Political and economic history

[Dak]

Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with the inference you're making here. It does not seem obvious to me that if you own yourself and what you do that you thereby own the product of what you do. I mean, that's part of the whole controversy between libertarians and people who doubt this connection between self-ownership and external property; is it really the case that if you own yourself, you also own the things that you produce? Even if I concede that you own yourself, why do I have to concede that you have a right to what you produced? Let's suppose you own yourself: you have a right to do what you want with yourself, where yourself is defined by what counts as a part of your body. So you have a right to your labor in the sense that you have a right to engage in the activity of producing things. If I, for instance, physically restrained you by tying you down in order to prevent you from engaging in the activity of producing various things, it seems to me that that would be a clear violation of your self-ownership, since I'd be doing something to you against your will. But this need not be the case if I take, destroy, or otherwise mess with something that you have produced, since it need only involve doing something to a thing that is not you or a part of you. That's why it seems pretty obvious that a prohibition on chattel slavery is justified on grounds of self-ownership but that extensive private property rights are not.

Nothing that is not an organic part of my body is a part of me, so by your line of reasoning the clothes on my back are fair game as well. If you restrain me from producing the shirt, or come after it is made and take it, the end result is the same: I have no shirt. If I can spend my time working on a shirt, or spend my time in leisure, and have the same net material gain (no shirt), why would I make a shirt? To steal the product of my time and effort IS to steal my time and effort.

But if I take your shirt, it seems pretty obvious that I do not take your time or your life, since I never prevented you from using your time and your life in that particular way in the first place. I'm just taking the thing that resulted from it.

Yet, you did. You stole it retroactively. Preventing me from using it to make a shirt would actually have been preferable to stealing my productivity and labor for yourself. I could have spent my time "producing" something that cannot be stolen (leisure, IE, nothing).

 

[Rick Parry]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-dW-CA&usg=AFQjCNEF6C5gb1HDsFSquh3gWlVAetLC9g


I hope all of you check this movie sooner or later and especially for the Paul fanboys.

 

[Einherjar86]

Nothing that is not an organic part of my body is a part of me, so by your line of reasoning the clothes on my back are fair game as well. If you restrain me from producing the shirt, or come after it is made and take it, the end result is the same: I have no shirt. If I can spend my time working on a shirt, or spend my time in leisure, and have the same net material gain (no shirt), why would I make a shirt? To steal the product of my time and effort IS to steal my time and effort.

You're equating the value of the object with the time and effort necessary to produce the object; while this is ideal, you know as well as I do that this is not how values (i.e. prices) are dictated in a market economy. Even Adam Smith said that a thing is only worth how much someone is willing to pay for it. By this logic, a market that dictates prices is constantly stealing from individuals who have produced commodities for market exchange.

Your simple explanation makes sense in a market-driven community where every individual contributes something "valuable" and is the absolute best worker he or she can be (i.e. the worker makes things in the maximum economical fashion so as to sell them to others at prices they are willing to pay); but this is unteneble and completely implausible. The market does not adapt to the labor value of things.

 

[Dak]

You're equating the value of the object with the time and effort necessary to produce the object; while this is ideal, you know as well as I do that this is not how values (i.e. prices) are dictated in a market economy. Even Adam Smith said that a thing is only worth how much someone is willing to pay for it. By this logic, a market that dictates prices is constantly stealing from individuals who have produced commodities for market exchange.

Your simple explanation makes sense in a market-driven community where every individual contributes something "valuable" and is the absolute best worker he or she can be (i.e. the worker makes things in the maximum economical fashion so as to sell them to others at prices they are willing to pay); but this is unteneble and completely implausible. The market does not adapt to the labor value of things.

Whether I directly produce the object, or acquire it through a more drawn out chain of voluntary events, IE: Produce something else, then trade or sell then buy the shirt, is irrelevant to the point. I have spent time and effort to voluntary acquire the item, regardless of pricing. Were the ultimate result of my efforts taken by someone else, it is no different than forcibly enslaving me to procure it for someone else.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're not addressing my point. I'm saying your theory of labor value is incompatible with a market economy.

 

[Dak]

You're not addressing my point. I'm saying your theory of labor value is incompatible with a market economy.

What theory of labor value?

If I expend my labor to produce something for my own use, the end product is the value. If I expend labor to produce a good or service that then sells on the market, and I in turn take a portion (or all) of the proceeds of the sale to buy a shirt from a shirt producer, that is what it is worth, in nominal terms. That is all irrelevant to my point regarding ownership.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see how; according to you, someone owns the shirt if he or she has put the labor into making it, or paid the appropriate price to compensate someone else for his or her labor. I'm saying that market-dictated prices don't complement this theory of ownership.

 

[Dak]

I don't see how; according to you, someone owns the shirt if he or she has put the labor into making it, or paid the appropriate price to compensate someone else for his or her labor. I'm saying that market-dictated prices don't complement this theory of ownership.

How many times do I have to say that the price itself (whether in nominal terms, or time/labor quantifications) is irrelevant? Whether I spend a second, or a day, or a penny, or a million dollars, or merely just walk next door to receive it from my neighbor for free, I have spent unreplacable time and labor to acquire an item in a voluntary process.

For someone to come and take it in an involuntary manner, steals my time and energy, retroactively. As soon as it is permissable to aggress in any fashion against a voluntary chain of events (human action) or the products thereof, there is no logical "line in the sand" where the aggression may NOT be permissable.

 

[Rick Parry]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-dW-CA&usg=AFQjCNEF6C5gb1HDsFSquh3gWlVAetLC9g


I hope all of you check this movie sooner or later and especially for the Paul fanboys.

.

 

[Einherjar86]

How many times do I have to say that the price itself (whether in nominal terms, or time/labor quantifications) is irrelevant? Whether I spend a second, or a day, or a penny, or a million dollars, or merely just walk next door to receive it from my neighbor for free, I have spent unreplacable time and labor to acquire an item in a voluntary process.

For someone to come and take it in an involuntary manner, steals my time and energy, retroactively. As soon as it is permissable to aggress in any fashion against a voluntary chain of events (human action) or the products thereof, there is no logical "line in the sand" where the aggression may NOT be permissable.

I apologize; I'm not disagreeing with you that what you're describing is theft, for the time being. I'm saying that if what you're describing actually is theft, then it's relying on a version of labor value that is in opposition to prices dictated by a capitalist market (which you also argue for).

 

[Dak]

I apologize; I'm not disagreeing with you that what you're describing is theft, for the time being. I'm saying that if what you're describing actually is theft, then it's relying on a version of labor value that is in opposition to prices dictated by a capitalist market (which you also argue for).

Labor, like any other product or service, can only achieve a price that is mutually agreed on by all parties. When there is only one voluntarily acting party, there is no price (in nominal terms), for there is nothing transferred.

Regardless of the market value of my labor/time, until transferred mutually, it is mine, and price is irrelevant.

I see no conflict.

Edit: To be clear, when I say "market value", I mean the value found in any voluntary transaction, not some universal "true market value".

 

[Einherjar86]

Labor, like any other product or service, can only achieve a price that is mutually agreed on by all parties. When there is only one voluntarily acting party, there is no price (in nominal terms), for there is nothing transferred.

Regardless of the market value of my labor/time, until transferred mutually, it is mine, and price is irrelevant.

I see no conflict.

While I agree that a price must be mutually agreed upon (quite obviously), I don't agree that the price (i.e. the market price) is equivalent to the labor value of a product. The market constantly forces people to exchange products of their labor at a lower price than they feel they deserve. Following that logic, someone is having time and effort stolen from them by the abstract spectre of the market.

Market prices are dictated by what people are willing to pay. This has no bearing on the amount of labor required to make a product. This suggests to me that private ownership over an object is not reducible to the amount of time and effort put into making/acquiring it.

 

[Dak]

While I agree that a price must be mutually agreed upon (quite obviously), I don't agree that the price (i.e. the market price) is equivalent to the labor value of a product. The market constantly forces people to exchange products of their labor at a lower price than they feel they deserve. Following that logic, someone is having time and effort stolen from them by the abstract spectre of the market.

It's not stolen if they agree to the price. If they did not agree to the price, and were forced into the deal anyway, that would be theft. "Eminent domain" cases of land purchasing by government is a perfect example.

Market prices are dictated by what people are willing to pay. This has no bearing on the amount of labor required to make a product. This suggests to me that private ownership over an object is not reducible to the amount of time and effort put into making/acquiring it.

Regardless of the market value of my labor/time, until transferred mutually, it is mine, and price is irrelevant.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not stolen if they agree to the price. If they did not agree to the price, and were forced into the deal anyway, that would be theft. "Eminent domain" cases of land purchasing by government is a perfect example.

I don't see this as compatible with your concept of ownership, then. There's a discontinuity between the value of a thing before it is sold and after it enters market negotiations. If a thing is owned because a certain amount of time and effort went into making it, then it stands that its price should correspond to its labor value in order to transfer ownership. I think the amount does matter.

The other possibility is that ownership is not reducible to the time and effort put into making/acquiring it.

 

[Dak]

I don't see this as compatible with your concept of ownership, then. There's a discontinuity between the value of a thing before it is sold and after it enters market negotiations. If a thing is owned because a certain amount of time and effort went into making it, then it stands that its price should correspond to its labor value in order to transfer ownership. I think the amount does matter.

There is the possibility of discontinuity in value of anything at any given time, since value is determined on a transactional basis. Theft is an involuntary transaction where both sides did not agree to the price/transfer.

 

[Dak]

Unrelated to the previous discussion, but relative to the overarching economic discussion between Austrians and Keynesians:

Open Letter to Paul Krugman

The fact that Keynesians repeatedly make logically ludicrous statements in defense of their disastrous economic positions and policies proves they are either A. Bold faced liars or B. Complete idiots (economically and in matters of logic).

The ones in official positions are most likely the former, while those who drink their kool-aid are the latter.

 

[Einherjar86]

There is the possibility of discontinuity in value of anything at any given time, since value is determined on a transactional basis. Theft is an involuntary transaction where both sides did not agree to the price/transfer.

I think you have it backwards. You say that property rights are inherent upon an object's creation and that ownership is granted via time and effort. However, I don't think a human being has any natural right to ownership over any object through recourse to the time and effort put into it. These are abstract concepts that are not inherent in an object; they can be measured, perhaps, but the object itself bears no trace of their quantity. You would say that force infringes upon property rights; but I disagree.

I would venture that property is only viable with recourse to force (either personal or governmental, i.e. calling the police because someone stole your wallet). However, since force is the lowest common denominator, and that which we (in our discussions) are trying to avoid, or transcend, this means the entire notion of property itself is derived from an illegitimate relationship. "Property" became an issue only once individuals realized they could forcibly take something from someone, and property only became legal and legitimate once government regulation attempted to enforce it. "Property," in itself, is not inherent in things. It is only actualized through an appeal to force.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Chiming in to agree with Pat here tbh

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Unrelated to the previous discussion, but relative to the overarching economic discussion between Austrians and Keynesians:

Open Letter to Paul Krugman

The fact that Keynesians repeatedly make logically ludicrous statements in defense of their disastrous economic positions and policies proves they are either A. Bold faced liars or B. Complete idiots (economically and in matters of logic).

The ones in official positions are most likely the former, while those who drink their kool-aid are the latter.

Hm, one thing that neither Krugman nor Boudreau seem to be talking about is who actually holds all that domestic debt. I know there's an implication in Boudreau's "$1B supplemental income" example that it's held by a small number of people who are taking the lion's share of interest on the debt because they have the most capital to invest, but it would be nice to see some numbers on that, especially since there are things like bond funds that can give average people access to some of the higher-paying bonds.

Also worth pointing out that the interest rates on bonds probably has little to do with the US's creditworthiness, which begs the question of how much big lenders are rent-capturing their way to artificially higher rates.

 

[Death Aflame]

I don't see how; according to you, someone owns the shirt if he or she has put the labor into making it, or paid the appropriate price to compensate someone else for his or her labor. I'm saying that market-dictated prices don't complement this theory of ownership.

Even for Ricardo and Smith the mechanism for determining the labor value of a thing was the market. Marx, to my recollection, was the one who took the labor theory and tried to determine "objective" costs of things produced since he viewed markets in a negative light.