Juffo-Wup posted:

I think the preferred go-to option is actually to steal the bread, then sell it back to the guy while you bury his family in a mass grave.

jrodefeld posted:

The only just way to do this, in my view, is to follow the principle of syndicalism. If no original owner (or descendant) can be identified as having homesteaded the land when it was seized by the State, then the second most just way to allocate the property into private hands is to grant it to the workers who work the land. The factories to the factory owners, the farms to the farmers, the State function buildings to the workers employed there, etc.

Nolanar posted:

Wait, so what if a plantation both had slaves working the land, and was stolen from Native tribes? Who gets the land then? The white people do

jrodefeld posted:

Cato puts out a yearly report where they rank the countries of the world according to their "economic freedom", i.e. correlation of policies with libertarian ideology. This year, the United States ranks 16th.

These are the top countries ranked by their adherence to policies that promote economic freedom:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. New Zealand
4. Switzerland
5. United Arab Emirates
6. Mauritius
7. Jordan
8. Ireland
9. Canada
10. United Kingdom
11. Chile
12. Australia
13. Georgia
14. Qatar
15. Taiwan

All these nations are deemed to be more economically free and thus closer to libertarianism than the United States. Interestingly, both Canada and the United Kingdom are ranked higher than the United States. But Progressives frequently cite those countries as the sort of "socialist" nations the "free market" United States ought to emulate.

Caros posted:

No no, you see the UAE is absolutely really high up there in economic freedom. Did you know that they paid them nearly $4 a day? Amazing. In fact they were so concerned that they might drop something important that they actually confiscated the passports of the foreign workers they brought in to build it so that they wouldn't lose them or leave the country before they earned all the money they could! Isn't that great of them?

I mean of course there are the fees that you have to pay when you start working in the country, and there are the dangers of working on a huge building without proper equipment. But these are small prices to pay for FREEDOM!

Caros posted:

Sorry. Want me to go back and edit my posts to talk about pies or something? Its not like he's going to read this until 2am anyways.

Who What Now posted:

and I'm even developing my own P&P about being a mecha pilot who controls their warsuit by plugging gigantic The Matrix style data-spikes into their brain and nervous systems. So look forward to that sometime around never.

Nolanar posted:

Oh come now. Individual ownership of everything? All of society being reduced to compacts between people? The starting scenario is only distinguishable from feudalism if you squint.

Twerkteam Pizza posted:

This makes me happy

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Getting him to acknowledge he lauded literal slave states should be the next watermelon-test when he posts again/a new thread. Lord knows I'm not going to leave it alone either!

GunnerJ posted:

It isn't even just that it's out there and ridiculous because it's not an incidental detail or accident or whatever. His reckoning of "economic freedom" (or the one he accepted as authoritative) does not take into account whether a nation's economy employs slave labor. If this is what libertarian understandings of economic freedom can overlook, they are garbage. He has to account for that if he wants anyone to take "economic freedom" seriously.

jrodefeld posted:

jrodefeld posted:

Also, I know this is a comedy forum but as it relates to my threads, I'd really like to limit the amount of substance-less posts that consist of riffs or attempts at cheap-shot humor. I'm really interested in comparing and contrasting political beliefs.

jrodefeld posted:

"Voodoo economics for why we should give white dudes slaves".

I don't know if that is an attempt at humor or if you are using the term "slaves" in an incredibly imprecise way or if you are referring to actual chattel slavery. If it's the later and you are being serious you're a lost cause. The very principle of libertarian philosophy is self (i.e. body) ownership and the non-aggression principle which absolutely precludes any form of slavery. Anyone who has spent two seconds reading about libertarianism or classical liberal philosophy would know that. Either you are dishonest or you literally know not a single thing about what I believe.

jrodefeld posted:

Finally, a tiring aspect of debating with leftists is the unfounded assumption that defenders of the market economy or opponents of the State are not merely mistaken, but are fundamentally immoral people. Your assumption that I lack any empathy is entirely illustrative of that. I assume that most of you are generally good people who care about others but are merely mistaken and choose the wrong means to achieve the desired ends. The goal for the libertarian is a prosperous society where the poor are taken care of, humans can achieve their fullest potential, conflict is minimized, injustice is limited to the greatest possible extent, and peaceful productivity and cooperation replace politics and conflict. We may be wrong about this, but don't baselessly assert that we lack empathy, or have bad intent. The goals we seek are similar in the sense that we want to best outcomes for our neighbor, for the disadvantaged, and for society in general. We have different ideas about how to best achieve such outcomes. Now, if you are sincere in your desire for the best outcomes, then you would be open to changing your beliefs if it were to be demonstrated to you that, say, free market libertarianism lifted far more people out of poverty and created general prosperity far better than socialism and central-planning, correct?

jrodefeld posted:

Glad to be back (I think?).

It's funny what you guys grasp onto and hammer away at me about. By citing in passing the Cato study on economic freedom in different nations throughout the world, you choose to pick out a couple entries on the the list and cite the various ways in which those nations are NOT free and demand that I answer for their failings and further assert that somehow I am claiming that the United States ought to emulate the policies of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

You can easily read about how and why Cato made this list and what metrics were used to judge the different nations. What is clear is that this is a list of economically free countries. Personal liberties were not considered in this particular study. Of course libertarians care about personal and social liberty just as much, if not more, than we care about economic liberty, but this particular study limited it's scope to economic liberty, i.e. how easy it is to start a business, respect for private property rights and effective and efficient legal systems for arbitrating disputes. These are vitally important factors in the development of societal wealth.

At the same time, some of these countries have very draconian anti-gay laws, laws against drugs and prostitution and other infringements on civil liberties. None of these countries are libertarian, or are cited as such. What I intended by citing this study was to demonstrate the value that the liberalization of markets has had in the development of wealth in various countries of the world. If you look at the entire list, you see a trend. The countries at the top of the list are wealthier and have a higher average living standard than those lower on the list. The reason for this is primarily greater economic freedom.

I absolutely concede that if you are gay, or are a racial minority, or are a drug user or adherent to any sort of alternative lifestyle you would have more social freedom in the United States than you would in many of these countries. But that is not what this study is meant to demonstrate.

VitalSigns posted:

Wait wait wait no, you can't get out of this by claiming social freedom is a different metric. Are you really telling us that whether you can be owned by a construction company and held to forced labor has nothing to do with economic freedom?

jrodefeld posted:

You know what metrics are not listed? Personal liberty. Penalties for possessing pornography or drugs. Penalties for engaging in homosexual acts. There are all manner of personal liberties and values dear to libertarians that were merely not part of the scope of this particular study. When Cato or another libertarian outfit publishes their annual report on personal and social liberty, then you could see how the various non-libertarian countries stack up on the other side of the liberty coin.

I personally don't know a thing about the United Arab Emirates. Maybe the methodology was flawed and even when restricting the parameters to simply economic freedom, the United Arab Emirates don't deserve to be anywhere near the top 10. I can't tell you that. But if you think that ANY libertarian anywhere supports slavery in any form, you are either a fool or a malevolent and dishonest person who prefers character assassination to thoughtful critiques.

jrodefeld posted:

[...]
It is often stated by misinformed left-Progressives that libertarians or other free market advocates have a fetish for private property rights; that we elevate property as a right above human rights, that our insistence on private ownership creates conflict between those who have more and those who have less and encourages human greed and alienation between different groups of people.

As to the first claim, this one is always amusing because it is so crystal clear to a libertarian that there is no meaningful distinction between property rights and human rights. But much more important is the fact that we recognize that a correct understanding of private property is essential to a flourishing, healthy society and that human progress is inexorably linked with a legal recognition of private property claims.
[...]

VitalSigns posted:

If your defense of the list from your source is that the rankings might be bullshit after all, then why should we accept that source as any kind of evidence for a trend?

jrodefeld posted:

You are the one who is confused here. Yes, to a libertarian, property rights ARE human rights. For example, the principle ownership of ones body logically means that violent acts like slavery and rape are immoral because they constitute unwanted and uninvited invasions against ones physical body. Furthermore, rights such as the right to speech don't exist outside of property rights. For example, you are not permitted to come into my living room and say whatever you wish. If you enter my home, you are obligated to abide by my rules or you will have to leave. That means that I can state that you are NOT permitted to say certain things while on my property. You cannot, for example, swear at my family and be rude and obnoxious. You don't have an unlimited freedom of speech anywhere you go. On your own property, you may say anything you wish however. At any venue where you are invited and permitted to speak freely, you can disseminate any information or personal views without any problem. But you must either own the property or get permission from the owner of the property that the speech you make is permissible. That is what is meant by the statement that human rights equal property rights.

jrodefeld posted:

However, in politics, liberty is frequently separated into two parts. People speak about economic liberties and personal liberties. To the libertarian, both are sacrosanct and ought to be respected with equal reverence. To a degree, it makes sense why people look at these activities differently. We are not only economic actors after all. We have private and personal lives. Therefore it is not the libertarian who makes a sharp distinction between economic and personal liberty but most of society. After all, it is the progressive who holds up social liberty as the thing that ought to be defended. Gay marriage, free speech, drug use, alternative lifestyles, prostitution, pornography, etc ought to be defended yet economic activity, campaign contributions, political speech, advertisements, free trade, contracts, wage rates for workers, etc ought to be heavily regulated and restricted by State law. For the conservative, precisely the opposite is true. Economic freedom is to be respected, yet personal freedom is to be infringed upon. Gay marriage should be outlawed, abortion restricted or made illegal, pornography limited or banned, drugs made illegal, prostitution made illegal, etc.

jrodefeld posted:

How is it a contradiction that a specific study by a libertarian group, Cato, ranks the various countries by their adherence to economic liberty but not personal liberty? Each study has parameters and a defined scope. That hardly means that something outside the scope of this particular study is somehow not important to libertarians as a group.

Seriously, in the interest of a more productive discussion, let's drop the Cato study for now and discuss libertarian theory as I defend it, okay?

VitalSigns posted:

Don't just wave away Cato's rankings as bullshit, take a minute to think them over: what do they say about the real values of the Cato Institute if they make income taxes a higher priority than forced labor when talking about economic freedom?

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Ah, gotcha. I had mixed you up. Yeah, I follow Eripsa's threads as they appear much like this one (watching Synereo fail to even live up to the worst-case predictions everyone made is pretty hilarious), but I do get a little worried about you guys who really engage earnestly so often. I mean yeah, it's admirable that you make such an effort confronting such stupid (Eripsa) and hateful (Jrod) bullshit, but I gotta wonder just how healthy that much Abyss-staring is.

Then again, I post in the freep thread.

jrodefeld posted:

It's hard to believe this is even a serious question, but I'll answer nonetheless. Slavery is one of the most egregious violations of the non-aggression principle possible and is indeed a worse act than a property tax. Many, many times worse. However, both exist on a continuum and are not completely unrelated.

There was a notable political theorist whose name escapes me at the moment. Nonetheless he posed the question "when does a slave cease being a slave?" Let's suppose a person owns a person and forces him to work in the cotton fields seven days a week and whips and beats him daily. Clearly the person is a slave. But let's suppose he stops beating him every day and only beats him on the weekends. Not only that, but he doesn't make him work seven days a week but only makes him work five days a week. Is he still a slave? Obviously he is. The problem with slavery is that the person being enslaved is being forced by threat of violence to associate with his or her "master" against his or her will. If the slave master reduces the slaves work output to only three days a week and gives the slave four days off, is he still a slave? The answer of course is yes.

Now, suppose the slave master says "okay, you will not be forced to work on my plantation at all, but I will allow you to move out into the world and do what you wish. However, you will be forced through threat of violence to send me half of everything you earn as a tribute." While this is no doubt preferable to being forced to work in the cotton fields seven days a week and beaten every day, the real fundamental issue is being avoided. The fundamental issue which separates a slave from a non-slave is that a free person is one who has total self-ownership and whose associations with others are entirely voluntary. While every move towards being less of a slave is preferable, the fundamental issue is being avoided.

That is why an income tax, while absolutely and unequivocally far less egregious than chattel slavery, is still a form of slavery because the recipient of this income tax is being forced against his or her will to pay a percentage of his or her income under threat of violence and kidnapping (throwing you in jail if you refuse). The only time when a person is completely free is if their self ownership is respected and there are no lawful, unwanted assaults permitted against them.

I hope that is clear.

VitalSigns posted:

Ahahaha, the Libertarian argument for taxes = slavery is just a redressed Ship of Theseus. How far does this slippery slope from chattel slavery on down go jrod, I guess being required to drive on the right and not the left is slavery too, after all we can increment down from "controlling my movement all the time" to "controlling my movement at certain areas when I want to do certain things" can't we.

TLM3101 posted:

Imagine a small company - let's call it "Carl's Clothing and Couture Purveyance" ( or CCCP for short, since Carl's a bit of a card ) - that is being operated along no particular ideological lines. We are dealing with a hypothetical perfect, frictionless sphere moving in a perfect vacuum here. Now, in addition to Carl who funded the company and took the initial risk of getting a loan and starting the company, CCCP employs five people, all paid on the usual wage-scale for the area in which it operates, the company follows all local, state, and federal laws to the letter, and it has enjoyed a steady period of modest, but increased customer satisfaction and sales which have resulted in a reasonable though not spectacular profit year after year. This has allowed Carl to repay the loan faster than anticipated, and he has recouped his initial investment, and is debt-free.

Once the relevant accounting has been done, it turns out that after everything, including re-investment into the company, has been accounted for and all expenses paid, there is, once again, a tidy profit for the fiscal year. Let's say on the order of $100 000. The amount isn't important though. It could be $1 or $1 000 000.

My question is simply this: Who is responsible for that profit?

Before you answer, keep in mind that these are the stipulations I am making:

• The company is doing reasonably well.
  
• Carl - the one who initially started the company - has recouped his investment in full.
  
• Carl is not a follower of any -ism. He is not a Libertarian, Communist, Anarchist, Socialist, Fascist, Nazi, Liberal or Conservative. He simply wants to run his company the best way possible and make a living. While this technically makes him a capitalist he's not particularly dogmatic about it.
  
• All employees are paid in accordance with the applicable laws.
  
• Re-investment of capital into the company has already been accounted for.
  

You will also, I hope, note that I have gone out of my way to put up a scenario that is at once as plausible and as ideologically neutral as I can, so this is the closest thing we'll ever get to level ground.

Literally The Worst posted:

how many times have you posted this now, without a single response?

jrode, you motherfucker, why won't you respond to this post? is it because you're a motherfucker or because you're a coward?

paragon1 posted:

I was serious about the roundtable discussion by the way. I'd love to get some of the posters in this thread into a Skype call or something and talk about this stuff. We could record it and put it on youtube or something to laugh and/or be embarrassed about later.

paragon1 posted:

lol okay, I think i've done the bare minimum needed to get people in one place at the same time in a way that allows voice chat that I can record, and made suggestions for what to talk about specifically so we aren't all just awkwardly staring at our dicks for 15 minutes, but whatever dude. I've literally spent like 20 minutes total setting this up, most of that just communicating details to people. I don't know how I could treat this any less seriously and still have it happen and be listenable at all. The most formal I've gotten is "We're going to give everyone who wants to a chance to talk."

So your criticism boils down to me trying to do a thing, which is like the gooniest thing you could ever do.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

You're giving them too much credit. I've heard literally that argument.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Well as one old-school, massively overweight, and questionably hygienic prostitute aficionado once said,

Caros posted:

Which reminds me, we really should do another "Goon Talk" at some point. I finally got to listen to the first one that we did a few months back and you really knocked it out of the park in terms of being a moderator and keeping things relatively on track.

Nessus posted:

It seems like there's no way libertopia does not cause gigadeaths. If you wanted to make the argument of, "Yeah, it'd kill most of humanity BUT the survivors will be way happier and I'm prepared to accept that I and my kin might not make it through the Time of Doom" at least you're being honest.

TLM3101 posted:

Imagine a small company - let's call it "Carl's Clothing and Couture Purveyance" ( or CCCP for short, since Carl's a bit of a card ) - that is being operated along no particular ideological lines. We are dealing with a hypothetical perfect, frictionless sphere moving in a perfect vacuum here. Now, in addition to Carl who funded the company and took the initial risk of getting a loan and starting the company, CCCP employs five people, all paid on the usual wage-scale for the area in which it operates, the company follows all local, state, and federal laws to the letter, and it has enjoyed a steady period of modest, but increased customer satisfaction and sales which have resulted in a reasonable though not spectacular profit year after year. This has allowed Carl to repay the loan faster than anticipated, and he has recouped his initial investment, and is debt-free.

Once the relevant accounting has been done, it turns out that after everything, including re-investment into the company, has been accounted for and all expenses paid, there is, once again, a tidy profit for the fiscal year. Let's say on the order of $100 000. The amount isn't important though. It could be $1 or $1 000 000.

My question is simply this: Who is responsible for that profit?

Before you answer, keep in mind that these are the stipulations I am making:

• The company is doing reasonably well.
  
• Carl - the one who initially started the company - has recouped his investment in full.
  
• Carl is not a follower of any -ism. He is not a Libertarian, Communist, Anarchist, Socialist, Fascist, Nazi, Liberal or Conservative. He simply wants to run his company the best way possible and make a living. While this technically makes him a capitalist he's not particularly dogmatic about it.
  
• All employees are paid in accordance with the applicable laws.
  
• Re-investment of capital into the company has already been accounted for.
  

You will also, I hope, note that I have gone out of my way to put up a scenario that is at once as plausible and as ideologically neutral as I can, so this is the closest thing we'll ever get to level ground.

jrodefeld posted:

The consumer is responsible for that profit. Profits and losses on a free market reflect consumer preferences and relay information to entrepreneurs as to where to best allocate scarce resources in capital goods and various production processes.

I don't know what point you had in mind, but if I had to guess you'd try to make the argument that his profit is at least partially due to the State in some way, and therefore he owes the State some of his property. Is that what you are driving at?

I have plenty to say about this, but I don't want to spend time rebutting an argument I am attributing to you. I'd rather get your follow up and then respond to your actual argument.

Nessus posted:

The obvious answer to this question would be "all the employees," possibly in somewhat different degrees but for the purpose of this featureless plain, let's say equally. If Carl is an active participant in the operations of the firm then he is also partially responsible for that profit.

What would seem to be a fair distribution of the spoils would be share and share alike. If one individual is unusually essential then perhaps they could be voted a share and a half, or two shares. Perhaps as the founder Carl deserves two shares. In that case the pot would be divided into seven equal shares and Carl would get two, everyone else would get one. This system or a loose approximation seems to arise organically, with the greatest examples of course being the gentlemen of fortune upon the Spanish Main.

Now of course eventually this can develop into the joint stock corporation and modern society complete with a shareholder theory of value, but it would seem that workplace democracy could in principle control this... of course, workplace democracy can also be bribed ("you're leaving town at the end of the year? well how about we vote to change the rules, Bill, and I'll cut you a check if you back me up - won't be any skin off your nose") and people may not necessarily get along either. Perhaps the DROs could provide some kind of neutral arbitrartion with penalties for violations?

Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:

I think the libertarian anti-colonialism, at least jrod's, comes from it being governments that had colonies.

If Exxon-Mobil takes over half of Africa then eh whatever.

jrodefeld posted:

So you subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value? Are you aware that that theory has been thoroughly discredited by not only libertarians but most mainstream economists as well?

jrodefeld posted:

The question was specifically "where do profits come from", and the answer that consumers dictate the profits is not in anyway belittling to the work of the entrepreneur and his or her employees. In fact it is the role of the entrepreneur to make forecasts about future consumer demand and risk his or her capital on that forecast. This takes a great deal of skill and foresight.

jrodefeld posted:

The only correct theory of value is the Austrian Subjective Theory of Value, which has been largely accepted by many mainstream and non-libertarian economics circles. Value is subjective and exists only in the minds of consumers on the market. There are MANY incredibly labor intensive and difficult endeavors that would simply yield no profit in a market because consumers see no value in that product or service and would not voluntarily part with their money for it.

Karl loving Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 1, Chapter 1 posted:

The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5] Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.

Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort,[6] a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms.

jrodefeld posted:

If people want to engage in non-profitable work then that is their prerogative but the effort will come at their own expense. A business, by its very nature, is a profit seeking enterprise. Yet you seem to think that merely due to the fact that a business owner and his or her workers work very hard they are somehow owed a profit. But how could this be? If consumers don't want to purchase their product or service, they won't make any profits regardless of the work put in by the workers.

jrodefeld posted:

The question of whether workers ought to have certain rights, or be more appreciated, or whatever else is a separate question to the one you posed.

jrodefeld posted:

You asked about the origin of profits. Profits are realized when the entrepreneur correctly anticipates consumer demand and satisfies it. The value of the product is based upon the subjective value scales of consumers and NOT the amount of labor put into the production of the product or service.

This is essentially irrefutable and I don't understand why you went all apoplectic when I simply stated the obvious.

Who What Now posted:

Jrod: "Libertarians aren't racist. Now let me tell you about how 13 year old black kids need to work at McDonalds so they stay out of gangs but only get paid $0.15/hr so they can't afford to make purple drank"

jrodefeld posted:

I have been following this trial pretty clearly and, without any preconceived or ideological bias, it seems pretty clear that Zimmerman should NOT be charged with murder. If he is acquitted, it should not be taken as a sign that "racial profiling is now okay", nor should it be seen as a victory for bigots and white people, nor should it be taken as a broad setback for African American "progress" or anything like that. It should be taken as the reality that a preponderance of evidence shows that Zimmerman, for whatever his faults, did not commit murder. Sometimes an individual event is merely an individual event and we cannot draw large societal implications from a tragic situation.

Nessus posted:

Is that really jrode? If so, I wonder why he feels this need to go back to Berchtesgaden so often... does the place have... family importance to them, perhaps?

jrodefeld posted:

Not even close. In a free society you can choose between three (really more than three but these are the obvious ones) means of making a living. You can become an entrepreneur and go into business for yourself. You can choose to exchange your labor for a wage to an entrepreneur and business owner. The third way, and one not discussed as much as it ought to by libertarians, is that you can form a commune with others and share resources, share profits and have a jointly owned and controlled business enterprise. I don't have any preference between these three options and I think any of them are valid choices one is free to make.

The difference between socialism and laissez-faire is that in a free society, you can construct a community that voluntarily lives in accordance with socialist values and I have absolutely no moral problem with that. You will be tolerated and, provided you don't use aggression against other people, your rights will be respected.

Murray Rothbard posted:

If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?

Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project.But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market.

If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

Hans Hermann 'TripleH!' Hoppe posted:

There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

jrodefeld posted:

However, in a socialist society, a libertarian is prevented through violence from becoming an entrepreneur, mutually consenting to a wage contract with a laborer and selling his or her services on the market.

jrodefeld posted:

The only reason you could possibly have to think that I am "against" laborers is because I made the obvious claim that labor doesn't create profits. I said consumers determine profits and losses on the market with their choice and deliberation among the products and services they can exchange their money for.

What you fail to see is that laborer are ALSO consumers. So they indeed do determine profits, but not in their role as wage earners.

People choose to exchange their labor for wages because they have a higher time preference. They want the security of a guaranteed weekly wage rate for the hours put in over the risk and uncertainty of risking their capital as an entrepreneur. And there is NOTHING wrong with this choice whatsoever. Their rights should be just as respected as the employer and everyone else in society.

So what on earth makes this position "against" laborers?

jrodefeld posted:

Because I don't subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value? That I don't think that labor is, in itself, responsible for profits?

jrodefeld posted:

What if I am an entrepreneur and I have an idea to manufacture and sell a rotary phone made of gold and studded with diamonds. A new age rotary phone that is completely functional but blinged out with precious metals. Let's suppose the manufacturing process was quite complex and I needed a ton of highly skilled laborers to help produce it at scale.

My workers were great, hard working and professional. I paid them a market rate for their specialty services and they performed admirably. Will my company now make profits because I've got tons of great workers who I value and treat well?

Hell no!

No one is buying something as ridiculous as a rotary phone made of gold studded with diamonds. It is ridiculous and there is ZERO demand for such an insane item. Not only are rotary phones obsolete and pointless at a functional level, but the use of gold and diamonds is a ridiculous misallocation of those scarce resources.

The fact that consumers won't buy my ridiculous product, means I'll take massive losses, eventually have to lay off my workers and declare bankruptcy.

The value (at the human rights level) of the workers I employ had absolutely no bearing on whether I made any profits. The thing that mattered in that context was whether there was any consumer demand for the product I put onto the market. Whether I had predicted consumer demand correctly.

How does this belittle the value of workers? Of course it doesn't.

Who What Now posted:

But Jrod undeniably hold gross prejudices on non-whites and, going by his few posts about them, most likely women as well. He will deny this because, again, he doesn't understand what racism and sexism even are, but when he talks about what he believes he reveals his true intentions to the world.