[quote]Dustin wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Society is a collection of individuals. It is the aim of socialism to allow each individual to fully develop according to their own wishes (of course, so long as they do not violate the [democratically agreed-upon and enforced] rights of another).
But socialism does not accomplish this and by it’s very nature would prevent or hinder an individuals’s development.[/quote]
Oh, OK!
[quote]orion wrote:No, respect for other peoples rights only becomes necessary when there is a collective.
The development of the idea of natural rights can only take place if there is a collective.
But if you accept the principle of self ownership they were there all along. [/quote]
But they must be granted by the collective, a fact you seem eager to sweep under the rug. If society does not agree with you that you may ____, and it offends them that you do, then you may not ____. How about I try to exercise my “right” to pick up any pets I see wandering around and grind them up and eat them? Society does not acknowledge this right, and so I will be punished. On the other hand, is a society did recognize this right, I could proceed uninhibited. Similarly, if a large group of people lived together, but formed no real society, and had no agreed-upon code of laws, then you would have no rights. You would have only what you could take and defend.
True, without other people, rights are essentially meaningless, but once there are other people, they still only exist if the majority agree to observe them.
And it’s not enough for YOU to accept the principle of self-ownership. OTHER PEOPLE must also accept the principle of self-ownership.
[quote]orion wrote:Democratic and coercive are exact opposites?
Do I even have to point out how absurd that is?
To quote Ms Rand, check your premises.
[/quote]
Not in a modern “democracy,” but I don’t have to tell you that modern democracies aren’t.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
As one lone individual is incapable of extracting any but the meanest existence from nature, all benefits of modern society, and thus all wealth is necessarily social in nature, and it is for this reason that socialists intend to collectively control wealth, since it was collectively produced.
Which is why socialism is such a crude system.
Capitalism rewards people to some degree according to how much they contributed to the production. That may be imperfect but far better than any planned scheme could possibly do that.[/quote]
You may not know what you’re arguing against, because your statements are ironically backwards.
[quote]That is why capital accumulation in capitalism is invariably so much greater than in socialism that the poorest of the poor are better off in capitalism. Such is the nature of exponential growth which makes the whole point of socialism obsolete.
[/quote]
You’re right. Large-scale plunder and thievery are much more efficient than actually doing things from scratch.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:No, respect for other peoples rights only becomes necessary when there is a collective.
The development of the idea of natural rights can only take place if there is a collective.
But if you accept the principle of self ownership they were there all along.
But they must be granted by the collective, a fact you seem eager to sweep under the rug. If society does not agree with you that you may ____, and it offends them that you do, then you may not ____. How about I try to exercise my “right” to pick up any pets I see wandering around and grind them up and eat them? Society does not acknowledge this right, and so I will be punished. On the other hand, is a society did recognize this right, I could proceed uninhibited. Similarly, if a large group of people lived together, but formed no real society, and had no agreed-upon code of laws, then you would have no rights. You would have only what you could take and defend.
True, without other people, rights are essentially meaningless, but once there are other people, they still only exist if the majority agree to observe them.
And it’s not enough for YOU to accept the principle of self-ownership. OTHER PEOPLE must also accept the principle of self-ownership.
[/quote]
I think we have a disagreement what constitutes “granting” and what “respecting”.
You are missing though that I do not believe that anyone has to believe in self ownership. I do know though that once you accept it certain conclusions necessarily flow from that
assumption.
So who do I belong to, me or someone else?
That is what it comes down too, for there is no “society” that could make any decisions, unlike me it is an abstraction.
Ironically you strongly believe in property rights, you just do not think they should be attached to individuals.
So what if I do neither accept the collectives narrative nor its claim to property rights?
And why would a free man possibly agree to live in a society where he and what he produces belongs to someone else when he could just be free?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Democratic and coercive are exact opposites?
Do I even have to point out how absurd that is?
To quote Ms Rand, check your premises.
Not in a modern “democracy,” but I don’t have to tell you that modern democracies aren’t.
[/quote]
Well than how would a post modern democracy not be coercive?
What if I disagreed.
What if I secretly produced stuff and traded it for other black market goods?
I could moonshine or produce gin in my bathtub!
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
As one lone individual is incapable of extracting any but the meanest existence from nature, all benefits of modern society, and thus all wealth is necessarily social in nature, and it is for this reason that socialists intend to collectively control wealth, since it was collectively produced.
Which is why socialism is such a crude system.
Capitalism rewards people to some degree according to how much they contributed to the production. That may be imperfect but far better than any planned scheme could possibly do that.
You may not know what you’re arguing against, because your statements are ironically backwards.
That is why capital accumulation in capitalism is invariably so much greater than in socialism that the poorest of the poor are better off in capitalism. Such is the nature of exponential growth which makes the whole point of socialism obsolete.
You’re right. Large-scale plunder and thievery are much more efficient than actually doing things from scratch.
[/quote]
Well I am pretty sure I know what I am talking about. There are billions of goods and services out there and people differ when it comes to ambition and talents, so how could you possibly know how reward whom how much?
The market does that quite efficiently, because you are only rewarded if you produce stuff people actually want enough to buy. Therefore the more you satisfy peoples demands the richer you get. You cannot simply abolish markets without abolishing price signals and from then on you are flying blind.
The second point you made is actually the same as the first in disguise. Again, what you want to do requires knowledge you can not possibly have. So yes, an emergent system, no matter how chaotic and at times unfair is always better in real life than anything you could possibly administer.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Society is a collection of individuals.
But socialism does not accomplish this and by it’s very nature would prevent or hinder an individuals’s development.
Oh, OK!
[/quote]
Great rebuttal.
One can not develop (completely) according to their own wishes within the collective.
A “collective” would indicate a center of power (see coercion) that is benefitting, in some manner, from the labor of individuals within the collective. Whether it be in the production of goods or in concentrations of wealth/power.
Complete individual development and socialism cannot exist within the same economic system.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You’re right. Large-scale plunder and thievery are much more efficient than actually doing things from scratch.
[/quote]
Well obviously this doesn’t happen within socialist economic systems.
Never!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kylec72 wrote:
The essential premise to this argument is invalid. The claim I own my own life is misguided. There are no ownership properties of the ego. The ego IS you; you cannot own yourself because you are yourself. YOU are the essence of being. The idea of being is quite tricky, though. I do not own my arm, heart, brain, nor consciousness because all these components comprise who I am – they are me and I am them. Let us not fall into the trap of dualistic metaphysics.
Putting aside the improper semantics of the argument (where self-destiny ought to be used in place of self-ownership), here are my replies:
If I claim to own my own life then I must also recognize the natural right of self ownership for all people.
-How is this a natural right and not a cultural or societal right?
If I claim to own my own life then all forms of aggression are immoral: how can I claim to own my life and at the same time contradict the rights of someone else?
-Really, ALL forms of aggression are immoral? The term aggression is a matter of perspective in many instances, so constructing a universal morality against aggression may be problematic.
If I claim to own my own life then I must be ready to defend myself; I cannot force others to offer me protection against their will because this is aggressive and therefore immoral.
-Being ready to defend oneself is a subjective act and doesn’t seem pertinent to the argument.
If I claim to own my own life then all interpersonal relationships and associations I make must be voluntary otherwise I am committing an act of aggression.
-Thus, you are creating societal or collective norms – one shall not enforce another into a relationship against their will.
If I claim to own my own life then I must accept responsibility for all of my actions and decisions I make; outside of being coerced all actions and choices I make are my own.
Okay, no disagreement here. However, how does one make all others responsible for their actions? Won’t this require a law and judicial system from society?
If I claim to own my own life then I must reject all forms of collectivism because I am an individual suited to my own nature give abilities and talents; though I can identify with certain groups of individuals that share specific traits I am not defined by membership in those groups nor do I owe allegiance to any one group that I identify with.
That is fine, but this infers you will create for yourself and only yourself. How is that practical or even mildly worthwhile? You are rejecting the merits of others, and therefore, the entire history of technological progression from humanity. Good luck being a lone hunter and gatherer without any technological tools to speak of.
eh…you’re irrelevant.[/quote]
Says the one who can only produce an ad hominem reply. Either respond with tact or avoid the post altogether, if you are incapable of giving or unwilling to give a suitable rebuttal.
[quote]kylec72 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kylec72 wrote:
The essential premise to this argument is invalid. The claim I own my own life is misguided. There are no ownership properties of the ego. The ego IS you; you cannot own yourself because you are yourself. YOU are the essence of being. The idea of being is quite tricky, though. I do not own my arm, heart, brain, nor consciousness because all these components comprise who I am – they are me and I am them. Let us not fall into the trap of dualistic metaphysics.
Putting aside the improper semantics of the argument (where self-destiny ought to be used in place of self-ownership), here are my replies:
If I claim to own my own life then I must also recognize the natural right of self ownership for all people.
-How is this a natural right and not a cultural or societal right?
If I claim to own my own life then all forms of aggression are immoral: how can I claim to own my life and at the same time contradict the rights of someone else?
-Really, ALL forms of aggression are immoral? The term aggression is a matter of perspective in many instances, so constructing a universal morality against aggression may be problematic.
If I claim to own my own life then I must be ready to defend myself; I cannot force others to offer me protection against their will because this is aggressive and therefore immoral.
-Being ready to defend oneself is a subjective act and doesn’t seem pertinent to the argument.
If I claim to own my own life then all interpersonal relationships and associations I make must be voluntary otherwise I am committing an act of aggression.
-Thus, you are creating societal or collective norms – one shall not enforce another into a relationship against their will.
If I claim to own my own life then I must accept responsibility for all of my actions and decisions I make; outside of being coerced all actions and choices I make are my own.
Okay, no disagreement here. However, how does one make all others responsible for their actions? Won’t this require a law and judicial system from society?
If I claim to own my own life then I must reject all forms of collectivism because I am an individual suited to my own nature give abilities and talents; though I can identify with certain groups of individuals that share specific traits I am not defined by membership in those groups nor do I owe allegiance to any one group that I identify with.
That is fine, but this infers you will create for yourself and only yourself. How is that practical or even mildly worthwhile? You are rejecting the merits of others, and therefore, the entire history of technological progression from humanity. Good luck being a lone hunter and gatherer without any technological tools to speak of.
eh…you’re irrelevant.
Says the one who can only produce an ad hominem reply. Either respond with tact or avoid the post altogether, if you are incapable of giving or unwilling to give a suitable rebuttal. [/quote]
Thanks, but I’ll pass.
You haven’t said anything worth responding to. These are the same arguments that have already been dismantled but you failed to read the thread so…
[quote]orion wrote:I think we have a disagreement what constitutes “granting” and what “respecting”.
You are missing though that I do not believe that anyone has to believe in self ownership. I do know though that once you accept it certain conclusions necessarily flow from that
assumption.[/quote]
Maybe the difference is that Iam not concerned with what “logically follows.” I am only interested in the physical effects. For a right to be reasonably secure, it has to be more or less widely accepted by everybody. Like Adam Smith said (I’m paraphrasing): “For a band of robbers and murderers to be able to live in society with each other, they must at least abstain from robbing and murdering each other.” In other words, they ALL (or at least most) need to behave a certain way. In this way, it is a “collective” decision (I’m not trying to create any new entity, just saying that everybody must adopt this new behavior).
Like I said, it seems like you’re wrongly inferring that I am trying to create a new abstract entity and endow it with concrete abilities.
More or less.
It depends on how you act on these convictions, and what society decides to do in response.
Because it doesn’t belong to someone else. He is compensated according to the work that he does. If he produces physical commodities, he is paid the value (or close to it) of those commodities (and so he could later purchase these commodities). If he is one member of a group which produces a good that will ultimately come under the ownership of society (such as a large machine), he is paid still according to the work which he does, and as part of society, he has a voice in how the machine will be used (in a general sense).
[/quote]
Now of course, If my neighbor doesn’t even own himself then he certainly doesn’t own me. And since he doesn’t own himself, if I kill him while he attempts to take something I produced, I haven’t even taken a life. Well, he didn’t own a life.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now of course, If my neighbor doesn’t even own himself then he certainly doesn’t own me. And since he doesn’t own himself, if I kill him while he attempts to take something I produced, I haven’t even taken a life. Well, he didn’t own a life.[/quote]
Well, this is a valid point.
He may have not owned his own life, then who did?
Whose right have you violated?
A great post deserves a great riposte. If you want a less infantile response, make a less infantile statement.
[quote]One can not develop (completely) according to their own wishes within the collective.
A “collective” would indicate a center of power (see coercion) that is benefitting, in some manner, from the labor of individuals within the collective. Whether it be in the production of goods or in concentrations of wealth/power.
Complete individual development and socialism cannot exist within the same economic system.[/quote]
Once you cease making random a priori musings, let me know.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You’re right. Large-scale plunder and thievery are much more efficient than actually doing things from scratch.
Well obviously this doesn’t happen within socialist economic systems.
Never![/quote]
Well actually, it hasn’t really. If you want to try and dig up something even approaching British and American (for instance) exploitation of their empires, be my guest.
[quote]orion wrote:Well I am pretty sure I know what I am talking about. There are billions of goods and services out there and people differ when it comes to ambition and talents, so how could you possibly know how reward whom how much?
The market does that quite efficiently, because you are only rewarded if you produce stuff people actually want enough to buy. Therefore the more you satisfy peoples demands the richer you get. You cannot simply abolish markets without abolishing price signals and from then on you are flying blind.[/quote]
First of all, AIG and Bank of American (among others) are on track to pay out hundreds of milions of dollars in bonuses. If you say that they are getting these massive rewards because they have “satisfied people’s demands,” then I say you’re delusional. At this point, the only way they could satisfy people’s demands would be with their heads on pikes.
Second of all, I don’t think there are many people who propose to instantly (or even quickly) do away with markets. Abolishing private ownership helps a lot by itself. Supply and demand and the rest of the normal market functions are still there. There would be more planning on a local level, and this would probably increase as time goes on. However, for most everyday consumer goods, there is little need to micromanage production.
This sounds like a typical insane right-wing rant against some imagined socialist proposal that no one is really making. Socialists (well, most–there are tons of left sects, as I’m sure you’re aware) have long warned against the dangers of concentrating power in the manner you suggest. Indeed, that’s really more or less the whole point. I’ll just assume we misunderstood each other.
Lift: You want people to act and behave according to rules they may not agree with. How do you solve that?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Lift: You want people to act and behave according to rules they may not agree with. How do you solve that? [/quote]
Don’t we have to act according to the rules of society anyway? Then should they not at least be consistent with the laws of nature? We can argue what those laws are but still we require a peaceful venue to do so…
All I am suggesting is that people recognize the fact that they own their own life; and if they do this then they have to recognize the consequences otherwise it is a fruitless endeavor.
There is no simple solution, really. People either want to live peacefully or they do not. I am merely offering a suggestion that would allow peace to flourish.
There can be no utopia but the least people can do is take responsibility for their own lives. They can do this under the arm of coercive authority or under their own volition in peaceful society but it still has to be done one way or the other.
There is no free lunch.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Dustin wrote:Great rebuttal.
A great post deserves a great riposte. If you want a less infantile response, make a less infantile statement.
One can not develop (completely) according to their own wishes within the collective.
A “collective” would indicate a center of power (see coercion) that is benefitting, in some manner, from the labor of individuals within the collective. Whether it be in the production of goods or in concentrations of wealth/power.
Complete individual development and socialism cannot exist within the same economic system.
Once you cease making random a priori musings, let me know.
[/quote]
Infantile? Well in that case you should have no problem providing examples to show how socialism allows individuals to develop according to their wishes.