Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian

[LTKoblinsky]

I may be stupid, but I'm not an AnCap.

I just can't get into this economic theory stuff.

Don't worry, you'll soon be a part of Zhwazi's collective whether you want to be or not. Cause he'll use the Labor Theory of Value to convince you. Sort of like the mind-numbed Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project people.

That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.

Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.

Listen, he may not understand the ins and outs of economic policy or may just find it boring (who could, really? but to each his own). The point is, he doesn't even need to be see the nuanced flaws of LTV to see the problems with collectivist thought in general.

I just want to be clear, I was replying to Brooklyn Red Leg, not Blackie. Blackie can keep doing what he's doing, nothing he's doing is bothering me. He showed that my guess as to why he didn't get through the second paragraph was correct also.

In retort to Brooklyn Red Leg's (who never commented on economic policy, didn't read my post and is just being an asstart) accusations, I'm not a collectivist (hence the "inaccurate" mentioned in my reply to him). LTV is not inherently collectivist. An idea being useful to collectivists doesn't make it collectivistic if it's also useful to individualists.

I don't understand the ins and outs of economic policy either. But I'm willing to learn and don't think anything is beyond my ability to know, so I'll learn as needed.

granted, but LTV is logically collective. The final conclusion seems to view all but the most basic property rights (i.e. I baked bread, so the bread is mine) as state-granted monopolies. The right of exclusion is one of the most basic tenets of property rights and ultimately freedom. LTV proponents, especially maurice Dobbs, view this right as a toll-booth, appropriating the fruits of other people's labor. This is an inconsistent view of property. If I build (or buy) a machine of production, am I morally obligated to allow anyone who wants it free access to my machine? After all, their labor is what's important. My capital (machine) is insignificant.  Ultimately, labor is simply a cost of production, which affects the supply curve, which brings us to marginalism. LTV proponents try to argue that labor is somehow unique because it is required for the production of all
goods, but that is just another version of the Water-Diamonds Paradox (water
is the most useful thing but has a low price, while diamonds are not
very useful but have a high price).  The flaw in the Water-Diamonds
Paradox is that it considers only water in a general sense and
diamonds in a general sense.  But nobody buys "all the water in the
world" or "all the diamonds in the world."  They only buy individual
units.  And it's the *marginal* utility of those units that determines
the value of the good in the market.  The theory of marginal utility
solves the Water-Diamonds Paradox, and it refutes this Marxist
nonsense that labor is somehow the ultimate input just because it
happens to be necessary.  Water is necessary for human life, but that
doesn't give any particular unit of water a high value or high price.

Labor may be necessary for every production process, but that doesn't
give any particular unit of labor a high value or high price.  In
fact, in many production processes capital equipment costs much more
than labor.  The reason is straightforward: the supply of machines is
lower than the supply of unskilled labor.  So what determines the
supply curve for the final product?  All inputs, including but not
limited to labor--and labor is not even necessarily the most important
input.
.

[LTKoblinsky]

sorry if my last post is a bit incoherent. I've taken to typing parts of it in Linux text editor and pasting it into the posting box. I've only got half of a screen. I stepped on my laptop and now half of it is black and the other half has black, inky streaks running through it. Should be fixed tomorrow!

[Zhwazi]

granted, but LTV is logically collective.

I disagree. Why do you believe this is so? (the things you write after this do not appear to support it)

The final conclusion seems to view all but the most basic property rights (i.e. I baked bread, so the bread is mine) as state-granted monopolies.

Many of them are. I believe you own the consequences of your action. If you want to have ownership of land, you should build yourself an island, or build dikes and drain the land you plan to use. Those who became big owners of capital did so with the help of the state. This isn't uniquely left-libertarian or anticapitalist, a lot of ancaps that I know are no fans of big business.

The right of exclusion is one of the most basic tenets of property rights and ultimately freedom.

The right of exclusion of legitimate property, yes. Most anticapitalist objections are regarding illegitimate property. Not everything that is ostensibly ownable is legitimately ownable, and not everything that is owned is legitimately owned by it's ostensible owner.

LTV proponents, especially maurice Dobbs, view this right as a toll-booth, appropriating the fruits of other people's labor. This is an inconsistent view of property.

Abuse of false property is appropriating fruits of others labor without contribution. That you own land and paid for it does not make it legitimately owned if the original owner did nothing to legitimately acquire it, and owned it only by fiat. Using a "right to exclude" to extract tribute is illegitimately appropriating value that others created.

If I build (or buy) a machine of production, am I morally obligated to allow anyone who wants it free access to my machine?

If their use of it does not interfere with your use of it, then you have no basis on which to exclude them. If their use of it does interfere with your use of it, then you do. Most of the time you do. But you would need to be more specific about the nature of this machine.

After all, their labor is what's important. My capital (machine) is insignificant.

Your capital was created by labor as well, right? It is important too. But you should not expect to get much more rent out of it than you paid for it in the first place, unless monopolistic forces are preventing the laborers from simply getting their own machine or somebody else's and undercutting you.

Ultimately, labor is simply a cost of production, which affects the supply curve, which brings us to marginalism. LTV proponents try to argue that labor is somehow unique because it is required for the production of all goods, but that is just another version of the Water-Diamonds Paradox

I know what the water-diamond paradox is and I don't see how it relates to the water-diamond paradox at all.

The theory of marginal utility solves the Water-Diamonds Paradox, and it refutes this Marxist nonsense that labor is somehow the ultimate input just because it happens to be necessary.  Water is necessary for human life, but that doesn't give any particular unit of water a high value or high price.

Labor is not the same as water in the water-diamond paradox. Labor is the root cause of all economic production. I don't believe you are trying to imply that water is the root cause of all diamonds, because that would be silly and you're a reasonable person. Also the LTV is not Marxist. It was around long before Marx and was the widely accepted theory before marginalism.

Labor may be necessary for every production process, but that doesn't
give any particular unit of labor a high value or high price.  In
fact, in many production processes capital equipment costs much more
than labor.

Capital is created by labor. Capital costs are labor costs that get amortized over the useful life of the capital.

The reason is straightforward: the supply of machines is
lower than the supply of unskilled labor.

I'm curious why you qualified that as "unskilled labor", and of how you compare the supply of such naturally different things is machines and labor, unless you're comparing the product of a time's labor (the capital) to labor over some unspecified period of time (perhaps the useful life of the machine?), in which case the truth of the statement depends heavily on the specific circumstances.

So what determines the supply curve for the final product?  All inputs, including but not limited to labor--and labor is not even necessarily the most important input.

At the end of the day, labor is the only input. The costs of raw materials are the costs of the labor to gather, assemble, refine if needed, and distribute the raw materials. The costs of capital are the costs of the labor that goes into the creation of that capital. Not all of the labor that goes into creating something is immediate and proximate labor to the production process.

sorry if my last post is a bit incoherent. I've taken to typing parts of it in Linux text editor and pasting it into the posting box. I've only got half of a screen. I stepped on my laptop and now half of it is black and the other half has black, inky streaks running through it. Should be fixed tomorrow!

Ouch x.x well that explains why part of it has line breaks forced in at regular intervals. Cracked LCD's can be pricey and sometimes difficult to replace. Hope you get that fixed soon and at little cost! And it wasn't incoherent, though I didn't follow quite why you brought up the water diamond thing (maybe I missed something?) everything was understandable.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.

Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.

Passive-Aggressive much? YOU were the one who attacked me, asshole. Not the other way around. You further stated that none of us is allowed to opt out of your society. I said 'Live and Let Live' and you rebuffed it. As I said, if you're going to turn your guns on me and mine, fuck you then. You're no Anarchist if people are forced to live by your rules. That makes you a Collectivist.

[LTKoblinsky]

If I build (or buy) a machine of production, am I morally obligated to allow anyone who wants it free access to my machine?
If their use of it does not interfere with your use of it, then you have no basis on which to exclude them. If their use of it does interfere with your use of it, then you do. Most of the time you do. But you would need to be more specific about the nature of this machine.

This is why its collectivist. If I build it or I buy it, you have no right to free load off of me in such a way. Get your own damn machine!  Also, labor is not the cause of production. utility is. Menger's Theory of Derived Demand adequately demonstrates this. IRL, I produce food because I know it will sell. Finally, I don't see where you come off saying that all costs are dependent on quantities of labor. This does not hold up in reality. Time, opportunity cost (it can be argued that abor falls under this classification), raw materials (you can't just write them off as "gifts of nature", capital, utility are all costs that factor into the supply curve. This conversation is a tree. I started with a simple point and has since branched. Responding to each point thoroughly simply brings up further branching. 

[Zhwazi]

That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.

Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.

Passive-Aggressive much? YOU were the one who attacked me, asshole. Not the other way around. You further stated that none of us is allowed to opt out of your society. I said 'Live and Let Live' and you rebuffed it. As I said, if you're going to turn your guns on me and mine, fuck you then. You're no Anarchist if people are forced to live by your rules. That makes you a Collectivist.

I knew you wouldn't be able to ignore me.

First of all, my attack was explicitly invited (with dripping sarcasm, but I didn't see a better way to prove your skepticism of my understanding of anarchocapitalism unjustified, and my hostility was more in response to your dismissive tone, I wasn't more vicious in my attack, I just had more to say when in that mood then you did).

It's not about "creating" a society that you can opt out of. Societies cannot be containerized, that's a major portion of my point. If we assume that there's a capitalist community and a socialist community existing adjacent to each other, and the capitalists grow the same oligopolistic tendencies that they currently exhibit, just without a state, their power doesn't  hold only within the capitalist community, they have power in the socialist community as well. The capital owners will abuse their power disparity in the socialist community after suppressing the capitalist community itself to a point that it becomes less useful. It's not because capitalism is better, it's because capitalism creates centralized power, and this centralized power is not only a threat to the people that helped the powerful get there, it is a threat to everyone within the sphere of influence of the power created by it.

It cannot be containerized. If it could be, I would gladly go live in Socialist Town across the river from Capital City, knowing the capitalists were safely contained by the river. But it can't. I rebuffed you not because I want to take over the world, but because capitalism takes over the world. It is not a hostile but defensive decision. The threat of capitalism is subtle and (at the fear of sounding like an ass I must say this) you probably don't understand how it works because capitalists rationalize away why threats are good very well to their own reasoning, and the definitions chosen for words make it difficult to understand opposing viewpoints clearly. I said that "Not all aggression is as direct as you would like to believe" because capitalism is aggressive in subtle ways.

I am not an anarchist for not wanting to rule anyone, and not wanting to be ruled. I'm not an anarchist for opposing rulers, even when those rulers insist repeatedly that they come in peace. I am not a collectivist. I am just plain not a collectivist.

Oh, and I'm still curious, was I wrong about what I thought you believed?

[LTKoblinsky]

That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.

Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.

Passive-Aggressive much? YOU were the one who attacked me, asshole. Not the other way around. You further stated that none of us is allowed to opt out of your society. I said 'Live and Let Live' and you rebuffed it. As I said, if you're going to turn your guns on me and mine, fuck you then. You're no Anarchist if people are forced to live by your rules. That makes you a Collectivist.

I knew you wouldn't be able to ignore me.

First of all, my attack was explicitly invited (with dripping sarcasm, but I didn't see a better way to prove your skepticism of my understanding of anarchocapitalism unjustified, and my hostility was more in response to your dismissive tone, I wasn't more vicious in my attack, I just had more to say when in that mood then you did).

It's not about "creating" a society that you can opt out of. Societies cannot be containerized, that's a major portion of my point. If we assume that there's a capitalist community and a socialist community existing adjacent to each other, and the capitalists grow the same oligopolistic tendencies that they currently exhibit, just without a state, their power doesn't  hold only within the capitalist community, they have power in the socialist community as well. The capital owners will abuse their power disparity in the socialist community after suppressing the capitalist community itself to a point that it becomes less useful. It's not because capitalism is better, it's because capitalism creates centralized power, and this centralized power is not only a threat to the people that helped the powerful get there, it is a threat to everyone within the sphere of influence of the power created by it.

It cannot be containerized. If it could be, I would gladly go live in Socialist Town across the river from Capital City, knowing the capitalists were safely contained by the river. But it can't. I rebuffed you not because I want to take over the world, but because capitalism takes over the world. It is not a hostile but defensive decision. The threat of capitalism is subtle and (at the fear of sounding like an ass I must say this) you probably don't understand how it works because capitalists rationalize away why threats are good very well to their own reasoning, and the definitions chosen for words make it difficult to understand opposing viewpoints clearly. I said that "Not all aggression is as direct as you would like to believe" because capitalism is aggressive in subtle ways.

I am not an anarchist for not wanting to rule anyone, and not wanting to be ruled. I'm not an anarchist for opposing rulers, even when those rulers insist repeatedly that they come in peace. I am not a collectivist. I am just plain not a collectivist.

Oh, and I'm still curious, was I wrong about what I thought you believed?

AKA, The cappies will not let the pure folk mooch off of them AND will proceed witht he horrendous act of having a higher standard of living and having access to cheaper, higher quality goods.  Who knows, they might even exert their "power" and offer the weaker of the pure folk  some of these goods (*gasp) for a price! This tainting must not be allowed!

[LTKoblinsky]

Also, for an excellent study of property rights, value, and law, I highly recommend david Friedman's Law's Order. I believe (<stress this) he is Milton Friedman's son, but takes a more anarchist viewpoint from very rational study.

[Zhwazi]

This is why its collectivist. If I build it or I buy it, you have no right to free load off of me in such a way. Get your own damn machine!

You have the right to use force in defense. If somebody is doing something that does not harm you, you do not have the right to use force against them. The logical conclusion when X is doing peaceful non-infringing non-excluding activity Y with Z's property, Z cannot use force to stop X from doing Y. In that regard, Z does not have the "right" to stop X. I can understand why you don't want freeloaders, but that's a separate problem that I'm sure your entreprenuerial mind can find an agreeable solution to if things were more specific than this very general description.

Also, labor is not the cause of production. utility is.

I think we are speaking of "causes" in different senses of the word. I understand what you are saying and agree (though it seems to be phrased a little awkwardly, perhaps "anticipated utility is the cause of production"?). But you are using "cause" in a different way. I'm trying to say that all factors of production can be traced back to labor. The motivation to labor is a separate question, which you seem to have attempted to answer.

Menger's Theory of Derived Demand adequately demonstrates this. IRL, I produce food because I know it will sell.

This is not inconsistent with a labor theory of value.

Finally, I don't see where you come off saying that all costs are dependent on quantities of labor. This does not hold up in reality. Time, opportunity cost (it can be argued that abor falls under this classification), raw materials (you can't just write them off as "gifts of nature", capital, utility are all costs that factor into the supply curve.

Time is time laboring. Labor is an opportunity cost, but it's more than that. I don't write raw materials off as gifts of nature, I explicitly said they are gathered by labor. The cost of raw materials are the cost of the labor to bring those materials to market.

This conversation is a tree. I started with a simple point and has since branched. Responding to each point thoroughly simply brings up further branching.  

It's unfortunate but true. I honestly prefer conversational flows, but forums are not a medium that lend themselves well to that flow of discussion because of the low interactivity and high latency between replies, we would never get anything said.

AKA, The cappies will not let the pure folk mooch off of them AND will proceed witht he horrendous act of having a higher standard of living and having access to cheaper, higher quality goods.  Who knows, they might even exert their "power" and offer the weaker of the pure folk  some of these goods (*gasp) for a price! This tainting must not be allowed!

You're grossly mischaracterizing the nature of capitalism's spread though. I'm going to hold my tongue on this until I've had more time to discuss things with you, because I think you'll eventually find yourself that this is a gross mischaracterization, and you've been (mostly) cooperative in the discussion.

[LTKoblinsky]

that last part was admittedly sensationalist, but on a principal level, your conclusions that capitalism must not be tolerated because it cannot be contained is the same idea that led Lenin to use a reign of terror to impose "unity" on the people of the USSR. Communism attained its distinction this way. These types of systems cannot be maintained on any meaningful scale without crushing the oppositon. Otherwise, people "opt out", as has been witnessed by immigration history.

[Zhwazi]

that last part was admittedly sensationalist

I'm genuinely glad that you said it yourself, I think Brooklyn Red Leg actually believes it o.o

but on a principal level, your conclusions that capitalism must not be tolerated because it cannot be contained is the same idea that led Lenin to use a reign of terror to impose "unity" on the people of the USSR. Communism attained its distinction this way. These types of systems cannot be maintained on any meaningful scale without crushing the oppositon. Otherwise, people "opt out", as has been witnessed by immigration history.

I hear the same line of reasoning, "Hitler used natural selection as a reason to kill 12 million people, evolutionary theory is bad mkay, god made earth in 6 days just like Genesis says", and it doesn't fare any better here. Not trying to say your ideas are as baseless and stupid as creationism, but it's the same pattern of reasoning. Just because some monster said something and then did something terrible after coming to power by saying things like that, doesn't reflect upon the statement itself, only upon the person. If anything, the fact that they were able to get to power saying things like that shows that there's a grain of truth at least that resonates with people's understanding that those people thought they could trust somebody that claimed those ideals. I would just like the "capitalism cannot be contained" idea to get it's own independent evaluation first. Also, the tools Lenin had available to him to act on that ethic is very different from the kinds of tools I would suggest using.

And I don't propose a new USSR, I agree that they are unsustainable. Sustainability is important to me. I believe the most sustainable systems are radically decentralized ones. It would take time to explain how I expect capitalism to be fought by anarchistic socialism but it's not in the ways you are accustomed to hearing, I bet.

[yamnuska]

None of this shit will ever work until we can travel in space and fuck off on our own to colonize some plant or big ass asteroid. Then everyone can go start their own version of a perfect society. Of course within a decade there will be interplanetary warfare because we just can't leave each other the fuck alone, human nature. And so my hypotherical thought shows itself, what if we could get into a ship we own individually and colonize the stars, what then? Peace and goodwill? Man will always abuse their peers, always.

[alaric89]

I think you are right. For myself, I am looking into the sea steading idea.
However the news from Egypt is encouraging. I am still optimistic about NH as well.
Guys like Zhwazi surprise me. He reminds me of the traitor character in the first Matrix film. How can someone who knows the simple truths of liberty suddenly want collectivism?

[TimeLady Victorious]

I think you are right. For myself, I am looking into the sea steading idea.
However the news from Egypt is encouraging. I am still optimistic about NH as well.
Guys like Zhwazi surprise me. He reminds me of the traitor character in the first Matrix film. How can someone who knows the simple truths of liberty suddenly want collectivism?

All societies are collectives, to one extent or another.

[alaric89]

A society where stealing is wrong is possible. Just never been tried. I am not saying bad people would disappear I am saying the thieves don't necessarily have to run everything.