Osborn-Gramps debate free-trade capitalism

[Osborn F Enready]

Gramps, this is my proposed definitions of Capitalism and Free-Trade.

Capitalism:

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the BANISHMENT of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated ONLY by the means of force. In a Capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others except in defense of individual rights. The ONLY function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting mans rights; ie, the task of protecting him from physical force through empowerment of rights and legal protection thereof; The government acts as the AGENT of MANS RIGHT to self-defense, and may use force ONLY in retaliation and only against those who INITIATE its use; thus, the government is the means of placing retalitory use of force under OBJECTIVE control.

Capitalism requires two things.

A Free-Market
A limited government, with unalienable rights by majority or minority in place for individuals. (hence the United States Constitution, with its Bill of Rights which was intended to do, just that.)

Free Market:

In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical force or coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade. In a free market, all prices, wages and profits are determined not by the arbitrary whim of the rich or of the poor, not by anyones "greed" or by anyones "need", but by the LAW of supply and demand. The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual conscent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgement. A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values- better products, services, prices or atmosphere... than others are able to offer. Wealth in a free-market is achieved by a free general democratic vote, by the sales and the purchase of every individual who takes part in the economic life of the country. Whenever you buy one product rather than another, you are voting for the success of that product and directly to the success of that manufacturer or service provider. In this type of system each man votes only according to his personal needs, prefrences or desires in which he is qualified to judge, which directly affect him. No one has the power to substitute, or decide for others his judgement for theirs, no has the power to appoint themselves as the "voice" of the people and leave the people disenfranchised.

Do you fault these definitions? If so, why?

[grandpa]

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the BANISHMENT of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated ONLY by the means of force.

I see you quote Rand.

First of all, you assume capitalism exists to serve a proper cause and that legally defined property is synonymous with individual rights. I can see plenty of ne"private property" goes beyond merely living somewhere. Capitalism is expansionist, meaning one is expected to profit from land that others use (that is a classic formulation for capitalist production, after all, as well as what landlords do in the form, of collecting rent).

And I agree it is not entirely based on "force." However, the best means for any individual or group to maintain the domination of resources is coercion and indoctrination. That's why there is legal force lurking in the background at all times.

Consider Christiania in Denmark. As AP reminds us:
"Parliament recognized Christiania as a 'social experiment' in 1987, and four years later gave the residents the right to use the land.
However, lawmakers three years ago adopted the center-right government's plan to end the social experiment. The government wants to create a housing agency to assume ownership of Christiania's buildings, impose rents and allow outsiders to move in."

This kind of thing is important when we consider how the system works. It is sigtnificantly imposed on us. If it wasn't imposed, no previously subordinate person in their right mind would demand to pay rent and property taxes.

In a Capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others except in defense of individual rights. The ONLY function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting mans rights; ie, the task of protecting him from physical force through empowerment of rights and legal protection thereof; The government acts as the AGENT of MANS RIGHT to self-defense, and may use force ONLY in retaliation and only against those who INITIATE its use; thus, the government is the means of placing retalitory use of force under OBJECTIVE control.

If you look at history, just about every type of government uses rhetoric of individual freedom to preserve their system of inequality. It's a very simple principle that's commonly coined: Divide and conquer. What we've seen throughout the ages is subordinate people giving small minorities--typically wealthy people-- special rights.
I personal don't wants amoral (and immoral) legal insititutions to tell me what my rights are, or small minorities of people to control production and divvy out resources and tell us how much access to resources we can afford. Not only is it uncomfortable, it's not necessary. I don't need legal rights to use anything, do anything or go anywhere. All we need to do is kick these abstract hurdles out of the way and figure things out ourselves by applying straight logic.

In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical force or coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade. In a free market, all prices, wages and profits are determined not by the arbitrary whim of the rich or of the poor, not by anyones "greed" or by anyones "need", but by the LAW of supply and demand.

First of all, supply and demand is not "objective." All prices are subjective. They have to be, seeing as to how values are constantly in flux and prices aren't automatic in nature. Then you also say prices, wages and profits shouldn't take into account human need, which, to be blunt, is sheer insanity. The very point of doing most work is to fulfill some kind of need, not just to support "supply and demand."
Obviously, implied here is the "supply and demand" of those who have all they need and more. Otherwise, people work because they need to for survival, not out of loyalty to some abstract economic principle.

It is cynical to speak of "voluntary means" of economic power when there is contsantly legal coercion in the background, when people must agree to be subordinate if they are to have access to money. If we really want "free trade," get rid of any legal titles which slant the benefits of trade in favor of one person or another. In other words, goodbye bosses, goodbye investors and goodbye to the systematic deprivation of resources--the primary basis for poverty creation.

A lot of grocery store owners may not expect their employees to think they rightfully own any of the business, but workers work as much as owners and managers (typically more, in fact) to make the business successful. The only thing preventing workers (and consumers) from having an equal say is the prejudice and indoctrination of the owner and the law which prevents participation in decisions that matter. In case you haven't noticed, the process of empowerment of workers undermines the very basis for having a boss, investors and even money when it comes to production and trade.

It seems to be all Greek to you, though.

When people don't just ignore this issue, they fend off any criticism by using the kindergarten mantra, "You're just jealous" of the rich and elites.

The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual conscent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgement.

"Uncoerced judgment" sounds decent enough, until you consider that general subordination to landlords and bosses has an immediate coercion within it.

A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values- better products, services, prices or atmosphere... than others are able to offer.

Cheaper is not always better. Missing from this statement is the fact that the rich gain their wealth by exploiting their workforce (and consumers). Rand is speaking in favor of a wealthy minority drawing disproportionate benefits from the workers themselves, yet doesn't have the guts to come out and say so.

Wealth in a free-market is achieved by a free* general democratic vote, by the sales and the purchase of every individual who takes part in the economic life of the country. Whenever you buy one product rather than another, you are voting for the success of that product and directly to the success of that manufacturer or service provider.

As I've explained before, this mindset does not work. There are more important decisions involved than simply what the consumer buys. There are issues of general interest to consumers and workers that may have little of anything to do with whether one prefers Coke or Pepsi. And, as explained before, one's not buying something should not necessarily be seen as a negative vote against that product, its manufacturers or distributors. But that is unfortunately not the case, as we see with the unnecessary practice of liquidating businesses for money reasons. Here's an example of what I mean: Because a country record doesn't sell very well, does it mean nobody listens to country? Certainly not. Nor should it necessarily mean the record company should be shut down. However, in a marketplace where the invented laws of "supply and demand" hold sway and banks and municipalities have the right to close down unprofitable ventures, this is an imposed risk. That's why a lot of unheard of bands or products get the ax. If they don't make X amount of money, supposedly no one wants them anymore. Hence, Johnny Cash once was dumped from a record label. The internet challenges this mindset, but there are constant battles to make it more capitalistic.
If people try to get music for free they can be sued for millions or even billions of dollars. This all conforms remarkably well with the capitalist mindset of simply restricting independent behavior and thought. We're committing "piracy" if we listen to music without contributing to profits (even if it's perceived losses) and we're "lowlifes" if we do not pay rent to live somewhere. It's a rather cruel state of mind, but it works.
The fact that we're humans with needs is almost coincidental to ths system. We're primarily supposed to be money-makers and product users. If we're none of those then we're not fit to survive. That is how the marketplace often works itself out and it can prove disastrous to people.

[grandpa]

In this type of system each man votes only according to his personal needs, prefrences or desires in which he is qualified to judge, which directly affect him. No one has the power to substitute, or decide for others his judgement for theirs, no has the power to appoint themselves as the "voice" of the people and leave the people disenfranchised.

I agree no one person should be appointed as voice of the people. So why should capitalist owners dominate decisionmaking (which they in fact do, and always will so long as they exist as they are)? If they don't even have the pretense of being our voice, that undermines them even further below political representatives.

And again, when people buy something they may not know of policies and conquences that directly or indirectly affect them. By any practical standard, this is a mindset very far from perfect--and perhaps intentionally so. If people were aware of issues and policies that affect their communities and took direct action, it'd weaken the need for straight economic theory, political representatives, voting rituals and money-spending.
Who needs managers when things can be managed effectively by workers? Who needs politicians when we can make decisions on our own?

Also, are homeless not disenfranchised, at least in some sense of the word?
Do you not agree that they are created for capitalist reasons?

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gramps said: I see you quote Rand. First of all, you assume capitalism exists to serve a proper cause and that legally defined property is synonymous with individual rights.

And I have a reason for this, which I have elaborated upon many times. You have refuted it many times, but never direct or on points mentioned.

Observable FACT: You own your own body. Without force imposed against you, you are free to do anything you want limited only by your imagination and your conscience.

Observable FACT: Mankind, and all humans REQUIRE space to live since they occupy space.

Observable FACT: Mankind has, and will use nature to sustain itself, by using labor to provide food, provide shelter, provide LIFE and the MEANS TO LIFE, which is dependent on both nature, and the ability to interact with it.

Thereby, man has a natural, inherant right to property by nature, but in nature mans form of that "claim" on land was dictated by force. Rational man, reasonable men, have agreed to to accept this right as natural and equal for all men, regarding the ACCESS or ABILITY of the individual, not the means or amount to each individual, and use it as a common bond on uniting toward a common good of peace, and mutual prosperity through respect.

To deny the right of property, is to deny self-ownership, to deny the ability to reason and to deny the common bond all men share as equals, which is the right to live as they see fit, with equal respect to others based on a common, central value system, which is the individual.

Gramps said: I can see plenty of ne"private property" goes beyond merely living somewhere. Capitalism is expansionist, meaning one is expected to profit from land that others use (that is a classic formulation for capitalist production, after all, as well as what landlords do in the form, of collecting rent).

You once again, are railing against YOUR pre-conceived ideas of what capitalism is, not what I offered as a description.

How about addressing the issues presented, or explaining why you think
"Capitalism is expansionist, meaning one is expected to profit from land that others use."

You clearly disregard, or don't understand fundamental parts of the philosoph to arrive at the point.

Gramps said: And I agree it is not entirely based on "force." However, the best means for any individual or group to maintain the domination of resources is coercion and indoctrination. That's why there is legal force lurking in the background at all times.

The very FACT of that, is WHY we have laws to protect individual rights, and juries to hear the cases in courts based on objective facts.

Gramps said: Consider Christiania in Denmark. As AP reminds us: "Parliament recognized Christiania as a 'social experiment' in 1987, and four years later gave the residents the right to use the land. However, lawmakers three years ago adopted the center-right government's plan to end the social experiment. The government wants to create a housing agency to assume ownership of Christiania's buildings, impose rents and allow outsiders to move in." This kind of thing is important when we consider how the system works. It is sigtnificantly imposed on us. If it wasn't imposed, no previously subordinate person in their right mind would demand to pay rent and property taxes.

If you want to debate that, we can, but not here. You are supposed to be trying to find a common ground definition with me on what capitalism is, and what free-market trade is, not debating Denmark and their social experiments.

When this nation started, the laws were very different then they are now, as well as the philosophy was much less molested in law.

Gramps said: If you look at history, just about every type of government uses rhetoric of individual freedom to preserve their system of inequality.

I agree Gramps, why do you think that is? What about "individuality" would cause such a draw to the average person, or "common man" as many say.

Also, when you look through history, you see the only nation to put their money where there MOUTH was, and lay power at the feet of the people by RECOGNIZING individual rights, basing government on individual rights, and limiting government intrusion on individual rights with the highest EVER granted recognition in ANY national government ON EARTH. Welcome to the U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Meet George Washington, the respected and trusted General who ADAMANTLY refused the notion of a King to guide the new Nation.

All people can recognize the value if individual rights if faced with honest questions, the most important question, who has the right to govern your body, mind and labor? If the answer isn't yourself, please explain.

Gramps said: All we need to do is kick these abstract hurdles out of the way and figure things out ourselves by applying straight logic.

So, please, I beg of you, please do and answer my original questions directly with an answer, as opposed to the circular logic as above.

Gramps said: First of all, supply and demand is not "objective." All prices are subjective. They have to be, seeing as to how values are constantly in flux and prices aren't automatic in nature. Then you also say prices, wages and profits shouldn't take into account human need, which, to be blunt, is sheer insanity. The very point of doing most work is to fulfill some kind of need, not just to support "supply and demand."

How would one determine "need" without supply and demand?

Are needed things not in demand in a free market?

Gramps said: It is cynical to speak of "voluntary means" of economic power when there is contsantly legal coercion in the background, when people must agree to be subordinate if they are to have access to money. If we really want "free trade," get rid of any legal titles which slant the benefits of trade in favor of one person or another. In other words, goodbye bosses, goodbye investors and goodbye to the systematic deprivation of resources--the primary basis for poverty creation.

So in other words, good bye production, good bye goods, hello company for your misery, so you can share in raw materials?

The primary CAUSE of poverty is LACK OF ABILITY, or LACK OF DESIRE, in any market, in any system, at any time.

Do you deny that?

Gramps said: A lot of grocery store owners may not expect their employees to think they rightfully own any of the business, but workers work as much as owners and managers (typically more, in fact) to make the business successful. The only thing preventing workers (and consumers) from having an equal say is the prejudice and indoctrination of the owner and the law which prevents participation in decisions that matter. In case you haven't noticed, the process of empowerment of workers undermines the very basis for having a boss, investors and even money when it comes to production and trade.

Gramps, be serious.

The person with the most INVESTED CAPITAL, capital being the PRODUCTS of ones labor, talent and actions, has the most say.

The store employees wouldn't have a say in the store, if there was no store. There is a store, because one person, or group of people BUILT the store, PAID for the initial stocks of goods, PAID for the LABOR of others to run it, and PAYS THE BILLS which the employees don't directly deal with, including land, taxes and every other thing at the location.

The employees have a right to work, or not.
The employers have a right to hire, or not.
The employee has a right to set their own wage for labor.
The employer has a right to accept, or deny that wage for labor offered, or barter with the individual employee on that wage until mutual conscent is met, or they part ways with mutual lack of satisfaction.
The employees have a right to collective bargaining.
The employer has the right to fire them if they refuse to work.
The employees have a right to boycott the employer, and to petition the community and local government to boycott and or evaluate the business practices of the employer for rights infringement, if any exists.
The employer has a right to operate any way he sees fit with respect to individual rights, and property rights.
The employees have a right to operate in any way they see fit with respect to individual rights, and property rights.

What is unfair here?

Gramps said: It seems to be all Greek to you, though.

Is Greek a neu-speak term for illogical? If so, yes, it is Greek to me.

Gramps said: "Uncoerced judgment" sounds decent enough, until you consider that general subordination to landlords and bosses has an immediate coercion within it.

That is VOLUNTARY subordination, and it is decent if DECENT men respect their contracts, their words and their VOLUNTARY OBLIGATIONS made in HONOR.

Gramps said: Cheaper is not always better. Missing from this statement is the fact that the rich gain their wealth by exploiting their workforce (and consumers).

What is a "rich"?

In a system based on individual rights, workforces CAN'T be exploited if individual rights are enforced.

Isn't that what we are debating?

Gramps said: Rand is speaking in favor of a wealthy minority drawing disproportionate benefits from the workers themselves, yet doesn't have the guts to come out and say so.

In your opinion, backed by?

Answer my questions, and we can work to answering your questions that have nothing to do with this debate.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Observable FACT: You own your own body. Without force imposed against you, you are free to do anything you want limited only by your imagination and your conscience.

You are free to do anything with whatever resources are at your disposal. And what we can do is limited by ignorance. Also, I disagree that all decisions
are equally free. But it's a difficult matter to discuss, especially in generalities.
But it's obvious not everyone is capable of creating their own heaven here on earth.
Many don't have time to examine, let alone build their conscience.
You also seem to assume everyone is self employed, which is a bit of a slippery slope, if not a fullblown fallacy.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Observable FACT: Mankind, and all humans REQUIRE space to live since they occupy space. Observable FACT: Mankind has, and will use nature to sustain itself, by using labor to provide food, provide shelter, provide LIFE and the MEANS TO LIFE, which is dependent on both nature, and the ability to interact with it.

Virtually all these people in Volconvo or anywhere else would agree with these statements. There are clear differences of opinion on whether we were chosen to occupy and rule the earth--which is an important discussion--but yes, we occupy space.
I think it's odd that capitalists use these general elementary observations when
defending the faith. Any social archetype could be defended along these lines.
The uncomfortable truth is that private property is the basis of the state, and ultimately makes labor the property of the state. In such a worldview people have little or no potential future worth unless they can make money for the system.
People are only expected to live somewhere if they purchase their
properties, which I feel is not necessary.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Thereby, man has a natural, inherant right to property by nature, but in nature mans form of that "claim" on land was dictated by force. Rational man, reasonable men, have agreed to accept this right as natural and equal for all men, regarding the ACCESS or ABILITY of the individual, not the means or amount to each individual, and use it as a common bond on uniting toward a common good of peace, and mutual prosperity through respect.

I wouldn't say people have an "inherent" right to anything, other than basic survival--with even that much being a learning process, which hardly makes it inherent.
I think the treachery of capitalism is exposed in the belief that, by nature, man must use force to socially dictate what can be used. This certainly does happen, but it does not take into account those who abide by egalitarian principles--people who actually exist and, ultimately, must exist if humans as a whole are to survive.
If you consider land war you basically consider people who don't abide by egalitarian principles. You see states and strong greedy impulses dictating who owns what via force. For an alternative to this state of affairs, we do not need to be perfect and
infallible, but we have to put aside the flawed principles behind dominating resources (whether we're talking about actual production or general land usage).
Landlordism (which again, is quite different from merely living somewhere) and other types of elitism can only vaguely resemble peace, seeing as to how landlord and tenant, boss and worker are essentially enemies of each other. And I'm not saying that to eb dramatic, it's simply a plain observation about capitalist "human development."
People have to be divided if authorities are to be deemed necessary as arbiters.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready To deny the right of property, is to deny self-ownership, to deny the ability to reason and to deny the common bond all men share as equals, which is the right to live as they see fit, with equal respect to others based on a common, central value system, which is the individual. You once again, are railing against YOUR pre-conceived ideas of what capitalism is, not what I offered as a description.

Private property does not even mean self-ownership. In fact, to buy into any money system always poses the risk of converting people into non-person "things"--credit histories, indebted statistics, pay rates, etc. In effect, we become owned by institutions that others believe in. Rather than applying basic reason, we become agents of ideology and dogma--and people can suffer for it, and do. People may always share things in common with each other, but there will be a difference between those with money and those without it. I suspect you see the same point I do, but are not willing to delve into it. Your rhetoric of "equal respect" serves to insulate your views from the very basic facts I've mentioned. Apartment tenants paying rent for small fractions of buildings is not the glowing good news you make it out to be, nor is it some inherent state of affairs. It also doesn't foster individuality to be prevented from living independently of the system (which is the case for most people, and likely will be if people are to use money very often).
There are plenty of people who try to live a life they'd love without spending money at all. But burdens are invented to keep them disciplined.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How about addressing the issues presented, or explaining why you think "Capitalism is expansionist, meaning one is expected to profit from land that others use." You clearly disregard, or don't understand fundamental parts of the philosoph to arrive at the point.

If you could show me that capitalism isn't about expansionism and placing profits and other abstract concerns ahead of pure reason, THEN you might have something. But, as you've already indicated (quoting Rand, I presume), abstract theories of supply and demand are supposed to be placed ahead of needs.
In any case, that worldview is remarkably similar to what we already have.
As for my comments about profiting from spaces that others occupy, that is what landlords do. It arguably even makes less sense than sharecropping, because at least sharecropping produces crops.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The very FACT of that, is WHY we have laws to protect individual rights, and juries to hear the cases in courts based on objective facts.

These very laws are what encourage the domination of resources, the coercion and indoctrination in the first place.
But the point of such an argument as yours is that I'm wrong because laws exist. I could have all the good reasons in the world for my views and still I would be wrong because it's against written laws (which in this case help create and protect authorities that needn't exist). I don't turn to laws to define or protect my individual rights. I discover themt through general life experience. This approach makes even more sense when considering that courts themselves are not simply based on objective facts, but mostly on subjective myths. In this particular discussion, it's relevant that courts defend and strengten financial institutions.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You are supposed to be trying to find a common ground definition with me on what capitalism is, and what free-market trade is, not debating Denmark and their social experiments.

I think it's simply sad that you refuse to consider capitalism as it actually occurs, instead preferring abstract theory. This Denmark example should be very relevant to the issue at hand, but it bursts your proverbial bubble.
It's also humorous that you're willing to speculate about how our ancestors developed economically, yet contemporary examples seem frowned upon (especially when they reveal capitalism to be a type of government, which is a no-no).
I think we should consider this an open-ended discussion, which could include the inability for existing economic interests to tolerate independent experiments.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I agree Gramps, why do you think that is?

Misconduct has to be dressed up nicely.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Also, when you look through history, you see the only nation to put their money where there MOUTH was, and lay power at the feet of the people by RECOGNIZING individual rights, basing government on individual rights, and limiting government intrusion on individual rights with the highest EVER granted recognition in ANY national government ON EARTH. Welcome to the U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

The was was also founded on slavery and one of the biggest genocide campaigns in human history. But the state is supposed to be revered like a religious institution, so it's supposedly above such criticisms. You should know better than to expect me to share your strong Nationalist sentiment.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Meet George Washington, the respected and trusted General who ADAMANTLY refused the notion of a King to guide the new Nation.

What about the deliberate destruction of the Iroquois settlements and crops by the American Revolutionaries? Clearly, some of America's sacred heroes thought they were Kings of some type or another.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready So, please, I beg of you, please do and answer my original questions directly with an answer, as opposed to the circular logic as above.

I did respond to your statements. I pointe dout that it's hopeless to address your type of rhetoric. For example, I'm not arguing against "individual rights" (seriously, not many people would). I was merely pointing out that the government does not protect everybody's rights, nor is it intended to do so.
How does this statement not address your points?
"I personally don't wants amoral (and immoral) legal insititutions to tell me what my rights are, or small minorities of people to control production and divvy out resources and tell us how much access to resources we can afford. Not only is it uncomfortable, it's not necessary. I don't need legal rights to use anything, do anything or go anywhere." That indeed addresses what I was replying to (Autolykos does the same thing in debates, and frankly it's incredibly annoying--pretending I've dodged points that I've clearly addressed).

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How would one determine "need" without supply and demand?

Common interests? There is a difference between pricing and bare considerations of what is demanded and what is in available supply.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Are needed things not in demand in a free market?

I didn't argue otherwise. All kinds of things are demanded, with many of them being intentionally denied to those who cannot afford them.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready So in other words, good bye production, good bye goods, hello company for your misery, so you can share in raw materials?

Bosses, outside investors and the systematic deprivation of resources are not absolutely essential conditions for producing anything. The prosperity of a given people depends on their access to necessary materials for survival, the time and energy required to create things and the perceived need to do whatever else boosts comfort.
No misery and hardshp is inherently required, nor is conflict eradicated by the existence of bosses and other authorities.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The primary CAUSE of poverty is LACK OF ABILITY, or LACK OF DESIRE, in any market, in any system, at any time. Do you deny that?

It's certainly not a comprehesneive explanation. I think it comes down to a lack of normal human empathy and compassion.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Gramps, be serious. The person with the most INVESTED CAPITAL, capital being the PRODUCTS of ones labor, talent and actions, has the most say.

I've been serious. And I agree that, under capitalist dogma, those with the most money tend to have the greatest say. Though I disagree people with the most money necessarily have more talent and actions.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The store employees wouldn't have a say in the store, if there was no store. There is a store, because one person, or group of people BUILT the store, PAID for the initial stocks of goods, PAID for the LABOR of others to run it, and PAYS THE BILLS which the employees don't directly deal with, including land, taxes and every other thing at the location.

I haven't posted anywhere stating otherwise.
But the store employees and consumers ultimately do pay the bills. Without their major contributions no bills would be paid. However, it could be possible for stores to be built without central ownership--where the workers manage things-- without paying bills and taxes. It just needs to be allowed, that is all. Current society prevents people from such relatively independent development. If you can't pay property taxes and other imposed costs, good luck starting a store (or any other venture). In the mean time, here's a collection agency.
And this is called "individual rights?" Sounds more like a series of restrictions to me. In the long run, people don't need to pay for anything. It's an imposed state of affairs. Your argument is like saying that people absolutely need medical insurance in order to be treated.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The employees have a right to work, or not. The employers have a right to hire, or not. The employee has a right to set their own wage for labor. The employer has a right to accept, or deny that wage for labor offered, or barter with the individual employee on that wage until mutual conscent is met, or they part ways with mutual lack of satisfaction. The employees have a right to collective bargaining. The employer has the right to fire them if they refuse to work. The employees have a right to boycott the employer, and to petition the community and local government to boycott and or evaluate the business practices of the employer for rights infringement, if any exists. The employer has a right to operate any way he sees fit with respect to individual rights, and property rights. The employees have a right to operate in any way they see fit with respect to individual rights, and property rights. What is unfair here?

The fact that the resources are being divvied out for profit by those who legally dominate resources, rather than the workers who could be applying cooperative principles (which I've elaborated on repeatedly elsewhere, which emphasize participatory collective management). No matter how we slice it, it's unfair for anyone to be deprived of food simply because they lack little pieces of paper, coins or imaginary credit.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready That is VOLUNTARY subordination, and it is decent if DECENT men respect their contracts, their words and their VOLUNTARY OBLIGATIONS made in HONOR.

Subordination of workers to bosses and other types of inequality are not "decent," at least in my opinion. Nor should they be seen as justified merely because pieces of paper were signed at some point to feebly justify such servitude.
Dosteovsky put it very well:
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'"

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What is a "rich"?

Now you're truly making little sense. Everyone knows what a rich person is.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready In a system based on individual rights, workforces CAN'T be* exploited if individual rights are enforced.*

The current system is having to increasingly
resort to tracking everyone's movements to ensure compliance
with economic laws and giving criminal legal enforcement incredibly
broad powers. I don't feel protected by these efforts. Instead, I'm endangered by them. For example, intellectual property law is becoming increasingly fascist in nature, all in the name of enforcing "inedividual rights." It conforms perfectly well with the principles (especially the less vague ones as enumerated by Rand).

Quote by: Osborn F Enready In your opinion, backed by?

The fact that only those already well off would put economic theories about costs and supply and demand above their own survival.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Answer my questions, and we can work to answering your questions that have nothing to do with this debate.

I've answered your questions with totally relevant examples. And, again, this tactic of yours is getting quite annoying.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Once again, your posts are full of criticisms, but no logical alternatives or structures to effect them.

How can we debate if we can't meet on the definition of words Gramps?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Once again, your posts are full of criticisms, but no logical alternatives or structures to effect them. How can we debate if we can't meet on the definition of words Gramps?

What do you mean I haven't offered alternatives? I've suggested free cooperatives countless times. And an immediate alternative is to simply get rid of the unnecessary tyranny of landlordism. That's a way to solve housing problems.

Another solution to other problems is to simply put finances aside and apply reason.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gramps said: What do you mean I haven't offered alternatives?

I mean you aren't trying to DEFINE what we are attempting to define here, instead, you are debating what to define.

Gramps said: I've suggested free cooperatives countless times.

FREE CO-OPS are LEGAL in capitalist, and free-market philosophy.

Point?

Gramps said: And an immediate alternative is to simply get rid of the unnecessary tyranny of landlordism. That's a way to solve housing problems.

How does this tie into defining what we are attempting to define, so we can BEGIN to debate?

Gramps said: Another solution to other problems is to simply put finances aside and apply reason.

Yea..... first we have to agree on definitions, don't we? You can't debate without agreement on the words being used in the debate, can you?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I mean you aren't trying to DEFINE what we are attempting to define here, instead, you are debating what to define.

What do you mean by this? You asked me for alternatives and I've provided plenty of them.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready FREE CO-OPS are LEGAL in capitalist, and free-market philosophy. Point?

Again, as I've written elsewhere, they are allowed to exist so long as they make X amount of money. They aren't free. There are legally imposed costs for practically any cooperative project to go forward. That's precisely why I gave the Denmark example you dismissed in classic knee-jerk fashion. If you don't have money and don't play by the rules of elite banking institutions and the state, there will be attempts to undermine your freedom and force you to stop your life projects prematurely (almost without exception). It's not some conspiracy theory of mine. It's what happens. Sure, you could call this "free" if you want, but it's a pretty unusual definition.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How does this tie into defining what we are attempting to define, so we can BEGIN to debate?

You're the one playing semantic games. I've already started discussing.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yea..... first we have to agree on definitions, don't we? You can't debate without agreement on the words being used in the debate, can you?

Well, I'm not sure what you don't understand. I'm using pretty simple words, dealing with elementary facts. What about them haven't I defined?

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Forget it gramps.

I am tired of trying to debate you, since we always end up in the same place, nowhere, since you won't try to meet the requirement of logic or definition for a debate.

Enjoy.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Forget it gramps. I am tired of trying to debate you, since we always end up in the same place, nowhere, since you won't try to meet the requirement of logic or definition for a debate. Enjoy.

Whatever. You started the thread.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Your right, because I thought we may be able to establish grounds for a reasonable debate to take place. My mistake, and I won't offer again in the future.