|
jrodefeld posted:In a market economy everyone is compensated for their work when an economic transactions takes place. In the division of labor people specialize in tasks that they excel at, then they trade their goods and services for a medium of exchange. When I pay for tools, I have compensated the tool maker for his efforts. When I pay a toll road owner to use his road, I have compensated the road builder for the use of his road. When another person pays me for the crops I grow on my farm, they have compensated me for the effort to harvest food. Everyone IS compensated for the work they do in a market economy. Market economy is a not a very good tool to compensate people for the work they did. You have CEOs or celebrities, for example, earning hundred times more than scientists, teachers or doctors despite the latter being much more useful to the society than the former. There are plenty of businesses which earn their money solely by tricking their customers into making harmful decisions. Some companies, for example, target old, lonely and frequently senile people and persuade them to buy inferior goods for inflated prices. Alternative medicine practitioners are frequently paid a lot of money for their worthless services, because they approach sick and desperate people and their families who are in no position to refuse anything they think might help. Large enough companies can also engage in practices that manipulate the market, artificially driving the price of the good up - either by making it seem more scarce it is, or by artificially creating a need for their product. On the other hand, there are many social interactions that are beneficial to you despite you never having paid for them. Your mind, for example, didn't sprung straight from your brain - it developed during the process called "socialization". Your ideology, your culture, your skills - an overwhelming part of them were already developed by someone else. You would have never heard about this "market" thing without entire generations of people tryuing to find the most effective way of exchanging goods and several thinkers who conceived the abstract idea and described it. If you are curious how much could you achieve without the rest of your society, there are many examples of children growing up years without human contact. Have you paid all the people who helped you achieve sentience? Are you going to? There are plenty of other benefits you just take for granted. For example, you're not getting attacked by wild animals because human societies try their best to chase them out from inhabited areas. You won't get smallpox, because the disease has been completely eliminated thanks to mandatory vaccinations and quarantine of infected individuals (government-sponsored violence!). All other epidemics are contained in the same way, so you don't have to worry about getting infected with measles, typhus or bubonic plague by a random passerby. If you pass out on the street, someone will probably call an ambulance despite having nothing to do with you and definitely not getting paid for that. Even a homeless person is much more safe in the city than they were somewhere in the wild. I wonder how would a libertarian society deal with such problems. Are you allowed to isolate a plague carrier against their will? Without mandatory or even free vaccinations, how would people deal with diseases running rampant in poor communities, such as tuberculosis or typhus? Are wild animals vaccinated against rabies and who pays for that? If a group of people lets wild animals such as bears wander around their homes in search of food, how does the rest of society respond for that?
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Also, how can you have no State and enforce prohibitions on private property and Capitalism? If you have no State then that must mean that the entities that are entrusted to enforce norms of conduct on society must be privately agreed to. If a small group of people want to sign a contract that says that one person will work for another and that the employer will own the capital and receive a profit, who is going to use force against them to prevent this economic relationship? If you don't have a central State, why wouldn't such economic relationships be permissible? See the case company towns - places built by various private enterprises for their workers. Especially Pullman, Illinois which pretty much was a state within the state. quote:The industrialist still expected the town to make money as an enterprise. By 1892 the community, profitable in its own right, was valued at over $5 million. Pullman ruled the town like a feudal baron. He prohibited independent newspapers, public speeches, town meetings or open discussion. His inspectors regularly entered homes to inspect for cleanliness and could terminate workers' leases on ten days' notice. The church stood empty since no approved denomination would pay rent, and no other congregation was allowed. He prohibited private charitable organizations. In 1885 Richard Ely wrote in Harper's Weekly that the power exercised by Otto Von Bismarck (known as the unifier of modern Germany), was "utterly insignificant when compared with the ruling authority of the Pullman Palace Car Company in Pullman." [6] quote:When manufacturing demand fell off in 1894, Pullman cut jobs and wages and increased working hours in his plant to lower costs and keep profits, but he did not lower rents or prices in the company town. Eventually the workers launched the Pullman Strike. When violence broke out, he gained the support of President Grover Cleveland for the use of United States troops. Cleveland sent in the troops, who harshly suppressed the strike in action that caused many injuries, over the objections of the Illinois governor, John Altgeld. quote:See, a libertarian market anarchist would permit the Marxist to form any sort of voluntary Socialist system he would like but we would just stipulate that he permit us libertarians to engage in the free market, private property and entrepreneurship. Capitalism also needs violence to be enforced. All possible models of society do. Libertarians just redefine the concept - in your definition, every breach of contract or violation of personal property counts as violence, while no action employed by the owner does. According to your ideology, a hobo spending a night in your barn without your permission is a brutal criminal - and peppering them with bullets if they won't immediately leave is a perfectly reasonable response.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is incoherent. It is not the green pieces of paper that is being stolen by the State, but it is the actual labor of the citizen. The average upper middle class citizen works four to five months to pay their accumulated State, local and Federal taxes. What is being stolen is all the goods and services that these abstract symbols called "money" would have purchased had they not been expropriated by the IRS. Even by paying for your groceries, you are using a government service. It's the state that prints bills that are protected from counterfeiting, tries to maintain its value roughly stable, replaces damaged legal tenders and punishes frauds trying to part you with your money. You are, however, free to stop using dollars and use Bitcoins. Of course, their price can fall in a single day, your recently earned virtual money can disappear because major pool operators decide to rollback their version of software and only God can help you if someone steals your hard drive along with your virtual wallet. For some reason, most goods and service providers prefer to use inferior state-backed fiat money, leaving Bitcoin to drug dealers, cooked GPU vendors and shady "investment" schemes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Bloodyshinta1 posted:Yeah this is so true. Companies would NEVER use their position of wealth and power to subject employees to unfair working conditions. I mean, why would they do that? The invisible hand is watching how could they possibly get away with it!?!? I'd really want him to voice his stance about company towns, but he seems to have skipped my previous post for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:I think, to accomidate Jrodefeld's particular compulsion to respond to everything in order, we should all blank out all previous posts and collaborate, possibly off-site, on a single resource that one of us can post here. I'm not sure how much is this an autistic gimmick, and how much he does it deliberately. I remember him skipping more troublesome questions in the previous thread. Near the end, he were responding mainly to the people that insulted him, chiding them for not discussing the topic in good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, the fraud and deception will be taken care of by damaging the reputation of the person engaging in it. For example, now that Jrod knows that Molyneux fraudulently uses sockpuppets to support himself, he won't be trusted or used as a source anymore. Let me prove with praxeology how wrong you are. The first sentence is true, as brilliantly proven by jrodefeld. If this is the case, it would be against Molyneux's rational self-interest to use sockpuppets. This is also what Molyneux believes, as he is a libertarian. Therefore he can't have used a sockpuppet. Your own eyes are conspiring with the statist vermin to deceive you. Checkmate, statards! 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:I want to bring back the healthcare stuff because it is completely ridiculous that he should be able to get off without a response. I asked him about company towns twice and didn't get any answer either. On the other hand, I never expected one, remembering his previous threads. It's also useless to ask a libertarian about real-life examples. Austrian economics has an answer to this - praxeology. It is basically a series of deductions around the axiom that human behavior is always purposeful. They will always insist it has precedence over empiricism, which lets them ignore or explain away real life examples. Free market solutions are absolutely correct because praxeology proves they reflect human will the best - so if one of them seems to be failing, it's obviously the fault of the state. Or it appears to be failing, but will prove more beneficial any moment now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
jrod, one thing I can't understand is why did you actually pay  multiple times to register on these forums? You hardly do anything but proselytize about libertarianism in the way that get you mocked and sometimes banned. You would achieve a similar result while preaching to a flock of seagulls. While they could eventually poo poo on your head, at least they would do this free of charge.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 01:43
|
|