Agna:

[Agnapostate]

You're dodging the issue. You said that those who choose to not work get free stuff anyway.

Where?

 

[roomy]

I might start stealing the words and ideas of others and maybe throw in the odd edit on my behalf, hell, I could be the next Milton or Groves.

 

[JBeukema]

You're dodging the issue. You said that those who choose to not work get free stuff anyway.

Where?

An ideal commune would grant the minimal means of life even to those who were able but not willing to work.

 

[JBeukema]

An ideal commune would grant the minimal means of life even to those who were able but not willing to work.

So you punish those who labor by stealing from them what is rightfully theirs by their own labor to reward those who choose to do nothing? And you call capitalism immoral?

No matter how much your next paragraph tries to temper this to make you look less like thieves-you have already made the principle clear.

The leeching class is to steal from the working class....

 

[JBeukema]

I wonder which of those two classes Agna would be a part of...

 

[Oddball]

Yep. The collective ownership of the means of production will minimize the subordination of labor under capital, thus preventing the financial class from stealing the surplus labor of the working class any further.

Gee...No envy, flawed presuppositions, or situational ethics in there!!

 

[roomy]

Why do you tell lies?

rheumatoid, don't make us do this again...remember the thread that I started just for you and your dinky brain, asking you to prove a single lie that I'd told? Remember...you not being able to post anything there?

I remember posting at least two of your lies without response from you, I think your last post might be another lie.
Why do you tell lies?

I also remember calling you out as a liar on another site and you cried a little bit before you disappeared.

 

[Oddball]

I wonder which of those two classes Agna would be a part of...

Ummm...The class that mans the gas chambers??

 

[JBeukema]

Why do you tell lies?

rheumatoid, don't make us do this again...remember the thread that I started just for you and your dinky brain, asking you to prove a single lie that I'd told? Remember...you not being able to post anything there?

I remember posting at least two of your lies without response from you, I think your last post might be another lie.
Why do you tell lies?

I also remember calling you out as a liar on another site and you cried a little bit before you disappeared.

I know how to solve this: someone link to the thread

I wonder which of those two classes Agna would be a part of...

Ummm...The class that mans the gas chambers??

nah,.. that's work

 

[Agnapostate]

Nope. The "minimal means of life" refers to emergency medical care and sustenance through basic food staples. Those who were able but unwilling to work would be denied access to the vast majority of public resources and services, however, and may be expelled from the collective/commune in question.

The leeching class is to steal from the working class....

They currently do. The nature of extraction of surplus labor in the capitalist wage system constitutes theft from the working class by the financial class.

Gee...No envy, flawed presuppositions, or situational ethics in there!!

Far less than your shrieking and caterwauling about "welfare queens." If you have a counter to the observation that capitalism involves a state of affairs wherein surplus labor is extracted during the production phase and utilized in the circulation process to maintain capital accumulation, feel free to post it. However, we both know that you don't.

I remember posting at least two of your lies without response from you, I think your last post might be another lie.
Why do you tell lies?

Then post one of them here.

I I also remember calling you out as a liar on another site and you cried a little bit before you disappeared.

Nope. You posted an idiotic visitor message that I responded to quickly. You were the one who didn't reply and didn't show up again after I confronted you in one of the threads.

Ummm...The class that mans the gas chambers??

"Gas chambers"? Heeeey...that...that's a reference to the Holocaust...and...and therefore the Nazis, isn't it? That's pretty sharp!

Unfortunately, it's also historically inaccurate, since aside from the military resistance to European fascism that I just described and you just ignored, socialist and anarchists were victims of the Holocaust and the repression of fascism. For example, consider Erich Mühsam.

Erich Mühsam (6 April 1878 – 10 July 1934) was a German-Jewish anarchist essayist, poet and playwright...he achieved international prominence during the years of the Weimar Republic for works which, before Hitler came to power in 1933, condemned Nazism and satirized the future dictator. Mühsam died in the Oranienburg concentration camp in 1934...Mühsam was arrested on charges unknown in the early morning hours of 28 February 1933, within a few hours after the Reichstag fire in Berlin. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, labelled him as one of "those Jewish subversives."...Hitler used the state of emergency to justify the arrests of large numbers of German intellectuals labelled as communists, socialists, and anarchists in both retaliation for the attack and to silence opposition for his increasing suppression of civil liberties. Communist, Socialist, and Anarchist publications decried the arrests of these intellectuals, several of which led an international effort demanding the release of Mühsam, conveying reports of his treatment and enumerating the various barbarous acts of torture and repeated beatings at the hands of prison guards and officers...It was even alleged that the camp's guards had even ripped out pieces of Mühsam's beard in order to make him look more like the caricatures of orthodox Jews seen in anti-semitic newspapers and tracts...It was alleged that he was tortured and beaten until he lost consciousness, followed by an injection that killed him, and that Mühsam's body was taken to a latrine in the rear of the building and hung on a rafter so as to create the impression that Mühsam had committed suicide.

Try not to add Godwin's Law to your list of imbecilities in the future.

 

[roomy]

I think we both know who the majority believes, you being the liar and me not.

Why do you tell lies?

 

[Agnapostate]

I think we both know who the majority believes, you being the liar and me not.

Why do you tell lies?

You stupid little cockgoblin, post a single lie that I've told.

 

[roomy]

I think we both know who the majority believes, you being the liar and me not.

Why do you tell lies?

You stupid little cockgoblin, post a single lie that I've told.

Shut the fuck up you stupid little lad, you are a mere DIStraction.

I have what I want.

 

[JBeukema]

Nope. The "minimal means of life" refers to emergency medical care and sustenance through basic food staples.

Again, you demand they be given that which they refuse to work for, stealing from the laborers what is rightfully theirs through their own labor.

Such a compulsory act is tyrannical, it is theft, and it is authoritarianism- where you are the authoritarian

Those who were able but unwilling to work would be denied access to the vast majority of public resources and services, however, and may be expelled from the collective/commune in question.

So the majority may vote away the liberty of the individual to live where (s)he desires? That is the tyranny of the majority and forced relocation.

I thought your system was founded on liberty and the rejection of sych tyrannies?

They currently do.

That has nothing to do with the matter at hand. We';re discussing your proposed 'solution'. Do stay on topic

The nature of extraction of surplus labor in the capitalist wage system constitutes theft from the working class by the financial class.

Wrong. It constitutes a willful contract. Whether that contract is deemed 'fair' by you has no bearing on that fact. Theft is your compulsory provision of goods to those who do not labor upon taking it from those who labor for it. This principle that you espouse is theft from the laborters by those who do not wish to work, bu merely to vote away from those who do labor what is rightfully theirs. It is a prime example os the tyranny of the majority and the dangers of collectivism depricing the individual of the protection of property the fryuits of one's own labor.

Rather than trying to distract people with your shrieking of the 'unfairness' of the contract between employer and employee (which is non-compulsory), why don't you actually defend your system against the point I and other have made. Of course, we both know you can't

 

[garyd]

Gee that's exactly the sort of system they ran in Ancient athens all the time. The system underwhich Socrates was made to drink hemlock and lesser types were expelled with some frequency. It is a system in which tradition becomes a God in and of itself and taboos of various sorts become Enshrined if not actually set in concrete. A society in which those who march to a different drummer better damn well march quickly.

 

[Agnapostate]

Again, you demand they be given that which they refuse to work for, stealing from the laborers what is rightfully theirs through their own labor.

Such a compulsory act is tyrannical, it is theft, and it is authoritarianism- where you are the authoritarian

Nope. I don't "demand" any such thing. Consistent with libertarian principles, I've always insisted that such decisions be the domain of the individual collective or commune. Since many anarchists have tired of the slovenly apathy of the financial class and their theft from the working class in presently existing conditions, they can be expected to have little patience for such laziness in such a form of economic organization. So any provision of the minimal means of life would be purely voluntary on the part of individual collectives and communes.

So the majority may vote away the liberty of the individual to live where (s)he desires? That is the tyranny of the majority and forced relocation.

I thought your system was founded on liberty and the rejection of sych tyrannies?

As I've said before, the majority *can* do anything even in presently existing society. Nothing can resist a large majority from forcibly exerting their power through sheer strength of numbers, and they ultimately cannot be prevented from doing so by a minority. However, expulsion from a collective or commune is not necessarily based on "forced relocation"; it's merely a matter of not considering those who are able but unwilling to work a part of the collective/commune. This is as it should be, because why should the greater association of individuals give to an person who's unwilling to reciprocate? Anything else would be mere economic irrationality.

Wrong. It constitutes a willful contract. Whether that contract is deemed 'fair' by you has no bearing on that fact. Theft is your compulsory provision of goods to those who do not labor upon taking it from those who labor for it. This principle that you espouse is theft from the laborters by those who do not wish to work, bu merely to vote away from those who do labor what is rightfully theirs. It is a prime example os the tyranny of the majority and the dangers of collectivism depricing the individual of the protection of property the fryuits of one's own labor.

Completely incorrect. The labor contract is presently based on such broad conditions of exploitation of the "lesser" party (the laborer), partially caused by information asymmetries that exist between laborers and employers. For example, consider underpayment. As noted by Hofler and Murphy in Underpaid and overworked: Measuring the effect of imperfect information on wages:

This paper investigates the degree of shortfall between the wages workers earn and what they could earn assuming perfect or costless information in the labor market. We use the stochastic frontier regression technique to estimate the degree of shortfall found in wages on an individual basis. The paper tests, in addition, a number of hypotheses supplied by search theory in this context. The results generally confirm the propositions from search theory and indicate that, on the average, worker wages fall short of worker potential wages by approximately 10 percent.

Asymmetric information and related agency costs and problems in general cannot be eliminated in the capitalist economy. Conversely, the socialist economy features a unification of ownership and management of labor and its utilities by the working class, which eliminates principal-agent problems caused by the divorce of ownership and control.

Rather than trying to distract people with your shrieking of the 'unfairness' of the contract between employer and employee (which is non-compulsory), why don't you actually defend your system against the point I and other have made. Of course, we both know you can't

I've already explained the coercive nature of the labor contract through basis on the "influence terms" pioneered by Robert Dahl. As I recall, you were unable to reply.

 

[Agnapostate]

Gee that's exactly the sort of system they ran in Ancient athens all the time. The system underwhich Socrates was made to drink hemlock and lesser types were expelled with some frequency. It is a system in which tradition becomes a God in and of itself and taboos of various sorts become Enshrined if not actually set in concrete. A society in which those who march to a different drummer better damn well march quickly.

Nope. Direct democracy was itself drastically limited to a certain class, and as you've noted, libertarian principles were absent. There's thus no basis for rational comparison.

 

[JBeukema]

why should the greater association of individuals give to an person who's unwilling to reciprocate? [/qupte]

it was you who said they would, per your proposed system. not may- would. They would receive it; compliance with that being condition of your system

Are you now officially changing that position and saying you no longer support such compulsion, since JB has enlightened you?

Completely incorrect. The labor contract is presently based on such broad conditions of exploitation of the "lesser" party (the laborer), partially caused by information asymmetries that exist between laborers and employers. .

Information can be obtained freely by those who wish to seek it. If they are not happy with the contract, they can renegotiate it- or do you not support unions and instead support forcing those who work to build successful businesses to bow to those who wish to take what is theirs, denying the businesses the right to hire those willing to strike the best deal?


To expect the entire populace to be fully informed on every matter is naive at best, and more probably deceptive tactics to manipulate the People by leading them to believe they are informed

I've already explained the coercive nature of the labor contract

Wait, first it was exploitation.. then simply coercion...

We're almost on our way to you admitting that a labor contract is exactly that- a contract, which can be renogotiated. The laborer seeks the best pay, the employer seeks the lowest cost. It is exhacnge like any other and free entry into such exchange of goods and labor is a basic right of all persons and critical to any system that ios going to remotely resemble a 'free' market in whcih all persons may seek to improve their condition, includuing but not limited to working conditions and the benefits they reap for their labors


You have been able to discount any of this, and you merely rely on the words of other- because even you cannot comprehend any way in which such a system as your propose could be stable, secure, and maintain its soverignty while protecting the rioghts of the People or avoiding the tyyrannies I have pointed out. This is why you are unabel to defend such a system in your own words

 

[Harry Dresden]

Geezus Aggie.....cant i leave you for more than a day....every post your in people want to ring your neck....what did i tell you about talking to grown ups?...lets go over it again.....talking with grown ups,is not the same as when your playing with your Ken and Barbie Dolls....and no....Dude is not Jeff Bridges....

 

[Oddball]

Again, you demand they be given that which they refuse to work for, stealing from the laborers what is rightfully theirs through their own labor.

Such a compulsory act is tyrannical, it is theft, and it is authoritarianism- where you are the authoritarian

Nope. I don't "demand" any such thing. Consistent with libertarian principles, I've always insisted that such decisions be the domain of the individual collective or commune. Since many anarchists have tired of the slovenly apathy of the financial class and their theft from the working class in presently existing conditions, they can be expected to have little patience for such laziness in such a form of economic organization. So any provision of the minimal means of life would be purely voluntary on the part of individual collectives and communes.

You don't know jack shit about anarchists, boy....Just come out and admit it.