So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[Hygro]

Certainly some of it. I don't have the primary sources here any longer. I did reports on it some 25 years ago when I was in school. But part of that is in fact American companies offshoring the danger.

I'll give you an example written up in Rolling Stone 20 odd years ago.

There used to be a factory in the US where steering wheels for cars were made of injection molded plastic. The workers made a good wage, the factory was profitable for the company, and the workers had the latest in safety equipment to protect them from burns and noxious fumes. But trade was opening up with Mexico. And the company decided to ship the factory south of the border.

Literally, they took the contents of an existing factory, and just shipped it south of the border and set the exact same thing up again.

Except it wasn't exactly the same thing, the health and safety equipment that protected the workers was stripped off and discarded.

But the workers, instead of making $20/hr, now made a dollar a day. So for Zero investment to create new process or product, and in fact a lower total capital outlay, because of no costs for the safety systems, the company can get a huge increase in profitability. But what that really means is that the company was choosing to kill Mexicans because it was being prevented from killing Americans.

Bam, dress it up how you want, people, but Cutlass said it straight.

 

[Traitorfish]

You see, this is just so utterly ridiculous that there's not much of any point in actually engaging it. I have never claimed that something has to be perfect in order to be worthwhile.

That is what you do.

By projecting your needs are onto my values, you entirely misrepresent what I am saying.

So let me try to be clearer: A system does not have to be perfect in order to be preferable in pretty much every respect to the alternative. In the US in the 1960s US private sector employers killed over 50,000 a year of their own employees. Now that number is under 5000. The difference? OSHA.

Should we then oppose OSHA because the number is not 0, and so choose to go back to 50,000?

That is just f***ing insane.

What does this have to do with anything?

You claim that a state prevents or plausibly aspires to prevent predatory behaviour. That predatory behaviour results from the absence of states. That we should support states for this reason. Fair enough.

But preventing certain predatory behaviours is not "preventing predatory behaviours". Mafiosos prevent certain predatory behaviours. The Provisional IRA prevented certain predatory behaviours. Warlords prevent certain predatory behaviours. It is not, by your own concession, sufficient to constitute statehood.

As there is no existent or historical polity which plausibly aspires to prevent all forms of predatory behaviour, we have to conclude that there has never been such thing as a state. The alternative is that preventing predatory behaviour is something that states might do, some of the time, and that they are not in this respect fundamentally distinguished from other forms of association, in which case it is by no means self-evident that other forms of association could not prevent predatory behaviour as if not more effectively than the state.

Certainly, you can argue that, whatever the theoretical categories are, we should still act in accordance with our preference for one immediately-realisable level of non-total prevention. That stands, within its own terms. But it's hard to credit your pronouncements upon the absolute nature of political society when you can't even decide what that nature is.

This is patently false. I can list numerous states that aspire to prevent predatory behaviour. What do you think the charter of rights is? What do you think the police is for?

"I can list numerous feudal lords that aspire to prevent predatory behaviour. What do you think the oath of fealty is? What do you think his lordship's axe-wielding lackeys are for?"

TF is an anarcho-communist. The funny fact is that you look towards the state the same way a US Libertarian does, and then - unlike US Libertarians - give it a positive spin. Which is why discussions with TF will stall, because Left-Wing anarchists view the state as an enforcer of the free market and not as a suppressor, like you and other pro-government Left-wingers, US Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists do.

This, very much so. From where I stand, both are trying to construct an opposition between "Bad Capitalism" and "Good Capitalism", as if the fundamental nature of the system lay in the balance of "Bad" and "Good", and not simply in "Capitalism".

 

[Cutlass]

What does this have to do with anything?

You claim that a state prevents or plausibly aspires to prevent predatory behaviour. That predatory behaviour results from the absence of states. That we should support states for this reason. Fair enough.

But preventing certain predatory behaviours is not "preventing predatory behaviours". Mafiosos prevent certain predatory behaviours. The Provisional IRA prevented certain predatory behaviours. Warlords prevent certain predatory behaviours. It is not, by your own concession, sufficient to constitute statehood.

As there is no existent or historical polity which plausibly aspires to prevent all forms of predatory behaviour, we have to conclude that there has never been such thing as a state. The alternative is that preventing predatory behaviour is something that states might do, some of the time, and that they are not in this respect fundamentally distinguished from other forms of association, in which case it is by no means self-evident that other forms of association could not prevent predatory behaviour as if not more effectively than the state.

Certainly, you can argue that, whatever the theoretical categories are, we should still act in accordance with our preference for one immediately-realisable level of non-total prevention. That stands, within its own terms. But it's hard to credit your pronouncements upon the absolute nature of political society when you can't even decide what that nature is.

Nothing done by humans is perfect. I'm just fighting to improve things a bit at the time. I have no idealistic belief that all problems can be solved in any given human timeframe.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's what I say when people try to make me put on pants.

 

[potatokiosk]

If this is right than my numbers are off, and it went from ~18,000 to ~5000

http://www.aflcio.org/content/downl...atalities(Employment+Based)1970-2007final.pdf

Your data shows an abrupt decrease between 1991 and 1992, with a footnote saying the numbers come from different sources. There's a clear downward trend in the fatality rate, but it's not at all clear that a gradual decline in fatality rates over the course of ~40 years was primarily caused by a change in government policy in the early 1970s.

 

[Defiant47]

"I can list numerous feudal lords that aspire to prevent predatory behaviour. What do you think the oath of fealty is? What do you think his lordship's axe-wielding lackeys are for?"

Are you suggesting that feudalism was not an attempt towards reducing predatory behaviour?

 

[Traitorfish]

Are you suggesting that feudalism was not an attempt towards reducing predatory behaviour?

I'm suggesting that no ruling class has an interest in reducing predatory behaviour beyond the extent to which it suits them.

 

[Cutlass]

Your data shows an abrupt decrease between 1991 and 1992, with a footnote saying the numbers come from different sources. There's a clear downward trend in the fatality rate, but it's not at all clear that a gradual decline in fatality rates over the course of ~40 years was primarily caused by a change in government policy in the early 1970s.

I had the reports on paper when I was in school. They've long since been discarded.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I'm suggesting that no ruling class has an interest in reducing predatory behaviour beyond the extent to which it suits them.

So if there was no ruling class there would be little to no reduction in predatory behavior of any kind? A rather unfavorably outcome, don't you agree?

 

[Defiant47]

I'm suggesting that no ruling class has an interest in reducing predatory behaviour beyond the extent to which it suits them.

I'm guessing you believe democracy is a lie then? That having the people elect a leader will ultimately lead to that leader exploiting the constituents for his own gain regardless?

 

[Traitorfish]

So if there was no ruling class there would be little to no reduction in predatory behavior of any kind? A rather unfavorably outcome, don't you agree?

I don't assume that ruling classes are uniquely capable of preventing predatory behaviour. In fact, I think they're generally quite incompetent, because they strive to reduce the masses to a state of dependence (legal, political, economic, material). Unless they have both the capacity and inclination to prevent a particular kind of predatory, there's not much that a disempowered subaltern class can do about it directly. Their only means of recourse lie in applying weight until the ruling class develops, if not the capacity, then the inclination to address the behaviour in question- but they'd best not apply too much weight, or the wrong kind, because then you'll quickly discover that the state is ready, willing and able to roll out every ounce of brute force at its disposal in the name of "law and order".

I'm guessing you believe democracy is a lie then? That having the people elect a leader will ultimately lead to that leader exploiting the constituents for his own gain regardless?

I don't believe that, no. What your describing is a form of elite theory, which I don't subscribe to. I'm a Marxist; my concern lies with the antagonisms between social classes, not with dishonest leaders and swindled citizens.

 

[Defiant47]

I don't believe that, no. What your describing is a form of elite theory, which I don't subscribe to. I'm a Marxist; my concern lies with the antagonisms between social classes, not with dishonest leaders and swindled citizens.

So would a democratically-elected government be classified as a state "aspiring to prevent predatory behaviour"?

 

[Traitorfish]

No, governments are not states. States are states, and they are not elected.

edit: In retrospect, that answer was a bit obtuse (and not very good-natured), so allow me to try again.

It's not a matter, at the bottom of line, of whether a government is democratically-elected. It's not a matter of whether a regime possesses effective checks-and-balances. It's not even a matter of whether public officials are honest and hard-working. It's a matter of capitalism.

Capitalism is founded on the wage-relation. Workers must be disciplined, contained and exploited. This is an inherently predatory relationship, and not one that can be reformed away. Get rid of the landlords, the bankers, the pawn-brokers, whatever else you like, the wage-system remains. Nationalisation the whole thing, the wage-system remains. Declare a "planned economy", take everything into the state, abolish private privilege, the wage-system remains. Profits must be produced, or the whole system comes apart at the seams.

Predatory behaviour is built into the bones of our world. Even if you ignore all the bankers, the landlords, the bosses, money-lenders, pawn-brokers and poison-merchants, even if we imagine that they could in any non-fantastical world be done away with, the essentially violent, predatory core of the system remains. What bearing does whether or not a given government is "democratically-elected" have on all that?

 

[Defiant47]

No, governments are not states. States are states, and they are not elected.

In communism they're elected, or at least communally decided. That's the flaw with capitalism - political entities are democratically elected while economic entities (and wealthy people) arise as a course of "might makes right" in a slightly more complicated system.

Regardless, I gather from your statement that you are defining the state as not only the political component, but the entire entity, which includes the economic component.

It's not a matter, at the bottom of line, of whether a government is democratically-elected. It's not a matter of whether a regime possesses effective checks-and-balances. It's not even a matter of whether public officials are honest and hard-working. It's a matter of capitalism.

Capitalism is founded on the wage-relation. Workers must be disciplined, contained and exploited. This is an inherently predatory relationship, and not one that can be reformed away. Get rid of the landlords, the bankers, the pawn-brokers, whatever else you like, the wage-system remains. Nationalisation the whole thing, the wage-system remains. Declare a "planned economy", take everything into the state, abolish private privilege, the wage-system remains. Profits must be produced, or the whole system comes apart at the seams.

Predatory behaviour is built into the bones of our world. Even if you ignore all the bankers, the landlords, the bosses, money-lenders, pawn-brokers and poison-merchants, even if we imagine that they could in any non-fantastical world be done away with, the essentially violent, predatory core of the system remains.

That depends on what you define as "intent". You alluded to the notion of a state reasonably aspiring to prevent predatory behaviour. This "aspiration" has a notion of intent built into it that must be explored further in order to answer the question.

Suppose the following. A magical group called the "Illuminati" somehow control a lot of what happens in the world. They decide how states will function (through subtle influence or some other way). Back a long time ago, they moved humanity from an era of slavery to an era of feudalism. They did this either because a) they foolishly thought feudalism was the least predatory system that is possible OR b) they believed feudalism was the least predatory system human social development could muster at the time.

The Illuminati's state is less predatory than the previous. Now slaves, instead of being worked to death, are only mostly worked to death, and get to keep a pittance of their work instead of nothing. They also have slightly more options in choosing their masters than before. However, predation still exists in abundance. Is this is a state that attempts to prevent predatory behaviour? Bear in mind, it was established by the Illuminati for the sole purpose of preventing predatory behaviour (since the Illuminati are extremely incompetent).

Now suppose the following. Human social development has a direct influence on states and their functioning. At first we had slavery, and then eventually feudalism. The inequity brought upon the people by feudalism led to worker disgruntlement. In order to appease workers' demands for a non-predatory system, a king establishes the "free market". This is still predatory, but less so on the people than before. Is this new state aspiring to prevent predatory behaviour?

My Point

My point is that human social development lead to the evolution of states. I would venture to guess that your assertion is that each social system evolution came as a result of predators attempting to maximize predation under an adapting order, and perhaps in spite of workers (and their demands for equity) instead of for them. Perhaps I am too much of an optimist and/or you too much of a pessimist, but I perceive a great attribution of such change to be separate from the people involved, with no intent (i.e. some mystical concept of social or cultural evolution, rather than a group of people).

I also believe that the advent of democracy has changed a multitude of factors as well. Currently, the wealthy will have a great level of influence, affecting many policies across the board. However, to an unprecedented extent, the people now have a not-insignificant level of influence as well. Capitalism can indeed be "reformed away" to be less predatory on the workers. At least until the people collect sufficient education, awareness, and power to truly change things.

What bearing does whether or not a given government is "democratically-elected" have on all that?

We would have to look at capitalism's shortfalls to address that. The way I see it, there are only two outcomes that fundamentally flaw capitalism.

One is that the residual fruits of workers' labours are remitted to the capitalists. I say residual since workers do get some fruits of their labour (wages), but this point is meant to also encapsulate the illegitimacy of wealth. That is, that capitalists can earn economic benefits by merely owning wealth, rather than performing actions deserving of such benefits. An argument made for the idea that they had performed actions in the past leading to their wealth is flawed from both an inheritance perspective (where does this wealth go when they die?) and from the circular argument that presupposes that earnings made under such a system are indeed legitimate.

The second is that the capitalists have total economic control. Even if all workers were to be paid handsome wages, it would still be the wealth-owners who would make all the decisions and have all the control over how such wealth would be handled and distributed. Workers would still have to choose their "master" to provide wages necessary for living, while the masters control all aspects (to the extent they wish).

A democratically-elected government has a higher degree of influence from the workers themselves, and can align the system more to the workers' goals. The first flaw can be addressed through taxation schemes that "redistribute" the wealth to some minor degree. The second flaw can be addressed by providing the people more power, since they now indirectly control this political government that can influence the system and aspects thereof.

Just because political reform has been slow or ineffective in the past century doesn't mean that it will continue to be just as slow. I would expect an exponential increase in effectiveness over time as technological advances increase education and social communication and commentary.

In Short

It's all getting better.

I hope.

 

[Tahuti]

Capitalism is founded on the wage-relation. Workers must be disciplined, contained and exploited. This is an inherently predatory relationship, and not one that can be reformed away. Get rid of the landlords, the bankers, the pawn-brokers, whatever else you like, the wage-system remains. Nationalisation the whole thing, the wage-system remains. Declare a "planned economy", take everything into the state, abolish private privilege, the wage-system remains. Profits must be produced, or the whole system comes apart at the seams.

I don't think wages are a defining element of capitalism. Private property rights are. Here's why: It's already in the name, being the 'capital' of "capitalism". Capitalism is about free ownership of capital, free in the sense of no legal impairments to owning capital due to matters of birth, like would be more or less the case in Medieval Europe for example. It's - as you mentioned - also about getting profit, or at the very least, avoiding losses.

It's easy and understandable to think that the ownership of capital to extract profits is somehow parasitic in the same way anarcho-capitalists would consider the state it to be. That - I know - is your position. However, eliminating capitalism would simply impair the ability of capital to be mobilized, made and used to least of societal loss possible, as is the experience of states that do not allow for Capitalism to fully express itself (i.e. the Soviet Union, 18th century France and most Third world countries). Entrepreneurs can only raise capital by having "skin in the game" (taking significant personal risks in doing so). Now, my position on Capitalism of course comes quite close to Libertarianism, if Libertarians would not support that outright. But the primary problems of capitalism consist primarily in the form of renter Capitalism most infamously represented by the sorry state of the financial sector, which is able to socialise losses but capitalise on profits.

 

[Defiant47]

I don't think wages are a defining element of capitalism. Private property rights are.

Private property leads to the wage relation. Capitalists do not have to seek a wage. Workers do.

It's easy and understandable to think that the ownership of capital to extract profits is somehow parasitic in the same way anarcho-capitalists would consider the state it to be. That - I know - is your position.

It's parasitic in terms of merit. Imagine we had a bunch of people working for lord who has no right to be in his lordship position under any standard of morality we've developed to date. That's parasitic.

However, eliminating capitalism would simply impair the ability of capital to be mobilized, made and used to least of societal loss possible

Whose loss?

Who owns this capital, thus hoping to use it as efficiently as possible? Who depends on this utilization of capital to ensure not having to work another day in their life? Who regards raw materials and workers' labour as resources used only as a means of making profit?

 

[Tahuti]

Private property leads to the wage relation. Capitalists do not have to seek a wage. Workers do.

You can own private property, but operate it yourself, like most small-employed businesses function. That's definitely capitalistic, but not based on wage relation.

It's parasitic in terms of merit. Imagine we had a bunch of people working for lord who has no right to be in his lordship position under any standard of morality we've developed to date. That's parasitic.

It's true for pretty much all banks, but isn't true for entrepreneurs who start businesses from the ground up, lest their businesses fail and may lose potentially more than their investment, which is what capitalism is all about in terms of people.

Whose loss?

Everyone's.

 

[Defiant47]

You can own private property, but operate it yourself, like most small-employed businesses function. That's definitely capitalistic, but not based on wage relation.

It's true for pretty much all banks, but isn't true for entrepreneurs who start businesses from the ground up, lest their businesses fail and may lose potentially more than their investment, which is what capitalism is all about in terms of people.

The success of the business is entirely dependent on the system it's in, so even a self-sustaining entrepreneur will fall prey to capitalism.

Think of it this way. Suppose on average, each person born in the world is born with $100,000 of wealth. But in actuality, that's a bunch of people born into $billions of wealth, and this entrepreneur and many others born in $0. In fact, they have to go into the negatives in order to survive (e.g. pay for education). The entrepreneur can work hard and begin to start making money, but that doesn't make his position any less unfair.

If this entrepreneur were to become insanely successful, then it would become unfair in the opposite way. Sure, smarts and hard work merits rewards, but there can be a point where the rewards become excessive in proportion to merit.

Hell, even if we made let's say Canada completely communistic, it would still fall prey to capitalism's market effects, and each worker within would be negatively affected.

Everyone's.

There are other ways to mobilize and utilize capital. Eliminating capitalism would hurt the ones with the most to lose, the capitalists. The benefits in efficiency (if any) that capitalism offers are outweighed by the losses that workers suffer under such a system.

A worker with little control over his life and unjustly rewarded for his labour can hardly be interpreted to have "gained" when a company improves efficiency reducing the costs of toothpaste from $2.00 to $1.50, thereby reducing the price from $3.00 to $2.90, thereby allowing the worker to retain slightly more wealth as a result of capitalist efficiency. You really have to take things into perspective.

 

[potatokiosk]

I don't think wages are a defining element of capitalism. Private property rights are. Here's why: It's already in the name, being the 'capital' of "capitalism". Capitalism is about free ownership of capital, free in the sense of no legal impairments to owning capital due to matters of birth, like would be more or less the case in Medieval Europe for example. It's - as you mentioned - also about getting profit, or at the very least, avoiding losses.

If someone acquires ownership of more capital than they can use, then the natural result is hiring wage laborers, or letting others rent the capital, either of which would be considered "exploitative". For capitalism to not have wage labor it would have to miraculously achieve circumstances in which everyone has just the right amount of capital for their own self employment. That makes wage labor a defining element of capitalism.

 

[Tahuti]

The success of the business is entirely dependent on the system it's in, so even a self-sustaining entrepreneur will fall prey to capitalism.

Think of it this way. Suppose on average, each person born in the world is born with $100,000 of wealth. But in actuality, that's a bunch of people born into $billions of wealth, and this entrepreneur and many others born in $0. In fact, they have to go into the negatives in order to survive (e.g. pay for education). The entrepreneur can work hard and begin to start making money, but that doesn't make his position any less unfair.

If this entrepreneur were to become insanely successful, then it would become unfair in the opposite way. Sure, smarts and hard work merits rewards, but there can be a point where the rewards become excessive in proportion to merit.

Hell, even if we made let's say Canada completely communistic, it would still fall prey to capitalism's market effects, and each worker within would be negatively affected.

There is a reason why I mentioned banks as being mostly unwarranted to having the profits they made. The current arrangement allows banks to make that profit in the first place. If this wasn't the case, it would largely negate the advantages brought by inherited wealth: Non-monetary assets would decay in monetary value. It's now pretty much vice versa, and the current state of affairs in regards to finance allows this to happen.

There are other ways to mobilize and utilize capital. Eliminating capitalism would hurt the ones with the most to lose, the capitalists.

The are indeed other ways to mobilize and utilize capital and all the ones that were tried have been discredited by actual experience, which have shown that pretty much everyone else loses too, and often in a much bigger way than the "capitalists". In countries where entrepreneurs are penalized, pretty much everyone else barely makes enough to even subsist, and sometimes not even that.

Legal impediments to access to capital and its utilization towards full profitability have so far only led to owners of capital utilizing capital to provide for their needs and their needs only, as has happened in Pre-Capitalist Europe, the Soviet bloc and most of the Third-world. Of course, Traitorfish is hostile towards such a system as well. The fact is, a replacement for capitalism that is truly beneficial for everyone has yet to be invented and would entail unlimited access to capital, which is, so far, physically impossible.