Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The irony, of course, is that a hunter-gatherer has essentially no freedom (economic or otherwise). He is bound by a complex network of social obligations which controls his life, and he can no more escape it than a fly can escape from a spider's web. That network of obligations dictates who will get what part of the deer he killed, not him. He has zero freedom to distribute the products of his labor as he sees fit. And if he tries to cheat the system, he will almost certainly pay with his life (as he'll eventually be expelled from the group, and joining another is not likely to be possible).
ALL models of social organization involve a degree of coercion, including the one our OP is so fond of. The average person living under his preferred system won't be any more economically free than he is now (rather the opposite, in fact) - but he will be poorer.
Funny, isn't it, that people who idealize small communities (such as a hunter-gatherer clan, or a commune, or a cult) have generally never actually lived in one?
Good question. (History, of course, has shown that once your system arises in a group, that group goes on to displace the hunter-gatherers, because that group can support larger numbers of people on the same amount of land and can therefore wield more power in a conflict. What does it matter how ideal your Utopian government is if it can't hold its own when it comes to fending off aggressive neighbors?)
1. Hunter-Gather's were limited not by authority or force, but natural circumstances. If they wanted to produce more than they themselves could produce, they would have to work with others and share the output.
That is not limiting ones freedom through authority, but from mutual aid. That same person is free to go it alone, or find people he could convince to work for him.
But even in such a case capitalism revolves around the question of authority. In your theory labor must obey those with capital, regardless of their own practical freedoms.
Furthermore I do not want to go back to a tribal society or force everyone to live in communes (something I would not want to do either), modern technology remains, networks between people and the inter-connectivity between counties remain, the only thing that changes is the capacity for individuals to control others. They can not own labor, they cannot own what they cannot store or consume, and they cannot accumulate wealth and political power off of the feedback from the capital they claim to control but don't operate. That means application of modern technology would lessen as there would be no for profit industry with the goals of market dominance, nor would a single individual control enough capital by themselves to concentrate materialistic demands, but people would be free to pursue this desires at their own capacity.
If you have such faith in capitalism why don't you allow it to be voluntary and see if laborers will run to capitalist for wages in exchange for a loss of freedom. That would be fine by me, but the capitalist cannot have authority over the means of production thanks to legal claims via paperwork.
2. Like my comment above, it is your system that requires force to maintain. Without it how do you propose control can be maintained on capital that is not occupied. If I settle on vacant land, I am nor performing force, but if you send state guards to kill me, you are initiating force.
People could work together in the need of greater production, but you would rather authority and force be collectivized among the hands of a few who micromanage production for their own needs.
And the company could not have created 1000s without your $100 along with other investors. They didn't have the capital to do it with. So they sold a percent of their company as a share to fund raise.
Do you understand how investing works or do you think it is a magic money tree?
Your king example would be the government, it makes the environment for the logger. So it gets a portion via the tax system so it can keep that environment going. But too high a tax and you burn down the forest and no one has any trees to cut down
You try doing a job when stangers can come by and Rob/kill you. That is what the government prevents so that you can do business
You needless differentiate state power and economic power, when their nature is the same.
If a company has the physical capacity to produce more with more capital, then that is a state they could function by if they had access to more capital.
Similarly a king giving allowance for someone to do something who could do that thing if it weren't for the fact that the king had disallowed it originally, that does not equate to the king producing the wealth.
If I invest 100$ to a company, they may gain access to more capital, but the capital exist regardless of my 100$ and is only deprived from the company due to private property claims (which is different from personal property).
In this case I am not the king, the money is. Money controls people's freedom and gives them legal access to things they would have been able to obtain if the authority of value and wages was not structured by the state in the first place. We become slaves to money, and me offering someone more freedom, just as a king could offer one of his subjects more freedom, does not correlate with the increased production which created the increased value of the company.
1. Hunter-Gather's were limited not by authority or force, but natural circumstances. If they wanted to produce more than they themselves could produce, they would have to work with others and share the output.
That is not limiting ones freedom through authority, but from mutual aid. That same person is free to go it alone, or find people he could convince to work for him.
You are free to start your own business and fund it yourself....
If you can't make a living from your own efforts, then you need to work with other people
You are free to start your own business and fund it yourself....
If you can't make a living from your own efforts, then you need to work with other people
You can work for other people, but that is not the nature of our system.
If capital is controlled by a certain class of people, the needs of production are based on consumption, not the needs/wants of the individual.
I've already explained that owning capital and operating capital are different things in capitalism, and I'm not going to repeat myself. All I can ask you know is to stop differentiating between the consumer, the laborer, and the owner.
I don't invest in the stock market and neither should you, it puts economic well being in danger and makes you a slave to the value of the corporate sector and leads you to support destructive public policy to save the wealth you have locked up in the market.
If taxes were raised to 90% 401ks and other investment tools would become less attractive and production/economic activity will become less inflated by capital investment and greed.
uhm
I understand that you are a marx following anarchio-communist...but you do understand that most 401ks are peoples retirements
and even the poor have investments that are considered capital gains..even if that interest/dividend is less than $100
what you are suggesting is that if I earn $100 interest/dividend , that the government should take $90 of it and leave me with $10...... blatant thievery like that will cause major anarchy....do you really want to see another revolution ....
forget it, don't answer, we know you are an anarchio-communist who wants revolution to form your new world order of the political paradise of communism.... just as Alinsky said
The question is how to you enforce your ownership claims, because it is enforced.
People naturally authority over what they control. If I lived on a land that was vacant but was claimed through legal means by someone else, I do not practice any force from settling there.
The force comes in when you try to claim that land with state police even though you have no physical presence there.
In the same capacity, a factory is owned by the people who control it, and physically function by it. Through consensus or democratic means they could follow your orders in exchange for some wage, but since you do not have some present control, you cannot forcibly control their labor there. You could withhold paying them a wage, but you still do not have supreme authority over them.
I understand your philosophy completely. It's lazy, and steps on the freedoms of other people.
Let's say we live in your society. I decide I am going to own a factory and rent it to other people. I also decide I am going to sell shares of my factory to people, and in return they get a portion of profits. Groups of people form together to have a body that governs and rules over a set of land. Anyone who doesn't follow their rules is thrown in jail. How would you stop that from happening in your society?
If a large number of people rebelled against your system and decided to set up an institution to mange and protect private property of others, how would your system prevent them from doing just that?
You keep repeating "well, the people physically there own it". No, they don't. They aren't allowed to own something just because they are physically there. I get it, you wish there was no governing authority so that you could just take whatever you want without working for it. I wish I could eat whatever I want and not gain weight. me wanting it doesn't mean it will happen. That's not how life works. People generally don't want their property stolen just because someone who happens to be physically present decides they want it more.
I get it. Without a government, our definition of private property changes. So what? How will you stop a government from forming to protect the interest of the people making up that governing and governed body? If you can't stop a governing body from forming and forcing you to conform to their rule, your ideas here are worthless.
And without corporations, you would not see widespread availability of internet connections.
OP forgot that Internet used to be ARPAnet that was part of military. He claims it was a people's invention, it was not. It was installed by government.
It is only a tax on profits (so not total sale value).
I'm not supporting it from a tax revenue stand point, I don't care about that, but it would lower economic activity in the corporate sector and dissuade people from investing (and inflating) the stock market.
The materialistic profit motive that has driven our economy has built an authoritarian state where money buys you freedom, and the more money you have, the more freedom you have as well.
To create a freer society it must be more egalitarian and not based on increasing economic activity.
Also in the long run it will lower government revenues and slow imperialistic ambitions abroad.
Furthermore people will be happier not trying to become millionaires and building a life rather than making a living.
I understand your philosophy completely. It's lazy, selfish, and severely steps on the freedoms of other people.
Let's say we live in your society. I decide am going to own a factory and rent it to other people. I also decide I am going to sell shares of my factory to people, and in return they get a portion of profits. Groups of people form together to have a body that governs and rules over a set of land. Anyone who doesn't follow their rules is thrown in jail. How would you stop that from happening in your society?
If a large number of people rebelled against your system and decided to set up an institution to mange and protect private property of others, how would your system prevent them from doing just that?
You keep repeating "well, the people physically there own it". No, they don't. They aren't allowed to own something just because they are physically there. I get it, you wish there was no governing authority so that you could just take whatever you want without working for it. I wish I could eat whatever I want and not gain weight. me wanting it doesn't mean it will happen. That's not how life works. People generally don't want their property stolen just because someone who happens to be physically present decides they want it more.
If you can't stop a governing body from forming and forcing you to conform to their rule, your ideas here are worthless.
More nonsense.
It’s not about physical presence, but control. If someone enters your house they don’t share ownership with you.
Similarly a factory is operated by the workers, they choose how it’s production is used and the pace it is used at. The owner backed by the state is an artificial owner. If the government changed the standards by which someone can own a factory, the entire capitalist class would be reshuffled.
So no, by yourself you could not control a factory because you could not operate all by yourself. If you find a way then congratulations, but then if you rent that space the new worker would become equal owners with you meaning you’d have no leverage to force them to pay rent.
Sure they could pay you if they wanted to, but there would be no reason to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
