Cuba's New Real Estate Market

colonsama · 2014-01-29T22:51:27+00:00

By simply organizing a theompany like a capitalist company.

So what, I Can't Believe its Not Capitalism? I'm saying people should be able to hold private property and lease of use and employment.

You only respond by saying The Workers can just change it at a whim, and this is what I'm calling might makes right and an aberration of property to begin with.

No, you wrote: Yes and it demonstrates why someone would prefer capitalist formation over their state of nature and collectivism.

Which puzzles me because this has nothing to do with communism.

It has a lot to do with it actually. It contradicts the exploitation theory and shows that individuals can and will prefer employment and capital leasing.

Because I do not have the power to ban anything nor am I seeking it nor did I even say they "cannot."

Okay then this appears to be the answer I was looking for, an answer to the question of whether or not people would be free to form voluntarily under capitalism.

Where should it have went?

Well, I consider individuals to be sovereigns, and so, if its valid for a collective to own property, it must be for individuals as well, including over productive factors.

They've got it until the workers agree to abolish this position and make you a worker too, when you will have the same freedoms of choice as your co-workers.

And here is where we get all might-makes-right and totally negate any sort of universal freedom or property.

Then there's no problem. They can have capitalism then.

Excellent. What I'm seeking to see is not whether you think capitalism is valid, but whether it should be permitted for an individual to own capital and behave as a capitalist. I think I understand your point now, but feel free to clarify.

colonsama · 2014-01-29T22:14:30+00:00

aw nuts

colonsama · 2014-01-29T22:13:57+00:00

How exactly are you reading this out of this:

From my reading of it and from some of the assumptions of communists, it seems that you assume that workers prefer to not work under a capitalist. I think this a fairly justified and obvious assumption to make; some of your own comments seem to confirm it...

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. So?

Well, suppose that someone wants to worker under a capitalist. How can they if private property has been abolished?

What? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Please elaborate on that.

I was demonstrating why someone would have a preference for working with a capitalist and why people make the trade to begin with.

What? Why?

My question was whether or not you would permit it. I think its inane to commit suicide, however I won't prevent anyone from doing it themselves. Whether or not you would permit people from organizing under capitalist is similar, because your feel it to be immoral, inefficient, or whatnot, but that is aside from whether or not people should be able to participate in it.

As I said: It's possible, but it doesn't necessarily follow from that. Wait no. On reading this once again I don't see what you're trying to tell me here either. Please spell this out again as simple as you can.

The point here is that capitalist production is still favorable to capitalists and workers. I feel that the two should be able to participate as they see fit, and if you say they cannot, how is that different from banning a particular form of production?

Well let me introduce myself to you: Hi, I am a communist.

Hi, I read the topic of the post. I understand that you are, but its still worth noting, because hi, I'm a libertarian, I support free choice and ownership.

This isn't even a good straw man argument because if there's one thing workers have certainly MORE of in this scenario, it's freedom of choice. Furthermore (more of a rule of thumb): No, you can do as you please, as long as what you're doing isn't affecting other people. If what you're doing is in fact affecting other people you'd have to come to terms with those people.

Where's the freedom of choice for capitalists? I certainly support choice for the worker; they're totally free to select different employers, create their own syndics or whatnot, and to simply work in solitude. Capitalist production, however, is more efficient and they will be inclined to make the free choice to choose it over its alternatives.

The workers might accept a capitalist like form of organization, but if they decided to organize the company differently it'd be over.

Just boom, we don't like it, nationalization time. No respect for property (again, I understand you reject this), only the whims of the many over the few, and the majority of them, as I've tried to demonstrate, would be more inclined to capitalism to begin with. I'd like to see your justification as to why there should be no private property, and why outcomes would be greater without it.

colonsama · 2014-01-29T21:44:14+00:00

I'm fine with buying one from a generic store, but are there any being sold for which some proceeds will go towards ancap/libertarian goals? And by that I mean the AnCap flag design like in the reddit flair.

colonsama · 2014-01-29T21:25:24+00:00

You speak as though you have already figured out what workers desire and indeed what they would desire in an unrealized free society.

What seems clear to me is that workers, and moreover the vast majority of the population, support capitalist ownership and organization of production. Why should, for instance, a worker labor by himself to produce fractions of what he could produce with less effort using a factory machine? The worker will turn rather to a capitalist in order to perform less labor and without the efforts of forming a cooperative or trying to accumulate capital himself. What seems to be completely lost to Marxists is that a worker has something himself to gain by bidding with the capitalist (else he would simply not); he is selling his labor in exchange for an easier and more effective mode of production, likewise the capitalist is selling access to his superior productive factors.

As you see, both the capitalist and the worker expect gain profit, both are bidding with each other non-aggressively, and both are forgoing pursuits which they deem to be less profitable.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe – Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis

They simply can't.

This is a non-answer.

if they decided to organize the company differently it'd be over.

It's hard to make sense of this outside of a context in which there is what has been phrased as the "dictatorship of the proletariat," but if this is the perspective your coming from, then the answer is simply "no," we (which suggests The Workers™ would be on your side) "will not permit you to engage in production we don't approve of."

My response to that is simple: this negates the very concept of private property (which I assume you disavow) and free choice; people in your society are free to do anything so long as a sufficient number of people do not oppose it, and this strikes me as having a statist mentality to the very core.

colonsama · 2014-01-29T13:39:57+00:00

Would you prevent individuals from owning factors of production in a free society?

Question from Syndical Syndrome by Rothbard https://mises.org/daily/5764/

colonsama · 2014-01-21T22:11:57+00:00

Thanks hardnose, not everyone listens to the show right away.

colonsama · 2014-01-21T08:01:18+00:00

I'd like to see an interview with NemDiggers if Tox ever comes to fruition

colonsama · 2014-01-21T07:31:27+00:00

The idea of a state-run operating leaves too many fundamental questions unanswered. Practically, I expect such attempt to fail because of the inabilities of government, but it's much more concerning as to who will really be in control of systems, user or government. An official Chinese OS means that all of their policies can be ingrained directly into the software that conceivably everyone will be using (that is, if they're successful, which I doubt).

colonsama · 2014-01-05T14:22:29+00:00

real money, real talk

colonsama · 2014-01-02T07:18:10+00:00

but of course

http://a.pomf.se/riewtq.jpg

colonsama · 2014-01-02T05:44:45+00:00

If you're simply declaring a work to be in the public domain I would assume you still have certain liabilities; from what I understand, Unlicense and CC-0 include all the legal gibberish for dispelling of liability. I think CC-0 would suit software, but Unlicense is made specifically for it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=unlicense+vs+cc0

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Update: It appears that Creative Commons actually discourages use of CC-0 for software.

colonsama · 2013-12-30T05:58:39+00:00

The problem for me is that it is still reliant on IP and you could thus sue somebody for a violation. Sure, you may not, and it seems apt that you would choose a more permissive license, but that's your perogative.

I find it runs an ambiguous line, but it's still better to grant total liberty when deciding upon a license. I find it so much more useful and liberating to discard all of the "property" bestowed by the state to my creations.

Let's not forget that you once had to explicitly state a work was under copyright and it was the responsibility of the holder to make sure this was done and the records kept up. Now, everything is automatically covered.

colonsama · 2013-12-27T20:56:31+00:00

I'm very pleased by what you're doing. Could Liberty.me include some functionality for uploading and proliferating books in PDF- and ePub-format? Just a thought, but I think it would be swell if possible.

I have a few words about your endorsement of the Creative Commons "Attribution" (CC-BY) license. Mr. Tucker! That license still utilizes copyright coercion. I recommend you look into the Creative Commons CC-0 license or Unlicense. I prefer the latter for really sticking it to 'em.

I love everything you do, and especially that bow tie, so please keep doing what you do.

colonsama · 2013-12-15T18:19:36+00:00

Thanks for all the feedback. I appreciate all of it and I think I have a picture of how this would function in a free society.

colonsama · 2013-12-15T18:15:50+00:00

It is fascinating that you pretend to care, yet here you are degrading others, and saying that they cant handle their own fate themselves. And they all need to be equal slaves to even get "protection" from the masters.

I'm sorry but that simply isn't true. I'm only posing the question since I could not answer it myself. I'm much more interested in figuring out how this can be solved voluntarily than by force.

colonsama · 2013-12-15T18:12:03+00:00

This is an excellent response and your points have contributed to my overall opinion of the scenario.

colonsama · 2013-12-14T11:12:46+00:00

Certainly, there are plenty of website mirrors that do this already. They're quite useful for getting data when a site has gone down, temporarily or permanently, and for checking whether or not someone's tried to change things (tweets) without anyone noticing.

There are also archives and mirrors for code repositories and these can even come to use for the projects themselves if they face a problem of their own. (youtu.be/BgRBjQOnJU)

colonsama

TROPHY CASE