Perhaps not, but how much starvation can be blamed on banksters demanding payment when the crop fails?
Honestly, AG, I have argued the exact position you hold, continue down the non-aggression path and you will find that I am right.
If you think we advocate the 'banksters' or bailouts, you have completely failed to read anything on this forum. I would suggest you reconsider your stance against ancap because you have a completely fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism, and anarchy.
I know that nobody here is advocating in favor of bankster bailouts, but you are arguing in favor of maintaining an employing class and an employed class that will use money created, or manipulated, by those that have a lot of it.
Any system that leaves wage slavery in place, as an-crapery does, will not substantially change the status quo, at best it changes the makeup of the ruling class from the most violent of criminals to those fortunate enough to have provident parents and not drunks.
Honestly, AG, I have argued the exact position you hold, continue down the non-aggression path and you will find that I am right.
I'd respond to all that, but it's time-consuming, and all you seem to be doing is repeating yourself anyway.
I could give you a rather detailed description of how an anarchist society would work, private production of money via free banking, a decentralized common or customary legal system, even some idea of how so-called defense agencies would work. After all, I've thought a lot about it.
I would agree that free money would make the difference between an-crap and an-communism slight.
It would make what I propose unlikely to prevail in the marketplace of ideas for hundreds of years.
However, what you propose still leaves (wage)slavery in place.
Those with the ability will exploit those who's parents didn't leave them something to work with.
If your parents drink all their money away, you will have to find work with whoever agrees to exploit your poverty.
Why do you figure that money has been allowed to continue in existence?
Because it serves the purposes of the ruling class.
You think people will somehow act differently if they were offered your society of mutual aid and no money--but what if they don't?
Then the idea doesn't float.
People know that if they don't work there won't be food, they also know that if they want what the division of labor brings them they will have to do their part.
My proposal is sound, it can be had with a minimum of education, the transition can be made seamless.
So if you're really serious about a voluntary society, you won't object if consenting adults engage in voluntary capitalist acts
Yes, there will be no thugs to enforce my proposal.
because altruism and mutual aid only go so far before breaking down.
Wrong, you will see in time that what I propose is the only way to stop the haves from exploiting the have nots.
Why you want to insist on keeping the system favored by even the 'communist' states as the way to manage anarchy is beyond me.
The statists use this system because it keeps them on top.
If those that rule by force were not satisfied with this system's ability to keep their progeny shearing the sheep they would change it.
Why do you figure that they kicked Emma out of the country?
Why do they equate anarchism with chaos?
Because they recognize the danger to their position these ideas present.
They support crapitalism because it keeps them in power.
I'm sorry, AG, but you have been soooo manipulated that you can't even conceive of freedom, you think that following the rules is the way to go,....if only you could adjust them to your liking,....
? I think you got me mixed up with someone else. I know what freedom is and I haven't mentioned any rules. When did I say "following the rules is the way to go" ?
When you said that you would keep crapitalism and oust the current ruling class so that you could be part of the new ruling class.
As long as people agree to follow your crapitalist rules everything will be ok.
You refuse to look to how my proposal benefits the worker far more than the ruling class.
In fact, the ruling class goes away because under my proposal, there are no employers or employees.
Your an-crap proposal just shuffles the deck more into your favor.
I will be overjoyed when we move to ancraptitude, but it will only be a step toward the destination I've(with Emma's help) illuminated.
Your system is if we want consumer goods we have to "take" them.
Let's not confuse 'take from the shelf' with 'take by force'.
How do you get something from the shelf to your house if you don't take it?
I never said people should eat without working, that is your system.
That is not my system, I merely said that supporting a bum was better than enslaving him, but if the vast majority of people don't work we starve.
In your system people would take all the free goods and eat without working.
Not for long,...
Ok you got me there, well done. You actually answered one of my questions, and answered it well. (I'm not being sarcastic)
*smiles*
Thanks for being honest, it is refreshing, and rare.
However, this is an occasion where these thinkers were wrong.
I agree that the flaws in their proposals kept them from winning in the marketplace of ideas in their lifetimes.
However, if Emma had had Costco to point to when she said that the worker should toss off the
monkey masters and manage things themselves to their own benefit, perhaps she could have sold the idea more successfully.
There is no reason why everyone should have an equal share and there is no reason why everyone should have an equal vote.
Equal value will not happen, some people have simple needs and no desire for material goods, but what is this about equal votes?
Are you suggesting that some group of people can vote to eat me for lunch?
You'll have to expand on that vote thing if you want me to understand where you are coming from.
This is where our real argument is and I don't recognize the exploitation in any of your examples...
I don't doubt that you wouldn't, I once argued an an-com to a halt with the very words that you are using.
I had asked him if he thought that somebody would drive a truck to get a load of oranges just because they wanted their neighbors to have oranges and he said yes, now I know he was right.
He finally gave up on me when I suggested that we should take the shoes off his mother's feet and share them with everybody else.
Now that I understand where he was coming from and would like to apologize I can't contact him.
The really awful part is that we are in the same town.
The exploitation of crapitalism occurs when a person has to submit to being exploited by an employer to eat. The choice to sell one's labor into the market for less than the value that it creates is not a free choice when the alternative is starvation.
If all the widget factories come to pay $10 an hour while the worker creates $100 in widgets why would a competing factory pay more than $10 an hour?
Once the bosses of whatever career realize that they don't have to pay more than $7 an hour, why would they?
Why would the widget factory continue to pay $10 an hour when nobody can find a job that pays more than $7?
Do you think that the cfo lives in a vacuum and isn't aware of what the prevailing wage is in the area?
I lived in mexico for 2 years, wages and prices were nearly uniform across the whole country and nearly everybody I talked to knew the price of any item I asked about.
Do you think that the person setting wages at a company is any less well informed?
because there is no exploitation.
Have I exploited you if you mow my lawn and I don't pay?
Have I exploited you if you mow a yard for me for $25 but I sold the job at $50 and did nothing for my $25?
Perhaps on the first sale I should get something for finding the customer, but how many times should I get paid for finding that customer? At what point does my contribution approach zero?
Why do I get half the money though my contribution diminishes with each repetition?
When someone is paid $10 an hour that is what the value of their labor is.
That is a convenient definition.
It reinforces that the boss is right in using your labor so that he(or his wife and kids) can live without laboring.
The value that your labor creates is it's value, if you weren't being exploited for your poverty then you would be the boss and keep the entire market value of what you have created, but you are being exploited because you don't have benefit of crapital to buy your freedom from wage slavery.
By being trapped in valuing things we continue in the slavery.
If you work you have a share of the work coming.
Yes and yes.
So, you advocate starving a child because his dad is a drunk?
You advocate starving mental patients because they don't see the world the way you do?
People are not free until they can eat(at least temporarily) without submitting to the tyranny of a boss.
I seriously doubt that, you haven't looked at the Labor Theory of Value or Subjective Value.
I know all I need to know about crapitalist smoke and mirrors.
The only reason economics exists as an area of study is to find justifications to keep the sheeple on the farm.
What if I formed a private property community in your anarchist world.
Why would you? My proposal doesn't take your personal property away, unless you are a factory owner or Costco shareholder, and even then we won't be taking your mansion, fancy cars, gold bars, or crown jewels, only the tools we need to continue living free from your exploitation.
Even after taking your factory we will feed you and ask that you join in contributing to the support of the human race.
If you are over 45 we won't even ask that.
Then my neighbor offers me a job for an ounce of silver a week and I agree to work for him.
Why would you when you can just order one delivered to your door from the internet?
What are you going to do with this silver? You won't be eating it.
Of course, you are free to do as you please, but once the proposal comes into existence the paradigm will have shifted and your ounce of silver will have no real value, there is no more marketplace to commoditize human beings any more.
Your other neighbors will deride you for being crapitalists and seeking to re-enslave them.
But, don't get me wrong, you can do as you please as long as you don't force others to comply.
Am I free to live in this private property community and work for someone else if I choose to?
Of course, but were you to free your mind from the crapitalist mindset why would you?
OMG, how you don't recognize the exploitation in paying somebody less than the value of their labor is beyond me.
This is where our real argument is and I don't recognize the exploitation in any of your examples because there is no exploitation. When someone is paid $10 an hour that is what the value of their labor is. You can imagine that it is some higher number, but you are only imagining that. Humans value goods subjectively. I value my labor at a certain rate, someone else may value it differently. But there is no objective value to someone's labor. Labor is a price determined on the market like any other price, through negotiations between buyers and sellers.
Oh my gosh, he *really* believes in the Labor Theory of Value,
Well, actually I don't.
I don't believe in value at all, it is crapitalist smoke and mirrors.
It is nomenclature that doesn't exist in a world free of exploitation by the haves.
Without the "capitalists", where would laborers get the tools and materials they need to actually make goods?
Seriously?
Where did the bosses get them?
The workers made them.
The world does not end in the absence of crapitalism and banksters, contrary to the programming you have received.
As long as the people hold
the most dangerous superstition we will never see anarchy.
I don't see a save draft option, I will continue shortly,...
Ok, where was I?
Oh, yeah,....
Why do prices for identical goods vary from store to store, and sometimes even within the same store?
Greed of the price setter?
Belief in the matrix?
Better crapital situation? Lower borrowing costs?
Because the workers that keep the shelves filled are too mindwarped to seek freedom from the
monkey master?
I could go on,...
But then as long as you refuse to see that we have to workers but we don't have to have dollars then I would just be spitting into the wind.
Who's getting shafted if the retail store cannot sell a good at an offered price and has to lower their price, say in a sale? The laborer who already got paid for his labor a long time ago, or the distributor and/or retail store, who may not be recovering their full costs on the good?
How about all of them.
The price you pay for that cup of coffee in the morning pays the taxes for the corporation, the ceo, and all workers down to the guy that swept the parking lot, how much of the price of your cup of coffee goes to pay the taxes of the ceo?
When we toss off the monkey masters what do you figure will happen to prices?
How much less work could be done if we didn't work from Jan to May to pay the tax man?
Lord knows how long we work to satisfy profits, I'm sure profits are a bigger chunk than taxes.
All because you accept the smoke and mirrors put up by the ruling class.
Even more fundamental: how is the value of a good or service determined, in your view, and how is it related to the price?
My paradigm comes without the concept of value,.....
If you can't give your product away you may want to find another endeavor to pursue, but if your product flies off the shelf faster than you can produce it then we should find you some help.
Price is subsequent to demand, demand is all the 'market signal' needed to manage production, again, if you can't give it away stop making it.
I think I know how you might answer a couple of these, but I'm not sure about how you would answer the rest.
Did ya?