Is Libertarianism a Good Idea? - General

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37436446]And what can they scrap together to buy from the people who own and produce everything?[/QUOTE] Or, you know, they could produce somethings of their own. There's plenty of land on this earth, they could always claim some and, I don't know, start farming.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436590]Resources are do not belong to society, they belong to whoever owns the resource (i.e. the person who owns the piece of land). If no one owns the land, then it is a free resource. You can't steal labor from society, because laborers have minds. They can choose not to work. Society is not damaged if I do share my goods, because my goods would not exist if I did not exist.[/QUOTE] Er, no. You have 100$. It would still exist if you didn't have 100$. difference is, you obtained your 100$ by selling products to society. Society gave you that money. The product you sold was made by multiple people, who are part of society. You drove on rods paid for by society. Your entire infrastructure is possible because of society. You may have the 100$, but only because you took it from society, and society made it possible for you to get to the point where you could sell that good, and society made that good for you to sell. whether or not you made the good is irrelevant to whether it exists as a form of value, because it obviously had a value of 100$, and had you not provided that good, then that 100$ would be somewhere else. You fail to realize that goods are goods because they represent wealth, and that wealth is a limited resource that represents other resources. When you take wealth, you are taking the market equivalent of resources. This is extremely simple economics. Where do you amass your wealth from? You amass it from, because, for, and by society. You are taking the limited resource of wealth, and amassing it for yourself. Taking it from society.

the biggest lie libertarianism tells is the lie that you are the result of your own actions. yet me being a male, lower-class, jewish brit happened completely beyond my control. i was lucky, for lack of a better term, to not have been born in an impoverish nation or a nation that is hostile to my ethnicity. isn't that the very definition of a myopic philosophy?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436615]Or, you know, they could produce somethings of their own. There's plenty of land on this earth, they could always claim some and, I don't know, start farming.[/QUOTE] Okay, I'll just go and find me an empty plot of land not owned by anyone. Wait, that won't work, there is no unclaimed land. I'll just buy it, then. Wait, that won't work, I'm too poor. I'll just steal some then. Wait, then I get shot. What should I do?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436553']The fact that I want to live forces me. It's the same way that someone has to use public roadways, because there's no other option. If you don't submit to wage-slavery then you die in poverty. There's no choice, it's not voluntary. Again, it's the same amount of volunteerism that you have when choosing whether or not to obey the man with a gun to your head. By arguing that wage-slavery is unnecessary, you're also arguing that paying taxes is also voluntary (even more so, really), so I don't see why you're complaining on that topic.[/QUOTE] No. You don't have to work for someone to get resources. The "evil capitalists" don't, so why should you? be your own boss if you don't want to work for wages. And a man pointing a gun at your head is very different. First, he doesn't give you any other options. It's do what he says, or die. With wage labor, it is do what he says or find another boss. Totally different. And with a gun, he is actively using force on you, a capitalist is not. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37436598]If you didn't, you would risk starvation and disease and homelessness if you can't pay the firemen or insurance companies or a mortgage from a shitty bank. With an organized government that receives tribute, at least you have a safety net with free healthcare and education and shelter until you get back onto your feet. You could have the same with a humanitarian organization, though some of the largest ones receive funding [i]from[/i] world governments. Pure capitalism is anarchism, taxes are what make large government bodies possible and without them we'd have to rely on souly humanitarian effort for basic civil services if we can't pay up.[/QUOTE] Team up with the other poor and hungry people, and form a socialist commune. There, you should have enough people to produce supplies.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436670]No. You don't have to work for someone to get resources. The "evil capitalists" don't, so why should you? be your own boss if you don't want to work for wages. And a man pointing a gun at your head is very different. First, he doesn't give you any other options. It's do what he says, or die. With wage labor, it is do what he says or find another boss. Totally different. And with a gun, he is actively using force on you, a capitalist is not.[/QUOTE] The analogy is that wage-slavery is the man with the gun. I'm going to offer you your own option here: why aren't you your own boss, if that's an option? I'll just take the loads of money that I have sitting around at my house to be my own boss and make money using the resources I have. Because that's totally feasible for 90% of the population, right?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436550]No, those are completely unrelated. Your neighbor did not choose to benefit from your bug zapper, he had no choice. It's called a public good. And once again, when you sweep someone else's porch, you are FORCING them to benefit. If anything, they could send you a bill for damages (maybe they like dust). But if you purposefully benefit from someone's property, you must pay. To be more exact, you must get permission to use it, and then pay.[/QUOTE] Yeah, exactly. Government is forcing you to benefit because they hold a monopoly on a lot of these services and it's inevitable that I will have to come into use of these services. Do I have a choice whether or not to pay for the government to set up and enforce air space regulations above my house? It does provide a benefit to me, but I didn't have a choice. Would I pay for this service, given the choice, in a free market? Probably not. [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37436527]You are being ignorant by denying its existence. You live in a house that is protected by police and doctors and military men and firemen, you live in a body that is protected by doctors and police and military men and firemen. If you do not want to aid them with their lives, along with the poor and hungry and your other fellow men, you should not receive any of their services by that logic. You should receive no healthcare unless you pay for it directly, you should receive no police protection when someone mugs you unless you are willing to pay an officer directly. Your house should burn if an outlet were to burst unless you pay the firemen.[/quote] No don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't want those services. I just think things would be better off of they were paid for voluntarily. I have no problem helping the poor and hungry either, but I would like to do so voluntarily. There are also many things that I would not like to pay for, as well, like drug wars. [quote]The human condition should come over the rights of an individual man.[/QUOTE] But you reduce liberties and freedoms in the process of attempting what you are advocating, and end up reducing the human condition.

[QUOTE=Noble;37436695]Y But you reduce liberties and freedoms in the process of attempting what you are advocating, and end up reducing the human condition.[/QUOTE] Absolutely not the case. It is perfectly feasible to have a large balance of liberty and rights with a properly beneficial social system. It's like no one here knows about Catalonia or Chiapas. It's really just as simple as "don't be a dick and don't take other people's wealth unless absolutely necessary." The only real barrier is you, and when you don't want to cooperate with the program, then you have liberties infringed upon. That's why taxes aren't voluntary- because people with beliefs like yours are incapable of not letting people die and suffer even though they very well can and are able.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436610']A) Capitalism is not voluntary. B) The money you amass comes from society, whether voluntarily or not. C) Wealth is a limited resource. If it was food, you would be singing a different tune when your pantry is stuffed with goods yet millions starve because they don't have enough. D) Riddle me this: If it was voluntary exchange, then why is the majority suffering from it? Does someone voluntarily suffer? Why are there more poor and sick and starving, than there are well-off? At which point did everyone in the world say "I'm going to voluntarily give this limited resource away that is necessary for my survival"? Would you voluntarily give away all of your food, that you need to not starve, or do you do it because it is necessary for you to obtain the basic necessities to live? At what point is it voluntary?[/QUOTE] A- It isn't? Since when is wal-mart forcing you to buy their goods at gun point? B- Alright, I wasn't really arguing otherwise. C- Wealth isn't a resource and I'm not necessarily convinced that wealth is limited. D- I say voluntary meaning "without physical coercion", or "without initiation of force". Either way I don't see how any of those issues can be blamed on free market capitalism considering it doesn't exist, especially not in those areas with the most suffering.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436654']Er, no. You have 100$. It would still exist if you didn't have 100$. difference is, you obtained your 100$ by selling products to society. Society gave you that money. The product you sold was made by multiple people, who are part of society. You drove on rods paid for by society. Your entire infrastructure is possible because of society. You may have the 100$, but only because you took it from society, and society made it possible for you to get to the point where you could sell that good, and society made that good for you to sell. whether or not you made the good is irrelevant to whether it exists as a form of value, because it obviously had a value of 100$, and had you not provided that good, then that 100$ would be somewhere else. You fail to realize that goods are goods because they represent wealth, and that wealth is a limited resource that represents other resources. When you take wealth, you are taking the market equivalent of resources. This is extremely simple economics. Where do you amass your wealth from? You amass it from, because, for, and by society. You are taking the limited resource of wealth, and amassing it for yourself. Taking it from society.[/QUOTE] No, I have that hundred dollars because I traded something of mine for it. Society did not give me that money, I traded for it. It was made by multiple people, but I paid them for it. No, wealth is not a limited resource. Well, yes, but it essentially isn't. Let's find out how I get my property. I can get it one of three ways: 1. Trading for it. 2.Making it. 3. Getting it out of nature. But when I trade for a good, I have to give up something I already own. So, we can cross that off the list. When I make something, I have to use resources that already existed, so that's gone too. Therefore, all goods eventually come from nature. So who owns this nature? Either I do, or someone I trade with does. Either way, neither of us actually produced it, so how did the original owner get it? My answer: by claiming it. If land is unclaimed, it belongs to no one, which means anyone can take it. But once an item becomes mine, I own it. No one can force me to give it up. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;37436666]the biggest lie libertarianism tells is the lie that you are the result of your own actions. yet me being a male, lower-class, jewish brit happened completely beyond my control. i was lucky, for lack of a better term, to not have been born in an impoverish nation or a nation that is hostile to my ethnicity. isn't that the very definition of a myopic philosophy?[/QUOTE] yes, you did not choose how you were born. But no one else did either. So it is not their problem. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436667']Okay, I'll just go and find me an empty plot of land not owned by anyone. Wait, that won't work, there is no unclaimed land. I'll just buy it, then. Wait, that won't work, I'm too poor. I'll just steal some then. Wait, then I get shot. What should I do?[/QUOTE] First, I'm sure there is unclaimed land somewhere. Or form a socialist commune. Not everyone is an asshole, there will be other people willing to help. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436692']The analogy is that wage-slavery is the man with the gun. I'm going to offer you your own option here: why aren't you your own boss, if that's an option? I'll just take the loads of money that I have sitting around at my house to be my own boss and make money using the resources I have. Because that's totally feasible for 90% of the population, right?[/QUOTE] because being your own boss takes a lot of work. And I don't mean you have to be your own boss. You can always find a new boss.

[QUOTE=Noble;37436745]A- It isn't? Since when is wal-mart forcing you to buy their goods at gun point? B- Alright, I wasn't really arguing otherwise. C- Wealth isn't a resource and I'm not necessarily convinced that wealth is limited. D- I say voluntary meaning "without physical coercion", or "without initiation of force". Either way I don't see how any of those issues can be blamed on free market capitalism considering it doesn't exist, especially not in those areas with the most suffering.[/QUOTE] Being a consumer is not capitalism. Capitalism is a system whereby one person gives another person capital, which is then used by the other person to provide a good or service. The Capitalist then takes the earnings of the use-value and exchange-value of the service, and provides the other person a small compensation. It's essentially theft. It is not voluntary because there is no other option short of subject yourself to the economic rule of an individual, who will force you to work and take the majority of the earnings- or die in poverty. It is forceful, because you must subject yourself to wage-slavery, or you will suffer. Wealth is a resource. This is like, the most basic fact of economics ever. Wealth, money, is the exchange-value of a resource. that's why it has worth and why it is a thing. It exists because it is representative of a resource. That's what it is. It is a resource. It is limited because there is limited value in the resources it represents. When money does not equal the value of resource, it becomes worthless and inflated. Economics one-oh-one here.

[QUOTE=Noble;37436695]Yeah, exactly. Government is forcing you to benefit because they hold a monopoly on a lot of these services and it's inevitable that I will have to come into use of these services. Do I have a choice whether or not to pay for the government to set up and enforce air space regulations above my house? It does provide a benefit to me, but I didn't have a choice. Would I pay for this service, given the choice, in a free market? Probably not. No don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't want those services. I just think things would be better off of they were paid for voluntarily. I have no problem helping the poor and hungry either, but I would like to do so voluntarily. There are also many things that I would not like to pay for, as well, like drug wars. But you reduce liberties and freedoms in the process of attempting what you are advocating, and end up reducing the human condition.[/QUOTE] The government does not force you to use it's roads. You chose to. Therefore, you must pay. And your right, you had no choice in whether the air space over your house was regulated. So feel free not to pay. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436808']Being a consumer is not capitalism. Capitalism is a system whereby one person gives another person capital, which is then used by the other person to provide a good or service. The Capitalist then takes the earnings of the use-value and exchange-value of the service, and provides the other person a small compensation. It's essentially theft. It is not voluntary because there is no other option short of subject yourself to the economic rule of an individual, who will force you to work and take the majority of the earnings- or die in poverty. It is forceful, because you must subject yourself to wage-slavery, or you will suffer. Wealth is a resource. This is like, the most basic fact of economics ever. Wealth, money, is the exchange-value of a resource. that's why it has worth and why it is a thing. It exists because it is representative of a resource. That's what it is. It is a resource. It is limited because there is limited value in the resources it represents. When money does not equal the value of resource, it becomes worthless and inflated. Economics one-oh-one here.[/QUOTE] Wealth is not really limited, at least I would say. Wealth is basically the sum value of the stuff you own, right? If you do something to your property that makes it more valuable, you have just created wealth. A rock with specks of gold in it isn't worth much, but gold is worth a lot.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436752]No, I have that hundred dollars because I traded something of mine for it. Society did not give me that money, I traded for it. [B]you are part of society. Everyone trades for it, everyone is society. Society.[/B] It was made by multiple people, but I paid them for it. [B]You provided them small compensation for their labor, and kept the exchange value for yourself.[/B] No, wealth is not a limited resource. [B]Jesus, yes it is. That's why it's fucking [I]wealth.[/I][/B] Well, yes, but it essentially isn't. Let's find out how I get my property. I can get it one of three ways: 1. Trading for it. [B]Trading property for property. Can't happen if you have no property or services to provide.[/B] 2.Making it. [B]You don't make property, you make goods, capital, or resources.[/B] 3. Getting it out of nature. [B]Okay.[/B] But when I trade for a good, I have to give up something I already own. So, we can cross that off the list. When I make something, I have to use resources that already existed, so that's gone too. Therefore, all goods eventually come from nature. So who owns this nature? Either I do, or someone I trade with does. [B]Except that no one owns nature, except for the enforcement by themselves or the state.[/B] Either way, neither of us actually produced it, so how did the original owner get it? My answer: by claiming it. If land is unclaimed, it belongs to no one, which means anyone can take it. But once an item becomes mine, I own it. No one can force me to give it up. [B]Yea, they can just starve you unless you give them your time and labor.[/B] [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] yes, you did not choose how you were born. But no one else did either. So it is not their problem. [B]It's society's problem, because you both are part of society and rely on it.[/B] [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] First, I'm sure there is unclaimed land somewhere. Or form a socialist commune. Not everyone is an asshole, there will be other people willing to help. [B]No there's really not, unless you count Antarctica or something. Socialists communes don't get far in capitalist countries, and are unable to prosper because of lack of external support. See: The entire fucking history of the Soviet Union before 1940.[/B] [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] because being your own boss takes a lot of work. [B]It take wealth and resources that most people do not have.[/B] And I don't mean you have to be your own boss. You can always find a new boss. [B]Ah yes, I can always just have the value I created stolen from me by someone else! Great choices there.[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436570] why not? If I can control myself, why shouldn't I have full control over myself.[/QUOTE] To have full control over yourself is to live without having to contribute to those around you who work to make life for all of us possible, then? You and I could rephrase it to say 'If I can control my assets, why shouldn't I have full control over my assets?'. And I could say that in this case, the asset you have isn't meant to be fully controlled by anyone. It only serves to empower those without any, though by refusing to give a portion of your asset back to people who can redistribute it you are effectively denying that unless you go about and act generously with it. Money shouldn't be referred to as a object or material possession, because all of its value is purely virtual. It is meant to be shared just as much as it is meant to be used as a mean to gain material possessions and other properties. Though I guess you could say its older purpose was to ensure the power of certain people over others, and that is where part of this issue lies.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436808']Being a consumer is not capitalism. Capitalism is a system whereby one person gives another person capital, which is then used by the other person to provide a good or service. The Capitalist then takes the earnings of the use-value and exchange-value of the service, and provides the other person a small compensation. It's essentially theft. It is not voluntary because there is no other option short of subject yourself to the economic rule of an individual, who will force you to work and take the majority of the earnings- or die in poverty. It is forceful, because you must subject yourself to wage-slavery, or you will suffer. Wealth is a resource. This is like, the most basic fact of economics ever. Wealth, money, is the exchange-value of a resource. that's why it has worth and why it is a thing. It exists because it is representative of a resource. That's what it is. It is a resource. It is limited because there is limited value in the resources it represents. When money does not equal the value of resource, it becomes worthless and inflated. Economics one-oh-one here.[/QUOTE] Wealth and money are two completely different concepts. Wealth is having an abundance of resources. Money is something accepted as payment for goods/services/debt (or if you want to use the phrase "an idea, backed by confidence"). Don't believe me? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money[/url] Also I don't see how that is theft. Both parties gain a subjective benefit from that transaction. It's only theft if one party to the transaction violated a contractual obligation to the other, but that isn't the case. As far as the wage slavery argument, those who work harder and show they have value to an employer will get promotions, raises, etc. If your labor isn't more valuable than the average worker, then why would you deserve to be paid more than the standard wages? They aren't "enslaved", they sell their labor and get something of value in return. I don't understand how this translates to enslavement or force. edit- I'll have to come back and read the thread tomorrow I have to sleep.

I just realized that I'm making humanist arguments when in that thread about Gaza I made an idiot of myself by supporting a blockade which serves to cut off a peoples from resources needed for life, I must be bipolar or worse.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436814]The government does not force you to use it's roads. You chose to. Therefore, you must pay. And your right, you had no choice in whether the air space over your house was regulated. So feel free not to pay. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] Wealth is not really limited, at least I would say. Wealth is basically the sum value of the stuff you own, right? If you do something to your property that makes it more valuable, you have just created wealth. A rock with specks of gold in it isn't worth much, but gold is worth a lot.[/QUOTE] Wealth=money in economics. Wealth is a tangible value representing the monetary worth of something. Exchange-value. Listen, there are two different "wealth"s: Exchange-value, and use-value. Exchange-value is the monetary equivalent to something use-value its practical usage or demand. A car that costs 100$ has an exchange-value of 100$, and a use-value of being a bloody car. A rock has no obvious use-value to most of but may have an exchange-value if someone has a use for it. You can have a million fucking rocks, but that doesn't mean you have an ounce of wealth unless those rocks have a use-value that facilitates an exchange-value. If that rock now has gold in it, then gold has a use-value, so it has an exchange value. Because someone wants or needs it, it has a use-value. Does it matter what that usage is? not really. But it now has an exchange-value. someone wants to buy that rock for 1004, then it has an exchange-value of 100$ and the 100$ is given in exchange for that rock, and is representative of it. Where before you had a rock, you now have 100$. When the amount of money is increased beyond the limits of the representative resources, then the money is still tied as the exchange-values of the resources it represents. for instance, because the amount of money as a whole increased, then the exchange-value of that rock has been balanced and the rock is now worth 101$ dollars. If we simply keep creating wealth in the form of money- that is, the equivalent exchange-value of something with use-value, then we must adjust the exchange-values. Pretty soon the rock is going to be worth 300$. The rock did not change in its use-value, but the exchange-value was changed. It's still equivalent on the rock's side of things, but now your dollar is worth less. 300$ is now the same value as 100$, because we created more wealth for exchange that there was resources to exchange it for. tl;dr is that wealth is a physical thing that either means you have a lot of useful shit, or the monetary equivalent to a lot of useful shit.

[QUOTE=Noble;37436891] Also I don't see how that is theft. Both parties gain a subjective benefit from that transaction. It's only theft if one party to the transaction violated a contractual obligation to the other, but that isn't the case. As far as the wage slavery argument, those who work harder and show they have value to an employer will get promotions, raises, etc. They aren't "enslaved", they sell their labor and get something of value in return. I don't understand how this translates to enslavement or force.[/QUOTE] Well, think of this. In a taxless system, you work and of course you can gain promotions and such, but you [i]must[/i] work to pay for your food and medical care and protection from criminals and belligerents, whereas in a taxed system you [i]must[/i] pay tax to remain part of society, though there is an exception to the poor and needy where they may receive protection and healthcare and shelter and education for free. Contributing a small amount to everyone around you and even more who you may not see is not being robbed, it is earning your keep to stay within a stable nation. If you don't want to contribute to society, there is nothing to stop you from leaving it and heading to a wild place and building everything yourself and protecting yourself.

[QUOTE=Noble;37436891]Wealth and money are two completely different concepts. Wealth is having an abundance of resources. Money is something accepted as payment for goods/services/debt (or if you want to use the phrase "an idea, backed by confidence"). Don't believe me? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money[/url] Also I don't see how that is theft. Both parties gain a subjective benefit from that transaction. It's only theft if one party to the transaction violated a contractual obligation to the other, but that isn't the case. As far as the wage slavery argument, those who work harder and show they have value to an employer will get promotions, raises, etc. If your labor isn't more valuable than the average worker, then why would you deserve to be paid more than the standard wages? They aren't "enslaved", they sell their labor and get something of value in return. I don't understand how this translates to enslavement or force. edit- I'll have to come back and read the thread tomorrow I have to sleep.[/QUOTE] I just posted an explanation on the relationship of the two. I'm talking specifically wealth in relations to economics, since this is an economic issue (by the economic beliefs I subscribe to. I explained them above. Basically, when I say wealth, I mean money or monetary value). And both parties gained in the way that a worker used his labor to produce a product, and the capitalist sold the product and took the profits. The worker does not need to capitalist. A capitalist simply takes the value of the worker's labor. The worker should get all of the value of his work, not some. If you go chop down a tree and sell the logs, then you get to keep the profits. But if you use someone else's ax, then he gets all of the profits and places an upper limit on the amount that you will get out of the value of your labor. That's not right and is taking the product of someone else's work, on the ground that they used your capital to achieve it, when you attributed nothing to the process besides the initial capital. That's why Marxism advocates capitalism coming to be before seizing the means of production- because the capitalist is worth only as much as his capital, and afterwards is useless tot he workers, who do not rely on the capitalist.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436872'] post[/QUOTE] I'll refute this argument in full later, but it seems that you see society as one giant entity, almost like a living thing. Society is a system. We are all part of society, because society is made up of our interactions. But we do not owe anything to society, because society is not a person. It's a collection of actions (saying hello to your neighbors, selling produce, etc.). We can only owe things to individuals, and we pay those debts as part of our trade. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37436874]To have full control over yourself is to live without having to contribute to those around you who work to make life for all of us possible, then? You and I could rephrase it to say 'If I can control my assets, why shouldn't I have full control over my assets?'. And I could say that in this case, the asset you have isn't meant to be fully controlled by anyone. It only serves to empower those without any, though by refusing to give a portion of your asset back to people who can redistribute it you are effectively denying that unless you go about and act generously with it. Money shouldn't be referred to as a object or material possession, because all of its value is purely virtual. It is meant to be shared just as much as it is meant to be used as a mean to gain material possessions and other properties. Though I guess you could say its older purpose was to ensure the power of certain people over others, and that is where part of this issue lies.[/QUOTE] I would contribute to people around me who make life possible. I would trade with them, not steal from them. And when did was it decided that my purpose in life is to empower those without any?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37437595]I'll refute this argument in full later, but it seems that you see society as one giant entity, almost like a living thing. Society is a system. We are all part of society, because society is made up of our interactions. But we do not owe anything to society, because society is not a person. It's a collection of actions (saying hello to your neighbors, selling produce, etc.). We can only owe things to individuals, and we pay those debts as part of our trade. [/QUOTE] Society is not simply a system, it is the entirety of the body of individuals and communities interacting. We are society- saying that we owe nothing to society is claiming that we take all from it and owe nothing back. It's simple. Society=group of people You=in that group of people you=society Everything that you get from other people=you get from group of people group of people=society You get everything from society. Regardless of how much you contribute yourself, you still have nothing without the wealth you amass from society. I don't give a flying fuck how you want to bend the meaning and definition of the word society, the fact of the matter is that it's a collective of people who interact, and those interactions are necessary for the survival of every single person there, and without those people [I]you and I and anyone reading this thread would be dead, poor, starving, etc.[/I] so when you say you owe nothing to society, you are flat out wrong, because you would [I]not be alive without the support of society[/I]. and while you advocate leeching off the work of others through a capitalist mode of production, and oppose the use of the services that are oh so terribly forced upon you for your convenience, I challenge you to find a way, in this day and age, to survive without society or anything it has created. Without society, you would be fucking dead. You owe your damned life to society, and it's absolutely pathetic that anyone would be so ignorantly selfish as to think that they can get away with making a buck off the labor of others and amass wealth that could be used to help the sick and poor and dying, only to use it for themselves. Essentially, what you are advocating is the worst thing. You are advocating for a Social Darwinist system that seeks to promote inequality and leaves the unfortunate and disadvantaged to die in the streets, or grovel at your feet to be used as tools for furtherance of your own personal gain. You are advocating a broken system that today sees the death and starvation of millions. The same systems that continues to force a 30% child poverty rate in this nation- a system that keeps the majority of the world's people working for under 1$ a day. You are advocating for death, poverty, and cruelty of the worst kind under the guise of a system that would liberate and provide for freedom and prosperity, when it does no such thing. Instead of breaking the chains of thought and subjugation of all, you are unleashing always-hungry fat pigs who wish to feed off all others. That's not liberation, that's not liberty- that's authoritarianism by the powerful and rich over all others.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37437694']Society is not simply a system, it is the entirety of the body of individuals and communities interacting. We are society- saying that we owe nothing to society is claiming that we take all from it and owe nothing back. It's simple. Society=group of people You=in that group of people you=society Everything that you get from other people=you get from group of people group of people=society You get everything from society.[/QUOTE] yes, society is a group, and what makes it a group is the interactions. No interactions, no society. You can have people without society, you can't have interactions without society. Therefore, interactions=society.We do owe stuff to society, but we pay that as part of our purchase. When I buy a watermelon, I'm taking something of value (watermelon) and giving the seller something they think is of equal value: money. I paid my dues right there. Nothing else. I only owe society for what society gives me, and I pay for that during the exchange. After that, I owe nothing. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37437694']Regardless of how much you contribute yourself, you still have nothing without the wealth you amass from society. I don't give a flying fuck how you want to bend the meaning and definition of the word society, the fact of the matter is that it's a collective of people who interact, and those interactions are necessary for the survival of every single person there, and without those people you and I and anyone reading this thread would be dead, poor, starving, etc. so when you say you owe nothing to society, you are flat out wrong, because you would not be alive without the support of society. and while you advocate leeching off the work of others through a capitalist mode of production, and oppose the use of the services that are oh so terribly forced upon you for your convenience, I challenge you to find a way, in this day and age, to survive without society or anything it has created.[/QUOTE] Yes, I do owe stuff to society, but I think I should only pay for what I get from society, nothing more. Capitalism does not "leech of society" it allows society to reach it's full potential. You pay someone for their labor, and then use that labor to produce goods that others want to buy. I am not saying we destroy society, far from it. I am saying that any involuntary interactions be ceased, leaving a wholly voluntary society. Want to live in the mountains, isolated from society? go ahead. Want to form a socialist utopia where everyone works together for the common good? go for it, great idea. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37437694']Without society, you would be fucking dead. You owe your damned life to society, and it's absolutely pathetic that anyone would be so ignorantly selfish as to think that they can get away with making a buck off the labor of others and amass wealth that could be used to help the sick and poor and dying, only to use it for themselves.[/QUOTE] I do owe everything to society, which is why I PAY FOR IT. How hard is it to understand? if I pay for the resources society gives me, I am not a leech. I am not a villain. I am a productive member of society. Yes, capitalism does allow the rich to make a buck off of the poor. But you know what? the poor make a buck too. The rich buy the labor from the poor, and use it to create things. How is that stealing? [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37437694']Essentially, what you are advocating is the worst thing. You are advocating for a Social Darwinist system that seeks to promote inequality and leaves the unfortunate and disadvantaged to die in the streets, or grovel at your feet to be used as tools for furtherance of your own personal gain. You are advocating a broken system that today sees the death and starvation of millions. The same systems that continues to force a 30% child poverty rate in this nation- a system that keeps the majority of the world's people working for under 1$ a day. You are advocating for death, poverty, and cruelty of the worst kind under the guise of a system that would liberate and provide for freedom and prosperity, when it does no such thing. Instead of breaking the chains of thought and subjugation of all, you are unleashing always-hungry fat pigs who wish to feed off all others. That's not liberation, that's not liberty- that's authoritarianism by the powerful and rich over all others.[/QUOTE] If you want to call it social darwinism, go ahead. Loaded words don't scare me. The idea that people should work hard, and should be rewarded for their work, is not some horrible thing. Advocating the death of millions, is a bad thing, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying we should make the poor, the hungry, the unfortunate into productive members of society. Letting them waste a way in poverty is a horrible thing, both morally and economically. Without a middle class, there is no one to buy goods. Therefore, the rich should work towards pulling people out of poverty. It's better for everyone. But whether you admit it or not, the system does help the poor of the world. As countries become industrialized, the standards of living rise. Capitalism does not "enslave people" to capitalists, at least not in the long run. By giving aid, we are putting the poor in a constant loop of poverty. The only way to get them out for good, is to give them jobs. So yes, it is liberty, not authoritarianism.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37437595]I would contribute to people around me who make life possible. I would trade with them, not steal from them. And when did was it decided that my purpose in life is to empower those without any?[/QUOTE] What happens to the people with nothing to trade, though? People who can't work because they can't buy education or medicine. They deserve your money just as much as those who contribute to make your life possible, and without any tax to force a means to gain an education and such for the needy and poor, they're left behind. And it is one of the purposes of money, in a way, so unless you consider making money the purpose of your life then the purpose of your life could be anything else. Taxation isn't killing off people or driving people to starvation, (privatized healthcare, on the other hand, has caused countless deaths). Most of the issues caused by it are because of political corruption, though that'd be minuscule compared to what would happen if businesses went unregulated and all social services were privatized. Refusing to contribute a small amount of your monetary wealth just because you feel it infringes your rights is odd, in the least. The betterment of humanity should come above the want of the few, even if it means forcing them to contribute in a small way.

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17312819"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17312819[/URL] An interesting article. A long with giving a little more info on the topic, it has this important quote: [QUOTE]Despite its success at driving home just how many people are living in extreme poverty, some critics think the $1-a-day benchmark has done more harm than good. It's a "successful failure", according to Lant Pritchett, an ex-World Bank economist who is now Professor of the Practice of International Development at Harvard University's Kennedy School. "It's a wildly successful PR device that I think has been a failure in terms of achieving the objectives of improving human well-being in the world," he says. He argues that it has put a focus on philanthropy more than long-term development - applying a sticking plaster rather than solving the problem. "Instead of promoting prosperous economies, it's about 'How do we identify and target and get transfers to the few people under this penurious line?' which just isn't the way, historically, anybody has ever eliminated poverty."[/QUOTE] [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37437910]What happens to the people with nothing to trade, though? People who can't work because they can't buy education or medicine. They deserve your money just as much as those who contribute to make your life possible, and without any tax to force a means to gain an education and such for the needy and poor, they're left behind.[/QUOTE] why do they deserve my money? If an individual has never given anything to me, why do I owe them? [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37437910]And it is one of the purposes of money, in a way, so unless you consider making money the purpose of your life then the purpose of your life could be anything else.[/QUOTE] The purpose of my life is not to make money, it is to maximize my personal utility. It is for everyone. You think that the purpose of your life is to help others, but that's only because you want to help others. [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37437910]Taxation isn't killing off people[/QUOTE] never said it was. Some people still don't want to pay it. [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37437910]The betterment of humanity should come above the want of the few, even if it means forcing them to contribute in a small way.[/QUOTE] That's what you want, yes. To maximize your personal utility, you would have to donate to the needy. But not everyone feels the same way. Some people don't like charity.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37437896]Yes, I do owe stuff to society, but I think I should only pay for what I get from society, nothing more. Capitalism does not "leech of society" it allows society to reach it's full potential. You pay someone for their labor, and then use that labor to produce goods that others want to buy. I am not saying we destroy society, far from it. I am saying that any involuntary interactions be ceased, leaving a wholly voluntary society. Want to live in the mountains, isolated from society? go ahead. Want to form a [b]socialist utopia where everyone works together for the common good? go for it, great idea.[/b][/QUOTE] Most doctrines of Socialism bases itself completely off of complete government (ideally, whereas the government is the same as the people) ownership of civil services, and that is all funded by tributes given to by everyone. In a pure capitalist system that would come along with the erasing of taxes, how would that be possible without conflicting with the capitalist system? Involuntary interactions are what defines a government in a way, it is the people using a guide of regulations and rules to force themselves from running amok. That is accomplished by putting responsibilities in the hands of officials who can contain themselves. It is all funded by involuntary interactions, and without those, there'd be no one to keep the world in check. So having society reach its full potential is possibly a bad thing, if it were by your definition. [QUOTE][b]I do owe everything to society, which is why I PAY FOR IT. How hard is it to understand? if I pay for the resources society gives me, I am not a leech. I am not a villain. I am a productive member of society.[/b] Yes, capitalism does allow the rich to make a buck off of the poor. But you know what? the poor make a buck too. The rich buy the labor from the poor, and use it to create things. How is that stealing?[/QUOTE] Society is just as much the people who compose the companies that you purchase products from as it is the doctors and the police, the problem is, if they are not funded with taxes, then how are they funded at all? They'd have to pay out of their own pockets for equipment, and so they'd have to charge for their services. They'd have to regulate themselves, too, so you may as well call the doctors private medics and the police mercenaries. And all of the people around the world who couldn't afford to pay them, or couldn't work because of their condition, would be left to defend themselves and doctor themselves. Working in a sweatshop as a means of cheap labour isn't going to pull someone out of the gutter, and the 'trickle down' scenario that would play out would only work in favour of the rich. Most of the poor people on this Earth are poor because of capitalistic systems that abuse their work for cheap pay. [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/south-africa-mine-shooting-miners-beaten_n_1833604.html[/url] This is a prime example of unregulated capitalism at work. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37437926][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17312819"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17312819[/URL] An interesting article. A long with giving a little more info on the topic, it has this important quote: [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] why do they deserve my money? If an individual has never given anything to me, why do I owe them? The purpose of my life is not to make money, it is to maximize my personal utility. It is for everyone. You think that the purpose of your life is to help others, but that's only because you want to help others. never said it was. Some people still don't want to pay it. That's what you want, yes. To maximize your personal utility, you would have to donate to the needy. But not everyone feels the same way. Some people don't like charity.[/QUOTE] A majority may not like charity, but that doesn't mean that they [i]should to and need to[/i] donate to it. The poor deserve our money not because we don't deserve it equally, but that they simply need it more than we do, though a lot of people fail to realize that. Taxes, ideally, exist (along with providing funding to public services and that, blah, blah) to give a little push at people who fail to realize that so everyone pays to benefit the poor therefore aiding the physical human condition. The problem with the entire idea that was presented in the article is that it is extremely easy to fuck over the poor under the false pretenses of opportunity, and usually their situation is directly interlinked with the state of the government too. Aiding the poor via taxes can be different than feeding them mouth to mouth, it is essentially providing them with whatever aid they need to bring them into a state where they are able to work for more than $10 an hour. It is essentially providing them with an education, too, by funding schools and universities, ones that would cost thousands to attend to in a purely capitalist system. Of course a tax system an be abused too, though that can be fixed with politics as the populace can push for changes of regulations. A business has a very clear chain of command. Anyway, I just ran out of words for the night as it is 2:46.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37437037']I just posted an explanation on the relationship of the two. I'm talking specifically wealth in relations to economics, since this is an economic issue (by the economic beliefs I subscribe to. I explained them above. Basically, when I say wealth, I mean money or monetary value). And both parties gained in the way that a worker used his labor to produce a product, and the capitalist sold the product and took the profits. The worker does not need to capitalist. A capitalist simply takes the value of the worker's labor. The worker should get all of the value of his work, not some. If you go chop down a tree and sell the logs, then you get to keep the profits. But if you use someone else's ax, then he gets all of the profits and places an upper limit on the amount that you will get out of the value of your labor. That's not right and is taking the product of someone else's work, on the ground that they used your capital to achieve it, when you attributed nothing to the process besides the initial capital.[/QUOTE] How is that not right? Should you get to use his axe for free (that he put labor and time into acquiring)? Isn't that taking the product of someone else's work for your own gain? You could always make your own axe, but of course you'll have to set aside the labor and time to do it as the capitalist did. [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37437018]Well, think of this. In a taxless system, you work and of course you can gain promotions and such, but you [i]must[/i] work to pay for your food and medical care and protection from criminals and belligerents, whereas in a taxed system you [i]must[/i] pay tax to remain part of society, though there is an exception to the poor and needy where they may receive protection and healthcare and shelter and education for free.[/quote] I fail to see how it's a bad thing that you must work to pay for food and medical care. Food and medical care come are scarce commodities and they come at a cost. One way of paying that cost is by selling your labor in exchange for wages that can go towards buying those things. I don't recognize how this is unfair. You provide something of value (labor) and you get something of value in return (wages). Are you arguing that this is bad and that people should have to essentially just [i]give away[/i] scarce commodities like food, health care, etc without being properly compensated? I'm not following. [quote]Contributing a small amount to everyone around you and even more who you may not see is not being robbed, it is earning your keep to stay within a stable nation. If you don't want to contribute to society, there is nothing to stop you from leaving it and heading to a wild place and building everything yourself and protecting yourself.[/QUOTE] Well if robbery is defined as taking one's possessions by initiation of force, then it is of course robbery by definition. Also why should I be the one who has to leave society? I'm not using coercion against anyone by being here, so if anything I actually have a more ethically justified claim to remain where I am. If you want to live in a collective and voluntarily pay taxes and receive public services it could just as easily be argued that you could go somewhere else, too.

[QUOTE=Noble;37439972]How is that not right? Should you get to use his axe for free (that he put labor and time into acquiring)? Isn't that taking the product of someone else's work for your own gain? You could always make your own axe, but of course you'll have to set aside the labor and time to do it as the capitalist did.[/QUOTE] Considering that the capitalist himself never made his own axe, I see no reason why we should humor his ownership of it. He did not make the axe, nor did he make the tree, nor did he make anything involved in the process- he simply owned the axe. And if we consider that he make a profit off the collective labor of others- that is, he's using someone else's use-value and taking the exchange-value of their service, and compensating them with a wage, then you basically have a system where someone is taking capital that they acquired by trading resources in a limited pool essentially existing because of the labor of everyone in society, and then using that item to exploit a system wherein people must search for and subjugate themselves to employers, securing a laborer who absolutely must use that person's capital in order to make a wage to live by, then ultimately we have a system of taking your neighbor's car and then giving it to someone else who then must drive it for your wealth. I just woke up and totally lost where I was going with this, but I'll be back to finish this thought.

If you value liberties for the sake of liberties more than actual quality of life then go ahead The problem with every libertarian i've talked too is they're complete slaves to their ideals, much more so than followers of any other political ideologies in my experience Like if you forced a decision on them where one option would do the most good but went against libertarian ideals, and another that wasn't so good but complied with their ideals they'd go for the latter It's exactly that sort of thinking that's why politics is so fucked up

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436808']Being a consumer is not capitalism. Capitalism is a system whereby one person gives another person capital, which is then used by the other person to provide a good or service. The Capitalist then takes the earnings of the use-value and exchange-value of the service, and provides the other person a small compensation. It's essentially theft. It is not voluntary because there is no other option short of subject yourself to the economic rule of an individual, who will force you to work and take the majority of the earnings- or die in poverty. It is forceful, because you must subject yourself to wage-slavery, or you will suffer.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you on? In a free market, [b]every trade is beneficial for all people involved[/B]. In your example, the employee has the ability to provide labor, and the employer has the ability to provide money. The employer NEEDS labor. The employee NEEDS money. Both have a need, and both of their needs are fulfilled by the other person in a mutual agreement. Even if the employee is getting below market-value for their work, they are still gaining something, which means [B]they are still gaining benefit[/B]. Also, it's called going to work for someone else. There is not only one person that you can work for. If there is, that's called socialism (where the government owns the means of production and are therefore the only one hiring).

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37444230]Also, it's called going to work for someone else.[/QUOTE] what if every employer offers only low wages because labour is cheap?