Bigger Government or More Privitization

[Centinel]

It used to be humans could be property, it used to be land could not be property, it used to be the congo could be property, it used to be rent was not allowed, it used to be that unlimited waste dumbing was allowed in rivers, its totally arbitrary.

Yes, I see now. The rules of ownership change over time as society evolves and society attempts to figure out how to establish ownership of resources. For example, at one point wavelength's on the radio spectrum could not be property.

Also the basis for why your property is yours is totally arbitrary,

How so?

the only theory behind it is the homestead principle which falls flat on its face as soon as you try and work it out.

What weakness do you see in the homesteading principle?

 

[Centinel]

That's a false choice. I support a lean government and NO privatization.

But if you support a lean government, then everything else would have to be private, no?

 

[Centinel]

Theoretically private security companies would provide consumers with security by means of a competitive market. In practice this would mean that, since law and its enforcement are provided privately, and the market is always in search of the highest profits, law and its enforcements will be shaped in favour of those who can provide most profits: the rich. It would be a plutocratic legal system.

Thank you for elaborating.

An unrelated question: What the heck is co-determination?

 

[Tim Cornelis]

Thank you for elaborating.

An unrelated question: What the heck is co-determination?

Co-determination in businesses is when workers are allowed to have a say in how the business is run usually by being allowed to elect a minority to the board of directors. It's a system adopted throughout (Western) Europe.

Basically like a "guided democracy" where workers are given the idea that they have influence, or "Syrian democracy" where more than half the seats are reserved for the undemocratic elite, but the people (or in the case of a business workers) can elect a minority of representatives.

Co-determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Works council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Centinel]

Co-determination in businesses is when workers are allowed to have a say in how the business is run usually by being allowed to elect a minority to the board of directors. It's a system adopted throughout (Western) Europe.

Basically like a "guided democracy" where workers are given the idea that they have influence, or "Syrian democracy" where more than half the seats are reserved for the undemocratic elite, but the people (or in the case of a business workers) can elect a minority of representatives.

It seems strange to allow a firm's vendors to behave like owners and determine how that firm is going to be run. What about the copy paper vendor, and the internet provider? Do they get a place on the board as well?

 

[Tim Cornelis]

It seems strange to allow a firm's vendors to behave like owners and determine how that firm is going to be run. What about the copy paper vendor, and the internet provider? Do they get a place on the board as well?

No, only employees.

 

[Centinel]

No, only employees.

Why a special rule for vendors of labor, while all other vendors are treated differently?

 

[phattonez]

I take it you've never been poor in your life, there's something called rent, and hunger.

I'm pretty sure I just went half a year where I had to skip meals and pay $600 a month for a one-bedroom apartment that I have to share with two other people. Don't talk to me about having never been poor in my life. Still I was able to save money, buy in bulk, and I'm now almost completely debt free (and this is while paying for grad school application).

I'm pretty sure its not that people are too dumb to save. I think it might have something to do with diminishing wages and higher unemployment.

Okay, you'll get some sympathy with me there. There are many people out there who cannot save because unemployment is way up there, despite news reports. Unemployment is nowhere near getting better. We've just stabilized at awful:

But still, most people really don't know how to save. `

Inflation is'nt worse than usual.

The person who just got done telling me that I'm not poor now is going to try to tell me that inflation isn't worse than usual? Have you gone shopping lately? Noticed the price of eggs and milk? Have you gone out to eat lately? Are you getting more or less food for your money now?

Free-markets for what??? Non-Aggression? Thats just arbitrary, without the threat of aggression you can never have the capitalist property rights to have capitalism.

Defending your property is not aggression. The person going after your property is the aggressive one.

I DO know what your arguing for, ultimately plutocracy, but you claim to be arguing for some mystical free capitalism that has never existed and never will, but I know your ultimately arguing for plutocracy because I don't see libertarians protesting against corporate personhood with occupy wallstreet, or protesting against limited liabilituy corporations (a function of the state), infact they are constantly defending them.

Corporations are groups of individuals. As such, they should be able to do what single individuals can do. They're not people, but infringing on the rights of groups would necessarily infringe upon the rights of the individuals making up that group.

And my issue with limited liability only goes so far as those who are ultimately responsible for something. If a workplace injury is caused by a supervisor, then I want the supervisor to be personally liable. However, why should a shareholder who had nothing to do with it be liable?

well, IPOs are for raising capial, and shareholder own shares in the company, and generally do so for short term capital gains, most stock buyers and sellers are not doing so to run the company, they are diong so to sell the stock at a higher price.

Newsflash: everybody is out for a gain, whether it be material or immaterial! You don't buy food to make yourself poorer, you do it to relieve your hunger and you pay for the food because the decrease in hunger is more valuable to you than the money you pay! And you're going to lambast investors for wanting to gain? We all want to gain! Besides, short-term investments offer firms liquidity in the short-term for day to day operations. Long-term investors are useful for capital investments. Do you understand anything about corporations?

People don't start up their own buisinesses because they CAN'T, or because doing so would be funtionally impossible.

Well there are serious barriers to entry like an enormously complicated tax code and government licensing. However, you'd have to be willfully ignorant to deny the fact that the great amount of risk which comes along with opening a business is what holds many people back from the venture.

People get rich different ways, but what's your point? (btw if getting rich and/or starting your own buisines is just a matter of will power, I honestly hope you personally are rich, and if you are not, I want to know why.)

I'm not rich yet because I'm young. The amount of people who are rich at a young age is basically negligible. It takes time for investments to really pay off. That's how compound interest works.

Argentina, Southern Europe, the United States, Mexico, much of latin America, most of the third world that followed the washington consensus, the baltic countries, in other words any country that moved in your direction, the neo-liberal economic direction, ended up EXACTLY how the socialists said they would.

Absolute garbage. Did they have central banking? Welfare programs? Trade barriers? Licensing?

 

[phattonez]

Do you believe in private ownership of air, seas, and oceans?

Insofar as they can be homesteaded, yes.

Land precedes human existence, and therefore human labour. Land is therefore logically not the product of human labour, and therefore the homesteading principle not legitimate.

Obviously doesn't understand homesteading. It's not that humans make land, it's that they mix their labor with the land. After that happens it cannot possibly be separated, and ownership is established.

If I grow a potato in land, I can claim the potato as my own, but not the land as I did not create it by my labour. If I pick an apple from a tree, I can claim the apple as mine, but not the tree as I did not use any labour on the tree.

If you grow the potato on unowned land, then yes, you will own that square foot of property that it takes to grow the potato. You dug the hole to plant the seed, gave it water, gave it fertilizer, and harvested the potatoes. Picking an apple is not the same, unless you begin to water the tree, give it fertilizer, and harvest it continuously, etc.

 

[phattonez]

Why a special rule for vendors of labor, while all other vendors are treated differently?

Note that their syndicalist utopia, which would have only one company per industry run by workers, would be ensured by force, as any defectors from the industry who want to start up a competitor would be denied the ability to do so.

 

[Centinel]

Note that their syndicalist utopia, which would have only one company per industry run by workers, would be ensured by force, as any defectors from the industry who want to start up a competitor would be denied the ability to do so.

No way, really? That doesn't sound nice at all. I can't see any of that making its way through my legislature in Pennsylvania, nor the federal legislature, for that matter.

 

[phattonez]

[citation needed]

How else is syndicalism enforced?

They do not mix their labour with land, they mix their labour with that which they produce. Anything that is not the product of human labour cannot legitimately be claimed as private property. But I feel this will end up in meaningless "yes, no, yes". So agree to disagree?

How can a farmer separate his labor from the land? How can a developer separate his buildings from the land?

 

[Tim Cornelis]

Note that their syndicalist utopia, which would have only one company per industry run by workers, would be ensured by force, as any defectors from the industry who want to start up a competitor would be denied the ability to do so.

[citation needed]

It's also quite curious that I have never spoken on this topic, yet you already know my opinion. In contrast, I have the courtesy to ask whether you believe in private ownership of air, seas, etc. as opposed to presuming you do, and thus possibly creation a straw man (as you just did).

Insofar as they can be homesteaded, yes.

Obviously doesn't understand homesteading. It's not that humans make land, it's that they mix their labor with the land. After that happens it cannot possibly be separated, and ownership is established.

If you grow the potato on unowned land, then yes, you will own that square foot of property that it takes to grow the potato. You dug the hole to plant the seed, gave it water, gave it fertilizer, and harvested the potatoes. Picking an apple is not the same, unless you begin to water the tree, give it fertilizer, and harvest it continuously, etc.

They do not mix their labour with land, they mix their labour with that which they produce. Anything that is not the product of human labour cannot legitimately be claimed as private property. But I feel this will end up in meaningless "yes, no, yes". In fact, anyone who believes in private ownership of air, seas, etc. is so far removed from my position that any discussion is likely to amount to nothing more than meaningless squabbles. So agree to disagree?

Why a special rule for vendors of labor, while all other vendors are treated differently?

I honestly don't quite understand what you mean. In co-determination, workers have a say (sorta) in how the workplace is run. It has nothing to do with vendors.

 

[Centinel]

I honestly don't quite understand what you mean. In co-determination, workers have a say (sorta) in how the workplace is run. It has nothing to do with vendors.

A worker is a vendor of labor. He performs provides a service, which is to perform a particular task or set of tasks. These tasks are part of the production process, as is the copy paper and internet access.

 

[phattonez]

They do not mix their labour with land, they mix their labour with that which they produce. Anything that is not the product of human labour cannot legitimately be claimed as private property. But I feel this will end up in meaningless "yes, no, yes". In fact, anyone who believes in private ownership of air, seas, etc. is so far removed from my position that any discussion is likely to amount to nothing more than meaningless squabbles. So agree to disagree?

You're basically arguing, then, that nothing can be owned.

 

[Tim Cornelis]

Note: my second post may contain slightly different information (I pressed "post reply" accidentally).

How else is syndicalism enforced?

First, I consider syndicalism a misnomer, I would just call it socialism. "Syndicalism" would be "enforced" by having its principles enshrined as political and economic culture.

I would also like to point out that every dependent clause contains at least one error. Your one sentence contains a total of four errors:

Note that their syndicalist utopia, which would have only one company per industry run by workers, would be ensured by force, as any defectors from the industry who want to start up a competitor would be denied the ability to do so.

Note that their syndicalist utopia

It would not be technically "syndicalist" but since some socialists do indeed use this word to describe their ideals it's not really erroneous. We make no such claims of utopianism and recognise that communism or socialism has many flaws, but that these flaws outweigh the injustices of the current system.

which would have only one company per industry run by workers

Technically, there would be zero companies around the world (assuming communism exists globally). All "producer associations" (or syndicates) would be interconnected through workers' councils thereby integrating all syndicates as if one multinational corporation. You did not specify the geographical basis, an industry exists globally and I very much doubt communist society would have one game developer, one shoe factory, etc. around the globe. There would be as many producer associations as needed and wanted.

would be ensured by force

This does not follow from any preceded arguments, a non-sequitur really.

as any defectors from the industry who want to start up a competitor would be denied the ability to do so.

Any group of workers able to acquire means of production, will form a syndicate as they please. But given that competition would not exist, and there is nothing to compete over (with capital being abolished), there is no need to defect, especially since cooperation would be more beneficial. The only ideology of socialism that advocates competition, market socialism, would not object to more competitors either. So your entire argument is baseless.

How can a farmer separate his labor from the land? How can a developer separate his buildings from the land?

As I said, this will amount to little more than "yes, no, yes, no". I will respond by saying the farmer produces potato using his own labour, but not land, therefore his labour is separate from the land. I will say, the land (common) on which the building (private) stands is the possession of the occupier. You will respond by saying that the land is requisite for the cultivation for potatoes, or whatever. And so on. Let's just agree to disagree.

A worker is a vendor of labor. He performs provides a service, which is to perform a particular task or set of tasks. These tasks are part of the production process, as is the copy paper and internet access.

Co-determination regards a different workplace. If you have company A that supplies company B with product X, then under co-determination both company A and company B would have its workers. Maybe you need to ask someone who actually advocates co-determination.

You're basically arguing, then, that nothing can be owned.

Everything can be owned. One can isolate any particular physical object from the rest of society, whatever this may be. What I'm contesting is that one can have a legitimate claim on something that is not the product of human labour. Let it be clear though, if something is a product of human labour it does not automatically make private ownership of it legitimate either as I adhere to consequentialist ethics.

 

[phattonez]

First, I consider syndicalism a misnomer, I would just call it socialism. "Syndicalism" would be "enforced" by having its principles enshrined as political and economic culture.

In other words, you think that you can change human nature.

 

[Tim Cornelis]

In other words, you think that you can change human nature.

Not at all. The mostly egalitarian and peaceful nature of hunter-gatherer societies did not require any physical enforcement, it was customarily accepted.

Free market capitalism is not going to work in any society dominated by fascists, so how is free market capitalism enforced in that sense? By having the (vast) majority of people conform to the principles of free market capitalism by enshrining it into the political culture of that given society. It has absolutely nothing to do with human nature.

 

[phattonez]

Not at all. The mostly egalitarian and peaceful nature of hunter-gatherer societies did not require any physical enforcement, it was customarily accepted.

Free market capitalism is not going to work in any society dominated by fascists, so how is free market capitalism enforced in that sense? By having the (vast) majority of people conform to the principles of free market capitalism by enshrining it into the political culture of that given society. It has absolutely nothing to do with human nature.

What principles do we have to enforce on people? Free markets conform to human nature; that's what it's based upon. You, on the other hand, think that people won't act in their self-interest and won't try to compete with the worker-run firms. That's just nonsense. If people think they can make more money on their own, then why wouldn't they?

 

[MoSurveyor]

Privatization where it makes sense and such an industry would be a force for the public good. For example we should probably go ahead and get rid of the post office and mandate that national parcel systems deliver to everywhere as they likely can do it better.

Government where such things are not feasible.

Regulation in between.

Either way, the public good should be served.

Postal Facts

By the Numbers
66 billion — revenue in 2011, in dollars
167.9 billion — number of mail pieces processed in 2011
554 million — average number of mail pieces processed each day
23 million — average number of mail pieces processed each hour
384,000 — average number of mail pieces processed each minute
6,400 — average number of mail pieces processed each second
40 — percent of the world’s mail volume handled by the Postal Service
1.9 billion — dollar amount paid every two weeks in salaries and benefits
546,000 — number of career employees
31,509 — number of Postal Service-managed retail offices
34 million — number of work hours reduced equals 19,000 full-time employees
213,881 — number of vehicles — the largest civilian fleet in the world
1.2 billion — number of miles driven each year by letter carriers and truck drivers
39.9 million — number of address changes processed in 2011
35.5 — percent of retail revenue from alternative access channels in 2011
1.2 million — number of people who visited usps.com each day
62 million — number of inquiries handled by Postal Service Contact Center in 2011
236 million — dollar amount of online stamp and retail sales at usps.com in 2011
467 million — total revenue, in dollars, from Click-N-Ship label purchases in 2011
5.6 million — number of passport applications accepted in 2011
116 million — number of money orders issued in 2011
543 million — amount in revenue from 2,500 Automated Postal Centers
71,000 — number of stores, banks and ATMs that sell postage stamps
636,530 — number of new delivery points added to the network in 2011
0 — tax dollars received for operating the Postal Service

 

[Centinel]

What principles do we have to enforce on people? Free markets conform to human nature; that's what it's based upon. You, on the other hand, think that people won't act in their self-interest and won't try to compete with the worker-run firms. That's just nonsense. If people think they can make more money on their own, then why wouldn't they?

People very easily understand the concepts of property and exchange. These are natural outgrowths of living in a social order.

 

[Tim Cornelis]

Who starves? Was there massive starvation in the US before the welfare programs of the FDR started?

I was talking generally, not the United States, and that the profit-motive allows people to starve while there is enough food.

Amazing how our war on poverty seems to have only increased poverty. Hmm.

This is an utter straw man. Did the "war on poverty" abolish the profit-motive? If not, then this entire assertion should not have been directed at me.

No monopolies without government.

Right, and when were monopoly prices established?

And they're able to establish monopoly prices? Oooooops. They free, aren't they?

Misses the point of a monopoly.

It misses the point of what I was trying to say.

Usury, much like debt slavery, is a vague concept that can never be definitively defined.

Yet it was you who was arguing against usury.

I realize that this happened. You obviously know nothing about my views. I've talked about this problem for years.

I realise that right-wing libertarians acknowledge that businesses use the state in their favour as this is their favourite argument against "corporatism". But you missed my point, my point is that this is the consequence of the profit-motive. Something you obviously do not "not realize that this happened". Read again:
This is the consequence of a profit-driven economy. It is more profitable to privatise profits and nationalise losses, therefore capitalists will flock the state. Less competition is better than more competition. This is in fact why government intervention began. Free markets, in their search for profits, turned to government to eliminate competitors. Competition leads to government intervention.

I'm liking what I hear.

If you indeed advocate the privatisation of police and law then you can ignore the above.

 

[phattonez]

I was talking generally, not the United States, and that the profit-motive allows people to starve while there is enough food.

That's due to scarcity. What offends me is that we pay people not to grow food while we have many people starving in the world. You can try to ignore scarcity, but this artificial scarcity is what really burns me up.

This is an utter straw man. Did the "war on poverty" abolish the profit-motive? If not, then this entire assertion should not have been directed at me.

You can't "abolish the profit-motive" without changing human nature. People act in their self-interest. You can't change that.

Yet it was you who was arguing against usury.

What is excessive interest?

I realise that right-wing libertarians acknowledge that businesses use the state in their favour as this is their favourite argument against "corporatism". But you missed my point, my point is that this is the consequence of the profit-motive. Something you obviously do not "not realize that this happened". Read again:
This is the consequence of a profit-driven economy. It is more profitable to privatise profits and nationalise losses, therefore capitalists will flock the state. Less competition is better than more competition. This is in fact why government intervention began. Free markets, in their search for profits, turned to government to eliminate competitors. Competition leads to government intervention.

Free markets are not an entity; they are a concept. The fact is, the government allowed it, and that businesses couldn't have done this without the government. Get rid of government favoritism and we'll get back to a healthier economy.

 

[Tim Cornelis]

What principles do we have to enforce on people? Free markets conform to human nature; that's what it's based upon. You, on the other hand, think that people won't act in their self-interest and won't try to compete with the worker-run firms. That's just nonsense. If people think they can make more money on their own, then why wouldn't they?

This is much like the cattle calling the pot black. For 99,8% of human existence we have lived in egalitarian arrangements. Then obviously egalitarianism is not against human nature, nor is communism against human nature. You are moreover misrepresenting my ideology as I do not advocate worker-run firms or companies.

Any system forces its legal framework on society. This is inevitable. I could basically counter-pose your exact same quote:

What principles do we have to enforce on people? Communism conforms to human nature; that's what it's based upon. You, on the other hand, think that the working class won't act in their self-interest and won't try to socialise the means of production. That's just nonsense. If the working class thinks they can have a better live by expropriating private property, then why wouldn't they?

Your answer to "why wouldn't they" would have to be, because it's illegal, i.e. they do not voluntary accept it but are forced to live under a legal framework which guarantees private property rights. You can claim that private property is ethically just, but why should members of the working class accept this while they "think they can have a better live" if they expropriated private property? Why would they not act in their self-interest? The protection of private ownership of the means of production by the state did not prevent the Italian workers from expropriating factories en masse during the Biennio Rosso, nor did any of appeals to ethics prevent the workers in Argentine from expropriating factories in 2001/2.

think that people won't act in their self-interest and won't try to compete with the worker-run firms. That's just nonsense. If people think they can make more money on their own, then why wouldn't they?

There is no competition under communism as there is nothing to compete over. I feel like a broken-record player as I've already said this in my previous post:

Note that their syndicalist utopia

It would not be technically "syndicalist" but since some socialists do indeed use this word to describe their ideals it's not really erroneous. We make no such claims of utopianism and recognise that communism or socialism has many flaws, but that these flaws outweigh the injustices of the current system.

which would have only one company per industry run by workers

Technically, there would be zero companies around the world (assuming communism exists globally). All "producer associations" (or syndicates) would be interconnected through workers' councils thereby integrating all syndicates as if one multinational corporation. You did not specify the geographical basis, an industry exists globally and I very much doubt communist society would have one game developer, one shoe factory, etc. around the globe. There would be as many producer associations as needed and wanted.

would be ensured by force

This does not follow from any preceded arguments, a non-sequitur really.

as any defectors from the industry who want to start up a competitor would be denied the ability to do so.

Any group of workers able to acquire means of production, will form a syndicate as they please. But given that competition would not exist, and there is nothing to compete over (with capital being abolished), there is no need to defect, especially since cooperation would be more beneficial. The only ideology of socialism that advocates competition, market socialism, would not object to more competitors either. So your entire argument is baseless.

As Gilles Dauvé said:

communist revolution is the creation of non-profit, non-mercantile, co-operative and fraternal social relations, which implies smashing the state apparatus and doing away with the division between firms, with money as the universal mediator (and master), and with work as a separate activity.

With money and profits abolished, how is any worker going to think he is going to make more money when it does not exist?

That's due to scarcity. What offends me is that we pay people not to grow food while we have many people starving in the world. You can try to ignore scarcity, but this artificial scarcity is what really burns me up.

ok.

You can't "abolish the profit-motive" without changing human nature. People act in their self-interest. You can't change that.

Human nature is cooperative, not egoistic.

As Jeremy Rifkin said “in the last ten years, there has been some very interesting developments in evolutionary biology, neuro-cognitive science, child development research, and many other fields, which is beginning to challenge some of these long held shibboleths about human nature,” and continues to say that “all humans are soft-wired with mirror neurons” which allow for empathic abilities. New developments in several scientific fields, according to Rifkin “suggests that we are actually soft-wired, not for aggression, and violence, and self-interest, and utilitarianism” but “that we are actually soft-wired for sociability, attachment … affection, companionship.”

In terms of human nature, communists have neuro-cognitive science, anthropology, and evolutionary biology on our side. What does capitalism have? Postulations of refuted notions of human nature.

What is excessive interest?

I don't know, I'm not arguing against usury, I believe that was you (now I'm not sure).

Free markets are not an entity; they are a concept. The fact is, the government allowed it, and that businesses couldn't have done this without the government. Get rid of government favoritism and we'll get back to a healthier economy.

ok.

 

[phattonez]

This is much like the cattle calling the pot black. For 99,8% of human existence we have lived in egalitarian arrangements. Then obviously egalitarianism is not against human nature, nor is communism against human nature. You are moreover misrepresenting my ideology as I do not advocate worker-run firms or companies.

I'm going to have to call you out on this. What 99.8% of human existence? How is self-interest not human nature?

Any system forces its legal framework on society. This is inevitable. I could basically counter-pose your exact same quote:

Your answer to "why wouldn't they" would have to be, because it's illegal, i.e. they do not voluntary accept it but are forced to live under a legal framework which guarantees private property rights. You can claim that private property is ethically just, but why should members of the working class accept this while they "think they can have a better live" if they expropriated private property? Why would they not act in their self-interest? The protection of private ownership of the means of production by the state did not prevent the Italian workers from expropriating factories en masse during the Biennio Rosso, nor did any of appeals to ethics prevent the workers in Argentine from expropriating factories in 2001/2.

This proves nothing. When people rob, are they not acting in their self-interest? So because people want to rob, we should allow it? Self-interest is not aggression, and aggression is what should be acted upon.

There is no competition under communism as there is nothing to compete over. I feel like a broken-record player as I've already said this in my previous post:

Note that their syndicalist utopia

It would not be technically "syndicalist" but since some socialists do indeed use this word to describe their ideals it's not really erroneous. We make no such claims of utopianism and recognise that communism or socialism has many flaws, but that these flaws outweigh the injustices of the current system.

which would have only one company per industry run by workers

Technically, there would be zero companies around the world (assuming communism exists globally). All "producer associations" (or syndicates) would be interconnected through workers' councils thereby integrating all syndicates as if one multinational corporation. You did not specify the geographical basis, an industry exists globally and I very much doubt communist society would have one game developer, one shoe factory, etc. around the globe. There would be as many producer associations as needed and wanted.

would be ensured by force

This does not follow from any preceded arguments, a non-sequitur really.

as any defectors from the industry who want to start up a competitor would be denied the ability to do so.

Any group of workers able to acquire means of production, will form a syndicate as they please. But given that competition would not exist, and there is nothing to compete over (with capital being abolished), there is no need to defect, especially since cooperation would be more beneficial. The only ideology of socialism that advocates competition, market socialism, would not object to more competitors either. So your entire argument is baseless.

As Gilles Dauvé said:



With money and profits abolished, how is any worker going to think he is going to make more money when it does not exist?

You can't just say that competition will no longer exist. If someone tried to make something himself outside of these firms, he would not be allowed to. He would be compelled into not selling. This is ridiculous.