Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population? (Read 893 times)
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3538
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Reply #50 - Mar 3rd, 2018 at 5:16pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 12:05pm:
I would never say that, and I'd be happy to pay to use private roads if there were any around here worth riding on, which there aren't.


There never will be as long as we keep allowing government to steal from us to build roads.  Put a stop to that practice and roads will be efficient, well maintained and theft-free whether run by government or private sector.




  

"Taxes are morally justified theft" - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Reply #51 - Mar 3rd, 2018 at 5:30pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 5:16pm:
There never will be as long as we keep allowing government to steal from us to build roads.  Put a stop to that practice and roads will be efficient, well maintained and theft-free whether run by government or private sector.




Ha ha. I've been reading Robert Poole and his associates for decades.

Prohibit taxation and our roads will turn to even worse shit than they are now, when when we  pay our governments gazillions of dollars to maintain them.

Privatize as many roads as is feasible, but don't just abandon the rest of them because you think taxation is theft you anarchist asshole.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7492
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Reply #52 - Mar 3rd, 2018 at 5:31pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 8:15am:
I disagree that there is any real difference between wants and needs.


For the purposes of who "should" have what, I agree. For the purposes of bargaining, you have to understand that the person who has land (let's say a farm) has an advantage. He doesn't need the labour. He can work himself if he wants to. The labourer needs the job to live.

The owner of the farm knows the landless labourer won't say no to subsistence. As my article shows, absent welfare, the landless labourer is a worse than a serf, because she can't even make enough to replace herself through reproduction.

Freedom can work well, but only in a world where everyone has enough land to subsist, including self-replacement through reproduction. The owner of a factory or a big farm must then offer the labourer better than subsistence if he wants the labour.

You're the one who points out that land is different than other commodities. I vehemently agree.

Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 8:15am:
That being said, labor is just as much a part of the production process as capital. If the owner can operate his capital alone, he's not in the social relationship that Marx described capital as.  The reason an owner of capital almost always has more money than his workers is that the ability to accumulate capital in the form of land and equipment is much more rare than the ability to operate that equipment or land.

But any factory owner having a lean month of sales will pay his workers first and if that means he takes no profit this month, so be it.  If the checks don't go out, the workers don't come back and his factory gathers dust.


This assumes they can relatively easily go elsewhere. I think it's a big assumption that the work force in a local area will simply absorb an entire factory's worth of workers.

Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 8:15am:
Of course and it is American students.  Medical schools turn down thousands of very highly qualified college graduates who wind up becoming dentists, chiropractors, eye doctors, etc.  Often by taking their fallback choice, they push students whose life goal was to enter those fields out of the running for those schools.  Every time we import a foreign student for American medical school, an American gets pushed out, even though she and her parents have been paying taxes to support that school and the foreigner has not.

Does any other country treat its citizens that way?


Other countries put the Citizen first, which is wrong. At least, it's wrong if we do it. I see a lot of push from American libertarians that we must accept all comers, and that Britain must do so (this effectively rules out the idea that they think that can only impose on their own country), but I don't hear a peep out of them about repealing Sharia Law in Muslim countries.

I don't agree that in a world where medical care is already priced to exclude many people, that the very best at all costs should be a priority. Unfortunately, our civil litigation system (which is very libertarian; Rothbard says it should be the only legal system) is going to prevent a less-than-perfect doctor from giving less-than-perfect care, even to someone who will die otherwise.

The government is not needed to enforce this guild's monopoly. The civil lawsuit system will do that just fine. No license = sued. Sued, every time someone doesn't get better. "Oh look, he left a HIDEOUS SCAR when he removed my appendix!" Sued. And the Sally-Sue-Yous will win, too. Reason? No license. Not accredited. The licensing is the only thing that stops these sorts of lawsuits from plaguing every doctor.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Reply #53 - Mar 3rd, 2018 at 5:51pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 5:31pm:
For the purposes of who "should" have what, I agree.
Who should have what? Will it be you who decides? What a bad idea.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7492
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Reply #54 - Mar 3rd, 2018 at 5:55pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 5:51pm:
Who should have what? Will it be you who decides? What a bad idea.


Nobody decides. That's why I'm agreeing. If it's your money, do what you like with it. Need versus want is irrelevant.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Reply #55 - Mar 3rd, 2018 at 5:59pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 5:55pm:
Nobody decides. That's why I'm agreeing. If it's your money, do what you like with it. Need versus want is irrelevant.
Make up your minds.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3538
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Reply #56 - Mar 3rd, 2018 at 6:04pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 5:31pm:
For the purposes of who "should" have what, I agree. For the purposes of bargaining, you have to understand that the person who has land (let's say a farm) has an advantage. He doesn't need the labour. He can work himself if he wants to. The labourer needs the job to live.

The owner of the farm knows the landless labourer won't say no to subsistence. As my article shows, absent welfare, the landless labourer is a worse than a serf, because she can't even make enough to replace herself through reproduction.


That may be a little static reasoning.  Currently a laborer is willing to work at subsistence wages knowing that government will provide for other wants such as medical care and the ability to have and rear children.  Government provides that to legal citizens and illegal aliens through programs such as WIC, Obamacare, SNAP, etc, which are available to the "working poor."

Take those things away and see whether they are still willing to work for wages that don't pay for their children's food.  I'd bet landowners would pay additional wages rather than try to pick all the damn cotton themselves.  Especially if they are no longer being taxed for all the government bennies.

Quote:
Freedom can work well, but only in a world where everyone has enough land to subsist, including self-replacement through reproduction. The owner of a factory or a big farm must then offer the labourer better than subsistence if he wants the labour.

You're the one who points out that land is different than other commodities. I vehemently agree.


Interesting.

Ownership of land is impossible without government, which was my point about why the Single Tax (only the unimproved value of land is taxed) is one of the few "taxes" that are not theft.   That was my only point about land, but you may have a good one also. 

When the government grants or sells land to an individual, it takes the  right to access and use that land from every other individual on earth.  That's why we allow things like imminent domain though which that right can be transferred against the will of the original grantee and/or his heirs and assigns.  One family owning thousands of acres because their ancestors "claimed it first" while others can't afford a parcel of land to grow food for themselves doesn't seem the basis of freedom. 

Again, I'm just now thinking about this.  Maybe land can be taxed when owners die.  Not in money, but in a percent of the land taken by government to be used by the public, or claimed in small parcels to people who want to subsistence farm. 


  

"Taxes are morally justified theft" - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Reply #57 - Mar 3rd, 2018 at 6:09pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 6:04pm:
Again, I'm just now thinking about this.  Maybe land can be taxed when owners die.

You've been talking about it forever, and you just now started to think? Cheesy

Do you know this Sickler person? Do you think we should be worried about him?

Is anybody who parrots classical liberal ideas dangerous? Should they all be killed?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7492
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Reply #58 - Mar 3rd, 2018 at 9:24pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 6:04pm:
That may be a little static reasoning.  Currently a laborer is willing to work at subsistence wages knowing that government will provide for other wants such as medical care and the ability to have and rear children.  Government provides that to legal citizens and illegal aliens through programs such as WIC, Obamacare, SNAP, etc, which are available to the "working poor."

Take those things away and see whether they are still willing to work for wages that don't pay for their children's food.


I gave you an example, and the answer is yes. They will work for whatever they are paid. I will link the article again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/us/disneyland-employees-wages.html
Quote:
“Every time we get to the end of the month, I have to choose what bills to pay,” she said. “We want kids, but there’s no way we’re going to do that when we can barely afford to feed ourselves.”


Not on welfare = subsistence and no children. If you don't get welfare, as a labourer, you can't afford children.

I even proved that competition will necessitate this for unskilled labour. Why should the employer pay enough to support a child when another worker will work for subsistence?

1. Subsistence without the financial means to have children is already a reality for many labourers.

2. Competition necessitates this process of wage lowering toward subsistence and no children.

Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 6:04pm:
I'd bet landowners would pay additional wages rather than try to pick all the damn cotton themselves.


Why should they? The condition for most of the world is starvation. If one worker wants more than subsistence, the land owner can say no thanks, because one will come along willing to work for subsistence.

Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 6:04pm:
When the government grants or sells land to an individual, it takes the right to access and use that land from every other individual on earth.  That's why we allow things like imminent domain though which that right can be transferred against the will of the original grantee and/or his heirs and assigns.  One family owning thousands of acres because their ancestors "claimed it first" while others can't afford a parcel of land to grow food for themselves doesn't seem the basis of freedom.


Just remember, you said it, not me. It was John Locke who said that when you claim land, you must leave enough and as good for others. Since people are now being born into a world where all the land is claimed, and there is none for them to claim, I would say that someone must have violated the Lockean Proviso.

What's also interesting is that when people all actually had these parcels of land, and the Industrial Revolution started, wages were so high that the farmer could make much more money working in factories than they could by farming.

This supports my theory that when and only when you can say no to the factory job and live, bargaining power is equalised, and the factory must offer more than subsistence.

However, the former farmers, content in their high-paying factory jobs, got rid of their land. They didn't need it. Whoops!

It was then that wages fell and philosophers like Marx started saying that the labourer was necessarily doomed to subsistence in a capitalistic economy.

I believe the unlanded labourer is, in fact, doomed to never make more than subsistence. I'd be happy with that if it was enough for children, but as the article proves, it is not.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Reply #59 - Mar 4th, 2018 at 8:04am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 9:24pm:
I believe the unlanded labourer is, in fact, doomed to never make more than subsistence.
Out here in the real world, lots of people like me labored to earn money, saved and invested some of it, and bought land.

Some of my earliest jobs involved working with people who were professional laborers. Because they were good at the types of labor they performed, they earned enough money to save and invest some, and they bought land.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Can Pure Libertarian Capitalism Destroy a Population?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy