free market.

That is an odd definition. It sounds like it comes straight from Marx.

Well yes, anarchists and communists are both socialists. We inherit the same political literature and social movements.

What would you call a free market where there are a large number of family operations and sole proprietors who all own their own shops and trade among each other? If that isn´t capitalist, what is it?

Socialism. Assuming the lack of public authority in other spheres, it is an example of anarchism.

Are we even speaking the same language? Capitalism is when the government allows the free market to operate and socialism is when it interferes in the free market.

No, we are not. This sounds like something out of Rand or Friedman.

[Berzerker]

Ramo - In an attempt to get this back to just the slavery/reparation issue, I'll address what you said here:

Because these descendents inherit a "legal" debt while the slaves did not. If I steal something from you, I have a "legal" debt of that theft to you. If you are forced to liberate me from slavery, you do not have a "legal" debt to me.

The "legal" debt is not the liberator's liability, it's the slave's (and their descendents) liability. You claim the descendents of slaveowners have an inherited debt because they profited when someone else - an ancestor - used coercion to steal the slaves' labor. How is that any different than Northernors conscripted to free the slaves? Did slaves and their descendents profit from the coerced labor of those who freed the slaves? Yes or no...
Obviously the answer is yes, so why is one profiteer of coerced labor liable for reparations and not another profiteer of coerced labor? So far, your answer was that the slaves didn't coerce conscripts to free them, but the descendent of the slaveowner didn't coerce slaves either.

Regardless of what they're claiming, they have a point because descendents of slaves inherit the coercively acquired labour of slaves (unless the slave-owner went totally belly-up).

I'll assume you meant the descendents of slaveowners inherited this labor. No, they did not inherit coerced labor unless they continued enslaving their ancestor's slaves. They may have inherited money (profit) from their slaveowning ancestor, but if they have to pay that back, then we all have to pay reparations to anyone (and their descendents) whose labor was coerced in the past to benefit our ancestors, true? So, if my ancestor was a slaveowner and I inherited money from his coercion against others, I owe reparations. If my ancestor didn't own slaves, but was coerced into freeing slaves as a conscript in the Civil War, then my ancestor provided a service to slaves that was never paid back and the slaves and their descendents owe reparations to my ancestor and his descendents.

As to your other point:

My argument isn't contingent on the establishment of "legal" property claims. Again, since the "legitimate" owner according to the principle of voluntary exchange is impossible to determine just about everywhere in the world, isn't it just as arbitrary for the state to accept one proeprty claim as another?

No, once a legal and/or moral line of ownership is established, it ceases being arbitrary. That's why establishing legality is so important, but you seem to think we shouldn't do that even though you lament the absence of a legal line of ownership from the past.

1. Proof isn't needed in my argument. That's why I'm making the assumption.

Assuming a piece of land was coercively taken certainly does require proof.

2. Even the land you own in Kansas was ever considered the moral rights of Amerindians

Why? Are they entitled to the entire continent just because their ancestors settled a miniscule amount of the land available? Wouldn't that mean the very first people to arrive here owned everything and everyone else who arrived later was trespassing? That would include most Indians, hell, it may mean all Indians since the oldest skeletons found so far have a closer affinity to caucasoids.

Kansas has been settled by civilization for a century and a half. Most of the land in Kansas was likely sold by the gov't through the Homestead Act of 1862.

Maybe way out west, but not the eastern half.

Which was primarily an act of corporate welfare as it gave the land away to only people who could afford to buy 160 acres of land and cultivate it for 5 years.

Selling land is corporate welfare? You should see who farms here in Kansas, mostly small family farms.

At the same time, millions of acres were given away to railroad companies free of charge. All of this is certainly not acquiring the land through voluntary exchange. And even if this were not true, there's clearly been a long history of coercion since then.

All of which has nothing to do with my land.

3. What about an older civilization, say Iraq, instead of Kansas? Clearly, all the land at some point had been acquired through coercion. In these situations, again, isn't it just as arbitrary to say one person has moral rights to the land as another?

The fact two people might have had a fight along time ago over the piece of land you now call home has no bearing on your moral claim of ownership. Obviously you do consider their fight important in that the rightful owner may have been forced off that land, but since we have no way of knowing, why do you resist establishing a legal line of ownership now so what happened in the past doesn't happen now? Makes me think you're feigning concern over past coercion.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ramo
But what of a thief who stole things a second ago? Should he not be forced to return this property for fear of under-investment?

Don´t be absurd. Obviously people are responsible for their own crimes, and should be punished or be forced to pay restitution.

It seems likes you're thinking within the constraint of the idea of the right of an authority like a state to do some action, which I consider an intellectual straight-jacket.

I don't believe that our state should be given such authority; i.e. to seize private property without constraint.

I´m not talking about the state, I am talking about the people. By your philosophy, the people can choose to sieze private property if they decide that such an action reduces the constraints on them, so there is nothing inherently wrong in looting a Wal-Mart.

The Swiss were pretty friendly to the Nazis, being their bankers and having internal and external fascist thugs with undue influence on society and government. It seems unlikely to me that conscription made a difference one way or the other. I think active resistance would've decreased net coercion in the world more than Swiss friendly relations and the draft.

The Swiss were not Nazi allies. That is revisionist history. They were shooting down German aircraft before the USA even thought about figting in the war. Hitler and Mussolini had every intention of invading the place:

Winston Churchill, England?s wartime leader, wrote as the Allies were engaged in conquering Germany in 1944: "Of all the neutrals Switzerland has the greatest right to distinction. . . . She has been a democratic State, standing for freedom in self-defence among her mountains, and in thought, in spite of race, largely on our side."

By contrast, the year before, Adolf Hitler stated that "all the rubbish of small nations still existing in Europe must be liquidated as fast as possible," and that if necessary he would become known as the "Butcher of the Swiss."

But Hitler knew that the Swiss were gun owners and that many Nazis would be butchered in the process. Located in Bern, American spy Allen Dulles, the head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), explained: "At the peak of its mobilization Switzerland had 850,000 men under arms or standing in reserve, a fifth of the total population. . . . That Switzerland did not have to fight was thanks to its will to resist and its large investment of men and equipment in its own defense. The cost to Germany of an invasion of Switzerland would certainly have been very high."

But do they? I doubt it decreases consumption to any significant degree. Furthermore, you tend to see black markets to get around significant sin taxes, which tend to breed far more coercion than legal markets given the lack of legal protection for consumers, labor, and businesses.

Higer prices result in lower demand. That is basic economic theory. And black markets are not a problem unless the government imposes a lot mroe restrictions than just taxes. Cigarettes are heavily taxed, but almost everbody buys them at normal stores. Besides, why would an Anarchist complain about black markets? The man making moonshine at an unregualted still is a perfect example of worker control over the means of production, free of government coercion. And big brewing companies are examples of corporate control with hired workers. Nobody coerces the purchase of moonshine if other things are available but taxed.

Voluntary association is a property of a government, not an economy.

Are you saying that anarchists prohibit voluntary association in economic matters?

In the context of a capitalist-socialist debate, it's meaningless to define capitalism as a free market.

How is it meaningless to use the proper definitions?

Well yes, anarchists and communists are both socialists. We inherit the same political literature and social movements.

That´s the problem. Marx deliberately altered and obfuscated the language. If you use his terms you won´t be able to communicate with anybody except other Marxists.

No, we are not. This sounds like something out of Rand or Friedman.

Actually, it is something right out of the dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com ):

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

and the counterpart:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Note that a factory controlled by workers and operated for the benefit of workers in a free market system is clearly capitalist and not socialist, since the workers are private citizens.

[Ramo]

Berz:

The "legal" debt is not the liberator's liability, it's the slave's (and their descendents) liability.

Why do you think there's a liability at all?

So far, your answer was that the slaves didn't coerce conscripts to free them, but the descendent of the slaveowner didn't coerce slaves either.

Whether or not their descendents did anything is immaterial, and not an appropriate analogy. Liability is due to inheriting the coercion and not due to the profits gained from the coercion. I again reference analogies involving the slave dirt farmers and stealing a million dollars but investing that money poorly.

No, they did not inherit coerced labor unless they continued enslaving their ancestor's slaves.

Why? They inherited the wages their ancenstors didn't have to pay for the coercively acquired labor (assuming the estate is large enough). And that's what they'd be liable for.

They may have inherited money (profit) from their slaveowning ancestor, but if they have to pay that back, then we all have to pay reparations to anyone (and their descendents) whose labor was coerced in the past to benefit our ancestors, true?

1. I thought you accepted the premise as true. Are you saying that you no longer do?
2. Do you accept the implication as true independent of the premise?

No, once a legal and/or moral line of ownership is established, it ceases being arbitrary.

Why?

And can I say I own the entire world, and would that make that claim permanently legitimate? Since, as I have been saying, there has been a long history of state-sponsored "theft" nearly everywhere.

That's why establishing legality is so important, but you seem to think we shouldn't do that even though you lament the absence of a legal line of ownership from the past.

What I want or don't want is not important to the argument, as it is simply exposing a philosphical contradiction.

Assuming a piece of land was coercively taken certainly does require proof.

Why? That's the whole point of making an assumption - I don't have to prove it.

Why? Are they entitled to the entire continent just because their ancestors settled a miniscule amount of the land available? Wouldn't that mean the very first people to arrive here owned everything and everyone else who arrived later was trespassing? That would include most Indians, hell, it may mean all Indians since the oldest skeletons found so far have a closer affinity to caucasoids.

I intended to write "Even if the land you own in Kansas was never considered the moral rights of Amerindians.."

Maybe way out west, but not the eastern half.

Ok, then imagine that you lived in the Western half.

Selling land is corporate welfare?

Yes it is, when rich speculators get to seize most of the land in the country.

You should see who farms here in Kansas, mostly small family farms.

In 2003, maybe. What about in the late 19th century? I'd bet that there were lots of tenant farmers.

All of which has nothing to do with my land.

Do you know that with any certainty?

The fact two people might have had a fight along time ago over the piece of land you now call home has no bearing on your moral claim of ownership.

Sure it does. The moral claim of ownership in a capitalist system is entirely based upon the principle of voluntary exchange since it was first settled. If that wasn't the case, I don't have a legitimate claim to the land in the first place. And it might as well belong to someone else.

Obviously you do consider their fight important in that the rightful owner may have been forced off that land, but since we have no way of knowing, why do you resist establishing a legal line of ownership now so what happened in the past doesn't happen now? Makes me think you're feigning concern over past coercion.

It's not important practically as capitalist property rights aren't important practically.

RB:

Don´t be absurd. Obviously people are responsible for their own crimes, and should be punished or be forced to pay restitution.

But you just declared legitimate property claims to be determined by current control. As of your assertion, there were undoubtedly a number of thiefs that just "stole" something. Shouldn't they legitimately own what they stole then?

I´m not talking about the state, I am talking about the people. By your philosophy, the people can choose to sieze private property if they decide that such an action reduces the constraints on them, so there is nothing inherently wrong in looting a Wal-Mart.

Why shouldn't they be able to make such a decision? Anything capable of thought can make a decision. However, if the state believes that it would decrease coercion to prevent these people from looting Wal-Mart, it can make a decision as well. If I disagree with both the state and these people, I can make a decision as well.

The Swiss were not Nazi allies. That is revisionist history.

They still were far too accomodating of the Nazi's. For instance, they closed the borders to Jews fleeing Germany. I think they should've fought on the side of the Allies.

They were shooting down German aircraft before the USA even thought about figting in the war.

Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. Source?

And I'd like a source on projections of an inadequate miltiary force without conscription.

Higer prices result in lower demand.

Which depends entirely upon the elasticity of the good. Given the addictive properties of nocitine, alcohol, etc., price, as long as it isn't prohibitvely high, isn't a constraint.

That is basic economic theory.

Yes, and "basic economic theory," or applying rough generalizations to massively nonlinear systems is bull****.

And black markets are not a problem unless the government imposes a lot mroe restrictions than just taxes. Cigarettes are heavily taxed, but almost everbody buys them at normal stores.

Nontheless, there's still a significant black market of cigarettes in the US.

Besides, why would an Anarchist complain about black markets?

The facts that they become dominated by authortiarian elements - gangs and so forth, with minimal protection for labor, consumers, and competition.

Are you saying that anarchists prohibit voluntary association in economic matters?

No... At least, not through a state; there may be certain kinds of societal and economic constraints against forming authoritarian organizations.

How is it meaningless to use the proper definitions?

It's not a proper definition. You ask a socialist, you read socialist theory and history, if you want to know what socialism is. You don't look it up in an online dictionary. Socialists have historically defined capitalism to exclude worker control of the means of production. That's just how it is. Sorry if you don't like it.

That´s the problem. Marx deliberately altered and obfuscated the language. If you use his terms you won´t be able to communicate with anybody except other Marxists.

In the beginning of the socialist movement, it was split between the anarchists and the communists. Seeing as how Marx et al. founded terms like socialism, it makes sense to refer to their use doesn't it?

If I want to know what fascism is, I'd read the works of Mussolini or read the history of Germany. I don't look it up in a dictionary, where I'd get something totally disconnected from reality like "totalitarianism." If I want to know what anarchism is, I'd read the works of Bakunin or the history of Spain. I don't look it up in a dictionary where I'd get something like "chaos."

Note that a factory controlled by workers and operated for the benefit of workers in a free market system is clearly capitalist and not socialist, since the workers are private citizens.

Then what do you think anarchism is? Capitalism?

You didn't address my question, however; using your definition, fascist and feudal systems can fit under socialism.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ramo
But you just declared legitimate property claims to be determined by current control. As of your assertion, there were undoubtedly a number of thiefs that just "stole" something. Shouldn't they legitimately own what they stole then?

I said that control is determined by property rights regardless of ancestral guilt. If you steal something and the statute of limitations has not run out, the current owner still has the property rights.

However, if the state believes that it would decrease coercion to prevent these people from looting Wal-Mart, it can make a decision as well.

Very nice. I applaud your ability to wriggle out of that one. Of course, you just made the case for more state power and policing, since they have to constantly use coercion to prevent the people from deciding to do stupid things.

They still were far too accomodating of the Nazi's. For instance, they closed the borders to Jews fleeing Germany. I think they should've fought on the side of the Allies.

The Swiss accepted a lot more Jewish refugees than either the Americans or the British. They actually let some in, while we turned away just about all of them. As for fighting, they stayed to their policy of neutrality.

Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. Source?

The original source is a fine collection of WW2 books we have at home. I can´t seem to find a decent reference online, but here´s a description of that particular action:

Aerial Dogfights
As the Western front opened on 10 May 1940 with a German invasion of Holland, Belgium and France, 27 bombs were dropped by the Luftwaffe on Northern Switzerland, and Swiss anti-aircraft guns drove away German bombers and fighters. A Swiss squadron of pursuit planes engaged the Luftwaffe and a Swiss ME-109 shot down a Heinkel-111, twin-engine bomber. This was the first of many instances in which the Swiss used aircraft, initially purchased from Germany, to shoot down Luftwaffe warplanes.

And I'd like a source on projections of an inadequate miltiary force without conscription.

That is quite detaied onformation, I don´t know quite what it would take to convince you. Without the mobilization, it is certain that they would have been unable to withstand a Nazi attack. And the Nazis did plan on attacking.

Which depends entirely upon the elasticity of the good. Given the addictive properties of nocitine, alcohol, etc., price, as long as it isn't prohibitvely high, isn't a constraint.

People can and do quit. High prices can also prevent people from starting a habit. At the very least, the government should impose taxes on these goods that are enough to cover the expenses that the government incurs in dealing with the results of their use.

Nontheless, there's still a significant black market of cigarettes in the US.

I´ve never heard of one. Source?

The facts that they become dominated by authortiarian elements - gangs and so forth, with minimal protection for labor, consumers, and competition.

No... At least, not through a state; there may be certain kinds of societal and economic constraints against forming authoritarian organizations.

Did you just contradict yourself? If the state does not have a right to prevent these associations, why is it a bad that they form as a result of people choosing to buy black market rather than in the proper stores? Remember that I said to tax drugs, not make them illegal. I support drug legalization, for the reasons you mentioned. The only way for these people to get their toxic junk is illegally, which of course causes bad situations. If the stuff was sold in ABC stores, then gangs would jose a lot of business and power, even if the stuff was heavily taxed.

It's not a proper definition. You ask a socialist, you read socialist theory and history, if you want to know what socialism is. ... Seeing as how Marx et al. founded terms like socialism, it makes sense to refer to their use doesn't it?

Sorry. Eric Blair wrote several essays on this topic, where he made it clear that revolutionaries must use the lanuage of the common people if they wish to communicate properly. The dictionary is the language of the common people.

In particular, he showed disdain for people who used phrases and terms that were "badly translated form the German or Russian." He made the fairly obvious point that the message must be tailored to the mass of the people, rather than expecting everyone to start changing their language based on the terms used by some foreign philosopher of the last century who didn´t speak English as a native language.

Then what do you think anarchism is? Capitalism?

Anarchy is capitalism with no government constraints whatsoever. At least, that´s the definition that about 90% of the population wold give if you asked them.

You didn't address my question, however; using your definition, fascist and feudal systems can fit under socialism.

You are right. They do. I´ll paraphrase Eric Blair once again. He wrote that Facsism is a system that took just enough of the good qualities of Socialism to make an efficient and powerful state. Feudalism is also quite socialistic, since the state controls the means of production and makes most of the production decisions.

[Ramo]

I said that control is determined by property rights regardless of ancestral guilt. If you steal something and the statute of limitations has not run out, the current owner still has the property rights.

You're playing with semantics. Control is by definition determined by property rights. There are various methods of dealing with establishing the legimacy of property rights. I take it that your position to accept the opinion of the state?

Very nice. I applaud your ability to wriggle out of that one. Of course, you just made the case for more state power and policing, since they have to constantly use coercion to prevent the people from deciding to do stupid things.

I don't see how I've made a case for anything. The state is indeed justified in using force to reduce net coercion. That's why I believe it should exist.

The Swiss accepted a lot more Jewish refugees than either the Americans or the British. They actually let some in, while we turned away just about all of them.

Sure, the US and the Brits were of course total ****** to German Jews, but we didn't change our policies towards them to appease Hitler.

That is quite detaied onformation, I don´t know quite what it would take to convince you. Without the mobilization, it is certain that they would have been unable to withstand a Nazi attack. And the Nazis did plan on attacking.

The Swiss were an awfully militaristic society with a long tradition of military service, etc. I'm sure there were even huge numbers of reserves from previous service still in the military. So, I'm just not convinced that they couldn't have marshalled up enough men without resorting to conscription.

People can and do quit.

But the point is in cases of addiction, where there are serious health risks, price isn't a problem unless the tax is too high. In which case, you'd start to see huge black markets.

High prices can also prevent people from starting a habit.

Not really. Again, unless the prices are so high legal marekts become irrleevent.

At the very least, the government should impose taxes on these goods that are enough to cover the expenses that the government incurs in dealing with the results of their use.

Why? It's the poor that have to pay these taxes. If you're going to use coercion to fund government programs, the last people that should be taxed are the poor.

I´ve never heard of one. Source?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1169049.stm

Did you just contradict yourself? If the state does not have a right to prevent these associations, why is it a bad that they form as a result of people choosing to buy black market rather than in the proper stores?

What's the contradiction? Just because a state shouldn't suppress some organization, doesn't justify the existence of the organization. The state shouldn't suppress the KKK or corporations, etc., but that doesn't make them ok.

Sorry. Eric Blair wrote several essays on this topic, where he made it clear that revolutionaries must use the lanuage of the common people if they wish to communicate properly. The dictionary is the language of the common people.

In particular, he showed disdain for people who used phrases and terms that were "badly translated form the German or Russian." He made the fairly obvious point that the message must be tailored to the mass of the people, rather than expecting everyone to start changing their language based on the terms used by some foreign philosopher of the last century who didn´t speak English as a native language.

The "common" lexicon really doesn't have any words that better describe my position than "libertarian socialist" (which, again, I introduce my philosophy as - I use anarchism beyond a superficial conversation). If I call myself a libertarian, the "common person" would hate my guts for being a greedy pig who wants to take away their social security and give it to big corporations. If I call myself something more untainted like minarcho-syndicalist, the "common person" would think I'm an elitist *****. And frankly, they'd have points.

Orwell clearly wasn't thinking about this situation. His beef was with mindless phrases and elitist vocubulary.

You are right. They do. I´ll paraphrase Eric Blair once again. He wrote that Facsism is a system that took just enough of the good qualities of Socialism to make an efficient and powerful state.

That doesn't mean Orwell said fascism is socialist. It shared properties with certain kinds of socialism, which I wouldn't disagree with. Just like it shares properties with libertarianism-capitalism.

Feudalism is also quite socialistic, since the state controls the means of production and makes most of the production decisions.

This is just absurd. I've never heard anyone seriously say that feudalism is socialist.