Is capitalism actually dying, despite appearances?

[Lexicus]

I love how you just can't ever be civil.

Being civil is so boring.

Also, you're getting me mixed up with civver.

No, you're the one who kept saying "so my only options are live in society or kill myself?" as if this were some new revelation/great injustice.

 

[civver_764]

I still want an answer to the slavery question. Because you know people were saying the same stuff back then. "Slavery is a fact of life man, why you gotta complain so much? Without a slave master how are we going to feed ourselves? We'd probably just enslave each other!"

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No, you're the one who kept saying "so my only options are live in society or kill myself?" as if this were some new revelation/great injustice.

Look, just... follow it back to the beginning if you're actually interested in finding out who said what and why. If you care as little as you say you do I doubt you'll want to, in which case please just stop acting like you know what I'm saying and why I'm saying it because it's clear you don't. And since you don't care, just talk about what you care about maybe.

 

[Lexicus]

I still want an answer to the slavery question. Because you know people were saying the same stuff back then. "Slavery is a fact of life man, why you gotta complain so much? Without a slave master how are we going to feed ourselves? We'd probably just enslave each other!"

Having studied slavery in the US for many years I don't "know" anything of the sort. And you've already been given an answer: slavery and living in society aren't remotely comparable. Though, there is a long right-libertarian tradition of comparing slavery to living in society. The list of things that anarcho-capitalists compare to slavery is quite long (interestingly, it doesn't usually include actual slavery). Some of the funnier ones include having a legal obligation to lift a drowning infant out of a puddle, paying child support, and traffic lights.

 

[civver_764]

So if the slave master were to say to his slaves, "go out into the world, work whatever job you want, but you have to give 30% of your income to me, and if you don't I'll punish you", is that OK?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What would be the point in comparing slavery to slavery? I don't think you can really infer very much from someone choosing not to do this.

 

[Borachio]

So if the slave master were to say to his slaves, "go out into the world, work whatever job you want, but you have to give 30% of your income to me, and if you don't I'll punish you", is that OK?

Oh. You're complaining about taxation again?

I never did understand what's to complain about.

For me, it was always a matter of working for someone for an arbitrary wage and paying an arbitrary amount in taxation. And then taking that money to a shop to buy things which, as far as I could tell, were priced at completely arbitrary levels too. (Though I do understand, before you tell me, that generally speaking 2 oranges cost more than 1.)

In fact, I never paid any attention at all to how much taxation I paid. (Just the net amount.) Since the whole thing is completely arbitrary.

Unless you're going to come up with a non-arbitrary normative incomes and prices policy (and you'd be the first person in history to do so, I think), I really don't know what you're complaining about. If indeed you are.

Oh, and before you mention it, the same arbitrariness applies to the self-employed as the employed, imo.

It really doesn't matter at all how much money you have.

As long as you have more than anyone else.

Or how much tax you pay. As long as it's less than other people.

 

[innonimatu]

One of these is due to nature and the other is due to threats of violence.

"the majestic equality of the laws, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread" ...

If you sometimes like reading novels, try picking up Anatole France's "Penguin Island". It's a very good satire (it will be funnier for those who know french history, but still good regardless) of liberal society's mores, written back in the era they were imagined.
His description on the origins of property and of the most illustrious nobility of the realm:

“Do you see, my son,” he exclaimed, “that madman who with his teeth is biting the nose of the adversary he has overthrown and that other one who is pounding a woman’s head with a huge stone?”
“I see them,” said Bulloch. “They are creating law; they are founding property; they are establishing the principles of civilization, the basis of society, and the foundations of the State.”
“How is that?” asked old Mael.
“By setting bounds to their fields. That is the origin of all government. Your penguins, O Master, are performing the most august of functions. Throughout the ages their work will be consecrated by lawyers, and magistrates will confirm it.”
Whilst the monk, Bulloch, was pronouncing these words a big penguin with a fair skin and red hair went down into the valley carrying a trunk of a tree upon his shoulder. He went up to a little penguin who was watering his vegetables in the heat of the sun, and shouted to him:
“Your field is mine!”
And having delivered himself of this stout utterance he brought down his club on the head of the little penguin, who fell dead upon the field that his own hands had tilled.

 

[El_Machinae]

So if the slave master were to say to his slaves, "go out into the world, work whatever job you want, but you have to give 30% of your income to me, and if you don't I'll punish you", is that OK?

When I worked at an engineering firm, the firm only paid me 20% of what I earned. For every billable hour I worked, I got paid $15 and the client paid $75 for my services.

 

[timtofly]

Because owning anything is wrong?

The argument breaks down because it was not ownership. It was the point slaves were not human. Just like a child is not human, and owned by the body surrounding it.

We should give value to life, but not property value.

 

[Sommerswerd]

We should give value to life, but not property value.

First...Do you mean "life" or "human life". I think you mean "human life" but I want to be sure you aren't talking about mosquitoes, rats, cockroaches, staphylococcus, streptococcus, etc... Assuming I am correct in that assumption... Why? Is it because we are alive and human, so it is in our own subjective self-interest to assign value to human life? If that is your reason, it makes sense, but it is arbitrary and self-serving, right? I mean, it isn't a very convincing argument for human life having any inherent value. It's just arbitrarily choosing to elevate yourself over the rest of the universe for the sake of unjustified, self-aggrandizement. Or is it because of something religious/supernatural/spiritual? If so... Isn't "We should give value to life" basically saying, "We should all adopt my personal religious views"?

Since I'm sure you can see how the second (religious) explanation is problematic, let's go back to the first (self-interest). Assuming that we accept the idea that humans should elevate/value the characteristics we all posses, ie being human and being alive... can you see how it does not follow then that we would then necessarily want to protect human life on these grounds? In many circumstances... capitalism being a good example... it is actually in your best interest for there to be less entities that share your characteristics and thereby compete with you. If I am a widgetmaker at a company. I certainly assign value to widgetmaking and widgetmakers out of self-interest, but that same self-interest means that I don't necessarily want the company hiring/introducing more widgetmakers into the company... because that decreases my individual worth.

So using the issue you raised (abortion)... Why wouldn't self-interested humans view other humans as competition for resources and in-fact want there to be less competition as opposed to more? In fact, isn't that one of the underlying issues with birth control/pregnancy? That having a child means that you will have to now devote resources, including time to another human life instead of your own? Isn't is possible that a self-interested human, who values their own human life, might want to protect their life/quality-of-life, by limiting the demands of additional humans on the resources they posses/produce? Just like a worker or company wants to limit competition in their market.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't kill area widgetmakers. I also don't burn down houses they purchase. Or leave burning things on their lawn until they move.

Though, when dad had stents put in, area farmers did plant his fields while I was off at school.

Huh.

 

[timtofly]

First...Do you mean "life" or "human life". I think you mean "human life" but I want to be sure you aren't talking about mosquitoes, rats, cockroaches, staphylococcus, streptococcus, etc... Assuming I am correct in that assumption... Why? Is it because we are alive and human, so it is in our own subjective self-interest to assign value to human life? If that is your reason, it makes sense, but it is arbitrary and self-serving, right? I mean, it isn't a very convincing argument for human life having any inherent value. It's just arbitrarily choosing to elevate yourself over the rest of the universe for the sake of unjustified, self-aggrandizement. Or is it because of something religious/supernatural/spiritual? If so... Isn't "We should give value to life" basically saying, "We should all adopt my personal religious views"?

Since I'm sure you can see how the second (religious) explanation is problematic, let's go back to the first (self-interest). Assuming that we accept the idea that humans should elevate/value the characteristics we all posses, ie being human and being alive... can you see how it does not follow then that we would then necessarily want to protect human life on these grounds? In many circumstances... capitalism being a good example... it is actually in your best interest for there to be less entities that share your characteristics and thereby compete with you. If I am a widgetmaker at a company. I certainly assign value to widgetmaking and widgetmakers out of self-interest, but that same self-interest means that I don't necessarily want the company hiring/introducing more widgetmakers into the company... because that decreases my individual worth.

So using the issue you raised (abortion)... Why wouldn't self-interested humans view other humans as competition for resources and in-fact want there to be less competition as opposed to more? In fact, isn't that one of the underlying issues with birth control/pregnancy? That having a child means that you will have to now devote resources, including time to another human life instead of your own? Isn't is possible that a self-interested human, who values their own human life, might want to protect their life/quality-of-life, by limiting the demands of additional humans on the resources they posses/produce? Just like a worker or company wants to limit competition in their market.

Do we reject God because God is outside of material evidence, and for all practical purposes the material universe itself?

The easiest thing to reason away is God. So, yes, if that is our sole basis of reasoning, then human life is no different than and of no more value than we put into any other material in the universe. The claim is then by reasoning alone we add value separate from the material universe, and that leads us back to, those unable to reason have only property value. We have no basis except for our own fragile state of mind.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't kill area widgetmakers. I also don't burn down houses they purchase. Or leave burning things on their lawn until they move.

Though, when dad had stents put in, area farmers did plant his fields while I was off at school.

Huh.

On the first thing... you don't... but some people do... those guys you hate, who's shows you don't care for, do exactly that... all three things. My point isn't that all people express self-interest through aversion to competition, just that some people do and it makes sense that they would. However, I know that wasn't your only point with the first thing. The other point relates to the second thing, and is actually more important to illustrate my point about the value of "life".

"Life" isn't necessarily what we value. We value community, relationships, friends, family, identity, traditions... that kind of stuff. That's what the lawn-burning-thing guys thought they were protecting and on the flipside, that's also what your area farmers were protecting when they stepped in for your dad, even though he was ostensibly a competitor. They valued their livelihood, but they valued their community more.

So that is the ultimate point. Saying that we need to value life misses the mark, and tries to shoehorn in religious ideology where none is needed. We value our communities, our friends, our families, our relationships, our interests, our identities, our ideologies and ourselves. We don't "need" to "value life". Saying "we should value life" is an unnecessarily overbroad claim that is really just an attempt to disguise the very specific "we need to ban abortion cause its against my religion/ideology" as some sort of lofty all-encompassing universal principle.

Do we reject God because God is outside of material evidence, and for all practical purposes the material universe itself? The easiest thing to reason away is God. So, yes, if that is our sole basis of reasoning, then human life is no different than and of no more value than we put into any other material in the universe. The claim is then by reasoning alone we add value separate from the material universe, and that leads us back to, those unable to reason have only property value. We have no basis except for our own fragile state of mind.

So it's the religious explanation then? Fine. My response to your post is that we don't need god to value other human beings. But that value has limits. It is not unconditional ... See my above response to FarmBoy. What you are attempting to do, is make the overbroad argument about the unconditional value of life (which you don't even truly subscribe to) for the specific purpose of opposing abortion. If you want to oppose abortion, just oppose abortion because its against your religion, that's a perfectly legitimate reason. You don't need to keep rethinking new euphemisms for "the sanctity of life" concept. The only point of the euphemism is to force your religious principles onto others, because its Unconstitutional.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh Sommer, I do value life as life. I value groundhogs, I shot one in the head the other day. I value corn, I run over tons of it growing different corn. I value milkweed, I intentionally eradicate its presence from acres. I value my friends, I value strangers. I supported my friends when they did things that could get them killed, like enlisting, and grudgingly - I supported them willingly when they went off and killed some strangers. Even my friends, much less the strangers, seemed worse for the experience. I value cows, I eat them. I value chickens, I eat them. I value fireflies, I hit them with my car. Life has value for life even if we kill it, it's a matter of what we're willing to sacrifice for it, or more frequently, what we're willing to trade killing it for. And our infants, so precious and so very like us but for short measures of quickly-developing time - we trade away and kill in exchange for ... Oh whatever. You can't call people sluts anymore. Even if they kill for it. It catches too many people who don't deserve it for the truly callous to hide behind. Wicked and the protection of law, all that.

 

[timtofly]

On the first thing... you don't... but some people do... those guys you hate, who's shows you don't care for, do exactly that... all three things. My point isn't that all people express self-interest through aversion to competition, just that some people do and it makes sense that they would. However, I know that wasn't your only point with the first thing. The other point relates to the second thing, and is actually more important to illustrate my point about the value of "life".

"Life" isn't necessarily what we value. We value community, relationships, friends, family, identity, traditions... that kind of stuff. That's what the lawn-burning-thing guys thought they were protecting and on the flipside, that's also what your area farmers were protecting when they stepped in for your dad, even though he was ostensibly a competitor. They valued their livelihood, but they valued their community more.

So that is the ultimate point. Saying that we need to value life misses the mark, and tries to shoehorn in religious ideology where none is needed. We value our communities, our friends, our families, our relationships, our interests, our identities, our ideologies and ourselves. We don't "need" to "value life". Saying "we should value life" is an unnecessarily overbroad claim that is really just an attempt to disguise the very specific "we need to ban abortion cause its against my religion/ideology" as some sort of lofty all-encompassing universal principle.
So it's the religious explanation then? Fine. My response to your post is that we don't need god to value other human beings. But that value has limits. It is not unconditional ... See my above response to FarmBoy. What you are attempting to do, is make the overbroad argument about the unconditional value of life (which you don't even truly subscribe to) for the specific purpose of opposing abortion. If you want to oppose abortion, just oppose abortion because its against your religion, that's a perfectly legitimate reason. You don't need to keep rethinking new euphemisms for "the sanctity of life" concept. The only point of the euphemism is to force your religious principles onto others, because its Unconstitutional.

You are missing the point, and shoehorning God into some religious man made ideology, which would be no different than any other human ideology, ie the constitution.

If there is no God, then all we have is observable material. Even if there is a God, we can still just rely on our own whims and come up with any value we want, even if no one else agrees with us.

If humans are the final measure, were animals the find measure, before sapiens came along? Does the final measure exist in the universe outside of humanity? Is it just in the molecular make up? Who even gets to claim what it is? Or is there none at all and value is only relative to the force of the one holding said value?

It is not my religion nor religious views as no one can specifically say what is man made and what is reality. I will continue to view life with the point that God is a reality and not a human concept.

How would capitalism work if there was no longer anything tangible in the wealth people hold? If you felt wealthy one day and the next you felt poverty struck. Currency was just based on how humans felt or their belief system worked out during any given minute. Is economy the human concept that replaced the alleged "god" concept? Or is it a reality that exist whether humans use it or not?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Oh Sommer, I do value life as life. I value groundhogs, I shot one in the head the other day. I value corn, I run over tons of it growing different corn. I value milkweed, I intentionally eradicate its presence from acres. I value my friends, I value strangers. I supported my friends when they did things that could get them killed, like enlisting, and grudgingly - I supported them willingly when they went off and killed some strangers. Even my friends, much less the strangers, seemed worse for the experience. I value cows, I eat them. I value chickens, I eat them. I value fireflies, I hit them with my car. Life has value for life even if we kill it, it's a matter of what we're willing to sacrifice for it, or more frequently, what we're willing to trade killing it for. And our infants, so precious and so very like us but for short measures of quickly-developing time - we trade away and kill in exchange for ... Oh whatever. You can't call people sluts anymore. Even if they kill for it. It catches too many people who don't deserve it for the truly callous to hide behind. Wicked and the protection of law, all that.

I feel like your telling me I'm missing something and I really like to get things that you tell me I'm missing. If you tell me I'm missing it, its important to me to understand what it is.However, in this case, it really seems like we are saying the same thing. What am I missing? Or am I missing anything?

 

[Sommerswerd]

You are missing the point, and shoehorning God into some religious man made ideology, which would be no different than any other human ideology, ie the constitution. If there is no God, then all we have is observable material. Even if there is a God, we can still just rely on our own whims and come up with any value we want, even if no one else agrees with us. If humans are the final measure, were animals the find measure, before sapiens came along? Does the final measure exist in the universe outside of humanity? Is it just in the molecular make up? Who even gets to claim what it is? Or is there none at all and value is only relative to the force of the one holding said value? It is not my religion nor religious views as no one can specifically say what is man made and what is reality. I will continue to view life with the point that God is a reality and not a human concept. How would capitalism work if there was no longer anything tangible in the wealth people hold? If you felt wealthy one day and the next you felt poverty struck. Currency was just based on how humans felt or their belief system worked out during any given minute. Is economy the human concept that replaced the alleged "god" concept? Or is it a reality that exist whether humans use it or not?

I don't want to steer this discussion into a tangential debate about the difference between "god" and "religion". You believe in god, fine. I know that's what you want to talk about, because that's your favorite topic. But it's not the point of what I was talking about. You don't like being labeled as religious? Fine, well just call it "god" to keep things moving, cause I don't want to derail into that. There are two points I was making:

The first point is that humans don't need god to place value on other humans. There are plenty of reasons to value other humans and capitalism even provides some. What you have is an erroneous premises. You say: " If there is no God, then all we have is observable material." This is false on its face. We have our feelings and ideas and our relationships with others... and those things all have value, independent of god.

My second point is that when you said:

Just like a child is not human, and owned by the body surrounding it. We should give value to life, but not property value.

You were talking about abortion and using the "value to life" statement to equate abortion to treating life like property, or something along those lines. However, as FarmBoy's comment above illustrates, you can kill living things and still value them... and value them as something different than property.

 

[Lexicus]

However, as FarmBoy's comment above illustrates, you can kill living things and still value them.

The opening scene of Last of the Mohicans, when they kill the deer, and Chingachgook says

We're sorry to kill you, Brother. Forgive us. I do honor to your courage and speed, your strength...

 

[Sommerswerd]

I ate chicken for lunch today. I said no such things I did thank the waitress and pay for my meal with a tip.