Political and economic history

[Death Aflame]

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.

This is true enough in the short term. However in the long term it is evident that prices tend toward the cost of thing (economic equilibrium).

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

You're right about Marx, and that's one of his ideas that I still have trouble with (and one that he and Proudhon disagreed on). Ricardo I don't know, but Adam Smith definitely said that commodities are only worth what someone is willing to pay.

This is true enough in the short term. However in the long term it is evident that prices tend toward the cost of thing (economic equilibrium).

But a commodity's cost still only reflects what others are willing to pay for it; not the value of the time and effort put into it.

 

[Dak]

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.

Your actions in day to day life do not reflect this position. Right now you are working hard towards a graduate degree. You would not do so if upon completion, I could simply assume the degree and the knowledge, leaving you with neither.

In a world where that was possible and common, you would not work towards that degree/knowledge, I would not be able to take what does not exist, and we would both be poorer for it. However, in a world of property, you may work towards things, and then trade them or the knowledge, and we are both the richer for it.

You have tried to change the logical foundation from the aspect of irreplacable personal time/life itself expended, and attempted to treat the end product as existing in a vacuum. This is irrational.

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.

The object would not exist without time/labor/skill, which are most certainly not abstract. Any particular method of quantification may be arbitrary, but not what is being measured.

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.

"Legality" assumes government/law, and is irrelevant to rights. Negative rights exist whether they are legal or not, whether they are protected or not. Otherwise, there are no such things as rights abuses in countries that don't supposedly legally protect them.

As far as realizing things down to the level of force, I have been here before and have to acknowledge that superior force trumps all ideals/arguments/discussion. This is not debatable. It is also not philosophic, and bears no discussion. While I wax on about negative rights, you may merely kill me and walk off with your new "property". This does not mean my rights weren't violated, merely that ideas are not an immediate defense against lead and steal.

However, as I pointed out to the force proponent I met before, ideas do outlast every bully, and there is ALWAYS a bigger bully waiting to do in the lesser bully in turn. So entering force into the debate instantly nullifies all discussion and sends humanity into a race to the bottom.

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.

Bond vigilantes? I see no problem with this. By pursuing a debt based economic foundation, you have already put yourself at the mercy of debt holders. This is just a byproduct of a horrible system. You play with fire, you get burnt. Also, since the US debt level is past the total annual GDP, and skyrocketing, with no revival of manufacturing/increase in raw material exports/increase in employability in sight, the US creditworthiness would have been officially trashed long ago if not for world reserve/petro status of the national currency. Currently, the nations holding the debt and dollar reserves are trying to exit as slowly as possible to try and eek out as much value as they can. No one is ready to start the run on the dollar yet.

But a commodity's cost still only reflects what others are willing to pay for it.

Only to a point. If the seller refuses to sell at the highest bid, then there is an impasse until one or the other budges. This happens at auctions often enough. A seller can always hold out for higher or new demand.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Bond vigilantes? I see no problem with this. By pursuing a debt based economic foundation, you have already put yourself at the mercy of debt holders. This is just a byproduct of a horrible system. You play with fire, you get burnt. Also, since the US debt level is past the total annual GDP, and skyrocketing, with no revival of manufacturing/increase in raw material exports/increase in employability in sight, the US creditworthiness would have been officially trashed long ago if not for world reserve/petro status of the national currency. Currently, the nations holding the debt and dollar reserves are trying to exit as slowly as possible to try and eek out as much value as they can. No one is ready to start the run on the dollar yet.

Do you think the big foreign dollar investors really have anywhere to go in the meantime? As far as huge pools of available capital go, there's Europe and Japan with all their debt problems, South America with political instability and past defaults (at least in Brazil's case i think), India with a big trade deficit and structural problems... and then China, who know their currency looks like gold compared to everyone else's and don't want to get sucked up into the chaos of currency speculation, so they restrict the crap out of Yuan trading to keep the price stable.

China's clearly a good bet for the next world reserve currency, but it looks like they're going to increase the Yuan's exposure to the global market at a snail's pace to "keep the storm out" while the majority of that investment capital keeps bouncing around among all the shittier currencies.

One other thing to keep in mind - even if foreign investors dump the dollar, bonds could continue to see a lot of demand domestically. The article below argues that the UK offers a sort of benchmark for how bad bond buyers are willing to let things get as long as there's some assurance that the central bank will keep printing money

http://www.businessinsider.com/uk-gilts-are-the-rosetta-stone-of-the-sovereign-debt-crisis-2011-11

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Found a neat WSJ video on the Euro crisis that gives some good explanations of the flaws in Euro policy and international cooperation that were behind the crisis:

http://online.wsj.com/video/europe-...ary/AF34C290-FBD3-44A9-AFA9-10E2AB7A8BFA.html

The idea of economic interdependency as a way to prevent war is an interesting one. It's arguable today that the Internet gives us a platform where we could establish social/cultural interdependency instead, but in the absence of that i find the benefits of economic interdependency pretty compelling.

 

[Einherjar86]

Your actions in day to day life do not reflect this position. Right now you are working hard towards a graduate degree. You would not do so if upon completion, I could simply assume the degree and the knowledge, leaving you with neither.

This criticism of my actions has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. My day to day activities might very well reflect your position on property; but ideology lies in actualization, not ideation (i.e. in what people do, not what they know). I acknowledge that my actions contradict what I'm saying. We live in a society that demands we perceive property in the way you're advocating, otherwise there's no way we can function, and we would consequently be left behind. My criticism is of this entire perception, which filters through the whole of capitalist ideology.

In a world where that was possible and common, you would not work towards that degree/knowledge, I would not be able to take what does not exist, and we would both be poorer for it. However, in a world of property, you may work towards things, and then trade them or the knowledge, and we are both the richer for it.

You have tried to change the logical foundation from the aspect of irreplacable personal time/life itself expended, and attempted to treat the end product as existing in a vacuum. This is irrational.

I'm not treating it as existing in a vacuum. I acknowledge that things certainly must be made; I'm just saying that this doesn't constitute ownership. Your entire argument for property has been conditioned culturally and historically by centuries of classical liberalist thought, and you can't get past this idea that private property needs to exist in order for people to be productive.

You've argued before that people on welfare don't care to get off it; but the welfare system they're subjected to is one that is steeped in the thralls of capitalist ideology. The government gives them money that is now their property, which they know they need in order to survive and compete in society. You're argument is irrational for claiming some kind of foundational, objective truths amount human essence; in truth, you've been conditioned to think these foundations as foundations.

"Legality" assumes government/law, and is irrelevant to rights. Negative rights exist whether they are legal or not, whether they are protected or not. Otherwise, there are no such things as rights abuses in countries that don't supposedly legally protect them.

I disagree, but I don't believe in natural rights, and I think the entire tradition and history of natural rights has resulted from circumstances that condition people to want to believe in natural rights. However, there's absolutely no proof that anything such as natural rights exist. "Rights" only gained popularity after government/political movements began organizing legal codes and required some justification for their existence. They didn't want to protect people's "abilities"; they wanted to protect their "rights."

As far as realizing things down to the level of force, I have been here before and have to acknowledge that superior force trumps all ideals/arguments/discussion. This is not debatable. It is also not philosophic, and bears no discussion. While I wax on about negative rights, you may merely kill me and walk off with your new "property". This does not mean my rights weren't violated, merely that ideas are not an immediate defense against lead and steal.

However, as I pointed out to the force proponent I met before, ideas do outlast every bully, and there is ALWAYS a bigger bully waiting to do in the lesser bully in turn. So entering force into the debate instantly nullifies all discussion and sends humanity into a race to the bottom.

I agree that superior force is a non-philosophic argument; I'm saying that your argument for property is only actualized by recourse to force. Your argument is the one that invites coercive action, because property entails that someone else can forcibly remove said property. The idea of property derives not from some natural essence, but from coercive relationships between individuals, which government eventually adopted for exploitative purposes.

 

[Dak]

This criticism of my actions has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. My day to day activities might very well reflect your position on property; but ideology lies in actualization, not ideation (i.e. in what people do, not what they know). I acknowledge that my actions contradict what I'm saying. We live in a society that demands we perceive property in the way you're advocating, otherwise there's no way we can function, and we would consequently be left behind. My criticism is of this entire perception, which filters through the whole of capitalist ideology.

I'm not treating it as existing in a vacuum. I acknowledge that things certainly must be made; I'm just saying that this doesn't constitute ownership. Your entire argument for property has been conditioned culturally and historically by centuries of classical liberalist thought, and you can't get past this idea that private property needs to exist in order for people to be productive.

You've argued before that people on welfare don't care to get off it; but the welfare system they're subjected to is one that is steeped in the thralls of capitalist ideology. The government gives them money that is now their property, which they know they need in order to survive and compete in society. You're argument is irrational for claiming some kind of foundational, objective truths amount human essence; in truth, you've been conditioned to think these foundations as foundations.

If you do not own what you do, you do not own yourself. To deny this is to deny humanity. Ever human is unique, with his/her own wants and needs. To deny any of them the ability to pursue the meeting of those needs/wants, as long as they do not deny others the same, is slavery. Whether a slave to one or many makes no difference to the state of the slave.

I highly advise you to spend four years enlisted in the Marines. The military is the closest thing to socialism as you will find "functioning" on the earth. Since it does not require internal economic sustainability and exercises force to retain objectors and punish offenders, it outlasts civilian attempts at socialism. You do not own yourself or your labor. Both are owned by whatever branch you choose. In your first enlistment, you are allowed a minimal level of personal items, a privilege that can be removed at the slightest of infractions. However, 3 meals and a cot are guaranteed, as are clothing and a place to work. Socialist heaven. It is no coincidence that the only two groups that stay in the military are the lazy and those who enjoying bullying/killing.

I disagree, but I don't believe in natural rights, and I think the entire tradition and history of natural rights has resulted from circumstances that condition people to want to believe in natural rights. However, there's absolutely no proof that anything such as natural rights exist. "Rights" only gained popularity after government/political movements began organizing legal codes and required some justification for their existence. They didn't want to protect people's "abilities"; they wanted to protect their "rights."

I disagree. Government has used whatever excuse needed at the time to justify existence. When "divine authority" or brute force failed, both excuses trampling on the rights of individuals, and people began to rise up, they switched modes to claiming to protect the very rights they abuse (which they don't and can't). Since people are highly prone to doublethink, this has worked for the last several hundred years.

This is a side argument, but I find it extremely amusing and hypocritical that socialists are almost always the first people to start clamouring for the "rights" of *anyone not a heterosexual white male*. Not saying you are one of those, merely a general observation. If rights are imaginary, they can't be trampled, regardless of the system or idealogy. "Shit just is".

I agree that superior force is a non-philosophic argument; I'm saying that your argument for property is only actualized by recourse to force. Your argument is the one that invites coercive action, because property entails that someone else can forcibly remove said property. The idea of property derives not from some natural essence, but from coercive relationships between individuals, which government eventually adopted for exploitative purposes.

Arguments are not actualized by recourse to force. If force is the recourse then there is no argument. By your logic, ALL arguments are actualized by force, even some Chomski-isc utopia.

Even in some idyllic socialist commune, nothing can prevent someone from appropriating certain items or services for his/her sole use, or non-participation except for consumption (which is the ultimate downfall of every socialist endeavor), except force.

 

[Einherjar86]

If you do not own what you do, you do not own yourself. To deny this is to deny humanity. Ever human is unique, with his/her own wants and needs. To deny any of them the ability to pursue the meeting of those needs/wants, as long as they do not deny others the same, is slavery. Whether a slave to one or many makes no difference to the state of the slave.

I don't think these generic blanket statements achieve anything other than emotional rhetoric. I disagree that private property needs to exist in order for human beings to affirm a positive existence for themselves.

I highly advise you to spend four years enlisted in the Marines. The military is the closest thing to socialism as you will find "functioning" on the earth. Since it does not require internal economic sustainability and exercises force to retain objectors and punish offenders, it outlasts civilian attempts at socialism. You do not own yourself or your labor. Both are owned by whatever branch you choose. In your first enlistment, you are allowed a minimal level of personal items, a privilege that can be removed at the slightest of infractions. However, 3 meals and a cot are guaranteed, as are clothing and a place to work. Socialist heaven. It is no coincidence that the only two groups that stay in the military are the lazy and those who enjoying bullying/killing.

That is complete bullshit, Dak. The military is based on hierarchy. Hierarchical organization is the opposite of egalitarianism.

I disagree. Government has used whatever excuse needed at the time to justify existence. When "divine authority" or brute force failed, both excuses trampling on the rights of individuals, and people began to rise up, they switched modes to claiming to protect the very rights they abuse (which they don't and can't). Since people are highly prone to doublethink, this has worked for the last several hundred years.

Of course government has used more excuses than just "rights"; but this doesn't change the fact that "rights" only became historically important when governments proposed to protect them.

This is a side argument, but I find it extremely amusing and hypocritical that socialists are almost always the first people to start clamouring for the "rights" of *anyone not a heterosexual white male*. Not saying you are one of those, merely a general observation. If rights are imaginary, they can't be trampled, regardless of the system or idealogy. "Shit just is".

Well, I'm not socialist; I equate socialism with Stalinism, which collectivists everywhere agree was a catastrophe. Furthermore, I'm not even prepared to call myself a collectivist, but I think the idea is worth entertaining and potentially tolerating. Finally, just because human beings don't have natural rights doesn't mean our entire existence is worthless or arbitrary. It is obviously in an individual's interest to perpetuate his or her existence. I simply believe that this is a condition of being, not some preordained or naturally given "right."

Arguments are not actualized by recourse to force. If force is the recourse then there is no argument. By your logic, ALL arguments are actualized by force, even some Chomski-isc utopia.

Arguments in general? I don't understand what you're talking about. When I said that your "argument" is actualized by force, I meant the claim you're making: that is, that private property is a natural right and that ownership can inhere in things. The only way private property makes sense is if it can be taken away from you.

 

[Death Aflame]

You're right about Marx, and that's one of his ideas that I still have trouble with (and one that he and Proudhon disagreed on). Ricardo I don't know, but Adam Smith definitely said that commodities are only worth what someone is willing to pay.

Smith was a proponent of the labor theory of value, but it is a different labor theory than that of Marx or latter socialists. It is one that is actualized, to use your term, by the market:

"But though labour be the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities, it is not that by which their value is commonly estimated. [...] In exchanging, indeed, the different productions of different sorts of labour for one another, some allowance is commonly made for both. It is adjusted, however, not by any accurate measure, but by the higgling and bargaining of the market, according to that sort of rough equality, which though not exact, is sufficient for carrying on the business of common life." - Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter V)

In other words, while prices do not always correspond directly to labour values of a given product, the higgling of the market is a rough indicator of the product's labour value. And, as it turns out, this higgling of the market corresponds to the long term view of markets when they reach equilibrium and cost forms the basis of a product's price.

Whether or not any of this anything to do with the origin of the value of things (as the classical economists thought of labor) is another question entirely. My view is that the classical economists had it wrong by asserting that labor is the origin of value and that it is indeed marginal utility that a consumer sees in the product that determines its value. But they weren't completely out to lunch in trying to understand the relationship between value and cost, it just turns out that that relationship is impossible to prove scientifically. Sort of like Freud's theory of the mind's structure.

It also seems clear to me in this passage why Marx went in the direction he did with trying to determine the objective cost (or value) of a product distinct from it's market price. An impossible endeavor, it turned out, but a study not without its roots in Smith.

 

[Dak]

I don't think these generic blanket statements achieve anything other than emotional rhetoric. I disagree that private property needs to exist in order for human beings to affirm a positive existence for themselves.

The problem with your statement, is that what is a "positive existence", and how it is "affirmed", is different for everyone. The cool thing though, is that voluntaryism would totally allow for a voluntary pooling of resources/capital in a socialist collective for those who seek to affirm that idea of a positive existence. I merely submit that it will not work for very long, heirarchy or no heirarchy.
On the flip side, your ideal does not allow for the reverse. If there is no objective truth, then why?

That is complete bullshit, Dak. The military is based on hierarchy. Hierarchical organization is the opposite of egalitarianism.

We have already agreed that heirarchies of a sort are inevitable. Since joining the military (in the US) is voluntary, accepting the heirarchy is as well. Regardless of how good you are at your job, or how much more difficult your job is vs another job, everyone is paid the same according to rank+time. This is much closer to egalitarian than anything else currently functioning on earth.

Of course government has used more excuses than just "rights"; but this doesn't change the fact that "rights" only became historically important when governments proposed to protect them.

Because force made them irrelevant until enough people demanded(forced) them? So now we are back at force as a fundamental prerequisite for any discussion.

Well, I'm not socialist; I equate socialism with Stalinism, which collectivists everywhere agree was a catastrophe. Furthermore, I'm not even prepared to call myself a collectivist, but I think the idea is worth entertaining and potentially tolerating. Finally, just because human beings don't have natural rights doesn't mean our entire existence is worthless or arbitrary. It is obviously in an individual's interest to perpetuate his or her existence. I simply believe that this is a condition of being, not some preordained or naturally given "right."

"Socialist/m" has become dirtied by misuse and misapplication, as has "liberal" and "anarchy", so I understand. Rights do not give worth or value. They are an outflow of our individual human value.

Arguments in general? I don't understand what you're talking about. When I said that your "argument" is actualized by force, I meant the claim you're making: that is, that private property is a natural right and that ownership can inhere in things. The only way private property makes sense is if it can be taken away from you.

So "you aren't alive unless someone tries to kill you"? Or you're saying who would know the difference?

 

[Einherjar86]

The problem with your statement, is that what is a "positive existence", and how it is "affirmed", is different for everyone. The cool thing though, is that voluntaryism would totally allow for a voluntary pooling of resources/capital in a socialist collective for those who seek to affirm that idea of a positive existence. I merely submit that it will not work for very long, heirarchy or no heirarchy.
On the flip side, your ideal does not allow for the reverse. If there is no objective truth, then why?

Maybe private property is an obstacle to liberty, not a facilitator. Most people aren't trained to think beyond property as necessity, because in our society property is a necessity. Your conception of the human subject is a result of liberalist ideology, not a point of origin.

We have already agreed that heirarchies of a sort are inevitable. Since joining the military (in the US) is voluntary, accepting the heirarchy is as well. Regardless of how good you are at your job, or how much more difficult your job is vs another job, everyone is paid the same according to rank+time. This is much closer to egalitarian than anything else currently functioning on earth.

As far as I'm concerned, joining the form of anarchist egalitarian society I'm imagining is also voluntary. A non-statist, unregulated, collectivist community should allow for the free participation or secession of individuals.

Because force made them irrelevant until enough people demanded(forced) them? So now we are back at force as a fundamental prerequisite for any discussion.

You cleverly keep speaking as though rights come before anything else. No, not because force made them irrelevant; because "property" is an institution that only logically makes sense when it can be removed; people only think of things as their "property" once they realize they must protect them from others.

 

[Dak]

Maybe private property is an obstacle to liberty, not a facilitator. Most people aren't trained to think beyond property as necessity, because in our society property is a necessity. Your conception of the human subject is a result of liberalist ideology, not a point of origin.

As far as I'm concerned, joining the form of anarchist egalitarian society I'm imagining is also voluntary. A non-statist, unregulated, collectivist community should allow for the free participation or secession of individuals.

That's fine, but what happens when the people who leave take the trade tools of their specialty with them? Or when a critical specialist leaves period? Or maybe they don't want to physically *leave* at all, they merely no longer wish to participate in the resource pooling?

You cleverly keep speaking as though rights come before anything else. No, not because force made them irrelevant; because "property" is an institution that only logically makes sense when it can be removed; people only think of things as their "property" once they realize they must protect them from others.

So knowledge of something brings it into existence? That's as absurd as the claim of "inventing" electricity or mathematics. Of course, some might claim that is arguing on a semantic level, which some might claim you are doing in this case.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm having trouble seeing how you came to that conclusion. Where did I suggest that knowledge of something brings it into existence?

 

[Dak]

I'm having trouble seeing how you came to that conclusion. Where did I suggest that knowledge of something brings it into existence?

What you are saying is that no one would recognize the idea of property unless someone tries to take it. Therefore "property" does not exist unless someone recognizes it upon the threat of losing it. This is highly fallacious. It existed all along. There was no reason to address it until it was threatened.

You did not address my first point in the prior post.

 

[Einherjar86]

What you are saying is that no one would recognize the idea of property unless someone tries to take it. Therefore "property" does not exist unless someone recognizes it upon the threat of losing it. This is highly fallacious. It existed all along. There was no reason to address it until it was threatened.

No, it did not exist all along. "Private property" is a functional institution within capitalism, and certain precapitalist systems. There are many tribal societies where "private property" does not exist.

In a capitalist economy, we think of things as "ours" because once we start depriving ourselves of those things we lose our ability to function legally within society without succumbing to destitution and, eventually, death, much less contribute productively to society.

You did not address my first point in the prior post.

That's fine, but what happens when the people who leave take the trade tools of their specialty with them? Or when a critical specialist leaves period? Or maybe they don't want to physically *leave* at all, they merely no longer wish to participate in the resource pooling?

What would happen? Those people would leave. If they don't enjoy contributing to the resource pool, they have that choice. If they want to stay, but don't want to contribute to the resource pool... well, this is where your whole "voluntary" thing comes into play. They either decide that being a member of the society is more important to them, or that being a privately producing individual is more important.

However, just as private property holds such a powerful sway over us all in our society today, in a society where private property was not an institution you wouldn't have these sorts of issues. It's a way of thinking that conditions us to approach our relationships to others in a certain way. Private property conditions us to defend and territorialize because we understand our relationships as being fundamentally coercive. That is the nature of free market relationships between private individuals.

The reason I think that hierarchies will continue to form "naturally" is that we, as a culture, have been conditioned to operate as private individuals, constantly defensive against our private property. Such a scenario does not lead to peaceful and progressive societies, but to societies of fearful, anxious individuals who operate under the threat of coercion from others.

A cognitive revolution, wherein people reassess institutions such as the market, private property, and societal relationships seems, in my opinion, to be a more intellectual and progressive endeavor than simply bestowing some natural or preternatural rights upon the individual and letting it fend for itself.

I'm also a pessimist who doesn't personally believe any kind of revolution will take place, at least not in my lifetime, since the academic institutions that take the most measurable steps toward such revolution have already been absorbed into the very system they claim to set themselves against.

 

[Dak]

No, it did not exist all along. "Private property" is a functional institution within capitalism, and certain precapitalist systems. There are many tribal societies where "private property" does not exist.

In a capitalist economy, we think of things as "ours" because once we start depriving ourselves of those things we lose our ability to function legally within society without succumbing to destitution and, eventually, death, much less contribute productively to society.

And tribalism with bare subsistence (hunter/gatherer) living is the only situation where socialism works, because there is no capital(excess) created. If that's your working model, you agree with all economic criticisms against collectivism. Forget having time to think/philosophize, you gotta get out there and get every meal on the table.

Property/capital becomes an issue as soon as people can consistently produce more than they consume.

What would happen? Those people would leave. If they don't enjoy contributing to the resource pool, they have that choice. If they want to stay, but don't want to contribute to the resource pool... well, this is where your whole "voluntary" thing comes into play. They either decide that being a member of the society is more important to them, or that being a privately producing individual is more important.

Again, what happens when the person leaving is critical IE, the doctor, or the modern equivalent to the blacksmith and/or takes critical tools with them? The very nature of collectivism requires central planning to hope for even short term success.

However, just as private property holds such a powerful sway over us all in our society today, in a society where private property was not an institution you wouldn't have these sorts of issues. It's a way of thinking that conditions us to approach our relationships to others in a certain way. Private property conditions us to defend and territorialize because we understand our relationships as being fundamentally coercive. That is the nature of free market relationships between private individuals.

Hardly. No one is going to to put in more work than necessary just for the hell of it. The first improvement that allowed civilization to grow was agriculture, being able to create more food than could be immediately consumed. But there is no reason(I'm excluding forced labor) to bother with producing more than is needed if there is no possiblity of profit/future personal use. No body goes out plowing and weeding (etc.) on an excess producing scale for the hell of it. No one.

The reason I think that hierarchies will continue to form "naturally" is that we, as a culture, have been conditioned to operate as private individuals, constantly defensive against our private property. Such a scenario does not lead to peaceful and progressive societies, but to societies of fearful, anxious individuals who operate under the threat of coercion from others.

That is a pretty ludicrous argument from this end. Being alive leads to being as equally "constantly defensive" against dying. I am not constantly defensive about my possessions in our current climate. I lock my doors but that's about it. Conversely, I do not leave my car parked overnight on the "bad side of town". Same goes for fear for my life in upscale mall parking lots vs dark alleys. Government has nothing to do with either scenario. Peace comes only through the treatment by each person of each person with respect, at least, the respect of them as equally human, not by focusing forever on wealth disparities.

A cognitive revolution, wherein people reassess institutions such as the market, private property, and societal relationships seems, in my opinion, to be a more intellectual and progressive endeavor than simply bestowing some natural or preternatural rights upon the individual and letting it fend for itself.

I am amused that reversion to subsistence level tribalesque living is considered progressive or intellectual.

I'm also a pessimist who doesn't personally believe any kind of revolution will take place, at least not in my lifetime, since the academic institutions that take the most measurable steps toward such revolution have already been absorbed into the very system they claim to set themselves against.

Ironically, from the other side of this discussion, I still agree with this sentiment in it's objective entirety if not it's meaning. I do believe the level of support libertarianism is starting to receive is a great start in the right direction.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Holy shit, i just saw this movie last week. So fucking awesome!

 

[Einherjar86]

And tribalism with bare subsistence (hunter/gatherer) living is the only situation where socialism works, because there is no capital(excess) created. If that's your working model, you agree with all economic criticisms against collectivism. Forget having time to think/philosophize, you gotta get out there and get every meal on the table.

Property/capital becomes an issue as soon as people can consistently produce more than they consume.

My reference to tribal societies was not to argue that we should adopt their economic system; it was to demonstrate that human beings can actually think and function without understanding some natural right to private property.

Your claim that ownership is a kind of natural right implies that people everywhere have an understanding of objects as theirs or someone else's; but there are some cultures where this is not the case.

Again, what happens when the person leaving is critical IE, the doctor, or the modern equivalent to the blacksmith and/or takes critical tools with them? The very nature of collectivism requires central planning to hope for even short term success.

I'm fairly certain there would be more than just one doctor, so let's not worry about that. If a group of individuals believe they could survive equally as well on their own, that's their choice; but the point of a collectivist society is to provide equally to all, and I'm also fairly certain that most individuals aren't going to know how to complete every single task their survival demands of them. This society would provide security through individual volunteerism and productive action, without the requirement of a central state.

What happens in your ideal society when a doctor realizes how important he or she is and decides to increase prices to absurd amounts in order to squeeze every last bit out of those who need medical assistance?

Hardly. No one is going to to put in more work than necessary just for the hell of it. The first improvement that allowed civilization to grow was agriculture, being able to create more food than could be immediately consumed. But there is no reason(I'm excluding forced labor) to bother with producing more than is needed if there is no possiblity of profit/future personal use. No body goes out plowing and weeding (etc.) on an excess producing scale for the hell of it. No one.

They might if they realized they would receive services in fields other than agriculture. You're implying that people will only work for either: a) money, or b) their own goods. Why wouldn't they work for other services in return?

That is a pretty ludicrous argument from this end. Being alive leads to being as equally "constantly defensive" against dying. I am not constantly defensive about my possessions in our current climate. I lock my doors but that's about it. Conversely, I do not leave my car parked overnight on the "bad side of town". Same goes for fear for my life in upscale mall parking lots vs dark alleys. Government has nothing to do with either scenario. Peace comes only through the treatment by each person of each person with respect, at least, the respect of them as equally human, not by focusing forever on wealth disparities.

How does government have nothing to do with either scenario? You lock your doors to prevent someone from breaking in; if someone does, you call the police. Likewise, if your car is stolen, you call the police. Locks on doors and other like measures are simply steps taken to ensure the safety of "private property," which is only ensured by government "assistance."

I am amused that reversion to subsistence level tribalesque living is considered progressive or intellectual.

Once again, I never advocated a return to tribalism.

 

[Einherjar86]

Smith was a proponent of the labor theory of value, but it is a different labor theory than that of Marx or latter socialists. It is one that is actualized, to use your term, by the market:

"But though labour be the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities, it is not that by which their value is commonly estimated. [...] In exchanging, indeed, the different productions of different sorts of labour for one another, some allowance is commonly made for both. It is adjusted, however, not by any accurate measure, but by the higgling and bargaining of the market, according to that sort of rough equality, which though not exact, is sufficient for carrying on the business of common life." - Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter V)

In other words, while prices do not always correspond directly to labour values of a given product, the higgling of the market is a rough indicator of the product's labour value. And, as it turns out, this higgling of the market corresponds to the long term view of markets when they reach equilibrium and cost forms the basis of a product's price.

Whether or not any of this anything to do with the origin of the value of things (as the classical economists thought of labor) is another question entirely. My view is that the classical economists had it wrong by asserting that labor is the origin of value and that it is indeed marginal utility that a consumer sees in the product that determines its value. But they weren't completely out to lunch in trying to understand the relationship between value and cost, it just turns out that that relationship is impossible to prove scientifically. Sort of like Freud's theory of the mind's structure.

Really good post/analysis. Personally, I agree with the portion of your post I highlighted; however, if use determines value, then I don't think we can say that an item is ever truly possessed or "owned" unless it is being actively used. While you're using a plow to till the soil, you own that plow. While that plow is sitting unused, it has potential use value; but I don't think a legitimate price can be fixed that would encompass all that potential use value.

 

[Dak]

My reference to tribal societies was not to argue that we should adopt their economic system; it was to demonstrate that human beings can actually think and function without understanding some natural right to private property.

Your claim that ownership is a kind of natural right implies that people everywhere have an understanding of objects as theirs or someone else's; but there are some cultures where this is not the case.

Right, and those societies never progress technologically. They do survive at least (since apparently there are still uncontacted tribes in the Amazon).

I'm fairly certain there would be more than just one doctor, so let's not worry about that. If a group of individuals believe they could survive equally as well on their own, that's their choice; but the point of a collectivist society is to provide equally to all, and I'm also fairly certain that most individuals aren't going to know how to complete every single task their survival demands of them. This society would provide security through individual volunteerism and productive action, without the requirement of a central state.

What happens in your ideal society when a doctor realizes how important he or she is and decides to increase prices to absurd amounts in order to squeeze every last bit out of those who need medical assistance?

I'm sure there would be more than one doctor . If one or a few doctors raised prices to absurd amounts, or worked out an orchestrated price raising, this would cause a temporary lack of medical care until one or all either had to lower prices back down to demand, or they were undercut by new competition. On a positive note, lack of modern medical care generally leads to a drop in deaths:http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_3_Moral_Climate_of_Health_Care/Reading-Death-Rate-Doctor-Strike.htm

They might if they realized they would receive services in fields other than agriculture. You're implying that people will only work for either: a) money, or b) their own goods. Why wouldn't they work for other services in return?

We do it all the time, in a round about way, with money. We work in a specific occupation, receive pay/profit, and then use that on other goods and services. It's much more efficient than bartering. However, not all jobs are going to be valued equally. The value of each job is subject to a myriad of conditions at any given time/in any given situation/between different people.

How does government have nothing to do with either scenario? You lock your doors to prevent someone from breaking in; if someone does, you call the police. Likewise, if your car is stolen, you call the police. Locks on doors and other like measures are simply steps taken to ensure the safety of "private property," which is only ensured by government "assistance."

Police are little more than (real) crime cleanup crews, spending most of their time making money for the state off victimless crimes. Police do not aid my locks. If someone wants whats in my house and I am not home, the police won't stop them. They aren't around. The police also won't bother chasing down every laptop stolen, etc. The only "protection" for your private property is whatever home defense measures you have and insurance. The best protection is a population that respects the individual and what extends from that.

Once again, I never advocated a return to tribalism.

That's what a new attempt at collectivism will get you, even if it didn't disentigrate like so many other attempts, in I would venture three generations.

The Amish, on the other hand, have a high sense of community, which is not to be confused with collectivism. They help each other out when needed, but they still retain private property. Excluding their perceived eccentricies in the modern world, they are an excellent model of community.