Comment on How capitalism works by 13VAK
"The irony is that is what capitalism encourages - those with the capital (the landlords and aristocracy) don't need to do anything to maintain, or even better, their position, they merely use their resources to exploit (loot off) others via rent and interest."
The big problem with the rent example is the landlord has to contend with hundreds of other landlords trying to convince people to rent their land instead of his. In order to compete the landlord has to lower his prices until, one the other landlords stop lowering their prices, or two it no longer becomes profitable to lower the price further.
"to maintain their privileged position (free-markets do slightly mitigate this, granted, but those with more capital are always at a starting advantage, and hence disparities between those with more capital and those with less only increases over time)."
First of all most people do not start out their working life in the privileged class. Most start out in low paying jobs and wages considered to be in poverty. As they get older and more experienced they become more valuable workers and attain higher paying wages. Most people don't stay in poverty. Over 90% of the people in the bottom 10% in 1975 are are no longer their today. About 30% are in the top 10%. They are then replaced by young people and immigrants.
The markets are not a zero sum gain. In order to get dollars I need to PRODUCE(add to the economy)goods and services people want. Also keep in mind the good and services tangibly is worth more than dollars. Physically a dollar is pretty worthless, it's basically an IOU, but it solves the problem of trying to save up for something with parishable goods, and trying to barter with things not everyone wants. Even if a company has more dollars it does not have more wealth.
"Significance is subjective; the key point here though is the difference between private property and personal possession. Anarchism isn't against ownership, merely against people inalienably owning the means of production (land in particular) - that is, against allowing people to dictate the use of those resources that they themselves do not use. A person may own the crops he grows, for example, but not the land he uses to grow them; a person may let someone else improve the land, but he must still grow his own crops."
There are problem with someone not being able to own land. One is you end up with the tragedy of the common. Lets say you have a pasture their is only so much grass on that pasture. In order to not lose the vital grass to other livestock farmers you have your livestock eat as much grass as possible enough people do this and their is no more grass the land becomes useless. If you have private property then the farmer who owns is free to use it sustainably without fear of someone else getting the resource. If he can't utilize all the resources efficiently and sustainably than he may rent part of his land to someone else. The land owner gets some sort of share of the profit, and person renting has land to make a profit in the first place. Also if you had people competing for resources with out clear definition of who owns them this inevitably leads to conflict. Also if one did not have rights over his factory that produces and the right to profit from it then he may not have incentive to build it in the first place. Property rights even land property is essential for a prospering society.
"Improve is subjective; as above, no-one has a right to evict you from your home or take your crops - you have no right to stop others from using your home for shelter your absence, though, or to grow crops on your land. Within reason, to be fair - ideally communities would agree upon (temporary and circumstance-dependent) guidelines whereby housing/land reverts to common-usage after a certain period of time."
Lots of problems with this, we can cite whats above, but also, If I'm the one producing the crops, what is to prevent someone from taking as much as they want, or using what I perceive as bad practices of growing crops? If someone uses my home they do not incur the cost of maintaining it. It disincentives my production. Much of what you say is antithesis of true anarchy. You still have government(force) instead of the hands of elected officials, it's now in the hands of the mob rule of the community. Someone needs to use force to enforce those regulations? And remember these regulations go against freedom. Aren't anarchist all about freedom?
Check out this [link] and I recommend you watch part six Anarcho-Capitalism. You advocate Communal Socialism not anarchy.
I think I've already answered the last two parts.
I think what is important is you need to define your idea of capitalism. Cause from what I'm reading your definition of capitalism is different from mine and davyjames.
The big problem with the rent example is the landlord has to contend with hundreds of other landlords trying to convince people to rent their land instead of his. In order to compete the landlord has to lower his prices until, one the other landlords stop lowering their prices, or two it no longer becomes profitable to lower the price further.
"to maintain their privileged position (free-markets do slightly mitigate this, granted, but those with more capital are always at a starting advantage, and hence disparities between those with more capital and those with less only increases over time)."
First of all most people do not start out their working life in the privileged class. Most start out in low paying jobs and wages considered to be in poverty. As they get older and more experienced they become more valuable workers and attain higher paying wages. Most people don't stay in poverty. Over 90% of the people in the bottom 10% in 1975 are are no longer their today. About 30% are in the top 10%. They are then replaced by young people and immigrants.
The markets are not a zero sum gain. In order to get dollars I need to PRODUCE(add to the economy)goods and services people want. Also keep in mind the good and services tangibly is worth more than dollars. Physically a dollar is pretty worthless, it's basically an IOU, but it solves the problem of trying to save up for something with parishable goods, and trying to barter with things not everyone wants. Even if a company has more dollars it does not have more wealth.
"Significance is subjective; the key point here though is the difference between private property and personal possession. Anarchism isn't against ownership, merely against people inalienably owning the means of production (land in particular) - that is, against allowing people to dictate the use of those resources that they themselves do not use. A person may own the crops he grows, for example, but not the land he uses to grow them; a person may let someone else improve the land, but he must still grow his own crops."
There are problem with someone not being able to own land. One is you end up with the tragedy of the common. Lets say you have a pasture their is only so much grass on that pasture. In order to not lose the vital grass to other livestock farmers you have your livestock eat as much grass as possible enough people do this and their is no more grass the land becomes useless. If you have private property then the farmer who owns is free to use it sustainably without fear of someone else getting the resource. If he can't utilize all the resources efficiently and sustainably than he may rent part of his land to someone else. The land owner gets some sort of share of the profit, and person renting has land to make a profit in the first place. Also if you had people competing for resources with out clear definition of who owns them this inevitably leads to conflict. Also if one did not have rights over his factory that produces and the right to profit from it then he may not have incentive to build it in the first place. Property rights even land property is essential for a prospering society.
"Improve is subjective; as above, no-one has a right to evict you from your home or take your crops - you have no right to stop others from using your home for shelter your absence, though, or to grow crops on your land. Within reason, to be fair - ideally communities would agree upon (temporary and circumstance-dependent) guidelines whereby housing/land reverts to common-usage after a certain period of time."
Lots of problems with this, we can cite whats above, but also, If I'm the one producing the crops, what is to prevent someone from taking as much as they want, or using what I perceive as bad practices of growing crops? If someone uses my home they do not incur the cost of maintaining it. It disincentives my production. Much of what you say is antithesis of true anarchy. You still have government(force) instead of the hands of elected officials, it's now in the hands of the mob rule of the community. Someone needs to use force to enforce those regulations? And remember these regulations go against freedom. Aren't anarchist all about freedom?
Check out this [link] and I recommend you watch part six Anarcho-Capitalism. You advocate Communal Socialism not anarchy.
I think I've already answered the last two parts.
I think what is important is you need to define your idea of capitalism. Cause from what I'm reading your definition of capitalism is different from mine and davyjames.
"The big problem with the rent example is the landlord has to contend with hundreds of other landlords trying to convince people to rent their land instead of his. In order to compete the landlord has to lower his prices until, one the other landlords stop lowering their prices, or two it no longer becomes profitable to lower the price further."
As I said, it encourages - it doesn't necessarily succeed. However, it succeeds to the extent the land is monopolized.
"In order to get dollars I need to PRODUCE(add to the economy)goods and services people want."
Not true under capitalism - you can get others to produce for you, and pay them wages less than the price of the products; you can collect interest on said profits; you can collect rent on land you own.
"There are problem with someone not being able to own land. One is you end up with the tragedy of the common. Lets say you have a pasture their is only so much grass on that pasture. In order to not lose the vital grass to other livestock farmers you have your livestock eat as much grass as possible enough people do this and their is no more grass the land becomes useless."
You speak as though people are supremely self-centered and short-sighted - which is encouraged under capitalism, granted. The commons survived perfectly well in pre-Industrial England - so much so that the only way to enforce class monopoly was state intervention in privatizing the commons.
"If you have private property then the farmer who owns is free to use it sustainably without fear of someone else getting the resource."
Or is free to monopolize the means of life.
"If he can't utilize all the resources efficiently and sustainably than he may rent part of his land to someone else. The land owner gets some sort of share of the profit..."
Without the land-owner producing anything - directly contradicting your above statement.
"Lots of problems with this, we can cite whats above, but also, If I'm the one producing the crops, what is to prevent someone from taking as much as they want, or using what I perceive as bad practices of growing crops?"
Like I said, you do not have the right to take crops you do not grow - you are prevented by growers driving you off. No one can stop you using whatever practices you like - they can refuse to stop associating (including trading what they produce) with you, though.
"If someone uses my home they do not incur the cost of maintaining it."
If they're using it, it's their home.
"It disincentives my production."
What disincentives my production is having some of the value of my production taken by someone who has done no producing.
"Check out this [link] and I recommend you watch part six Anarcho-Capitalism. You advocate Communal Socialism not anarchy."
"Anarcho-Capitalism" is an oxymoron; anarchism is, and always has been, a socialist movement, opposed as it is to the alienation of the producer from the full value of their product.
"I think what is important is you need to define your idea of capitalism. Cause from what I'm reading your definition of capitalism is different from mine and davyjames."
Capitalism is primarily any system under which the means of production can be owned by someone other than the producer - that is, can be turned into capital - and secondarily such capital being used to generate profit - that is, capital accumulation.
As I said, it encourages - it doesn't necessarily succeed. However, it succeeds to the extent the land is monopolized.
"In order to get dollars I need to PRODUCE(add to the economy)goods and services people want."
Not true under capitalism - you can get others to produce for you, and pay them wages less than the price of the products; you can collect interest on said profits; you can collect rent on land you own.
"There are problem with someone not being able to own land. One is you end up with the tragedy of the common. Lets say you have a pasture their is only so much grass on that pasture. In order to not lose the vital grass to other livestock farmers you have your livestock eat as much grass as possible enough people do this and their is no more grass the land becomes useless."
You speak as though people are supremely self-centered and short-sighted - which is encouraged under capitalism, granted. The commons survived perfectly well in pre-Industrial England - so much so that the only way to enforce class monopoly was state intervention in privatizing the commons.
"If you have private property then the farmer who owns is free to use it sustainably without fear of someone else getting the resource."
Or is free to monopolize the means of life.
"If he can't utilize all the resources efficiently and sustainably than he may rent part of his land to someone else. The land owner gets some sort of share of the profit..."
Without the land-owner producing anything - directly contradicting your above statement.
"Lots of problems with this, we can cite whats above, but also, If I'm the one producing the crops, what is to prevent someone from taking as much as they want, or using what I perceive as bad practices of growing crops?"
Like I said, you do not have the right to take crops you do not grow - you are prevented by growers driving you off. No one can stop you using whatever practices you like - they can refuse to stop associating (including trading what they produce) with you, though.
"If someone uses my home they do not incur the cost of maintaining it."
If they're using it, it's their home.
"It disincentives my production."
What disincentives my production is having some of the value of my production taken by someone who has done no producing.
"Check out this [link] and I recommend you watch part six Anarcho-Capitalism. You advocate Communal Socialism not anarchy."
"Anarcho-Capitalism" is an oxymoron; anarchism is, and always has been, a socialist movement, opposed as it is to the alienation of the producer from the full value of their product.
"I think what is important is you need to define your idea of capitalism. Cause from what I'm reading your definition of capitalism is different from mine and davyjames."
Capitalism is primarily any system under which the means of production can be owned by someone other than the producer - that is, can be turned into capital - and secondarily such capital being used to generate profit - that is, capital accumulation.
You talk as if that land is the only land available, the world is a big place and no one can own all the land in the world, or own the rights to all of a resource. Unless some one world government gave someone the rights to it all, you're probably never going to see it. If someone prices to high for the land then no one will buy it, they'll buy land from someone who sells it cheaper. Greed is kept in check by fear of loss.
Here is why you don't always want the producer to be the one who owns and runs the land and factories. The producer will only produce what he knows how to produce. Their is only so much demand for certain products the products with higher demand will be more valuable. The non producing renter will rent the property to the person willing to pay the most. He is likely producing more than the others, or supplying a good or service with a higher demand. For example say John Doe is renting farmland. You have a guy who produces carrots and a guy who produces Turnips. They both cost the same to produce. But the Carrot's cost more due to higher demand. Who do you think is going to have more money the carrot producer. This is good because the carrot producer is providing goods that people want and the resource of land and maybe fertilizer and tools is more available to carrot producers. Nothing is wrong because the carrot producer agrees to the rent. Maybe a few years later Turnips cost more and the turnip farmer will be more likely to rent the land. Here is the problem with letting the producer run the land and factories. Do you think 400 workers can cooperatively manage a factory? Good luck getting ten people to agree on something. If you have multiple management you have conflicting interest. It is better to have one head who can make final decisions. Another problem is the workers may block out efficient practices that may cost jobs because they don't want to lose the job they have and find another. Consumer ends up paying more and society is more stagnant. The factory owner and manager will format the factory in order to make it as efficient as possible, he'll cut where it needs to be cut, he'll apply new technologies that make the products cheaper. He'll ensure the factory is as profitable as possible. As for the workers job the factory owner provides them and he should be able to cut them, only exception is unless under contract. If the workers who work there agree to work for the wage they have than all is fine. Think about the tractor. The tractor killed millions of farm jobs. If the farmers were in charge of the land they probably would never have let the tractor happen. But the tractor did happen it made food considerably cheaper and allowed people to spend their money on other things. This allowed for demand for factory goods, it freed up capital for investment in things like technology, the loss of farm jobs freed up labor for factory jobs. The economy completely re-organized for the better in the long run. No one could have possibly predicted all the results of the tractor. Only that it would produce more food, more efficiently. The free markets work in strange and mysterious ways.
When it comes to the tragedy of the commons maybe not everyone is short sighted, but chances are you're going to get people who are and you're going to likely have conflict over who gets how much grassland someone is going to try and take more than the others, people are greedy that way. Property rights contain ones greed within the property. There are a lot of issues with your commons argument. First historically commons are usually forced by government be it Feudal lords, village chiefs, or Soviet Commissars. Second I often hear socialist make the argument that government operated on behalf of the private company, sometimes this is true, but sometimes it isn't. I've never heard of a voluntary commons in England prior to industrialization. I'm going to need some sort of proof that they did exist, they weren't forced into existence, and that government actually destroyed them. I'm not saying you are lying, or ignorant I just need proof you aren't. But let's say voluntary common's did exist and government did destroy them. You say they existed in PRE - Industrial England. The industrial revolution greatly improved the lives of the average citizen. The property ownership allowed for strong executive decisions to be made and the application of technology that allowed for the most efficient and productive use of resources. If someone couldn't compete he had to sell the land to someone who would make better use of it. Communes were tried in the sixties by Hippies, they don't exist today anymore. I know the government didn't break them up. People realized that the communes were not as beneficial as work in the capitalist economy and left them. Essentially communes couldn't compete with capitalism that bring together are far greater array of resources.
Monopolies are hard to create and even harder to maintain. You're going to be hard pressed to find a monopoly that has lasted purely through the free markets. They only last when government is involved. Free trade with other countries also makes monopoly status in a market virtually impossible. And in order to maintain monopoly status in the free markets you have to keep the price of your goods low. AT&T is a good example, they had a monopoly on Telecommunications. Government then stopped protecting it. MCI came in with cheaper microwave communications and broke AT&T's monopoly. I think MCI later went onto buy AT&T.
It's nice to think that someone will stop associating with you over morals, but that is seldom the case. People will love themselves before morals, ethics, or even hate, the only thing that ever trumps loving oneself is loving your children. You may get your saints, but they're few and far between. Minimum wage didn't apply to blacks before civil rights. Black unemployment was lower than white unemployment. Texans produced beef, a large portion of that beef goes to New York I don't think Texans like New Yorkers, but New Yorkers are willing to pay for the beef and Texans don't care. Capitalism allows million of people around the world to produce a single product. People who don't speak the same language, don't have the same culture, don't have the same religion, but because of simple profit motive they make the resulting products for peoples enjoyment.
[link]
Onto the homes. If I'm the one who bought, built, and maintain the home shouldn't I be allowed to let whoever I want in. What if the other guy is an asshole and I don't want to live with him. What if I want to simply live alone. They maybe living in it, but their use of it increases maintenance cost of the home. One person will incur the cost of the homes maintenance cause the other guy knows he will, they may both manage to maintain the home, or both won't maintain it cause they think the other guy will. It's like saying I buy a car, but someone is allowed to use it. That other person is adding miles to the car. And because he didn't spend the time and money earning the car the other guy may use it more frivolously. If I can't have full rights of my car/home I may not have the incentive to work add to society, to then buy a home.
I don't know many people who care what other people earn, or how they earn it. Most are too busy and worried with their own situation. If they give labor for a wage they agree to then their is nothing wrong. What is really wrong is not being able to enjoy what you've already earned. For instance if the government taxes you too much. It creates disincentives to produce. Or someone being able to take and use your property. You may not work as hard for those things, cause you know you won't be able to fully own, or control those things, so why bother working for them.
Keep in mind that labor is a product. I'm giving the product of labor (which is subject to the rationing system of supply and demand) in exchange for money. It is no different than the store clerk asking for money in exchange for his item. Whatever the cost of the end product and remember million of people went into making that, my labor is only worth so much. And the value of stuff is subjective meaning it can change. Your wage is partly dependent on the cost of the item, but that is largely due to a greater need for that item and thus a greater need for worker to produce that product. Wage is determined by demand for your skills and ability to provide labor, and how many other people have the same, or greater skills and ability to provide the labor and willing to do it at a lower price.
[link]
Here is why you don't always want the producer to be the one who owns and runs the land and factories. The producer will only produce what he knows how to produce. Their is only so much demand for certain products the products with higher demand will be more valuable. The non producing renter will rent the property to the person willing to pay the most. He is likely producing more than the others, or supplying a good or service with a higher demand. For example say John Doe is renting farmland. You have a guy who produces carrots and a guy who produces Turnips. They both cost the same to produce. But the Carrot's cost more due to higher demand. Who do you think is going to have more money the carrot producer. This is good because the carrot producer is providing goods that people want and the resource of land and maybe fertilizer and tools is more available to carrot producers. Nothing is wrong because the carrot producer agrees to the rent. Maybe a few years later Turnips cost more and the turnip farmer will be more likely to rent the land. Here is the problem with letting the producer run the land and factories. Do you think 400 workers can cooperatively manage a factory? Good luck getting ten people to agree on something. If you have multiple management you have conflicting interest. It is better to have one head who can make final decisions. Another problem is the workers may block out efficient practices that may cost jobs because they don't want to lose the job they have and find another. Consumer ends up paying more and society is more stagnant. The factory owner and manager will format the factory in order to make it as efficient as possible, he'll cut where it needs to be cut, he'll apply new technologies that make the products cheaper. He'll ensure the factory is as profitable as possible. As for the workers job the factory owner provides them and he should be able to cut them, only exception is unless under contract. If the workers who work there agree to work for the wage they have than all is fine. Think about the tractor. The tractor killed millions of farm jobs. If the farmers were in charge of the land they probably would never have let the tractor happen. But the tractor did happen it made food considerably cheaper and allowed people to spend their money on other things. This allowed for demand for factory goods, it freed up capital for investment in things like technology, the loss of farm jobs freed up labor for factory jobs. The economy completely re-organized for the better in the long run. No one could have possibly predicted all the results of the tractor. Only that it would produce more food, more efficiently. The free markets work in strange and mysterious ways.
When it comes to the tragedy of the commons maybe not everyone is short sighted, but chances are you're going to get people who are and you're going to likely have conflict over who gets how much grassland someone is going to try and take more than the others, people are greedy that way. Property rights contain ones greed within the property. There are a lot of issues with your commons argument. First historically commons are usually forced by government be it Feudal lords, village chiefs, or Soviet Commissars. Second I often hear socialist make the argument that government operated on behalf of the private company, sometimes this is true, but sometimes it isn't. I've never heard of a voluntary commons in England prior to industrialization. I'm going to need some sort of proof that they did exist, they weren't forced into existence, and that government actually destroyed them. I'm not saying you are lying, or ignorant I just need proof you aren't. But let's say voluntary common's did exist and government did destroy them. You say they existed in PRE - Industrial England. The industrial revolution greatly improved the lives of the average citizen. The property ownership allowed for strong executive decisions to be made and the application of technology that allowed for the most efficient and productive use of resources. If someone couldn't compete he had to sell the land to someone who would make better use of it. Communes were tried in the sixties by Hippies, they don't exist today anymore. I know the government didn't break them up. People realized that the communes were not as beneficial as work in the capitalist economy and left them. Essentially communes couldn't compete with capitalism that bring together are far greater array of resources.
Monopolies are hard to create and even harder to maintain. You're going to be hard pressed to find a monopoly that has lasted purely through the free markets. They only last when government is involved. Free trade with other countries also makes monopoly status in a market virtually impossible. And in order to maintain monopoly status in the free markets you have to keep the price of your goods low. AT&T is a good example, they had a monopoly on Telecommunications. Government then stopped protecting it. MCI came in with cheaper microwave communications and broke AT&T's monopoly. I think MCI later went onto buy AT&T.
It's nice to think that someone will stop associating with you over morals, but that is seldom the case. People will love themselves before morals, ethics, or even hate, the only thing that ever trumps loving oneself is loving your children. You may get your saints, but they're few and far between. Minimum wage didn't apply to blacks before civil rights. Black unemployment was lower than white unemployment. Texans produced beef, a large portion of that beef goes to New York I don't think Texans like New Yorkers, but New Yorkers are willing to pay for the beef and Texans don't care. Capitalism allows million of people around the world to produce a single product. People who don't speak the same language, don't have the same culture, don't have the same religion, but because of simple profit motive they make the resulting products for peoples enjoyment.
[link]
Onto the homes. If I'm the one who bought, built, and maintain the home shouldn't I be allowed to let whoever I want in. What if the other guy is an asshole and I don't want to live with him. What if I want to simply live alone. They maybe living in it, but their use of it increases maintenance cost of the home. One person will incur the cost of the homes maintenance cause the other guy knows he will, they may both manage to maintain the home, or both won't maintain it cause they think the other guy will. It's like saying I buy a car, but someone is allowed to use it. That other person is adding miles to the car. And because he didn't spend the time and money earning the car the other guy may use it more frivolously. If I can't have full rights of my car/home I may not have the incentive to work add to society, to then buy a home.
I don't know many people who care what other people earn, or how they earn it. Most are too busy and worried with their own situation. If they give labor for a wage they agree to then their is nothing wrong. What is really wrong is not being able to enjoy what you've already earned. For instance if the government taxes you too much. It creates disincentives to produce. Or someone being able to take and use your property. You may not work as hard for those things, cause you know you won't be able to fully own, or control those things, so why bother working for them.
Keep in mind that labor is a product. I'm giving the product of labor (which is subject to the rationing system of supply and demand) in exchange for money. It is no different than the store clerk asking for money in exchange for his item. Whatever the cost of the end product and remember million of people went into making that, my labor is only worth so much. And the value of stuff is subjective meaning it can change. Your wage is partly dependent on the cost of the item, but that is largely due to a greater need for that item and thus a greater need for worker to produce that product. Wage is determined by demand for your skills and ability to provide labor, and how many other people have the same, or greater skills and ability to provide the labor and willing to do it at a lower price.
[link]
"You talk as if that land is the only land available, the world is a big place and no one can own all the land in the world, or own the rights to all of a resource.
You talk as if nation states have not laid claim to the rights of all the land in the world.
"Here is why you don't always want the producer to be the one who owns and runs the land and factories. The producer will only produce what he knows how to produce."
Hence the need for co-operative production.
"Do you think 400 workers can cooperatively manage a factory?
Yes. For example, the CNT during the Spanish Civil War.
"When it comes to the tragedy of the commons maybe not everyone is short sighted, but chances are you're going to get people who are and you're going to likely have conflict over who gets how much grassland someone is going to try and take more than the others, people are greedy that way."
Hence the need for resistance.
"First historically commons are usually forced by government be it Feudal lords, village chiefs, or Soviet Commissars.... I've never heard of a voluntary commons in England prior to industrialization. I'm going to need some sort of proof that they did exist, they weren't forced into existence, and that government actually destroyed them. I'm not saying you are lying, or ignorant I just need proof you aren't. But let's say voluntary common's did exist and government did destroy them."
Enclosure
"Second I often hear socialist make the argument that government operated on behalf of the private company, sometimes this is true, but sometimes it isn't."
I'm having trouble parsing that, but I'm not saying all states are operated on behalf of corporations.
"Communes were tried in the sixties by Hippies, they don't exist today anymore."
Communes around the world
"Monopolies are hard to create and even harder to maintain. You're going to be hard pressed to find a monopoly that has lasted purely through the free markets."
I'll let you know when someone shows me a purely free market.
-
"It's nice to think that someone will stop associating with you over morals, but that is seldom the case."
Probably why I don't think it - I think people will stop associating with people they realize threaten their way of life via misuse of resources and attempts at enforcing monopoly.
"If I'm the one who bought, built, and maintain the home shouldn't I be allowed to let whoever I want in. What if the other guy is an asshole and I don't want to live with him. What if I want to simply live alone. They maybe living in it, but their use of it increases maintenance cost of the home. One person will incur the cost of the homes maintenance cause the other guy knows he will, they may both manage to maintain the home, or both won't maintain it cause they think the other guy will."
Maintain a room for yourself; you're free to do only maintenance that benefits yourself.
"It's like saying I buy a car, but someone is allowed to use it. That other person is adding miles to the car. And because he didn't spend the time and money earning the car the other guy may use it more frivolously."
He has to pay for its maintenance if he's using it; he's not going to treat it frivolously if he plans on using it for long.
"I don't know many people who care what other people earn, or how they earn it. Most are too busy and worried with their own situation."
I know a few people who realize that what other people earn, and how they earn it, directly affects their situation.
"Keep in mind that labor is a product."
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree there.
You talk as if nation states have not laid claim to the rights of all the land in the world.
"Here is why you don't always want the producer to be the one who owns and runs the land and factories. The producer will only produce what he knows how to produce."
Hence the need for co-operative production.
"Do you think 400 workers can cooperatively manage a factory?
Yes. For example, the CNT during the Spanish Civil War.
"When it comes to the tragedy of the commons maybe not everyone is short sighted, but chances are you're going to get people who are and you're going to likely have conflict over who gets how much grassland someone is going to try and take more than the others, people are greedy that way."
Hence the need for resistance.
"First historically commons are usually forced by government be it Feudal lords, village chiefs, or Soviet Commissars.... I've never heard of a voluntary commons in England prior to industrialization. I'm going to need some sort of proof that they did exist, they weren't forced into existence, and that government actually destroyed them. I'm not saying you are lying, or ignorant I just need proof you aren't. But let's say voluntary common's did exist and government did destroy them."
Enclosure
"Second I often hear socialist make the argument that government operated on behalf of the private company, sometimes this is true, but sometimes it isn't."
I'm having trouble parsing that, but I'm not saying all states are operated on behalf of corporations.
"Communes were tried in the sixties by Hippies, they don't exist today anymore."
Communes around the world
"Monopolies are hard to create and even harder to maintain. You're going to be hard pressed to find a monopoly that has lasted purely through the free markets."
I'll let you know when someone shows me a purely free market.
-
"It's nice to think that someone will stop associating with you over morals, but that is seldom the case."
Probably why I don't think it - I think people will stop associating with people they realize threaten their way of life via misuse of resources and attempts at enforcing monopoly.
"If I'm the one who bought, built, and maintain the home shouldn't I be allowed to let whoever I want in. What if the other guy is an asshole and I don't want to live with him. What if I want to simply live alone. They maybe living in it, but their use of it increases maintenance cost of the home. One person will incur the cost of the homes maintenance cause the other guy knows he will, they may both manage to maintain the home, or both won't maintain it cause they think the other guy will."
Maintain a room for yourself; you're free to do only maintenance that benefits yourself.
"It's like saying I buy a car, but someone is allowed to use it. That other person is adding miles to the car. And because he didn't spend the time and money earning the car the other guy may use it more frivolously."
He has to pay for its maintenance if he's using it; he's not going to treat it frivolously if he plans on using it for long.
"I don't know many people who care what other people earn, or how they earn it. Most are too busy and worried with their own situation."
I know a few people who realize that what other people earn, and how they earn it, directly affects their situation.
"Keep in mind that labor is a product."
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree there.
"His labour is his ability to provide the massage; that his labour is valued according to demand presupposes a labour market, in which labour is treated as a product."
I agree with that statement, and I explained how labor is a product. Now explain to me how labor isn't a product? You simply told me "I think we're going to have to agree to disagree there." and I responded with "This is the first sign that someone has no argument."
"Let what happen?"
Lose their job to the new technology. A factory owner does what makes the most profit and compete with competitors, meaning he's providing goods and services to people at a competitive price. If you left say a couple hundred laborers legislate the decision you'll never have progress. Now the people who lost their jobs will probably find new jobs elsewhere maybe even better opportunities.
"They demonstrated co-operative production:
Spanish Revolution - Social Revolution"
I have a few things to say. This example is far to short lived to be a good one. So their is a point about how production increased by 20%, well there are many variables that could contribute to that. Corrupt local government being abolished probably removed many restrictions on the average citizen, chances are though if Franco hadn't won the war the economy of Spain would probably have stagnated do to the fact that all ambition would be destroyed. There would be no incentive to create great new ideas, or work harder than the rest all your supposed needs would be provided, you can get no more, no less, thus no reason to work harder, or come up with new ideas. There were also many reports of coercive acts being committed by CNT forces to create the socialist system, it certainly wasn't 100% voluntary.
"Hence the need for mass resistance; you make it sound like property rights are not largely determined by family ties, popularity, greed, and stupidity."
Let's go down each of those points. Family, yes someone can inherit property, but their is responsibility with owning that property. If it's a farm you have to keep the farm running in order to keep it profitable, that requires a lot of intensive back breaking labor, if you don't do the labor you could rent it, but you have a responsibility to determine the best renter. If the inheritor isn't up to that task then they can sell the land. They don't have the land, but they relieve themselves of the responsibilities tied to it. If the individual decides to keep it and then try to farm it, or rent it. If they do so successfully that is profitable(which means they are providing goods and services people want competitively) then they have every right to keep the farm, if they can't compete then the land will come at a cost to them and will probably have no choice, but to sell it to someone else, maybe that person will make it profitable.
Popularity, they may work in a small society like a village where mob rule is king, but in no way does it work in a world wide global economy. People all over the world buy goods and services from strangers all of the world, strangers that don't share a religion, language, values. A strangers that may otherwise hate each other, but they provide goods and services to each other because it is in their individual interest to provide those goods and services. When you go to the store and buy an item, do you ever think about the thousands, maybe millions of people whose labor went into providing you with that product. You think the wood cutter in Oregon, the graphite miner in Argentina, or the Rubber tree farmer in Malaysia, know each other when making a pencil for you. No, but because they are pursuing there own interest they don't care where the product of their labor goes, so long as they receive the agreed upon compensation their fine.
[link]
Greed, what is wrong with greed? It encourages people to work hard and come up with great new idea's. People being free to pursue their interests is the greatest promoter of human prosperity. Was it not greed that encouraged Thomas Edison to invent the light bulb, Henry Ford the assembly line, Andrew Carnegie cheap steal, Nelson Rockefeller cheap fuel, Eli Whitney the Cotton Gin, Steve Jobs the personal computer, Bill Gates better software, Mark Zuckerberg Facebook? So long as no ones basic right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness is violated by force, or dishonesty then nothing is wrong.
Stupidity, well if someone is being stupid with their property then it won't be profitable, or cease to benefit them. They'll suffer for it, may have to sell the property. The great thing about free markets is it allows choice, so if one provider is faltering, you have many other option. When the US auto companies weren't providing affordable quality cars people turned to the Japanese producers. That is what is great about capitalism, choice.
"You make it sound like efficiency and demand are objective; the peasants were using the land to efficiently meet their needs - the demand for wool was foreign."
It is the objective of some. Like I said earlier, force was not the best route to ending the commons, but England was better for their destruction. The commons created small self contained societies meaning they didn't trade much with other societies and didn't reap the benefit of that trade. They have been meeting their needs, but a land owner utilizing the land, would supply the needs of far more who needed the wool. Do you think it is right to deny wool to people who are willing pay for it? The peasants could be hired to produce the wool, process it into fabric, sow it into clothes. The overall cooperation would allow them to create more wealth, more efficiently and raise their standard of living. What is wrong with trading with foreigners? You sell them something they want from you and then use the money to buy something from them for yourself. It's a win win.
"Do you have a source for that?"
[link]
"The majority of society doesn't have a choice; the means of life are monopolized to such an extent that the average person is forced to submit to the system or starve."
How are the means of life monopolized, you have hundreds of farmers producing food and competing to sell you the food, you have numerous companies trying to provide water, although government have created regional monopolies for distribution of running water(something I think is wrong), not water consumption since you have many water bottle brands. Now onto something people think is essential for living, but isn't. Electricity, their are many government created regional monopolies on energy distribution(something I believe is wrong), you do have many competing energy sources and industries. Gas, Coal, Oil, Wind, Solar, Hydro, etc. So the monopoly argument is bunk.
No one is forced into working if that were the case it wouldn't be capitalism. You also have to keep in mind, nice jobs and wealth don't just happen naturally, the natural condition of man is poverty. Someone has to create and provide, food, water, electricity, shelter, healthcare, entertainment, etc. Someone who is poor and has a limited education will have limited job option, but so long as they're no added constraints created by government on what option they can choose from all is fine, and if they get a job they can earn skills, experience and an education that make them a more valuable worker, thus having more competition for their labor, and thus increase in their wage.
People can also go purchase a piece of land somewhere and start a commune. Communes are out there and people manage to survive on them, but the vast majority of society doesn't opt to live on communes because most people know the better option is the free market.
[link]
"Which, to reiterate, is not what occurs under capitalism - the fruits of a person's labour is appropriated by a non-producer."
How is the factory owner a non producer? He builds the factory, he determines it's processes, how it will operate, needs to determine the distribution of labor, needs to determine what resources to buy, who to higher, determine wages, adapt and come up with new ideas in order to produce competitively, stay on budget. If the factory owner doesn't properly manage the factory it goes out of business and the hundreds of workers lose their job. Same with home renters, I know some renters. They need to maintain the house, spend money to fix problems. Spend the time and effort finding tenants and convincing them to rent the property. Determine if the tenant is will be a good tenant. These people are not non producer. So long as everything is mutually agreed upon nothing is wrong. If the worker is not content with his wage he can find a job elsewhere, or live in the woods. The latter isn't an easy life, but it's an option. If the person who thinks of building a factory knows someone else can take it then he may never build a factory to begin with. Society doesn't get the factory, the goods it produces, or the jobs it will provide.
"How was the early industrial revolution anything approaching a free market?"
You had relatively few regulations on markets. Their was a massive reduction and in some cases complete removal of tariffs and trade regulations. Borders were opened, people were free to pursue their own interest. I don't see how the markets weren't the freest they'd ever been.
"Again, you're free to build your own kitchen and bathroom."
I might as well go an build another freakin house while I'm at it. Is it right that guy get's a house for free? I don't think so. He should have built one himself, or earned the capital to buy his own. Maybe instead of building my own house I might go and free load off of someone else. Less homes, less production. Net negative for everyone.
"As in it's okay to murder someone, as long as you do it on your own property?"
If the man trespasses on my property, uses and abuses my property without my consent, shouldn't I be aloud to remove him. If I have a stranger on my property, he could be hostile, he maybe stealing, I should be able to deal with him. If he didn't want to get shot at he shouldn't trespass.
"If you're going to reward his bad behavior, you've only got yourself to blame."
So you say he has every right to use my car and then I only have myself to blame. lol. That sounds pretty stupid. If it was my car and let him use it and he destroys then yes I do have myself to blame, but you're saying the man has every right to use my car. In that situation I have no choice it's supposedly his right? How am I to blame? Unless your saying I shouldn't go buy a car for myself? Why should the responsible suffer the fate of the irresponsible?
"Or he could stop associating with the guy who destroyed his car."
This just opens up a bunch of other questions. How do I associate with the person in the first place to the point where he can use my car without my consent and how do I dis-associate with that person so he stops using my car? Who determines an association, I'm pretty sure you'd have differing opinions on that? Also what if I need to have some sort of association with someone for mutual benefit, but him using my car will in no way bring mutual benefit? There are lot of things wrong with that.
"I was being sardonic; my point is that people should care what other people earn."
Why should they care? What benefit is their to society when everyone spends their time figuring out what everyone else makes? If someone wants to spend their time caring that's their choice, but I don't and I'm content with not knowing and so are billions of others around the world. What people earn doesn't matter. What people should be primarily concerned about is their own earnings. So long your standard of living is going up it really doesn't matter what other peoples situation are. The free markets work perfectly fine without people concerned over others wages. They all manage to trade and produce goods and services for each other. Humanity in the free societies become more prosperous without needing to know hat others make. Free markets produce prosperity and no other system in history has come close to the productive capacity of capitalism.
"Unless the means of production is monopolized - as under, say, capitalism."
I've said this before the production is not monopolized under capitalism. I've explained throughout these comments every which way how it is extremely difficult to produce a monopoly and why it's near impossible to keep it going in a free market. I haven't seen much explanation why those points were wrong.
"If deciding who would make the most compliant slave is work."
A slave is forced to work, he has no choice in the matter. The tenant chooses to rent the property. If he doesn't like the terms he can choose not to rent it. Seek a different place with what he feels has better terms.
You need to look at History and the World today and realize that the natural condition of mankind is poverty. Most societies have and are in what we call poverty and have many constraints with in that poverty. What is truly special, truly unique are the countries that prosper, generate great wealth and create even more opportunity for the people. If you look at history and today the countries that embrace capitalism and freedom prosper. There is improving living standards, wealth, and opportunity with in those countries. When people are free and left to their means the vast majority create capitalism. They don't create communes. History is not on you side.
I agree with that statement, and I explained how labor is a product. Now explain to me how labor isn't a product? You simply told me "I think we're going to have to agree to disagree there." and I responded with "This is the first sign that someone has no argument."
"Let what happen?"
Lose their job to the new technology. A factory owner does what makes the most profit and compete with competitors, meaning he's providing goods and services to people at a competitive price. If you left say a couple hundred laborers legislate the decision you'll never have progress. Now the people who lost their jobs will probably find new jobs elsewhere maybe even better opportunities.
"They demonstrated co-operative production:
Spanish Revolution - Social Revolution"
I have a few things to say. This example is far to short lived to be a good one. So their is a point about how production increased by 20%, well there are many variables that could contribute to that. Corrupt local government being abolished probably removed many restrictions on the average citizen, chances are though if Franco hadn't won the war the economy of Spain would probably have stagnated do to the fact that all ambition would be destroyed. There would be no incentive to create great new ideas, or work harder than the rest all your supposed needs would be provided, you can get no more, no less, thus no reason to work harder, or come up with new ideas. There were also many reports of coercive acts being committed by CNT forces to create the socialist system, it certainly wasn't 100% voluntary.
"Hence the need for mass resistance; you make it sound like property rights are not largely determined by family ties, popularity, greed, and stupidity."
Let's go down each of those points. Family, yes someone can inherit property, but their is responsibility with owning that property. If it's a farm you have to keep the farm running in order to keep it profitable, that requires a lot of intensive back breaking labor, if you don't do the labor you could rent it, but you have a responsibility to determine the best renter. If the inheritor isn't up to that task then they can sell the land. They don't have the land, but they relieve themselves of the responsibilities tied to it. If the individual decides to keep it and then try to farm it, or rent it. If they do so successfully that is profitable(which means they are providing goods and services people want competitively) then they have every right to keep the farm, if they can't compete then the land will come at a cost to them and will probably have no choice, but to sell it to someone else, maybe that person will make it profitable.
Popularity, they may work in a small society like a village where mob rule is king, but in no way does it work in a world wide global economy. People all over the world buy goods and services from strangers all of the world, strangers that don't share a religion, language, values. A strangers that may otherwise hate each other, but they provide goods and services to each other because it is in their individual interest to provide those goods and services. When you go to the store and buy an item, do you ever think about the thousands, maybe millions of people whose labor went into providing you with that product. You think the wood cutter in Oregon, the graphite miner in Argentina, or the Rubber tree farmer in Malaysia, know each other when making a pencil for you. No, but because they are pursuing there own interest they don't care where the product of their labor goes, so long as they receive the agreed upon compensation their fine.
[link]
Greed, what is wrong with greed? It encourages people to work hard and come up with great new idea's. People being free to pursue their interests is the greatest promoter of human prosperity. Was it not greed that encouraged Thomas Edison to invent the light bulb, Henry Ford the assembly line, Andrew Carnegie cheap steal, Nelson Rockefeller cheap fuel, Eli Whitney the Cotton Gin, Steve Jobs the personal computer, Bill Gates better software, Mark Zuckerberg Facebook? So long as no ones basic right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness is violated by force, or dishonesty then nothing is wrong.
Stupidity, well if someone is being stupid with their property then it won't be profitable, or cease to benefit them. They'll suffer for it, may have to sell the property. The great thing about free markets is it allows choice, so if one provider is faltering, you have many other option. When the US auto companies weren't providing affordable quality cars people turned to the Japanese producers. That is what is great about capitalism, choice.
"You make it sound like efficiency and demand are objective; the peasants were using the land to efficiently meet their needs - the demand for wool was foreign."
It is the objective of some. Like I said earlier, force was not the best route to ending the commons, but England was better for their destruction. The commons created small self contained societies meaning they didn't trade much with other societies and didn't reap the benefit of that trade. They have been meeting their needs, but a land owner utilizing the land, would supply the needs of far more who needed the wool. Do you think it is right to deny wool to people who are willing pay for it? The peasants could be hired to produce the wool, process it into fabric, sow it into clothes. The overall cooperation would allow them to create more wealth, more efficiently and raise their standard of living. What is wrong with trading with foreigners? You sell them something they want from you and then use the money to buy something from them for yourself. It's a win win.
"Do you have a source for that?"
[link]
"The majority of society doesn't have a choice; the means of life are monopolized to such an extent that the average person is forced to submit to the system or starve."
How are the means of life monopolized, you have hundreds of farmers producing food and competing to sell you the food, you have numerous companies trying to provide water, although government have created regional monopolies for distribution of running water(something I think is wrong), not water consumption since you have many water bottle brands. Now onto something people think is essential for living, but isn't. Electricity, their are many government created regional monopolies on energy distribution(something I believe is wrong), you do have many competing energy sources and industries. Gas, Coal, Oil, Wind, Solar, Hydro, etc. So the monopoly argument is bunk.
No one is forced into working if that were the case it wouldn't be capitalism. You also have to keep in mind, nice jobs and wealth don't just happen naturally, the natural condition of man is poverty. Someone has to create and provide, food, water, electricity, shelter, healthcare, entertainment, etc. Someone who is poor and has a limited education will have limited job option, but so long as they're no added constraints created by government on what option they can choose from all is fine, and if they get a job they can earn skills, experience and an education that make them a more valuable worker, thus having more competition for their labor, and thus increase in their wage.
People can also go purchase a piece of land somewhere and start a commune. Communes are out there and people manage to survive on them, but the vast majority of society doesn't opt to live on communes because most people know the better option is the free market.
[link]
"Which, to reiterate, is not what occurs under capitalism - the fruits of a person's labour is appropriated by a non-producer."
How is the factory owner a non producer? He builds the factory, he determines it's processes, how it will operate, needs to determine the distribution of labor, needs to determine what resources to buy, who to higher, determine wages, adapt and come up with new ideas in order to produce competitively, stay on budget. If the factory owner doesn't properly manage the factory it goes out of business and the hundreds of workers lose their job. Same with home renters, I know some renters. They need to maintain the house, spend money to fix problems. Spend the time and effort finding tenants and convincing them to rent the property. Determine if the tenant is will be a good tenant. These people are not non producer. So long as everything is mutually agreed upon nothing is wrong. If the worker is not content with his wage he can find a job elsewhere, or live in the woods. The latter isn't an easy life, but it's an option. If the person who thinks of building a factory knows someone else can take it then he may never build a factory to begin with. Society doesn't get the factory, the goods it produces, or the jobs it will provide.
"How was the early industrial revolution anything approaching a free market?"
You had relatively few regulations on markets. Their was a massive reduction and in some cases complete removal of tariffs and trade regulations. Borders were opened, people were free to pursue their own interest. I don't see how the markets weren't the freest they'd ever been.
"Again, you're free to build your own kitchen and bathroom."
I might as well go an build another freakin house while I'm at it. Is it right that guy get's a house for free? I don't think so. He should have built one himself, or earned the capital to buy his own. Maybe instead of building my own house I might go and free load off of someone else. Less homes, less production. Net negative for everyone.
"As in it's okay to murder someone, as long as you do it on your own property?"
If the man trespasses on my property, uses and abuses my property without my consent, shouldn't I be aloud to remove him. If I have a stranger on my property, he could be hostile, he maybe stealing, I should be able to deal with him. If he didn't want to get shot at he shouldn't trespass.
"If you're going to reward his bad behavior, you've only got yourself to blame."
So you say he has every right to use my car and then I only have myself to blame. lol. That sounds pretty stupid. If it was my car and let him use it and he destroys then yes I do have myself to blame, but you're saying the man has every right to use my car. In that situation I have no choice it's supposedly his right? How am I to blame? Unless your saying I shouldn't go buy a car for myself? Why should the responsible suffer the fate of the irresponsible?
"Or he could stop associating with the guy who destroyed his car."
This just opens up a bunch of other questions. How do I associate with the person in the first place to the point where he can use my car without my consent and how do I dis-associate with that person so he stops using my car? Who determines an association, I'm pretty sure you'd have differing opinions on that? Also what if I need to have some sort of association with someone for mutual benefit, but him using my car will in no way bring mutual benefit? There are lot of things wrong with that.
"I was being sardonic; my point is that people should care what other people earn."
Why should they care? What benefit is their to society when everyone spends their time figuring out what everyone else makes? If someone wants to spend their time caring that's their choice, but I don't and I'm content with not knowing and so are billions of others around the world. What people earn doesn't matter. What people should be primarily concerned about is their own earnings. So long your standard of living is going up it really doesn't matter what other peoples situation are. The free markets work perfectly fine without people concerned over others wages. They all manage to trade and produce goods and services for each other. Humanity in the free societies become more prosperous without needing to know hat others make. Free markets produce prosperity and no other system in history has come close to the productive capacity of capitalism.
"Unless the means of production is monopolized - as under, say, capitalism."
I've said this before the production is not monopolized under capitalism. I've explained throughout these comments every which way how it is extremely difficult to produce a monopoly and why it's near impossible to keep it going in a free market. I haven't seen much explanation why those points were wrong.
"If deciding who would make the most compliant slave is work."
A slave is forced to work, he has no choice in the matter. The tenant chooses to rent the property. If he doesn't like the terms he can choose not to rent it. Seek a different place with what he feels has better terms.
You need to look at History and the World today and realize that the natural condition of mankind is poverty. Most societies have and are in what we call poverty and have many constraints with in that poverty. What is truly special, truly unique are the countries that prosper, generate great wealth and create even more opportunity for the people. If you look at history and today the countries that embrace capitalism and freedom prosper. There is improving living standards, wealth, and opportunity with in those countries. When people are free and left to their means the vast majority create capitalism. They don't create communes. History is not on you side.
"I agree with that statement, and I explained how labor is a product."
I was pointing out how your explanation is circular; if you assume a labour market, of course labour is a product - you haven't explained why there must be a labour market.
"If you left say a couple hundred laborers legislate the decision you'll never have progress."
Again, the CNT progressed.
"I have a few things to say. This example is far to short lived to be a good one. So their is a point about how production increased by 20%, well there are many variables that could contribute to that. Corrupt local government being abolished probably removed many restrictions on the average citizen, chances are though if Franco hadn't won the war the economy of Spain would probably have stagnated do to the fact that all ambition would be destroyed. There would be no incentive to create great new ideas, or work harder than the rest all your supposed needs would be provided, you can get no more, no less, thus no reason to work harder, or come up with new ideas."
On the contrary, they would be even more incentive, since any benefit from said ideas or work would directly benefit the people producing them.
"There were also many reports of coercive acts being committed by CNT forces to create the socialist system, it certainly wasn't 100% voluntary."
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree; I don't consider resisting coercion to be a coercive act.
"Let's go down each of those points..."
You've missed the point; you argument was that property rights contain greed, stupidity, et al. - you're now saying that those things are legitimate.
"It is the objective of some."
I didn't say "an objective" - I said "objective", that is, "the opposite of subjective". Efficiency and demand are based on value judgments, not any absolute scale.
"[link]"
Thanks.
"How are the means of life monopolized, you have hundreds of farmers producing food and competing to sell you the food, you have numerous companies trying to provide water, although government have created regional monopolies for distribution of running water(something I think is wrong), not water consumption since you have many water bottle brands."
There are billions of people.
"How is the factory owner a non producer? He builds the factory, he determines it's processes, how it will operate, needs to determine the distribution of labor, needs to determine what resources to buy, who to higher, determine wages, adapt and come up with new ideas in order to produce competitively, stay on budget."
The vast majority of factory owners did not build the factory they own; determining how something will be done is not the same as actually doing it - unless we accept that a prison warden is a prisoner.
"You had relatively few regulations on markets. Their was a massive reduction and in some cases complete removal of tariffs and trade regulations. Borders were opened, people were free to pursue their own interest. I don't see how the markets weren't the freest they'd ever been."
Fair enough.
"I might as well go an build another freakin house while I'm at it. Is it right that guy get's a house for free? I don't think so."
He doesn't get the house for free - he has to associate with you.
"If the man trespasses on my property, uses and abuses my property without my consent, shouldn't I be aloud to remove him. If I have a stranger on my property, he could be hostile, he maybe stealing, I should be able to deal with him. If he didn't want to get shot at he shouldn't trespass."
If you didn't want trespassers, you shouldn't have monopolized.
"This just opens up a bunch of other questions. How do I associate with the person in the first place to the point where he can use my car without my consent and how do I dis-associate with that person so he stops using my car?"
Live with him; move away.
"Who determines an association, I'm pretty sure you'd have differing opinions on that?"
The mutual consent of the people involved.
"Also what if I need to have some sort of association with someone for mutual benefit, but him using my car will in no way bring mutual benefit?"
Weigh-up whether the lack of mutual benefit from him using the car out-weights the mutual benefit from associating with him.
"Why should they care? What benefit is their to society when everyone spends their time figuring out what everyone else makes?"
Again, what other people makes affects oneself - people do not exist as atomized individuals.
"I've said this before the production is not monopolized under capitalism. I've explained throughout these comments every which way how it is extremely difficult to produce a monopoly and why it's near impossible to keep it going in a free market. I haven't seen much explanation why those points were wrong."
As above; a very small minority control all the resources.
"A slave is forced to work, he has no choice in the matter. The tenant chooses to rent the property. If he doesn't like the terms he can choose not to rent it. Seek a different place with what he feels has better terms."
A slave who gets to choose their master is still a slave.
"You need to look at History and the World today and realize that the natural condition of mankind is poverty. Most societies have and are in what we call poverty and have many constraints with in that poverty."
You need only look at the statistics to realize that relative poverty is a better indicator of both quantity and quality of living than absolute poverty.
I was pointing out how your explanation is circular; if you assume a labour market, of course labour is a product - you haven't explained why there must be a labour market.
"If you left say a couple hundred laborers legislate the decision you'll never have progress."
Again, the CNT progressed.
"I have a few things to say. This example is far to short lived to be a good one. So their is a point about how production increased by 20%, well there are many variables that could contribute to that. Corrupt local government being abolished probably removed many restrictions on the average citizen, chances are though if Franco hadn't won the war the economy of Spain would probably have stagnated do to the fact that all ambition would be destroyed. There would be no incentive to create great new ideas, or work harder than the rest all your supposed needs would be provided, you can get no more, no less, thus no reason to work harder, or come up with new ideas."
On the contrary, they would be even more incentive, since any benefit from said ideas or work would directly benefit the people producing them.
"There were also many reports of coercive acts being committed by CNT forces to create the socialist system, it certainly wasn't 100% voluntary."
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree; I don't consider resisting coercion to be a coercive act.
"Let's go down each of those points..."
You've missed the point; you argument was that property rights contain greed, stupidity, et al. - you're now saying that those things are legitimate.
"It is the objective of some."
I didn't say "an objective" - I said "objective", that is, "the opposite of subjective". Efficiency and demand are based on value judgments, not any absolute scale.
"[link]"
Thanks.
"How are the means of life monopolized, you have hundreds of farmers producing food and competing to sell you the food, you have numerous companies trying to provide water, although government have created regional monopolies for distribution of running water(something I think is wrong), not water consumption since you have many water bottle brands."
There are billions of people.
"How is the factory owner a non producer? He builds the factory, he determines it's processes, how it will operate, needs to determine the distribution of labor, needs to determine what resources to buy, who to higher, determine wages, adapt and come up with new ideas in order to produce competitively, stay on budget."
The vast majority of factory owners did not build the factory they own; determining how something will be done is not the same as actually doing it - unless we accept that a prison warden is a prisoner.
"You had relatively few regulations on markets. Their was a massive reduction and in some cases complete removal of tariffs and trade regulations. Borders were opened, people were free to pursue their own interest. I don't see how the markets weren't the freest they'd ever been."
Fair enough.
"I might as well go an build another freakin house while I'm at it. Is it right that guy get's a house for free? I don't think so."
He doesn't get the house for free - he has to associate with you.
"If the man trespasses on my property, uses and abuses my property without my consent, shouldn't I be aloud to remove him. If I have a stranger on my property, he could be hostile, he maybe stealing, I should be able to deal with him. If he didn't want to get shot at he shouldn't trespass."
If you didn't want trespassers, you shouldn't have monopolized.
"This just opens up a bunch of other questions. How do I associate with the person in the first place to the point where he can use my car without my consent and how do I dis-associate with that person so he stops using my car?"
Live with him; move away.
"Who determines an association, I'm pretty sure you'd have differing opinions on that?"
The mutual consent of the people involved.
"Also what if I need to have some sort of association with someone for mutual benefit, but him using my car will in no way bring mutual benefit?"
Weigh-up whether the lack of mutual benefit from him using the car out-weights the mutual benefit from associating with him.
"Why should they care? What benefit is their to society when everyone spends their time figuring out what everyone else makes?"
Again, what other people makes affects oneself - people do not exist as atomized individuals.
"I've said this before the production is not monopolized under capitalism. I've explained throughout these comments every which way how it is extremely difficult to produce a monopoly and why it's near impossible to keep it going in a free market. I haven't seen much explanation why those points were wrong."
As above; a very small minority control all the resources.
"A slave is forced to work, he has no choice in the matter. The tenant chooses to rent the property. If he doesn't like the terms he can choose not to rent it. Seek a different place with what he feels has better terms."
A slave who gets to choose their master is still a slave.
"You need to look at History and the World today and realize that the natural condition of mankind is poverty. Most societies have and are in what we call poverty and have many constraints with in that poverty."
You need only look at the statistics to realize that relative poverty is a better indicator of both quantity and quality of living than absolute poverty.
"I was pointing out how your explanation is circular; if you assume a labour market, of course labour is a product - you haven't explained why there must be a labour market."
Why do we need a market? So we know the demand for certain jobs, why do we need to know the demand, so we can allocate labor more efficiently and encourage people take on jobs that require higher education and skills. How does it work. Lets compare two jobs. A job at say McDonalds is low skill and thus anyone can do it and their is a large labor pool. Add rules of supply and demand and the job is low pay. Now lets look at a doctor. Doctors are always in high demand. A great deal education in the medical field and high skills are required to be a doctor, it comes to a great cost to the doctor in time, effort, and responsibility to become and stay a doctor. Because the cost of becoming a doctor and being a doctor are high, not many will take the profession, the best incentive for being a doctor is a higher wage. This works in the workers favor as well. Companies will look out for well educated, high skill, experienced, and reputable employees. The employees that earn those will be compensated better. If being a doctor had the same rewards as working at McDonald's, most would opt for McDonalds and you'd probably have a shortage. Higher prices encourage greater supply and reduce shortage. That is why supply and demand pricing is so important.
"Again, the CNT progressed."
Two things, One: Short Lived, it's highly debatable as to what progress was made, find me a system of commons that endured and did better than it's Capitalist Counter parts. Two: During War, the people of belligerents in a conflict tend to work harder at their own cost due to a easily known goal of defeating the enemy. The goals are not as clear during peace.
"On the contrary, they would be even more incentive, since any benefit from said ideas or work would directly benefit the people producing them."
Historically this is seldom the case. If you look at most example of commons especially during peace time you have these results. One the common stagnates there is little progress and they tend to fall significantly behind their private counter parts. Compare the commons in China's country side and the private property ownership of say Shanghai, or Hong Kong the living standards and progress are light years ahead of the commons. Remember China tried a system of commons all over the country you had mass starvation, when they moved more towards a market economy and still are the people have prospered. Another example the Pilgrims the first few years the Pilgrims lived in North America they operated under a system of commons, what happened was you had most people shirking off their responsibilities cause hey someone else can do it you still got you share. Another thing that happened was people would harvest things earlier then they should have so they could get the corn before the other guy. Eventually they divided up the common and gave everyone their own plot of privately owned land. Because they had land they could call their own they took far better care of it and made it far more profitable. They could also do better practices not fearing someone else would take advantage. The pilgrims prospered in subsequent years. Even today, on the news there was a story about a freeway in Indiana they leased a Freeway to a private company that would collect toll. The road was in far better shape, traffic was much smoother, and the toll system was made seamless. Most people didn't care a private company ran and profited from the road, they're experience on it was improved and that is what mattered. It's nice to look at things in abstractions divorced from reality and say how we would like them to work, but reality is often a different thing and reality doesn't tend to shine well on commons as it does private property ownership.
"Again, we'll have to agree to disagree; I don't consider resisting coercion to be a coercive act."
The CNT was coercing those that wanted to keep private property, or make a profit, or weren't operating exactly under their Socialist system. These people were not telling the anarchist how to live, but didn't want to live like the Anarchist. Don't try to paint all anarchist like saints, just accept who they are. I don't paint capitalist like saints. Most have greedy intentions, but hell if the those intentions create an overall better result that don't violate ones Life, Liberty, and Property it doesn't matter.
"You've missed the point; you argument was that property rights contain greed, stupidity, et al. - you're now saying that those things are legitimate."
People are free to be stupid and so long as they don't hurt others and violate their rights. If I'm the property owner and I don't run my farm, or factory right. It goes out of business, I have to sell it to someone who probably does know how to operate it. The workers they can work under the new owner, or can find other jobs. One problem with Anarchy is you tend to have small centralized societies that divorce themselves from other societies. This limits ones options in employment and trade opportunities. The level of prosperity today, hell the computers we use wouldn't be here if we didn't have global trade. Greed on the other hand is good it encourages people to take risk. Invest their capital to start a business, expand that business. The business produces wealth and provides jobs. Greed is also kept in check by fear of loss. Fear of losing profits keeps people from taking huge risks. Those who take big risk that fail will likely have to sell their property. Because we live in a massive global economy if one enterprise goes out of business it won't really hurt us because we have hundred maybe thousands of alternatives. Many like to think greed is this uber bad thing, but it has been the main incentive for creativity, hard work, and risk taking that generates true wealth and improve mans condition. The economic crash of 2008 was largely a result of government encouraging and removing a great deal of risk in the financial system.
"I didn't say "an objective" - I said "objective", that is, "the opposite of subjective". Efficiency and demand are based on value judgments, not any absolute scale."
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. But you want the Product to be made most efficiently because it reduces the cost. Reduce the cost that leaves more resources to be put in other endeavors. The demand encourages greater efficiency. It's rather simple. And as stated earlier. They may have sent the wool to France, but spent the money they earned to buy goods from other places like France, per say wine. Free trade is a win win. You can get what I can make most efficiently and I can get what you make most efficiently.
[link]
"There are billions of people."
Exactly you have billions of people competing to provide goods and services. Billions of people make it hard to have monopolies. The anarchist wants to shrink and seperate societies into units of a few hundred-thousand.
"The vast majority of factory owners did not build the factory they own; determining how something will be done is not the same as actually doing it - unless we accept that a prison warden is a prisoner."
Because most factory owners aren't builders. It takes time, effort, and capital to gain skills. It is far more efficient for individuals to specialize. It is far more efficient for the factory owner to pay a guy who has expertise in building to build his factory. Also how does the factory get the money. He probably worked for someone else. Saved his money and made the right moves. Most people don't just happen to have money. I know of no million who just happened to have money. Most earned it. I know a lot of people who are business owners. They work very hard to keep their enterprises afloat. I find they work on average 10 hours more a week than the average worker. They'd be very insulted by your statement they are non producers. Without them there would be no business providing goods, services, and jobs. Owning a business is no easy matter, it's a lot of time, effort, and responsibility a lot of time, effort and responsibility most don't want to take on. Try and start a business then talk about how they're non producers, you'll probably think otherwise.
"He doesn't get the house for free - he has to associate with you."
"The mutual consent of the people involved."
"Also what if I need to have some sort of association with someone for mutual benefit, but him using my car will in no way bring mutual benefit?"
"Live with him; move away."
I'm going to tackle these three all at once. As said earlier when you know something is yours, you tend to take a lot better care of it especially when you earned the money to buy it. Why not simply allow people to have property rights over their car. The two people can still cooperate for some mutual benefit and use the fruits of the mutual benefit to both buy themselves a car they own. If you want to live in a massive global economy that generates the wealth we have not everyone is going to be a neighbor who trusts one another. Only strong property rights and laws that define those rights can allow for people to feel secure. For example I can buy say a property I'm never going to see, but I can utilize, a contract backed by the law allows for protection of that property and my ownership of it. If someone violates my property, or contract I can sue them. Property rights and laws that define them well allow us to make transactions and take what would have been a risk possible. It increases opportunity and efficiency in the economy.
"If you didn't want trespassers, you shouldn't have monopolized."
How did I monopolize? There is plenty of land and housing else where for him to buy. He just needs to earn the capital to buy it. If he wants my land then he needs to pay me what I think is proper compensation for it. If I don't want to sell then I won't sell it. He'll have to look somewhere else.
"Again, what other people makes affects oneself - people do not exist as atomized individuals."
In a business that can make some sense, but only in that business, but as an employee you agree to that wage for you labor, so their isn't much you can do. Now if you feel your boss is compensating themselves too much and it could risk putting the business under you can take it up with your boss. If you still feel the business isn't doing well find employment somewhere else. The free markets create wealth in an economy and wealth creates opportunity. Also most employee's don't want to spend the time and effort worrying about what their boss makes. So long as the agreed upon pay check keeps coming in most don't care especially in large corporations. Those corporations wouldn't be large if they didn't know what they were doing.
"As above; a very small minority control all the resources."
Even if you have a small minority controlling resources it's still of minority of thousands-millions competing to distribute those resources to Tens, Hundreds of Millions, or billions. And remember those people work very hard to distribute those resources. And so long as they generate wealth by providing goods and services and overall improve the human condition nothing is wrong. People aren't going to give them their money unless they felt they were being provided the sufficient goods and services. When one Earns money they have added to the economy. When one spends money they take from the economy.
"A slave who gets to choose their master is still a slave."
You need to learn the definition of a slave then. The man is not a slave. He has choice to rent different properties, or he can choose to buy a property. Their is a lot of land out their and lot of it is up for rent, or being sold by competing interest. Ever heard of Peter Schift. He predicted the 2001 and 2008 recessions. He's a very wealthy stock broker. Guess what he rents. He found it easier to rent than own property. He doesn't want to take on the responsibility of owning the property would rather let someone else do it. He's not a slave because he chooses to rent and he chooses his renter, he's a free man.
"You need only look at the statistics to realize that relative poverty is a better indicator of both quantity and quality of living than absolute poverty."
Yeah we can put things in terms of relatives, but the poor in America are still wealthier than the poor in Zimbabwe. The middle class in America is still wealthier than the middle class in China. We use 1970 standards of poverty and almost no one in America today would be in poverty. It's easy to pick and choose what is relative to what. The fact of the matter is if someone has more wealth than you, he has more wealth than you. Now if one cares about being poorer, well that's up to them as an individual. But I'm pretty sure anyone would want to live in Western levels of prosperity. Most peoples in most countries are constrained by governments and economic systems that aren't or are their own fault.
Here is a program that goes over Public versus Private Ownership. It goes through many example and comparisons.
Part One [link]
Part Two [link]
Part Three [link]
Part Four [link]
You're biggest problem with your arguments is you have few example and the ones you do aren't good ones, that make the case for commons. How you cite how it works is largely an abstraction of how you would like it to work, but it isn't really grounded in reality in any way. It's nice to think that everyone becomes altruistic, remain hard working, not greedy, and can share and manage everything, but that isn't reality, that's not how things work humans are terribly flawed creatures. Historically the societies that have embraced Private Property ownership, free less regulated markets and respect for ones Life, Liberty and Property have done considerably better than those that haven't. Most of the Western world largely embraces the Capitalist system, even if many of them muddle it with some Socialism, but they prosper far more than those that deviate largely from the Capitalist principles.
Why do we need a market? So we know the demand for certain jobs, why do we need to know the demand, so we can allocate labor more efficiently and encourage people take on jobs that require higher education and skills. How does it work. Lets compare two jobs. A job at say McDonalds is low skill and thus anyone can do it and their is a large labor pool. Add rules of supply and demand and the job is low pay. Now lets look at a doctor. Doctors are always in high demand. A great deal education in the medical field and high skills are required to be a doctor, it comes to a great cost to the doctor in time, effort, and responsibility to become and stay a doctor. Because the cost of becoming a doctor and being a doctor are high, not many will take the profession, the best incentive for being a doctor is a higher wage. This works in the workers favor as well. Companies will look out for well educated, high skill, experienced, and reputable employees. The employees that earn those will be compensated better. If being a doctor had the same rewards as working at McDonald's, most would opt for McDonalds and you'd probably have a shortage. Higher prices encourage greater supply and reduce shortage. That is why supply and demand pricing is so important.
"Again, the CNT progressed."
Two things, One: Short Lived, it's highly debatable as to what progress was made, find me a system of commons that endured and did better than it's Capitalist Counter parts. Two: During War, the people of belligerents in a conflict tend to work harder at their own cost due to a easily known goal of defeating the enemy. The goals are not as clear during peace.
"On the contrary, they would be even more incentive, since any benefit from said ideas or work would directly benefit the people producing them."
Historically this is seldom the case. If you look at most example of commons especially during peace time you have these results. One the common stagnates there is little progress and they tend to fall significantly behind their private counter parts. Compare the commons in China's country side and the private property ownership of say Shanghai, or Hong Kong the living standards and progress are light years ahead of the commons. Remember China tried a system of commons all over the country you had mass starvation, when they moved more towards a market economy and still are the people have prospered. Another example the Pilgrims the first few years the Pilgrims lived in North America they operated under a system of commons, what happened was you had most people shirking off their responsibilities cause hey someone else can do it you still got you share. Another thing that happened was people would harvest things earlier then they should have so they could get the corn before the other guy. Eventually they divided up the common and gave everyone their own plot of privately owned land. Because they had land they could call their own they took far better care of it and made it far more profitable. They could also do better practices not fearing someone else would take advantage. The pilgrims prospered in subsequent years. Even today, on the news there was a story about a freeway in Indiana they leased a Freeway to a private company that would collect toll. The road was in far better shape, traffic was much smoother, and the toll system was made seamless. Most people didn't care a private company ran and profited from the road, they're experience on it was improved and that is what mattered. It's nice to look at things in abstractions divorced from reality and say how we would like them to work, but reality is often a different thing and reality doesn't tend to shine well on commons as it does private property ownership.
"Again, we'll have to agree to disagree; I don't consider resisting coercion to be a coercive act."
The CNT was coercing those that wanted to keep private property, or make a profit, or weren't operating exactly under their Socialist system. These people were not telling the anarchist how to live, but didn't want to live like the Anarchist. Don't try to paint all anarchist like saints, just accept who they are. I don't paint capitalist like saints. Most have greedy intentions, but hell if the those intentions create an overall better result that don't violate ones Life, Liberty, and Property it doesn't matter.
"You've missed the point; you argument was that property rights contain greed, stupidity, et al. - you're now saying that those things are legitimate."
People are free to be stupid and so long as they don't hurt others and violate their rights. If I'm the property owner and I don't run my farm, or factory right. It goes out of business, I have to sell it to someone who probably does know how to operate it. The workers they can work under the new owner, or can find other jobs. One problem with Anarchy is you tend to have small centralized societies that divorce themselves from other societies. This limits ones options in employment and trade opportunities. The level of prosperity today, hell the computers we use wouldn't be here if we didn't have global trade. Greed on the other hand is good it encourages people to take risk. Invest their capital to start a business, expand that business. The business produces wealth and provides jobs. Greed is also kept in check by fear of loss. Fear of losing profits keeps people from taking huge risks. Those who take big risk that fail will likely have to sell their property. Because we live in a massive global economy if one enterprise goes out of business it won't really hurt us because we have hundred maybe thousands of alternatives. Many like to think greed is this uber bad thing, but it has been the main incentive for creativity, hard work, and risk taking that generates true wealth and improve mans condition. The economic crash of 2008 was largely a result of government encouraging and removing a great deal of risk in the financial system.
"I didn't say "an objective" - I said "objective", that is, "the opposite of subjective". Efficiency and demand are based on value judgments, not any absolute scale."
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. But you want the Product to be made most efficiently because it reduces the cost. Reduce the cost that leaves more resources to be put in other endeavors. The demand encourages greater efficiency. It's rather simple. And as stated earlier. They may have sent the wool to France, but spent the money they earned to buy goods from other places like France, per say wine. Free trade is a win win. You can get what I can make most efficiently and I can get what you make most efficiently.
[link]
"There are billions of people."
Exactly you have billions of people competing to provide goods and services. Billions of people make it hard to have monopolies. The anarchist wants to shrink and seperate societies into units of a few hundred-thousand.
"The vast majority of factory owners did not build the factory they own; determining how something will be done is not the same as actually doing it - unless we accept that a prison warden is a prisoner."
Because most factory owners aren't builders. It takes time, effort, and capital to gain skills. It is far more efficient for individuals to specialize. It is far more efficient for the factory owner to pay a guy who has expertise in building to build his factory. Also how does the factory get the money. He probably worked for someone else. Saved his money and made the right moves. Most people don't just happen to have money. I know of no million who just happened to have money. Most earned it. I know a lot of people who are business owners. They work very hard to keep their enterprises afloat. I find they work on average 10 hours more a week than the average worker. They'd be very insulted by your statement they are non producers. Without them there would be no business providing goods, services, and jobs. Owning a business is no easy matter, it's a lot of time, effort, and responsibility a lot of time, effort and responsibility most don't want to take on. Try and start a business then talk about how they're non producers, you'll probably think otherwise.
"He doesn't get the house for free - he has to associate with you."
"The mutual consent of the people involved."
"Also what if I need to have some sort of association with someone for mutual benefit, but him using my car will in no way bring mutual benefit?"
"Live with him; move away."
I'm going to tackle these three all at once. As said earlier when you know something is yours, you tend to take a lot better care of it especially when you earned the money to buy it. Why not simply allow people to have property rights over their car. The two people can still cooperate for some mutual benefit and use the fruits of the mutual benefit to both buy themselves a car they own. If you want to live in a massive global economy that generates the wealth we have not everyone is going to be a neighbor who trusts one another. Only strong property rights and laws that define those rights can allow for people to feel secure. For example I can buy say a property I'm never going to see, but I can utilize, a contract backed by the law allows for protection of that property and my ownership of it. If someone violates my property, or contract I can sue them. Property rights and laws that define them well allow us to make transactions and take what would have been a risk possible. It increases opportunity and efficiency in the economy.
"If you didn't want trespassers, you shouldn't have monopolized."
How did I monopolize? There is plenty of land and housing else where for him to buy. He just needs to earn the capital to buy it. If he wants my land then he needs to pay me what I think is proper compensation for it. If I don't want to sell then I won't sell it. He'll have to look somewhere else.
"Again, what other people makes affects oneself - people do not exist as atomized individuals."
In a business that can make some sense, but only in that business, but as an employee you agree to that wage for you labor, so their isn't much you can do. Now if you feel your boss is compensating themselves too much and it could risk putting the business under you can take it up with your boss. If you still feel the business isn't doing well find employment somewhere else. The free markets create wealth in an economy and wealth creates opportunity. Also most employee's don't want to spend the time and effort worrying about what their boss makes. So long as the agreed upon pay check keeps coming in most don't care especially in large corporations. Those corporations wouldn't be large if they didn't know what they were doing.
"As above; a very small minority control all the resources."
Even if you have a small minority controlling resources it's still of minority of thousands-millions competing to distribute those resources to Tens, Hundreds of Millions, or billions. And remember those people work very hard to distribute those resources. And so long as they generate wealth by providing goods and services and overall improve the human condition nothing is wrong. People aren't going to give them their money unless they felt they were being provided the sufficient goods and services. When one Earns money they have added to the economy. When one spends money they take from the economy.
"A slave who gets to choose their master is still a slave."
You need to learn the definition of a slave then. The man is not a slave. He has choice to rent different properties, or he can choose to buy a property. Their is a lot of land out their and lot of it is up for rent, or being sold by competing interest. Ever heard of Peter Schift. He predicted the 2001 and 2008 recessions. He's a very wealthy stock broker. Guess what he rents. He found it easier to rent than own property. He doesn't want to take on the responsibility of owning the property would rather let someone else do it. He's not a slave because he chooses to rent and he chooses his renter, he's a free man.
"You need only look at the statistics to realize that relative poverty is a better indicator of both quantity and quality of living than absolute poverty."
Yeah we can put things in terms of relatives, but the poor in America are still wealthier than the poor in Zimbabwe. The middle class in America is still wealthier than the middle class in China. We use 1970 standards of poverty and almost no one in America today would be in poverty. It's easy to pick and choose what is relative to what. The fact of the matter is if someone has more wealth than you, he has more wealth than you. Now if one cares about being poorer, well that's up to them as an individual. But I'm pretty sure anyone would want to live in Western levels of prosperity. Most peoples in most countries are constrained by governments and economic systems that aren't or are their own fault.
Here is a program that goes over Public versus Private Ownership. It goes through many example and comparisons.
Part One [link]
Part Two [link]
Part Three [link]
Part Four [link]
You're biggest problem with your arguments is you have few example and the ones you do aren't good ones, that make the case for commons. How you cite how it works is largely an abstraction of how you would like it to work, but it isn't really grounded in reality in any way. It's nice to think that everyone becomes altruistic, remain hard working, not greedy, and can share and manage everything, but that isn't reality, that's not how things work humans are terribly flawed creatures. Historically the societies that have embraced Private Property ownership, free less regulated markets and respect for ones Life, Liberty and Property have done considerably better than those that haven't. Most of the Western world largely embraces the Capitalist system, even if many of them muddle it with some Socialism, but they prosper far more than those that deviate largely from the Capitalist principles.
"Why do we need a market? So we know the demand for certain jobs, why do we need to know the demand, so we can allocate labor more efficiently and encourage people take on jobs that require higher education and skills."
We can know the demand for certain jobs without markets - we can form associations, and decide amongst ourselves what jobs to do, based on our preferences.
"Two things, One: Short Lived, it's highly debatable as to what progress was made, find me a system of commons that endured and did better than it's Capitalist Counter parts. Two: During War, the people of belligerents in a conflict tend to work harder at their own cost due to a easily known goal of defeating the enemy. The goals are not as clear during peace."
It was short-lived because the Spanish state colluded with the Italian Fascists to violently destroy them (much like the state colluded with capitalists to enclose the common); productivity was up 20% - and that's compared to pre-war effort - not to defeat the enemy, but because people were working by themselves, for themselves.
"The CNT was coercing those that wanted to keep private property, or make a profit, or weren't operating exactly under their Socialist system."
It's not coercive to oppose an act of coercion (the maintenance of private property); the CNT did not stop people from operating outside of the communes, making profits for themselves. The balance was roughly 70% of the populous joining the communes, 30% working independently.
"People are free to be stupid and so long as they don't hurt others and violate their rights. If I'm the property owner and I don't run my farm, or factory right. It goes out of business, I have to sell it to someone who probably does know how to operate it."
That someone can afford something in no way means the are better at operating it than someone who can't.
"The workers they can work under the new owner, or can find other jobs."
The slave can work under the new master, or find another master.
"One problem with Anarchy is you tend to have small centralized societies that divorce themselves from other societies. This limits ones options in employment and trade opportunities."
Anarchism has always advocated federation between societies.
"I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. But you want the Product to be made most efficiently because it reduces the cost."
I'm getting at "cost" meaning different things to different people - cost to the seller, cost to society, cost to the planet...the market only responds to the cost to the seller, driving it down by creating externalities that drive up the cost to society and the planet.
"Exactly you have billions of people competing to provide goods and services. Billions of people make it hard to have monopolies."
Not one only hundreds of them are granted rights to be providers.
-
"It takes time, effort, and capital to gain skills. It is far more efficient for individuals to specialize. It is far more efficient for the factory owner to pay a guy who has expertise in building to build his factory. Also how does the factory get the money. He probably worked for someone else. Saved his money and made the right moves."
Again, you're presupposing labour markets - first in order to gain skill, and then in having to work for someone else.
"Most people don't just happen to have money."
Because of the credit monopoly.
"How did I monopolize? There is plenty of land and housing else where for him to buy."
That's the land monopoly - the land being owned by only a portion of the populous.
"As said earlier when you know something is yours, you tend to take a lot better care of it especially when you earned the money to buy it. Why not simply allow people to have property rights over their car. The two people can still cooperate for some mutual benefit and use the fruits of the mutual benefit to both buy themselves a car they own. If you want to live in a massive global economy that generates the wealth we have not everyone is going to be a neighbor who trusts one another. Only strong property rights and laws that define those rights can allow for people to feel secure. For example I can buy say a property I'm never going to see, but I can utilize, a contract backed by the law allows for protection of that property and my ownership of it. If someone violates my property, or contract I can sue them. Property rights and laws that define them well allow us to make transactions and take what would have been a risk possible. It increases opportunity and efficiency in the economy."
To be honest, anarchists don't typically begrudge people their car. The trouble is with definitions - "property" is typically understood as "that which allows someone to make someone else work for them", as contrasted with "possession", understood as "that which you personally use". Anarchists oppose the former, and support the latter.
"In a business that can make some sense, but only in that business, but as an employee you agree to that wage for you labor, so their isn't much you can do."
The wage companies can get away with offering depends on the wages other companies are offering.
"So long as the agreed upon pay check keeps coming in most don't care especially in large corporations."
Again, I'm not saying people do - I'm saying people should.
"Even if you have a small minority controlling resources it's still of minority of thousands-millions competing to distribute those resources to Tens, Hundreds of Millions, or billions."
Those with control resources decide how they are distributed.
"You need to learn the definition of a slave then. The man is not a slave. He has choice to rent different properties, or he can choose to buy a property."
Someone who is forced to follow orders in order to have access to the means of life seems like a reasonable definition to me.
"Yeah we can put things in terms of relatives, but the poor in America are still wealthier than the poor in Zimbabwe. The middle class in America is still wealthier than the middle class in China. It's easy to pick and choose what is relative to what. The fact of the matter is if someone has more wealth than you, he has more wealth than you."
Again, the fact of the matter is that having more wealth in general (absolutely) is not as significant an indicator of quality/quantity of life than having more wealth relative to those in your society.
"But I'm pretty sure anyone would want to live in Western levels of prosperity."
I'm not.
"It's nice to think that everyone becomes altruistic, remain hard working, not greedy, and can share and manage everything, but that isn't reality, that's not how things work humans are terribly flawed creatures."
Which is why capitalism is flawed - people are egoistic, lazy, greedy, short-sighted bastards, which is why people having authority over others is to be opposed.
We can know the demand for certain jobs without markets - we can form associations, and decide amongst ourselves what jobs to do, based on our preferences.
"Two things, One: Short Lived, it's highly debatable as to what progress was made, find me a system of commons that endured and did better than it's Capitalist Counter parts. Two: During War, the people of belligerents in a conflict tend to work harder at their own cost due to a easily known goal of defeating the enemy. The goals are not as clear during peace."
It was short-lived because the Spanish state colluded with the Italian Fascists to violently destroy them (much like the state colluded with capitalists to enclose the common); productivity was up 20% - and that's compared to pre-war effort - not to defeat the enemy, but because people were working by themselves, for themselves.
"The CNT was coercing those that wanted to keep private property, or make a profit, or weren't operating exactly under their Socialist system."
It's not coercive to oppose an act of coercion (the maintenance of private property); the CNT did not stop people from operating outside of the communes, making profits for themselves. The balance was roughly 70% of the populous joining the communes, 30% working independently.
"People are free to be stupid and so long as they don't hurt others and violate their rights. If I'm the property owner and I don't run my farm, or factory right. It goes out of business, I have to sell it to someone who probably does know how to operate it."
That someone can afford something in no way means the are better at operating it than someone who can't.
"The workers they can work under the new owner, or can find other jobs."
The slave can work under the new master, or find another master.
"One problem with Anarchy is you tend to have small centralized societies that divorce themselves from other societies. This limits ones options in employment and trade opportunities."
Anarchism has always advocated federation between societies.
"I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. But you want the Product to be made most efficiently because it reduces the cost."
I'm getting at "cost" meaning different things to different people - cost to the seller, cost to society, cost to the planet...the market only responds to the cost to the seller, driving it down by creating externalities that drive up the cost to society and the planet.
"Exactly you have billions of people competing to provide goods and services. Billions of people make it hard to have monopolies."
Not one only hundreds of them are granted rights to be providers.
-
"It takes time, effort, and capital to gain skills. It is far more efficient for individuals to specialize. It is far more efficient for the factory owner to pay a guy who has expertise in building to build his factory. Also how does the factory get the money. He probably worked for someone else. Saved his money and made the right moves."
Again, you're presupposing labour markets - first in order to gain skill, and then in having to work for someone else.
"Most people don't just happen to have money."
Because of the credit monopoly.
"How did I monopolize? There is plenty of land and housing else where for him to buy."
That's the land monopoly - the land being owned by only a portion of the populous.
"As said earlier when you know something is yours, you tend to take a lot better care of it especially when you earned the money to buy it. Why not simply allow people to have property rights over their car. The two people can still cooperate for some mutual benefit and use the fruits of the mutual benefit to both buy themselves a car they own. If you want to live in a massive global economy that generates the wealth we have not everyone is going to be a neighbor who trusts one another. Only strong property rights and laws that define those rights can allow for people to feel secure. For example I can buy say a property I'm never going to see, but I can utilize, a contract backed by the law allows for protection of that property and my ownership of it. If someone violates my property, or contract I can sue them. Property rights and laws that define them well allow us to make transactions and take what would have been a risk possible. It increases opportunity and efficiency in the economy."
To be honest, anarchists don't typically begrudge people their car. The trouble is with definitions - "property" is typically understood as "that which allows someone to make someone else work for them", as contrasted with "possession", understood as "that which you personally use". Anarchists oppose the former, and support the latter.
"In a business that can make some sense, but only in that business, but as an employee you agree to that wage for you labor, so their isn't much you can do."
The wage companies can get away with offering depends on the wages other companies are offering.
"So long as the agreed upon pay check keeps coming in most don't care especially in large corporations."
Again, I'm not saying people do - I'm saying people should.
"Even if you have a small minority controlling resources it's still of minority of thousands-millions competing to distribute those resources to Tens, Hundreds of Millions, or billions."
Those with control resources decide how they are distributed.
"You need to learn the definition of a slave then. The man is not a slave. He has choice to rent different properties, or he can choose to buy a property."
Someone who is forced to follow orders in order to have access to the means of life seems like a reasonable definition to me.
"Yeah we can put things in terms of relatives, but the poor in America are still wealthier than the poor in Zimbabwe. The middle class in America is still wealthier than the middle class in China. It's easy to pick and choose what is relative to what. The fact of the matter is if someone has more wealth than you, he has more wealth than you."
Again, the fact of the matter is that having more wealth in general (absolutely) is not as significant an indicator of quality/quantity of life than having more wealth relative to those in your society.
"But I'm pretty sure anyone would want to live in Western levels of prosperity."
I'm not.
"It's nice to think that everyone becomes altruistic, remain hard working, not greedy, and can share and manage everything, but that isn't reality, that's not how things work humans are terribly flawed creatures."
Which is why capitalism is flawed - people are egoistic, lazy, greedy, short-sighted bastards, which is why people having authority over others is to be opposed.
View all replies
First things first, can you tell me how to italicize. When you do it, it makes it easier to differentiate the quotes from the counter argument and I think it only courteous to afford you the same luxury.
"I think we're going to have to agree to disagree there."
This is the first sign that someone has no argument.
Labor is a product. Example: You have the masseuse, his job is purely labor, but wouldn't you think that the value of the massage is determined by demand and not by his ability to provide the massage. If no one wants a massage, no matter how much skill the masseuse has in the trade he's not going to make any money because no one wants his skill. Laborers with higher skills, and more experience get paid more because they’re in shorter supply than workers with no skills and no experience. Also the Laborer needs to compete with other laborers who may offer their services for less. I really hope you watched that video on subjective value before typing that statement.
“You talk as if nation states have not laid claim to the rights of all the land in the world.”
I’m not a big fan of nation states myself. I believe that it is wrong for states to establish monopolies, private, or government within their borders. That is why free trade is essential for an economy to prosper. It prevents monopolies within a market.
“Hence the need for co-operative production.”
Do you think the part of the work force that might lose their job to new technologies is going to let that happen. In the private property free market. New technology is allowed, item is produced more cheaply. Workers that lost their job find new jobs, maybe better jobs. Most people unfortunately don’t think beyond the first step.
“Yes. For example, the CNT during the Spanish Civil War.”
I looked up the CNT as a political party it isn’t that popular and I found no example for how they contributed to human advancement.
“Hence the need for resistance.”
The problem is that guy who is being selfish, might have friends relatives in the community. Maybe he’s personally popular and no one wants to punish him. Private property settles these disputes properly. If it is defined who owns it than it is easy to determine who has authority on the property. Property rights contains people greed and stupidity to their property.
“Enclosure”
I read this and I’m going to have fun picking it apart. So you have this land that a commons is using. The peasants using them aren’t utilizing the land efficiently. There is huge demand for wool and they aren’t using the land to supply it. Now I disagree with enclosure that it used forced to take the land. But the overall result was a net positive. The land was then properly used for sheep grazing and wool production. People got the wool they needed. Wool eventually went down in price and the land was used for other productive means. When most trade laws in England were abolished this opened up Britain to markets all over the world they competed and the land and factory owners advanced technology to compete. You had the industrial revolution and huge advances in human development. Sorry, but the fall of the commons seems more likely to have improved the lot in England than worsen. It may have seemed bad at first, but remember the tractor it made thousands of farmers jobless at first. But as explained earlier it improved society greatly.
“I'm having trouble parsing that, but I'm not saying all states are operated on behalf of corporations.”
Sometimes governments do corrupt things on behalf of the corporations, but sometimes they do corrupt thing on behalf of the people. Free stuff from someone else in exchange for a vote. Or the political class use their power to purely benefit themselves. Or the mob society takes the property of another.
“Communes around the world”
Keep in mind communes aren’t that common, not many people opt to live in them, the majority of society chooses private property ownership captitalism. And the most successful societies are the ones that respect private property ownership. Let’s compare two countries that neighbor each other. Zimbabwe the government steals peoples land. They have the poorest economy in sub saharan Africa. Botswana they have it written in their constitution that the government cannot steal one’s property. They are the second richest country in sub saharan africa only behind South Africa. People need security that the fruits of their labor are not going to be taken when building infrastructure in a country. If they don’t have that security then they won’t even invest in the country in the first place.
“I'll let you know when someone shows me a purely free market.
-
We’ve been pretty close to one. The early industrial revolution, the greatest improvement in the average person's standard of living in history. There is a strong and fairly consistent correlation between greater free markets/stronger property rights and prosperity/human advancement. Explain to me how that isn’t the case and give me an example how society made up of communes did better than the societies that had private property ownership? I know of know instance.
"It's nice to think that someone will stop associating with you over morals, but that is seldom the case."
Probably why I don't think it - I think people will stop associating with people they realize threaten their way of life via misuse of resources and attempts at enforcing monopoly.
“Maintain a room for yourself; you're free to do only maintenance that benefits yourself.”
There is a kitchen a bathroom I have to share. It seems terribly unfair for the person who built, or accumulated the wealth to obtain the house, to then have to share it with others maybe even people he doesn’t like. What if one person murders the other to make more room for himself. He could easily claim self defense. Property rights help settle these disputes. If I own and have control of my property then that is the final matter. I am ultimate executor of that property. If someone I don’t like enters that property, I should have the right to remove them, if they resist I should have the right to kill him. Believe it, or not private property creates some securities for people.
“He has to pay for its maintenance if he's using it; he's not going to treat it frivolously if he plans on using it for long.”
What if he knows I’ll buy another car, or pay for the maintenance, I use it too. And maybe if he destroys the car the guy who earned it in the first place may not purchase another fearing that the labor put into the car may go to waste again. And because he doesn’t plan to buy another car he may not work as hard because he’s no longer strive for the care. In the end everyone loses. There is one less care, less labor, less for society overall.
“I know a few people who realize that what other people earn, and how they earn it, directly affects their situation.”
You know a “few” people, that doesn’t mean everyone. I don’t know many people who care how much their boss earns. So long as they’re compensated the agreed upon wage for their labor they don’t care. If those people are concerned about how much their boss makes they can quit and find a new job. That’s the great thing about FREE markets, you’re free to seek employment wherever you want, you’re free to earn the wealth to buy whatever you want. Do you honestly care how the computer you use is made, do you care how many people profit from selling you that computer. I doubt it, you decided to spend your money to buy it. It apparently provides you with services that you value and in the end so long as the product benefits you it shouldn’t matter to you how it’s made.
I would also like to add this point about renters. Renters have to work at determining who to rent to. You don’t want to rent to people who may destroy the property, or treat it well, you also need to determine if the person will be able to pay the agreed rent. The renter also contributes to society by renting the property to the responsible and those who are willing to pay rent to use the property. Because the person who pays the most will most likely profit the most from using it. And the person profiting the most is likely producing goods and services in high demand. If the renter isn’t careful about who he rents it to he may be coming out of the arrangement with a loss.
"I think we're going to have to agree to disagree there."
This is the first sign that someone has no argument.
Labor is a product. Example: You have the masseuse, his job is purely labor, but wouldn't you think that the value of the massage is determined by demand and not by his ability to provide the massage. If no one wants a massage, no matter how much skill the masseuse has in the trade he's not going to make any money because no one wants his skill. Laborers with higher skills, and more experience get paid more because they’re in shorter supply than workers with no skills and no experience. Also the Laborer needs to compete with other laborers who may offer their services for less. I really hope you watched that video on subjective value before typing that statement.
“You talk as if nation states have not laid claim to the rights of all the land in the world.”
I’m not a big fan of nation states myself. I believe that it is wrong for states to establish monopolies, private, or government within their borders. That is why free trade is essential for an economy to prosper. It prevents monopolies within a market.
“Hence the need for co-operative production.”
Do you think the part of the work force that might lose their job to new technologies is going to let that happen. In the private property free market. New technology is allowed, item is produced more cheaply. Workers that lost their job find new jobs, maybe better jobs. Most people unfortunately don’t think beyond the first step.
“Yes. For example, the CNT during the Spanish Civil War.”
I looked up the CNT as a political party it isn’t that popular and I found no example for how they contributed to human advancement.
“Hence the need for resistance.”
The problem is that guy who is being selfish, might have friends relatives in the community. Maybe he’s personally popular and no one wants to punish him. Private property settles these disputes properly. If it is defined who owns it than it is easy to determine who has authority on the property. Property rights contains people greed and stupidity to their property.
“Enclosure”
I read this and I’m going to have fun picking it apart. So you have this land that a commons is using. The peasants using them aren’t utilizing the land efficiently. There is huge demand for wool and they aren’t using the land to supply it. Now I disagree with enclosure that it used forced to take the land. But the overall result was a net positive. The land was then properly used for sheep grazing and wool production. People got the wool they needed. Wool eventually went down in price and the land was used for other productive means. When most trade laws in England were abolished this opened up Britain to markets all over the world they competed and the land and factory owners advanced technology to compete. You had the industrial revolution and huge advances in human development. Sorry, but the fall of the commons seems more likely to have improved the lot in England than worsen. It may have seemed bad at first, but remember the tractor it made thousands of farmers jobless at first. But as explained earlier it improved society greatly.
“I'm having trouble parsing that, but I'm not saying all states are operated on behalf of corporations.”
Sometimes governments do corrupt things on behalf of the corporations, but sometimes they do corrupt thing on behalf of the people. Free stuff from someone else in exchange for a vote. Or the political class use their power to purely benefit themselves. Or the mob society takes the property of another.
“Communes around the world”
Keep in mind communes aren’t that common, not many people opt to live in them, the majority of society chooses private property ownership captitalism. And the most successful societies are the ones that respect private property ownership. Let’s compare two countries that neighbor each other. Zimbabwe the government steals peoples land. They have the poorest economy in sub saharan Africa. Botswana they have it written in their constitution that the government cannot steal one’s property. They are the second richest country in sub saharan africa only behind South Africa. People need security that the fruits of their labor are not going to be taken when building infrastructure in a country. If they don’t have that security then they won’t even invest in the country in the first place.
“I'll let you know when someone shows me a purely free market.
-
We’ve been pretty close to one. The early industrial revolution, the greatest improvement in the average person's standard of living in history. There is a strong and fairly consistent correlation between greater free markets/stronger property rights and prosperity/human advancement. Explain to me how that isn’t the case and give me an example how society made up of communes did better than the societies that had private property ownership? I know of know instance.
"It's nice to think that someone will stop associating with you over morals, but that is seldom the case."
Probably why I don't think it - I think people will stop associating with people they realize threaten their way of life via misuse of resources and attempts at enforcing monopoly.
“Maintain a room for yourself; you're free to do only maintenance that benefits yourself.”
There is a kitchen a bathroom I have to share. It seems terribly unfair for the person who built, or accumulated the wealth to obtain the house, to then have to share it with others maybe even people he doesn’t like. What if one person murders the other to make more room for himself. He could easily claim self defense. Property rights help settle these disputes. If I own and have control of my property then that is the final matter. I am ultimate executor of that property. If someone I don’t like enters that property, I should have the right to remove them, if they resist I should have the right to kill him. Believe it, or not private property creates some securities for people.
“He has to pay for its maintenance if he's using it; he's not going to treat it frivolously if he plans on using it for long.”
What if he knows I’ll buy another car, or pay for the maintenance, I use it too. And maybe if he destroys the car the guy who earned it in the first place may not purchase another fearing that the labor put into the car may go to waste again. And because he doesn’t plan to buy another car he may not work as hard because he’s no longer strive for the care. In the end everyone loses. There is one less care, less labor, less for society overall.
“I know a few people who realize that what other people earn, and how they earn it, directly affects their situation.”
You know a “few” people, that doesn’t mean everyone. I don’t know many people who care how much their boss earns. So long as they’re compensated the agreed upon wage for their labor they don’t care. If those people are concerned about how much their boss makes they can quit and find a new job. That’s the great thing about FREE markets, you’re free to seek employment wherever you want, you’re free to earn the wealth to buy whatever you want. Do you honestly care how the computer you use is made, do you care how many people profit from selling you that computer. I doubt it, you decided to spend your money to buy it. It apparently provides you with services that you value and in the end so long as the product benefits you it shouldn’t matter to you how it’s made.
I would also like to add this point about renters. Renters have to work at determining who to rent to. You don’t want to rent to people who may destroy the property, or treat it well, you also need to determine if the person will be able to pay the agreed rent. The renter also contributes to society by renting the property to the responsible and those who are willing to pay rent to use the property. Because the person who pays the most will most likely profit the most from using it. And the person profiting the most is likely producing goods and services in high demand. If the renter isn’t careful about who he rents it to he may be coming out of the arrangement with a loss.
"First things first, can you tell me how to italicize. When you do it, it makes it easier to differentiate the quotes from the counter argument and I think it only courteous to afford you the same luxury."
FAQ #104
"Labor is a product. Example: You have the masseuse, his job is purely labor, but wouldn't you think that the value of the massage is determined by demand and not by his ability to provide the massage."
His labour is his ability to provide the massage; that his labour is valued according to demand presupposes a labour market, in which labour is treated as a product.
"Do you think the part of the work force that might lose their job to new technologies is going to let that happen."
Let what happen?
"I looked up the CNT as a political party it isn’t that popular and I found no example for how they contributed to human advancement."
They demonstrated co-operative production:
Spanish Revolution - Social Revolution
"The problem is that guy who is being selfish, might have friends relatives in the community. Maybe he’s personally popular and no one wants to punish him. Private property settles these disputes properly. If it is defined who owns it than it is easy to determine who has authority on the property. Property rights contains people greed and stupidity to their property."
Hence the need for mass resistance; you make it sound like property rights are not largely determined by family ties, popularity, greed, and stupidity.
"So you have this land that a commons is using. The peasants using them aren’t utilizing the land efficiently. There is huge demand for wool and they aren’t using the land to supply it."
You make it sound like efficiency and demand are objective; the peasants were using the land to efficiently meet their needs - the demand for wool was foreign.
"It may have seemed bad at first, but remember the tractor it made thousands of farmers jobless at first."
Do you have a source for that?
"Keep in mind communes aren’t that common, not many people opt to live in them, the majority of society chooses private property ownership captitalism."
The majority of society doesn't have a choice; the means of life are monopolized to such an extent that the average person is forced to submit to the system or starve.
"People need security that the fruits of their labor are not going to be taken when building infrastructure in a country."
Which, to reiterate, is not what occurs under capitalism - the fruits of a person's labour is appropriated by a non-producer.
"We’ve been pretty close to one. The early industrial revolution, the greatest improvement in the average person's standard of living in history."
How was the early industrial revolution anything approaching a free market?
"There is a kitchen a bathroom I have to share. It seems terribly unfair for the person who built, or accumulated the wealth to obtain the house, to then have to share it with others maybe even people he doesn’t like."
Again, you're free to build your own kitchen and bathroom.
"What if one person murders the other to make more room for himself. He could easily claim self defense. Property rights help settle these disputes. If I own and have control of my property then that is the final matter."
...As in it's okay to murder someone, as long as you do it on your own property?
"What if he knows I’ll buy another car, or pay for the maintenance, I use it too."
If you're going to reward his bad behavior, you've only got yourself to blame.
"And maybe if he destroys the car the guy who earned it in the first place may not purchase another fearing that the labor put into the car may go to waste again."
Or he could stop associating with the guy who destroyed his car.
"You know a “few” people, that doesn’t mean everyone."
I was being sardonic; my point is that people should care what other people earn.
"That’s the great thing about FREE markets, you’re free to seek employment wherever you want, you’re free to earn the wealth to buy whatever you want."
Unless the means of production is monopolized - as under, say, capitalism.
"I would also like to add this point about renters. Renters have to work at determining who to rent to."
If deciding who would make the most compliant slave is work.
FAQ #104
"Labor is a product. Example: You have the masseuse, his job is purely labor, but wouldn't you think that the value of the massage is determined by demand and not by his ability to provide the massage."
His labour is his ability to provide the massage; that his labour is valued according to demand presupposes a labour market, in which labour is treated as a product.
"Do you think the part of the work force that might lose their job to new technologies is going to let that happen."
Let what happen?
"I looked up the CNT as a political party it isn’t that popular and I found no example for how they contributed to human advancement."
They demonstrated co-operative production:
Spanish Revolution - Social Revolution
"The problem is that guy who is being selfish, might have friends relatives in the community. Maybe he’s personally popular and no one wants to punish him. Private property settles these disputes properly. If it is defined who owns it than it is easy to determine who has authority on the property. Property rights contains people greed and stupidity to their property."
Hence the need for mass resistance; you make it sound like property rights are not largely determined by family ties, popularity, greed, and stupidity.
"So you have this land that a commons is using. The peasants using them aren’t utilizing the land efficiently. There is huge demand for wool and they aren’t using the land to supply it."
You make it sound like efficiency and demand are objective; the peasants were using the land to efficiently meet their needs - the demand for wool was foreign.
"It may have seemed bad at first, but remember the tractor it made thousands of farmers jobless at first."
Do you have a source for that?
"Keep in mind communes aren’t that common, not many people opt to live in them, the majority of society chooses private property ownership captitalism."
The majority of society doesn't have a choice; the means of life are monopolized to such an extent that the average person is forced to submit to the system or starve.
"People need security that the fruits of their labor are not going to be taken when building infrastructure in a country."
Which, to reiterate, is not what occurs under capitalism - the fruits of a person's labour is appropriated by a non-producer.
"We’ve been pretty close to one. The early industrial revolution, the greatest improvement in the average person's standard of living in history."
How was the early industrial revolution anything approaching a free market?
"There is a kitchen a bathroom I have to share. It seems terribly unfair for the person who built, or accumulated the wealth to obtain the house, to then have to share it with others maybe even people he doesn’t like."
Again, you're free to build your own kitchen and bathroom.
"What if one person murders the other to make more room for himself. He could easily claim self defense. Property rights help settle these disputes. If I own and have control of my property then that is the final matter."
...As in it's okay to murder someone, as long as you do it on your own property?
"What if he knows I’ll buy another car, or pay for the maintenance, I use it too."
If you're going to reward his bad behavior, you've only got yourself to blame.
"And maybe if he destroys the car the guy who earned it in the first place may not purchase another fearing that the labor put into the car may go to waste again."
Or he could stop associating with the guy who destroyed his car.
"You know a “few” people, that doesn’t mean everyone."
I was being sardonic; my point is that people should care what other people earn.
"That’s the great thing about FREE markets, you’re free to seek employment wherever you want, you’re free to earn the wealth to buy whatever you want."
Unless the means of production is monopolized - as under, say, capitalism.
"I would also like to add this point about renters. Renters have to work at determining who to rent to."
If deciding who would make the most compliant slave is work.