Monument to Greed

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa Why? Because freedom is not only a negative, or the "freedom to do without." The more elite and centralized a project is, the less free it is. Obviously, to deny people a voice in their own work and lives is an abrogation. A corporate setting is essentially totalitarian, so a great deal of freedom is typically denied. And the imposed need to be profitable limits freedom further. While the freedom to do without is grown, freedom to participate in important decisions is indeed shrunk. This may include freedom of association, access to information and freedom to work as one chooses, when one chooses. In a capitalist setting, all these various aspects of freedom are placed largely into the hands of elite bureaucracies. In other words, true freedom cannot be those green things with the dead presidents on them. It finds true expression directly from social organization. If greater tendencies in this direction will happen soon, I do not know. But I do know there is always the potential for the masses to determine their own entitlements without elites calling the shots. Grandpa h.

If your having an extension built on your house, you just want the one floor, so that's what you hire the builder for. Does he have the right to decide to put a second floor on, and charge you more for it? No. It is your house and your money. You earned that money,you are entitled to spend it how you wish. Of course, if the builder is adamant that the house deserves a second floor or nothing, he is free to choose not to work for you.

Now it is exactly the same if you own a factory. You bought the factory with your own money. You have the right to decide what goes on within it. You hire someone to work for you. If they agree to work for the money you offer doing the jobs you want, you will get their valuable services and pay them for their effort. How is this in any way unfair?

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams If your having an extension built on your house, you just want the one floor, so that's what you hire the builder for. Does he have the right to decide to put a second floor on, and charge you more for it?

Of course not. I never argued people should be forced to pay for things they don't want.

Conversely, if a builder doesn't want to add a second floor, he needn't do so. The same applies if he doesn't want to do build a house.

Factory work is fundamentally unfair if the worker is subordinate to capitalist owners, banking institutions and to the wage system. It's that simple.

Grandpa h.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa Factory work is fundamentally unfair if the worker is subordinate to capitalist owners, banking institutions and to the wage system. It's that simple. Grandpa h.

That's not an argument, it's a statement. Jeez, I hope you don't write essays like that.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams That's not an argument, it's a statement. Jeez, I hope you don't write essays like that.

That is too an argument. It's hardly fair if you're subordinate to someone else. The more subordinate one is, the less fair the situation. That's a perfectly logical argument (as if the distinction between "argument" and "statement" is anything but distractive rhetoric here).

Grandpa h.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa That is too an argument. It's hardly fair if you're subordinate to someone else. The more subordinate one is, the less fair the situation. That's a perfectly logical argument (as if the distinction between "argument" and "statement" is anything but distractive rhetoric here). Grandpa h.

It's only the point of the argument, not the argument itself. Why is it unfair to be subordinate? Why is being more subordinate more unfair? Providing of course, one has chosen to become subordinate voluntarily.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams It's only the point of the argument, not the argument itself. Why is it unfair to be subordinate?

The answe is obvious: When you're subordinate you are regarded as a "lesser" person, even if only in ade facto manner. This is true whether you are subordinate to bosses, or to English law.
It's scandalous I should have to tell a "libertarian" this.

In a free egalitarian seting, people don't just mindlessly carry out orders. The respect given to others would not be absolute (or near it) and people would base decisions purely on logic, not on what some elite bossman says. A rational society must change to accommodate new data, not merely accommodate new commands from above.

As far as I'm concerned, these common sense principles could come straight out of a libertarian handbook.

Grandpa h.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa The answe is obvious: When you're subordinate you are regarded as a "lesser" person, even if only in ade facto manner. This is true whether you are subordinate to bosses, or to English law. It's scandalous I should have to tell a "libertarian" this. In a free egalitarian seting, people don't just mindlessly carry out orders. The respect given to others would not be absolute (or near it) and people would base decisions purely on logic, not on what some elite bossman says. A rational society must change to accommodate new data, not merely accommodate new commands from above. As far as I'm concerned, these common sense principles could come straight out of a libertarian handbook. Grandpa h.

Your not considered a lesser person for being subordinate. If I go before a judge tomorow for a speeding offence, I would get the same punishment as my boss if they committed the exact same crime. So under the law I am still equal. My social status may be deemed lesser, but that is only important if I, as the subordinate, choose to give a shit. So what if some prat thinks I'm not as good as him because he earns more money? I don't care for social status. And social status won't change no matter what revolution you have. If you have an anarchist one you would still have social status on the basis of something, be it moral merit, knowledge, desired abilities etc If it's socialist/communist, you have the party members, or union members, etc There will be some kind of social status whatever you do.

In an egalitarian society, decisions would be made upon logic? How would you ensure this? The vast majority of people on this planet base their decisions upon emotions - fear, envy etc How would this change under your society?

In a capitalist society you can rise from the bottom. In an truely egalitarian society you can't, to become better than others is anti-egalitarian.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams Your not considered a lesser person for being subordinate. If I go before a judge tomorow for a speeding offence, I would get the same punishment as my boss if they committed the exact same crime.

Yes you are. In the case you decsribed you'd actually be subordinate to two people: The judge and your employer. I know you buy into such arguments, but they are very weak. The fact that a judge is more powerful than an employer doesn't grant legitimacy to either.

And, assuming this scenario would end, what would get you back into working habits, or subordination to your employer? Well, it'd be the fact that someone else is dominating resources and divvying them out for profit.
That's the same crime conservatives accuse the government of committing. In fact, such control is typically done through legal means, which essentially means the public is paying to be deprived of access to its own resources. First it pays for the court system, then it pays the company which dominates teh resources. That's an incredible swindle and it has nothing to do with increasing liberty. It's all about subordinating others, exploiting them and taking from the public a greater share of the wealth.

Grandpa h.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa Yes you are. In the case you decsribed you'd actually be subordinate to two people: The judge and your employer. I know you buy into such arguments, but they are very weak. The fact that a judge is more powerful than an employer doesn't grant legitimacy to either. And, assuming this scenario would end, what would get you back into working habits, or subordination to your employer? Well, it'd be the fact that someone else is dominating resources and divvying them out for profit. That's the same crime conservatives accuse the government of committing. In fact, such control is typically done through legal means, which essentially means the public is paying to be deprived of access to its own resources. First it pays for the court system, then it pays the company which dominates teh resources. That's an incredible swindle and it has nothing to do with increasing liberty. It's all about subordinating others, exploiting them and taking from the public a greater share of the wealth. Grandpa h.

So being subordinate to the law is wrong now?

Someone 'dominates' resources = you mean they own them. Fine by me. I dominate this PC, if someone wants to use it they ask. If I wish to charge them for it, it's up to me too. No one else owns it or will ever own it legitimately unless I sell it to them. What is wrong with that? Now scale it up. If I own one million hectares of land that I have bought with my own money then it is mine. If anyone wants to use it they will pay in some form or another.

How is the public paying for resources to be shared out? Resources are primarily owned by individuals. Only when government steals those resources, puts a claim on them and forces the owner to give up their resources can they share them out. This is clearly in breach of property rights.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams So being subordinate to the law is wrong now? Someone 'dominates' resources = you mean they own them.

I don't assume laws are absolutely necessary to determine right from wrong. Again, you should understand this perfectly if you are a "libertarian." That's one of the cornerstones of libertarian philosophy.

As for ownership, there is a difference between legally sanctioned ownership -- particularly of things other people use and the means of production -- and possesssion of personal items.

Grandpa h.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa I don't assume laws are absolutely necessary to determine right from wrong. Again, you should understand this perfectly if you are a "libertarian." That's one of the cornerstones of libertarian philosophy. As for ownership, there is a difference between legally sanctioned ownership -- particularly of things other people use and the means of production -- and possesssion of personal items. Grandpa h.

Laws don't determine what is right or wrong, nor should they be followed inherently. Yet, except in cases where it is clear your rights are being trespassed upon, the principle of acting within the law, even being subordinate to it if you will, is a good one.

What is the difference, in terms of rights, between personal items and resources/means of production/capital? What if I build something that is capable of being a means of production or a resource? Say for example, I build the first stable and efficient fusion reactor with my own money and skills. This reactor could power medium sized country, and is therefore of vast public benefit. Yet, surely it is my property?

Edit: Oh, and you've yet to educate me on the oh so glaring gaps in my understanding of libertarianism.

[G. Adams]

Okay, let's take this back to the original opening post. Why should Mukesh Ambani not build this? Why should he spend it elsewhere, or alternatively, have it stolen from him to be spent on others? Why does he not deserve to spend his own money as he wants?

This is what is being suggested by most others in this thread. That Mukesh Ambani has no claim on his own money, that others own his money, that others own Mukesh Ambani's ability to generate wealth, that others own Mukesh Ambani.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams Laws don't determine what is right or wrong, nor should they be followed inherently. Yet, except in cases where it is clear your rights are being trespassed upon, the principle of acting within the law, even being subordinate to it if you will, is a good one. .

It's not like laws never did anyone any wrong. But again, we differ. I know that state power is corrupt and will result in failure and chaos, almost inherently. It can only subvert your perception of rights to be subordinate to it. It is a form of trespass, even in its most benign endeavors.
Apparently, the masses are unwilling to learn this obvious lesson, so they'll keep facing undue, systematic hardship. I've got no good reason to believe otherwise.

Quote by: G. Adams What is the difference, in terms of rights, between personal items and resources/means of production/capital? What if I build something that is capable of being a means of production or a resource? Say for example, I build the first stable and efficient fusion reactor with my own money and skills. This reactor could power medium sized country, and is therefore of vast public benefit. Yet, surely it is my property? .

Well, ownership is always difficult to discuss, because it's ultimately an issue of perception. It's like discussing the difference between sin and sinner. But the main difference is that a personal item is like a toothbrush, or a place where one lives. Private property, on the other hand, often is a claim over that which others use, using coercive legal means to exploit the user. It basically means the artificial lowering of one's status as a human being. That person becomes nothing but an economic debt and therefore dysfunctional enough so that the system may expel it.

As for the fusion reactor, I see no reason why the town or city you live in shouldn't analyze its safety. And, if you had workers build it for you, they should have a say in how it is used. Nor should you "own" it conceptually.

Quote by: G. Adams Edit: Oh, and you've yet to educate me on the oh so glaring gaps in my understanding of libertarianism.

That's what I've been doing all along.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams Okay, let's take this back to the original opening post. Why should Mukesh Ambani not build this?

First of all, I'm most certain that he's not building it, but having others build it for him. That sounds like something a king would do.

Grandpa h.

[Merge]

Quote by: G. Adams Okay, let's take this back to the original opening post. Why should Mukesh Ambani not build this? Why should he spend it elsewhere, or alternatively, have it stolen from him to be spent on others? Why does he not deserve to spend his own money as he wants? This is what is being suggested by most others in this thread. That Mukesh Ambani has no claim on his own money, that others own his money, that others own Mukesh Ambani's ability to generate wealth, that others own Mukesh Ambani.

Possibly because he did not make his money honestly? Even if he doesn't break any law, if he is part of a dishonest system then gaining wealth in such a system can be considered dishonest. I don't know if this is the case or not, just throwing it out there as a possibility (since a lot of people would claim that it is hard not to be connected to some sort of exploitation if one is a significant part of the global economic system).



Also, why does he deserve to spend his money on himself? Why does he, someone with more opportunity to succeed than a starving child that will die in a few days, deserve what he has gained over a starving child? If we are going to be fair then shouldn't he (and everyone else that won't be dead by Monday) donate a portion of their earnings to giving the less fortunate an equal opportunity? I don't think the "fairness" angle will get you where you want to go in this discussion.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa It's not like laws never did anyone any wrong. But again, we differ. I know that state power is corrupt and will result in failure and chaos, almost inherently. It can only subvert your perception of rights to be subordinate to it. It is a form of trespass, even in its most benign endeavors. Apparently, the masses are unwilling to learn this obvious lesson, so they'll keep facing undue, systematic hardship. I've got no good reason to believe otherwise. Well, ownership is always difficult to discuss, because it's ultimately an issue of perception. It's like discussing the difference between sin and sinner. But the main difference is that a personal item is like a toothbrush, or a place where one lives. Private property, on the other hand, often is a claim over that which others use, using coercive legal means to exploit the user. It basically means the artificial lowering of one's status as a human being. That person becomes nothing but an economic debt and therefore dysfunctional enough so that the system may expel it. As for the fusion reactor, I see no reason why the town or city you live in shouldn't analyze its safety. And, if you had workers build it for you, they should have a say in how it is used. Nor should you "own" it conceptually. That's what I've been doing all along. Grandpa h.

I'm just trying to analyse how you come to your way of thinking, so please forgive the incessant questions.

How do laws act in the manner you describe? Also, how do you know state power will always result in chaos? I agree that it leads to corruption, but that is why I believe the citizenry should remain armed and educated to act as a check on such corruption.

Who get's to decide what is a personal item or private property? For example, myself and my fiancee might buy a 2 bedroomed house, though we only need, strictly speaking, one bedroom. Are we then in the realms of private property, because we are monopolising an additional room that someone else without a bedroom could be using.

But others only use something because someone created it - designed it and had it functioning as intended. If they are then forced to give it up to everyone else, they have lost out on their creation. If they are not rewarded to the value of their creation, why should people with such abilities continue creating and advancing our world?

Oh, they might well analyse the safety of the device. They havn't stolen it from me at that point. Unless of course, in analysing it they steal the designs and make their own copies. In which case, they have have stolen my ideas. They have something they would never had without me, and I have not given them permission to copy it, nor have I sold it to them, nor have I given it to them, therefore their building of one based upon my designs is theft.

If I had workers who agreed to help build components of it based upon the fact they would claim no rights over it, say for example I pay them an additional each hour (as such they would be selling their right to control it back to me), then do they still have a say over it's use?

Why should I not own the concept? Of my particular design, at least. Of course others are free to attempt to build fusion reactors, but I have created by my own brain and effort the particular technology that creates fusion power in my designed reactor. No one else has been able to create such a device, and only now can because of me. Without me, no fusion reactor by my design. So why should I not own the concept? If I didn't, I might say fuck you all to my working designs of a singularity generator that I could also build, which has vastly greater capacity than my fusion reactor. In fact, I would only have the funds to build such a thing if I recieved my rightful reward for my fusion reactor.

You havn't taught me a single thing yet about libertarianism. Your espousal of common slavery and common property are hardly in line with liberty.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Merge Possibly because he did not make his money honestly? Even if he doesn't break any law, if he is part of a dishonest system then gaining wealth in such a system can be considered dishonest. I don't know if this is the case or not, just throwing it out there as a possibility (since a lot of people would claim that it is hard not to be connected to some sort of exploitation if one is a significant part of the global economic system). Also, why does he deserve to spend his money on himself? Why does he, someone with more opportunity to succeed than a starving child that will die in a few days, deserve what he has gained over a starving child? If we are going to be fair then shouldn't he (and everyone else that won't be dead by Monday) donate a portion of their earnings to giving the less fortunate an equal opportunity? I don't think the "fairness" angle will get you where you want to go in this discussion.

There is no known cases of him exploiting others as far as I know. However, if he did and he paid back those claimants fair compensation, then why, with the remainder of his fortune, should he not be able to spend it as he wishes?

His starting fortune did come from his father, who was involved in some shady business. I'm fine with him paying off the costs of those deals, but then can he spend his money on what he likes?

As long as every worker he has employed, he has not partaken of an exploitative system. On the other hand, because he is succesful, the government on behalf of the people forcefully exploit him, taking his wealth without permission. He has never done that, but the people by proxy do that to him.

Why does he not deserve to spend his money on himself? Why should he be forced to take care of the worlds poor? Tell me, have you ever in your life purchased a luxury? And by luxury I mean anything, anything at all, not essential for you to live another day. So, a chocolate bar, or a computer, or any piece of clothing not as basic as possible to keep you warm? Why do you have the right to spend your money on these things, things you want to make your life more enjoyable, when others are dying as children? Why do you deserve the right to spend your money more than this guy?

Why would it be fair for him to donate what he has generated to those who have done nothing for him? It would be noble, and generous, and kind of him to do so, but why would it be fair for him to donate it? He will already no doubt pay more tax per year than you or I will make in a lifetime, so why should he give up more? When would you be happy with what he has given? When he is living in the gutter?

By the way, a donation is voluntary.

Look at it this way, say he donated $25million to feeding the poor in India. How far do you think that would stretch. Alternatively, he could set up another factory somewhere and employ 1000 people. Those people are all paid, so they all get enough money to feed themselves and their families. The profit he earns from this factory means he has enough to build another one somewhere else, lifting another 1000 from risk of death. In the mean time, tens of thousands of additional jobs are secure and more created, because he has to be materials from other factories which may require they emloy more to keep up with demand. his own drive for profit has had the additional benefit of saving tens of thousands of people from dying, and will continue to do so because those business generate wealth to keep them paid. Meanwhile, the $25million was spent to keep people alive, and when it ran out, it ran out, and now they need more money. Which system is likely to improve more peoples lives?

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams I'm just trying to analyse how you come to your way of thinking, so please forgive the incessant questions. How do laws act in the manner you describe?

Really, it's not laws that "act," but people. A law in itself cannot act, cannot conduct coercive acts. People functioning for the state and legal system can, on the other hand. And this is in fact how private property is established, which is why I argue it has nothing to do with real liberty. If people are constantly under the yoke of the state and resources and ideas are owned by some exclusive body, they will be less free.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams There is no known cases of him exploiting others as far as I know. However, if he did and he paid back those claimants fair compensation, then why, with the remainder of his fortune, should he not be able to spend it as he wishes?

I see you define "exploitation" solely according to law, which again is not in line with basic libertarian thinking. There are conventions of etiquette that have nothing to do with law, obviously. The same holds true for what is exploitative and what is not.

If the man we're discussing had any workers underneath him, and if he commands them about like mere automatons, then their job is exploitative. However, if the project is collectivized and each worker has his/her say -- that is, if they can become more human and less machinelike -- then the exploitation factor is reduced.

As I've pointed out enough times, one reason some are reluctant to go off assistance programs is the poor distribution of wealth in a capitalist system.

Grandpa h.

[Merge]

Quote by: G. Adams There is no known cases of him exploiting others as far as I know. However, if he did and he paid back those claimants fair compensation, then why, with the remainder of his fortune, should he not be able to spend it as he wishes?

I don't see why he wouldn't be able to. I guess anyone claiming that he did exploit people would need to provide evidence. Unfortunately, I'm not interested in the matter enough to do that research, but maybe someone else is.

Also, on this view of things, if I rob a bank for 10 million and invest the money and double it in 5 years, then pay the bank back the 10 million plus interest, would such thievery be okay? Lets say I made 5 million in the process. Would that money rightfully be mine?

I'm not presenting this as an argument, just wondering how you would approach such a scenario.