Political Philosophy

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1283051967' post='2164767']
I've got no problem in theory with some kind of voluntary socialist commune (although I'd never participate in one), but what if, as a skilled entrepreneur or businessman or all around lucky person, I come into a fair bit of wealth and would rather own and operate a private firm, or contribute startup capital to a public firm? Under a "libertarian socialist" system, apparently I don't deserve that wealth in the first place because it actually belongs to the workers I hired as an entrepreneur or businessman.
[/quote]
If both sides agree in the contract, and if you can get some sort of powerful entity to enforce the contract, then you can have it. Mutualist argue though, that the State largely undermines the bargaining power of workers in the current system, as capital investors benefits a lot from State intervention, especially the guarantee of the central banking system by socializing it to the public at large.

Edited August 29, 2010 by un.privileged

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283052270' post='2164771']
A corporation or the modern business Corporations? Modern Corporations would not have so many power as it has right now without plenty protections, subsidy, and guarantee by the State.


How are they going to maintain protection of a multi-million dollar multinational oil firm without State privileges such as Corporate personhood and limited liability of tort? How would they survive without the systematic power given by the State to exclude the workers from ownership and control. The Church says workers has the right for ownership of the means of production. The modern Corporations as you know has gained most of their strength from the State. Have you even tried reading the Chapter that I recommended to you?

How do I prevent a killing of a person which I actively authorized, subsidize, protect, and guarantee? Stop authorizing, subsidizing, protecting, and guaranteeing it!
[/quote]
Are you saying that firms cannot operate without our legal system? I don't think that's the case at all. One could make a case that they couldn't exist without enforced property rights, although that's not really what we're discussing anyway. All a firm does is produce a product and offer it for sale.

Sure workers have the right to ownership. They can buy whatever they want. Nothing is stopping them. They can buy stocks in a public company, they can buy means of production and start their own business, they can do whatever they want with their own money.
They don't however, have the right to something simply by virtue of existing near it. If I hire you to harvest my crops for fifteen dollars an hour, you have no right to any portion of my crops, or my machinery, or my fields. You have the right to fifteen dollars an hour, and you can use that to buy my machinery or fields or crops, or someone else's.

A corporation or firm is just this on a larger (sometimes much larger) scale. Hiring and firing, buying and selling, producing and consuming. It's not that terribly complicated, IMO.

Btw, I don't know what point you're trying to make with your authorizing subsidizing protecting and whatever.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283052674' post='2164773']
If both sides agree in the contract, and if you can get somebody to enforce the contract, then you can have it. Mutualist argue though, that the State largely undermines the bargaining power of workers in the current system.
[/quote]
If both sides agree on a mutually beneficial contract, nobody needs to enforce it.

The problem with socialism is that it doesn't recognize that a contract can be mutually beneficial. Economics is not a game of winners and losers. Capitalism is, far (far far far far far) more often than not a question of winners and way bigger winners.

[Nihil Obstat]

To clear things up, I take the side of Austrian economics which would keep the state completely out of the marketplace. You sound like you're assuming that I am arguing in favour of government subsidies or protections for businesses. I am not.

[Winchester]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283049967' post='2164748']
It is not administered by any kind of state. Distribution of wealth is directly done in the process of production itself, owned by the workers (e.g. Co-operatives), not the State. What is wrong with you? I think taxing is a legalized theft. There is [i]Stateless[/i] Socialism you know, it preceded Marxism. It is completely voluntary, no guns involved. Have you even read the Benjamin Tucker's quote I provided to you?

[indent]"The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor. "
[/indent]
[/quote]
So the workers become the state.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1283053076' post='2164779']
So the workers become the state.
[/quote]

Which clearly cannot be, because, "L'etat, nous sommes." Kind of like "We are Church." Special.

~Sternhauser

Edited August 29, 2010 by Sternhauser

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1283052815' post='2164775']
If both sides agree on a mutually beneficial contract, nobody needs to enforce it.

The problem with socialism is that it doesn't recognize that a contract can be mutually beneficial. Economics is not a game of winners and losers. Capitalism is, far (far far far far far) more often than not a question of winners and way bigger winners.
[/quote]
If it is truly mutually beneficial, than Libertarian Socialist has no problem with it. But State policies that promotes centralization of private property in the hands of the few elite (non-workers), really hurts the bargaining power of worker, and greatly reduces a mutually benefit contract. In the actually-existing-capitalism, The State intervenes a lot in behalf of capital investors in the expense of the majority.

Edited August 29, 2010 by un.privileged

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1283052885' post='2164777']
To clear things up, I take the side of Austrian economics which would keep the state completely out of the marketplace. You sound like you're assuming that I am arguing in favour of government subsidies or protections for businesses. I am not.
[/quote]
Then I am on your side in terms of this. Libertarian Socialist is not against a free market. It is though, against a Capitalist model of a market, however it would tolerate its existence as long it is purely voluntary.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283053956' post='2164795']
Then I am on your side in terms of this. Libertarian Socialist is not against a free market. It is though, against a Capitalist model of a market, however it would tolerate its existence as long it is purely voluntary.
[/quote]
The state has no place in a pure capitalist system. The state has corrupted the operating of the free market.

[un.privileged]

[quote]
Sure workers have the right to ownership. They can buy whatever they want. Nothing is stopping them. They can buy stocks in a public company, they can buy means of production and start their own business, they can do whatever they want with their own money.
They don't however, have the right to something simply by virtue of existing near it. If I hire you to harvest my crops for fifteen dollars an hour, you have no right to any portion of my crops, or my machinery, or my fields. You have the right to fifteen dollars an hour, and you can use that to buy my machinery or fields or crops, or someone else's.[/quote]
If you legitimately owned the crops then I agree (as in it was a result of your own labor or homesteading). However in a truly free society, I would have my own crops to harvest. Thanks for the offer though.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283054475' post='2164804']
If you legitimately owned the crops then I agree (as in it was a result of your own labor or homesteading). However in a truly free society, I would have my own crops to harvest. Thanks for the offer though.
[/quote]
In a truly free society, you'd own crops if you had the money to own crops, or if your family owned them before. Why does a truly free society require that all people own land?

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1283054165' post='2164800']
The state has no place in a pure capitalist system. The state has corrupted the operating of the free market.
[/quote]
Our disagreements here are purely semantics. I argue, that "Capitalism" as it have actually existed, is a product of a massive State intervention. The word "Capitalism" that I use is a model of production where labor is subordinated to Capital, and where the role of Private Property is absolutized. As the Church has taught, I believe that Capital should serve labor instead the other way around.

But I don't mind if you want to use the word "Capitalism" as a purely voluntary exchange system. I wouldn't have the right to coerce you

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283054843' post='2164810']
Our disagreements here are purely semantics. I argue, that "Capitalism" as it have actually existed, is a product of a massive State intervention. The word "Capitalism" that I use is a model of production where labor is subordinated to Capital, and where the role of Private Property is absolutized. As the Church has taught, I believe that Capital should serve labor instead the other way around.

But I don't mind if you want to use the word "Capitalism" as a purely voluntary exchange system. I wouldn't have the right to coerce you
[/quote]
All right, well this mostly works for me.

I'd add a caveat though, that many encyclicals and other statements made by the Church in regards to economics and social justice appear to be predicated on a somewhat flawed understanding of economics. The morals are all rock solid, as we know they must be, but since The Church is not infallible in economic matters, it is possible (and IMO the reality) that there are certain misunderstandings present.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283054843' post='2164810']
Our disagreements here are purely semantics. I argue, that "Capitalism" as it have actually existed, is a product of a massive State intervention. The word "Capitalism" that I use is a model of production where labor is subordinated to Capital, and where the role of Private Property is absolutized. As the Church has taught, I believe that Capital should serve labor instead the other way around.

But I don't mind if you want to use the word "Capitalism" as a purely voluntary exchange system. I wouldn't have the right to coerce you
[/quote]

He's using the term correctly. You should be using the word "Corporatism" for your purposes.

~Sternhauser

[un.privileged]

Austro-Libertarian Sheldon Richman explains Capitalism vs the Free Market
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSvoj76NRLM[/media]
From "The Future of Freedom Foundation" website
[url="http://www.fff.org/freedom/0193b.asp"]Historical Capitalism vs The Free Market[/url]

I guess it could be fairly said that in the United States, "Socialism" is a swear word, synonymous with State Socialism. In the third world countries, or even Europe, "Capitalism" is a swear word identical to State Capitalism. For a lot of people, what have been refereed to "Capitalism", is State Protectionism and Welfarism for the rich in the expense of the poor.

Edited August 29, 2010 by un.privileged