Political Crossfire Forums

[dkong911]

Even if you could undeniably prove that capitalism is coercive, it would be irrelevant.

What alternative do you suggest? Force others to pay your life expenses for you? How is that any less coercive?

[LeopardPM]

LostSoul3412 wrote:
LeopardPM wrote: I understand basically what you are saying, but I will attempt to restate it and see if it makes sense to you:
The scarcity of resources and the infinite desires of humans is a constant source of strife and stress in life.

:-|

Really the point was that since humanity in greedy, it is impossible to create a morally righteous economic system.
and my point is... to what standard are you comparing human nature from which you get this idea of 'greediness'? We are 'greedy' compared to what? Fish? Really now... greed is just a derogatory name/label which means nothing at all except to voice opinion - its just name-calling. If I call you a fireman, we all know what that means, but if I call you greedy, that informs the listener only that I think that you are greedy by some action of yours - perhaps the same action would not be interpreted by another as being 'greedy' at all, could even be considered 'charitable'


Quote: LeopardPM wrote: also... a fiat currency is a 'greedy' one - the silent theft of citizens money and unproductive impacts in the general economy which leave us all poorer are not indications of any sort of positive 'evolution' in currency!

Different thread for a different day, but the point is that money has evolved from hard currency to an intangible medium of exchange.
I wouldn't call institutionalizing by force an immoral system for theft any sort of evolution - true evolution is more of a like market phenomenon...

[LostSoul3412]

LeopardPM wrote: and my point is... to what standard are you comparing human nature from which you get this idea of 'greediness'? We are 'greedy' compared to what? Fish? Really now... greed is just a derogatory name/label which means nothing at all except to voice opinion - its just name-calling. If I call you a fireman, we all know what that means, but if I call you greedy, that informs the listener only that I think that you are greedy by some action of yours - perhaps the same action would not be interpreted by another as being 'greedy' at all, could even be considered 'charitable'

Are you claiming that greed does not exist?

LeopardPM wrote: I wouldn't call institutionalizing by force an immoral system for theft any sort of evolution - true evolution is more of a like market phenomenon...

:roll:

Again, different thread for a different day. In the mean time, if you don't like it, don't use money.

[Free Thinkr]

LostSoul3412 wrote: LeopardPM wrote: and my point is... to what standard are you comparing human nature from which you get this idea of 'greediness'? We are 'greedy' compared to what? Fish? Really now... greed is just a derogatory name/label which means nothing at all except to voice opinion - its just name-calling. If I call you a fireman, we all know what that means, but if I call you greedy, that informs the listener only that I think that you are greedy by some action of yours - perhaps the same action would not be interpreted by another as being 'greedy' at all, could even be considered 'charitable'

Are you claiming that greed does not exist?
I don't think so; I've been following this thread, and the same thing that LeopardPM is arguing occurred to me. Are humans inherently "greedy?" That's a good question. What, precisely, is greed? If you asked me, I'd define greed as self-interest to the point of fault; I'd agree humans are inherently self-interested, but then, I believe that having a stake in one's own self-preservation does not necessarily make him greedy. "Greed" is a criticism; it's a claim that one is self-interested to a fault. Necessarily, then, this is in comparison to some norm. It stands to reason, then, that humans cannot be inherently greedy, as greed is perceived relative to social norms.

[LostSoul3412]

Free Thinkr wrote: If you asked me, I'd define greed as self-interest to the point of fault;

That's the difference in definition. I was using the term "greedy" to portray:
Free Thinkr wrote: humans are inherently self-interested,

Here's what the dictionary says:

Merriam-Webster wrote: Main Entry: greedy
Pronunciation: 'grE-dE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): greed·i·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English gredy, from Old English gr[AE]dig; akin to Old High German grAtac greedy
1 : having a strong desire for food or drink
2 : marked by greed : having or showing a selfish desire for wealth and possessions

Free Thinkr wrote: but then, I believe that having a stake in one's own self-preservation does not necessarily make him greedy.

Does self-preservation include a strong desire for food or drink, or a selfish desire for wealth and possessions (a.k.a. "stuff")?

If so, then the individual is greedy. If not, then they aren't taking much interest in their self-preservation.

Free Thinkr wrote: "Greed" is a criticism; it's a claim that one is self-interested to a fault.

I never used the term "greed" to denote a fault, or criticism. I used the term to denote a reality. The reality is that people like to have things, including food and drink.

Free Thinkr wrote: Necessarily, then, this is in comparison to some norm. It stands to reason, then, that humans cannot be inherently greedy, as greed is perceived relative to social norms.

Subjectively, perhaps. However, any selfish intent can be attributed to greed. For example, that's my bread. I'm going to eat it and be selfish and deny you bread that I've claimed as mine. That's greedy. Is that bad? No, not at all. Is that an objective occurrence? Yes, absolutely.

[gavnook]

Whether or not people are greedy isn't really a matter of economics.

[RueTheDay]

Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Contracts, in and of themselves, are not coercive. The coercion happens when one of the parties to a contract changes their mind about the contract and the other party then seeks the aid of a third party (either the government or, in the case of the anarchists, the "mutual protection agency") to ENFORCE the contract. It is the enforcement of the contract that is coercive, not the contract itself.

This depends upon the nature of the enforcement. An MPA would not be able to arrest and detain a person for violating a contract, nor FORCE the violator to do anything against his will. On the contrary the role of the MPA would be to make sure that it is in everyone’s best interests to uphold the contracts they enter into. Thus punitive action would consist of notifying all MPA’s and members of MPA’s that the violation occurred and that person then has a reputation for not upholding contracts. This automatically provides a disincentive to others to enter future contracts with the individual, making it harder and/or more costly for the individual to enter into future contractual relationships from employment, to getting a loan, to getting a bank account.

Ok, but that apears to contradict what you are about to say.....

Quote:
Quote: Libertarians, whose entire philosophy is built upon a foundation of quicksand (essentially the belief in the absolute power of property and contracts), have yet to demonstrate why a contract SHOULD always be enforced.

A contract is willingly entered into by all parties acting in their own interests. Once a contractual relationship is established an exchange has occurred. To violate the contract represents a theft.

So would MPAs punish theft or would they not? You can't claim that MPAs would not coercively enforce contracts and then in the next breath claim that a contract breach constitutes theft, unless you also believe that MPAs would NOT punish theft. So which is it?

Quote:
Take a cell phone contract as an example: I sign the contract agreeing to pay a monthly rate for my cell phone and the use of the cell phone companies infrastructure to make calls. The phone immediately becomes my property, on the condition that I maintain my contract for a minimum of two years. I have exchanged my promise of continued subscription for a two year period for a new phone and the right to use it. If I were to cancel my subscription prior to the end of the two year period without paying the fines stipulated in my contract, that action would be a theft against the sell phone company.

No, it would not be theft, it would be breach of contract.

As much as it makes me feel dirty to say it, Rothbard would agree with me on this as well.

[RueTheDay]

LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I never claimed that there would be enough berries to pick, just as I never said that gathering would be a legal/desirable option. I simply stated that if you really wanted to avoid a job, you can venture into the wilderness and gather food at your own risk.

That's no different from saying that if I'm hungry enough I can just break into your house and help myself to whatever you have.

Please reread the bolded sections, and realize that in doing so I have the right to shoot you/incarcerate you for tresspassing/stealing, meaning that you cannot, in fact, break into my house and "help yourself".

Right. Nor can you "gather berries" on land "owned" by someone else. My point stands - the two statements are equivalent.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: Wow, what a way to try to justify a moral system.....and fail.

Who said anything about morals?

Then what ARE you trying to say? That might makes right?

[RueTheDay]

cap'n queasy wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Contracts, in and of themselves, are not coercive. The coercion happens when one of the parties to a contract changes their mind about the contract and the other party then seeks the aid of a third party (either the government or, in the case of the anarchists, the "mutual protection agency") to ENFORCE the contract. It is the enforcement of the contract that is coercive, not the contract itself. Libertarians, whose entire philosophy is built upon a foundation of quicksand (essentially the belief in the absolute power of property and contracts), have yet to demonstrate why a contract SHOULD always be enforced.

You don't see why people should stick by the deals they make?

:lol:

The question isn't whether people "should" stick by deals they make, it's whether the government is right to coerce them into sticking to them.

[RueTheDay]

gavnook wrote: Whether or not people are greedy isn't really a matter of economics.

To a large extent it is, because economics assumes that agents are instrumentally rational and exhibit maximizing behavior.

[LostSoul3412]

RueTheDay wrote: Right. Nor can you "gather berries" on land "owned" by someone else. My point stands - the two statements are equivalent.

You can certainly try, I cannot stop you from that. However, I also have the right to take legal/physical action against you for doing so. Again, this is all being done in a desperate attempt to avoid the "coercive contract" known as a job. You can certainly try, but that does not mean you have the right. In that respect, no, the statements are not equivalent.

RueTheDay wrote: Then what ARE you trying to say? That might makes right?

Absolutely not, I'm simply attempting to disprove the claim that states "all contracts under capitalism are coercive", and to disprove arguments proclaiming "we're all slaves to the wealthy".

[LostSoul3412]

gavnook wrote: Whether or not people are greedy isn't really a matter of economics.

The only connection I draw from greed to economics is that no system will be perfect. Capitalism will always consist of those who have, and those who do not have, while communism will always consist of socioeconomic classes.

[Nathyn]

dkong911 wrote: Even if you could undeniably prove that capitalism is coercive, it would be irrelevant.

What alternative do you suggest? Force others to pay your life expenses for you? How is that any less coercive?
There doesn't need to be an alternative for capitalism to be coercive. What you're saying equates with a religion person, upon being told there is no evidence for God, asking, "Well, what do YOU propose is the basis for all existence?"

Really, though, I propose stateless or minarchist Communism. People would voluntarily share the world's resources with little to no government getting in the way. By that, I don't mean in the sense of trade, but in the sense of use. Nobody would have implicit ownership of anything unless they're using it. Anybody can go up to anyone else and out of courtesy, ask, "Can I borrow this?" If they aren't using it, they have no basis upon which to say no.

[Free Thinkr]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: If you asked me, I'd define greed as self-interest to the point of fault;

That's the difference in definition. I was using the term "greedy" to portray:
Free Thinkr wrote: humans are inherently self-interested,
Then that's what you should have said. "Greed" denotes a subjective determination.

Quote: Here's what the dictionary says:

Merriam-Webster wrote: Main Entry: greedy
Pronunciation: 'grE-dE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): greed·i·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English gredy, from Old English gr[AE]dig; akin to Old High German grAtac greedy
1 : having a strong desire for food or drink
2 : marked by greed : having or showing a selfish desire for wealth and possessions
Both these imply self-interest to a fault; having a strong desire, or showing a selfish desire.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: but then, I believe that having a stake in one's own self-preservation does not necessarily make him greedy.

Does self-preservation include a strong desire for food or drink, or a selfish desire for wealth and possessions (a.k.a. "stuff")?

If so, then the individual is greedy. If not, then they aren't taking much interest in their self-preservation.
Imagine, for a moment, you throw a party and you have hors d'oeuvres for your guests. Two scenarios:

1. a guest takes one
2. a guest eats half of them, before anyone else gets a chance to have one

While in each case the guest is unquestionably acting in their own interest, the latter case is doing so without any concern for others whatever; he's acting selfishly to a fault. Such a man would generally be labeled greedy, whereas the guest in the first case would generally not.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: "Greed" is a criticism; it's a claim that one is self-interested to a fault.

I never used the term "greed" to denote a fault, or criticism. I used the term to denote a reality. The reality is that people like to have things, including food and drink.
Well, I'm simply telling you that it's a poor term, as it carries with it a negative subjective judgment.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Necessarily, then, this is in comparison to some norm. It stands to reason, then, that humans cannot be inherently greedy, as greed is perceived relative to social norms.
Subjectively, perhaps. However, any selfish intent can be attributed to greed. For example, that's my bread. I'm going to eat it and be selfish and deny you bread that I've claimed as mine. That's greedy. Is that bad? No, not at all. Is that an objective occurrence? Yes, absolutely.
In some cases, it's not bad, in others it is. If that's your bread and you have tons of it, and you're denying me simply on principle, I think most would find that bad and label you greedy. If you have two pieces of bread packed for your lunch, I doubt most would find it greedy if you refused to give one to a coworker.

[Kindred]

dkong911 wrote: Even if you could undeniably prove that capitalism is coercive, it would be irrelevant.

What alternative do you suggest? Force others to pay your life expenses for you? How is that any less coercive?

There are other alternatives which don't involve a welfare state.

[evil muppet]

I personally like greed. It isn't that greed is wrong and ruins the economic system but greed instead forms a large part of economics. More good has resulted from mankind being greedy than from mankind being generous.

[Katsumoto]

RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Contracts, in and of themselves, are not coercive. The coercion happens when one of the parties to a contract changes their mind about the contract and the other party then seeks the aid of a third party (either the government or, in the case of the anarchists, the "mutual protection agency") to ENFORCE the contract. It is the enforcement of the contract that is coercive, not the contract itself.

This depends upon the nature of the enforcement. An MPA would not be able to arrest and detain a person for violating a contract, nor FORCE the violator to do anything against his will. On the contrary the role of the MPA would be to make sure that it is in everyone’s best interests to uphold the contracts they enter into. Thus punitive action would consist of notifying all MPA’s and members of MPA’s that the violation occurred and that person then has a reputation for not upholding contracts. This automatically provides a disincentive to others to enter future contracts with the individual, making it harder and/or more costly for the individual to enter into future contractual relationships from employment, to getting a loan, to getting a bank account.

Ok, but that apears to contradict what you are about to say.....

Quote:
Quote: Libertarians, whose entire philosophy is built upon a foundation of quicksand (essentially the belief in the absolute power of property and contracts), have yet to demonstrate why a contract SHOULD always be enforced.

A contract is willingly entered into by all parties acting in their own interests. Once a contractual relationship is established an exchange has occurred. To violate the contract represents a theft.

So would MPAs punish theft or would they not? You can't claim that MPAs would not coercively enforce contracts and then in the next breath claim that a contract breach constitutes theft, unless you also believe that MPAs would NOT punish theft. So which is it?

MPA's would punish theft, but not coercively (as I understand it). My understanding is that MPA's would simply approach the theif with two alternatives. Pay off the debt incurred by their theft, including any penalties stipulated by his own MPA contract, or be put on a black list and essentially be shunned by the world. Imagine the choice. Pay the fine, or work it off under the MPA's offer, or live the rest of your life on the edge of society, always with a scarlet letter attached to your name. No one would engage in commerce with you, because you have a history of breaking contracts, you are a risk.

In a sense we see how this would work in practice somewhat by looking at ebay and their auction feedback system. People are a lot less likely to trade with people who have bad feedback. The system has had remarkable success.

Quote: Quote:
Take a cell phone contract as an example: I sign the contract agreeing to pay a monthly rate for my cell phone and the use of the cell phone companies infrastructure to make calls. The phone immediately becomes my property, on the condition that I maintain my contract for a minimum of two years. I have exchanged my promise of continued subscription for a two year period for a new phone and the right to use it. If I were to cancel my subscription prior to the end of the two year period without paying the fines stipulated in my contract, that action would be a theft against the sell phone company.

No, it would not be theft, it would be breach of contract.

As much as it makes me feel dirty to say it, Rothbard would agree with me on this as well.

Yes certainly it would be breach of contract, but you also haven't finished paying off your phone... that would be theft, unless you returned it or something.

[LostSoul3412]

Free Thinkr wrote: Well, I'm simply telling you that it's a poor term, as it carries with it a negative subjective judgment.

Connotations are subjective upon the individual, but I can understand where you're coming from. From now on I will use "self-interest" to imply the denotation of greed, while "greedy" will be used to imply the negative connotation of greed.

[LostSoul3412]

Nathyn wrote: Really, though, I propose stateless or minarchist Communism. People would voluntarily share the world's resources with little to no government getting in the way. By that, I don't mean in the sense of trade, but in the sense of use. Nobody would have implicit ownership of anything unless they're using it. Anybody can go up to anyone else and out of courtesy, ask, "Can I borrow this?" If they aren't using it, they have no basis upon which to say no.

So as soon as you leave your house I have the right to move in and claim ownership?

[dkong911]

Kindred wrote: dkong911 wrote: Even if you could undeniably prove that capitalism is coercive, it would be irrelevant.

What alternative do you suggest? Force others to pay your life expenses for you? How is that any less coercive?

There are other alternatives which don't involve a welfare state.

Do tell.