[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos Is it really necessary for values to be adequately quantified? I would say no.

So why suggest that capitalist attempts at doing so are truly necessary?

Quote by: Autolykos Otherwise, I agree with you that they cannot. Also, I'd like to add that, from what I understand, values vary from individual to individual. Hence there can be no objective standard with which to quantify them.

Hence, I do not think abstract considerations should be granted realness. Prices exist both because you imagine they are there and because you are forced to abide by them.
That is hrdly ny kind of political position--it is an automatic truth. Hence, people should really challenge the system if it mandates potential threats to our livelihoods.

Quote by: Autolykos Can you explain to us what you mean by "held down"? Of course, we've heard your position a thousand times already, that capitalism exists to keep people poor.

If you are systematically deprived of resources because you lack money, that means you are being held down. And it's not my opinion this happens, it simply does.

Quote by: Autolykos Yet you've failed to provide a sufficiently coherent definition of "poverty", preferring instead to invoke the vague notions of "basic needs" and "natural circumstances", as if you expect those terms to be self-evident to the rest of us -- which, I assure you, they are not. Furthermore, although a commonly-held set of definitions is essential for continuing debate, it is foolish to expect (let alone deman or assume) that everyone else already agrees to the definitions that you yourself hold to.

Well, "poverty," at it's most basic level, can be:
"Descriptions of material need, typically including the necessities of daily living (food, clothing, shelter, and health care). Poverty in this sense may be understood as the deprivation of essential goods and services.
Descriptions of social need, including social exclusion, dependency, and the ability to participate in society. This would include education and information.
Describing a lack of sufficient income and wealth. The meaning of "sufficient" varies widely across the different political and economic parts of the world."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty)

There is a lot of historical revisionism about labor history among ardent capitalists.
Capitalists have ofetn relied on "Pinkertons" or private armies, or official state protection of their profits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkertons
Seems a rather unlikely coincidence, doesn't it?
Left to truly free market, wage labor ould not likely spread because people would much rather work for themselves (as they did before the state began intervening).

Quote by: Autolykos While you may well think that people would "work" without being "held down", do you have any proof to back up your assertion? Otherwise, we may well be obliged to treat it as no more than a platitude.

Well, I make artwork without being held down to do it. I also make music without profiting from it financially (just go to acidplanet.com and look up "Grandpa Helicopter" if you are interested). A week or two I won an award for best drawing at my university's student art gallery. I entered mostly to show my artwork, not compete.
I would probably help someone if they asked me to build a house, install a shower, shovel snow, etc. All one has to do is ask. The experience would probably help me.

Grandpa h.