---

Quote: from GeneCosta at 3:15 pm on Oct. 11, 2008

---

Even in a laissez faire non-capitalist market you have disadvantages which incur from the simplest mode of production and transportation:  

 - Want is not being calculated; demand is. The two are separable terms, mostly by the access of wealth and income probabilities.  

 - Certain forms of labor in any market system will be wasted for jobs that are otherwise unnecessary in an economy based around wants. Marketing and advertising are two popular forms. All jobs related to speculation, buying investments, appraisal, banking, forecast, and business lawyers.  

 - Landlords and speculators <- admittedly, not possible in a free market socialist economy as envisioned by Proudhon and Tucker.  

 - All effort done to maintain secrecy about product production.  

 - The limitation of agriculture production versus cost of transportation.  

 Von Mises will, of course, even in his grave make the convenient argument that "libertarian socialism would work - it's just evil."

---

Oh come on how many times has that mantra been debunked?

Fraud is a rights violation since contracts require informed consent - without disclosing information about products fraud occurs.  

Jeez do we have to go back to arguments from the 30's?

---

You lost me at the word "rights."

-------
Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man
how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity. - Karl Marx

---

Quote: from GeneCosta at 3:01 pm on Oct. 11, 2008

---

---

There are also about a dozen Ayn Rand quotes I could toss in.

---

 

I like the ones where she derides homosexuals. It exposes her filth for everyone to see. It also pinpoints her juvenile cult philosophy.    

If I remember correctly, you don't identify as an anarchist. That's not surprising, of course. Even fanatics for Rothbard are coming to realize that the "natural rights" theory of property would be not a regular occurrence without a state. The expenses incurred from us individualist and social anarchists destroying property we disagreed with would be catastrophic. In other words, the true adherents to Benjamin Tucker and Adam Smith are not your friend.  

"Freedom when convenient" is the hallmark of capitalism. The truest form of freedom is socialism.  

Another quote bomb! From the "godfather" of anarchism (no, not Proudhon - although he's relevant too):  

Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. - Bakunin

---

 

There isn't a person on the planet that doesn't have a negative characteristic you know.  

Rand was absolutely right about a lot of things.  I'm no Randroid but I appreciate her vigor in defending a few of the things she was spot on.  

Freedom without Socialism is freedom.  Socialism takes the mandate that a class of supposed betters knows better how to live your life than you do therefore they should control it.  

You do know that Socialism has its roots in classic conservatism as a way to preserve the aristocracy against the classical liberal (modern American conservative) ideal of liberty?  

---

Rand was wrong on nearly everything short of defending the individual - which even then she made no remarkable strides outside of proving herself an utter fool with a mouth. Her vigorous defense of the state in the face of anarchism proves that she did not care about freedom, only capitalism. Thankfully Rothbard was a little more intellectually honest, although he still suffers from the ideology of "natural rights."

As for your final statement, you're wrong once again. You, like Von Mises, fail to realize that the socialist movement is not constrained to the Soviet experiment with Leninism. Socialism is a wide array of ideologies that encompass the free market (Proudhon and Tucker), communism (Marx and Kropotkin), and variates of the above.

You realize capitalism is explicitly tied into one class ruling over the state, right? Even the words "free market" and "capitalist" are historically incompatible. Free markets are fine. Capitalism is not.

Post edited at 11:18 pm on Oct. 11, 2008 by GeneCosta

-------
Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man
how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity. - Karl Marx

---

Quote: from Elm at 3:51 pm on Oct. 11, 2008

---

Quote: from GeneCosta at 3:15 pm on Oct. 11, 2008

---

Even in a laissez faire non-capitalist market you have disadvantages which incur from the simplest mode of production and transportation:

  - Want is not being calculated; demand is. The two are separable terms, mostly by the access of wealth and income probabilities.  

  - Certain forms of labor in any market system will be wasted for jobs that are otherwise unnecessary in an economy based around wants. Marketing and advertising are two popular forms. All jobs related to speculation, buying investments, appraisal, banking, forecast, and business lawyers.

  - Landlords and speculators <- admittedly, not possible in a free market socialist economy as envisioned by Proudhon and Tucker.

  - All effort done to maintain secrecy about product production.

  - The limitation of agriculture production versus cost of transportation.

  Von Mises will, of course, even in his grave make the convenient argument that "libertarian socialism would work - it's just evil."

---

 

 Oh come on how many times has that mantra been debunked?  

 Fraud is a rights violation since contracts require informed consent - without disclosing information about products fraud occurs.

 Jeez do we have to go back to arguments from the 30's?  
 

---

You lost me at the word "rights."

---

You know I could make a very snappy comment right now but I wont.

What about the word rights makes you lost?

---

Quote: from Elm at 3:50 pm on Oct. 11, 2008

---

Quote: from GeneCosta at 3:01 pm on Oct. 11, 2008

---

---

There are also about a dozen Ayn Rand quotes I could toss in.

---

I like the ones where she derides homosexuals. It exposes her filth for everyone to see. It also pinpoints her juvenile cult philosophy.

If I remember correctly, you don't identify as an anarchist. That's not surprising, of course. Even fanatics for Rothbard are coming to realize that the "natural rights" theory of property would be not a regular occurrence without a state. The expenses incurred from us individualist and social anarchists destroying property we disagreed with would be catastrophic. In other words, the true adherents to Benjamin Tucker and Adam Smith are not your friend.

"Freedom when convenient" is the hallmark of capitalism. The truest form of freedom is socialism.

Another quote bomb! From the "godfather" of anarchism (no, not Proudhon - although he's relevant too):

Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. - Bakunin

---

There isn't a person on the planet that doesn't have a negative characteristic you know.

Rand was absolutely right about a lot of things. I'm no Randroid but I appreciate her vigor in defending a few of the things she was spot on.

Freedom without Socialism is freedom. Socialism takes the mandate that a class of supposed betters knows better how to live your life than you do therefore they should control it.

You do know that Socialism has its roots in classic conservatism as a way to preserve the aristocracy against the classical liberal (modern American conservative) ideal of liberty?

---

Rand was wrong on nearly everything short of defending the individual - which even then she made no remarkable strides outside of proving herself an utter fool with a mouth. Her vigorous defense of the state in the face of anarchism proves that she did not care about freedom, only capitalism. Thankfully Rothbard was a little more intellectually honest, although he still suffers from the ideology of "natural rights."

As for your final statement, you're wrong once again. You, like Von Mises, fail to realize that the socialist movement is not constrained to the Soviet experiment with Leninism. Socialism is a wide array of ideologies that encompass the free market (Proudhon and Tucker), communism (Marx and Kropotkin), and variates of the above.

You realize capitalism is explicitly tied into one class ruling over the state, right? Even the words "free market" and "capitalist" are historically incompatible.

---

They aren't historically incompatible but yes you can have a free market without it being capitalist - so long as the choices are all agreed on by the members of the market.

That being said I'm not limiting it to those experiences - in fact via Fredreich we can see the entire line of socialism leading always towards totalitarianism.  That being said the basic tenets of socialist thought when made into action are immoral for they violate the rights of the people.

You're making me want to pick up Atlas Shrugged again.

---

Rights don't exist. They're abstract thoughts. Only through anarchism proper can we truly live 'free.' Otherwise the state monopolizes on the property system - and as it stands, it's defending capitalism.

---

Rights don't exist?

Would it be wrong of me to kill you?

Freedom isn't the goal btw, liberty is.  Freedom is zero confines on action while liberty is freedom within the restraints of mutual respect of rights.