Coercion, how I see it

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]

The ultimate goal is to get the labour market to a point where its a sellers market. We want labour to be in high enough demand that people are going to pay high prices and not resort to being douchebags by asking for sexual favours. Free market capitalism is the system that maximizes the value of labour. Every pro-labour initiative almost invariably hurts the worker. Min wage, unions, trade barriers, etc. Increasing the cost of labour decreases its demand and hurts labour in the long run.

The reason walmart can get away with paying people minimum wage is because so much consumer capital is being ripped out of the economy through taxation. This money gets spent on the most rediculous government programs and prevents the average worker from earning a decent living.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, free-market capitalism only exists in theory, so we have no way to test this claim.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
The Austrian angle does not object to blackmail, see Block, et. al


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I can't speak for Block, but what I meant was that most libertarians (like most human beings) have ethical objections to blackmail, even though Austrians think it shouldn't be illegal.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm speaking in descriptive terms, not prescriptive. To me, if there is a market for labor power it is not anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly think the market for labor would be less. But 'what there is a market for' is a product of peoples' choices, desires, preferences, etc., so I'm not sure that any type of economy could eliminate such a market (unless living life in an anarchic society eliminated such desires, but this certainly isn't an economic claim).

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, free-market capitalism only exists in theory, so we have no way to test this claim.


[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with free market capitalism producing anything for anybody. You take money out of the economy and away from workers they can only be worse off. Like mabey if the government was a little more restrained in its spending this debate would be more academic, but when you have the US government spending half a trillion a year on its military budget its hard to argue that taxes dont have a negative effect on the economy.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is your friend, party A, going to you, party C? Why is he not going to his friend, party D who not only wants to charge him a tenfold increase to pay off his debt, but also wants to dress him up like a girl and have him perform oral sex while party D yells forth: "Statism is evil, I am a libertarian and you are my sissy statist bitoch!" and at the same time the acts would be video taped and party D would have contracts with all the child molesters in the world and would distribute the tapes to all of them for $1,000 per tape. And the child molesters would use the tapes to entrap more children into their evil clutches and also give them drugs and get them hooked on gambling with the long term goal of turning them into indentured servants of party D who will save them from party B after they get in over their heads with a gambling debt?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not going to party D because there's no party D in my scenario, or in the real-life parallel where people have "choices" between equally horrible exploitative jobs. Or sometimes no choice at all as in the case of illegals that essentially become indentured servants.

I guess the Cuban janitors at U of M that never got a raise in 20 years and had no health care weren't being exploited though, right? It was their natural instinct for self-preservation that must be held accountable for them eating cat food and not having teeth, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
p.s. How many people have been killed under statism for gambing debts not paid?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with anything?

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree that people find themselves in difficult situations all the time.

This has also been true since the beginning of time.

It will continue to be true regardless of who is 'in charge' or if no one is in charge. That is simply reality.

Are you under the impression that life is supposed to be fair?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'm not arguing against unfairness or against ACism or gambling debts. I'm arguing against the notion that there's no exploitation in capitalism. Are you really this dense, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, free-market capitalism only exists in theory, so we have no way to test this claim.


[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with free market capitalism producing anything for anybody. You take money out of the economy and away from workers they can only be worse off. Like mabey if the government was a little more restrained in its spending this debate would be more academic, but when you have the US government spending half a trillion a year on its military budget its hard to argue that taxes dont have a negative effect on the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said "free market capitalism" is the best system, but this system hasn't existed anywhere, which is why I said in theory. Everything you are saying is speculative.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is your friend, party A, going to you, party C? Why is he not going to his friend, party D who not only wants to charge him a tenfold increase to pay off his debt, but also wants to dress him up like a girl and have him perform oral sex while party D yells forth: "Statism is evil, I am a libertarian and you are my sissy statist bitoch!" and at the same time the acts would be video taped and party D would have contracts with all the child molesters in the world and would distribute the tapes to all of them for $1,000 per tape. And the child molesters would use the tapes to entrap more children into their evil clutches and also give them drugs and get them hooked on gambling with the long term goal of turning them into indentured servants of party D who will save them from party B after they get in over their heads with a gambling debt?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not going to party D because there's no party D in my scenario, or in the real-life parallel where people have "choices" between equally horrible exploitative jobs. Or sometimes no choice at all as in the case of illegals that essentially become indentured servants.

I guess the Cuban janitors at U of M that never got a raise in 20 years and had no health care weren't being exploited though, right? It was their natural instinct for self-preservation that must be held accountable for them eating cat food and not having teeth, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
p.s. How many people have been killed under statism for gambing debts not paid?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with anything?

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree that people find themselves in difficult situations all the time.

This has also been true since the beginning of time.

It will continue to be true regardless of who is 'in charge' or if no one is in charge. That is simply reality.

Are you under the impression that life is supposed to be fair?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'm not arguing against unfairness or against ACism or gambling debts. I'm arguing against the notion that there's no exploitation in capitalism. Are you really this dense, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

What obligations do human beings owe each other in your view? How do you think these obligations should be implemented assuming not everyone agrees's with you.

If I don't want to work what should happen to me? I have no money and no food. I want money and food and a place to live but I'm basically sick of working. I've had enough of a hard time in life and deserve to retire but I have nothing to survive on. What should happen to me?

[neverforgetlol]

BK, are you speaking of legal obligations or moral ones?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
BK, are you speaking of legal obligations or moral ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't make a difference. But I mean obligations, not preferred behavior that one is allowed to choose to do or choose to not do.

I'm basically trying to see what is on the other side of the coin samsonite is talking about.

He points to one side, the capitalist, and says "Bad, exploitative!"

I want to see what he says when he points at the non capitalist. Does he say "Victim, he deserves free stuff!" What does he think this person needs to do in order to receive food and shelter from people who have it? Does he want a world where they are asked to 'contribute' but not required to do so? How do we measure if they are 'contributing' adequately, do we take their word for it? (i.e. "Trust me mr. capitalist, if I could have worked harder I would have")

It is convenient to point one's finger at a capitalist and shout "exploiter!" but what is he requiring of the non capitalists in order for them to live and eat and be clothed and housed, etc? I want to know if in his world I can get some people together and move to an island and chill out eating fish and coconuts and socializing with topless chicks while someone goes back to the mainland and collects a monthly stipend check for us in order to allow us to pay our bills.

Morobot promised me a UBI check (that stands for universal basic income, he advocates a world where everyone gets one simply for being alive, I love you morobot [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ). Is samsonite promising me one of those or not? Is he advocating a bigger check be given to me and everyone else than morobot advocates or a smaller one? Is he going to make me jump through a few hoops before I get a free check for life, and if so, what are they?

I want to know how much he wants me to be able to ring out of the capitalists bank account and keep for myself with the minimal amount of time and effort expended on my part.

Because my order of preferences in various governments go like this:

1. bkholdem is king of the world government (please vote for this one guys!)

2. morobots world plan where everyone gets a UBI check (that means YOU work and I get a FREE CHECK of ~ 20K/yr. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) That way I can move to Brasil and live in a beachfront condo and work an hour or 2 a day playing online poker as a suplement- I might have to do it on the sly as morobot might reduce my annual check if he know's I'm living in brasil but I think I can pull that off without a problem. If I get caught I can just say I"m sorry" and tell him I won't do it again and then keep doing it regardless cuz he ain't never gonna cut me off no matter what lol)

Then I can take a picture of myself sitting on the back of a free pony on the beach next to some hot topless chicks, while flipping the bird and laughing, and mail it back to all u suckas! lol

3. anarcho-capitialism

4. libertarianism

I want to know if samsonite is going to cut me a better or worse deal than morobot. I'm assumimng he's not gonna expect me to work nearly as hard as borodog or PVN would expect me to but I want to know how hard he NEEDS me to work, if at all, in order to live and pay my bills. What kind of deal is he offering me?

Samsonite, how much free shizat do I get man?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
You said "free market capitalism" is the best system, but this system hasn't existed anywhere, which is why I said in theory. Everything you are saying is speculative

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing my point. It has nothing to do with free markets. When money is taken out of the economy (free market or otherwise) and spent in non-consumer areas (like Iraq) the members of that economy can only be worse off. So sure we've never seen a completely 100% free economy but it doesnt take a huge leap of faith to understand that removing the waste of the government can only lead to a more prosperous economy.

[TheEkim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You said "free market capitalism" is the best system, but this system hasn't existed anywhere, which is why I said in theory. Everything you are saying is speculative

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing my point. It has nothing to do with free markets. When money is taken out of the economy (free market or otherwise) and spent in non-consumer areas (like Iraq) the members of that economy can only be worse off. So sure we've never seen a completely 100% free economy but it doesnt take a huge leap of faith to understand that removing the waste of the government can only lead to a more prosperous economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be true if consumers actually bore the brunt of costs in the iraq war. Because the US government runs insanely large deficits AND manages to artificially support the value of its currency you are largely sheltered froms these costs.
Please dont take that as a prowar argument, I think the iraq war is misguided and insanely wasteful but it is inaccurate to imply you or the economy are suffering for it (I speak only fiscally, the human costs of war are always too high).
The increased deficits have not resulted in any appreciable drop in the value of US currency, nor will it. Stockmarket is doing great (war is great for production...capitalists love war).
The US through the size and wealth of its economy and overwhelming strength of its military manages to pretty much dictate all international rules and conventions, theyve done this with global monetary markets several times now to their benefit.

Not having to pay debts is a benefit of all that jack booted thuggery you AC'ers are always referring to.