 |
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kucinich
By your definition, though, a lawyer would be a proletariat - he has nothing to sell but his labor. His labor just happens to be worth a lot. |
A lawyer is selling is knowledge, training, and skills. He is not merely selling is ability to do work, but his services as an officer of the court and the law.
quote: Originally posted by DanS
Vast majority? Wouldn't stock ownership preclude people from being in the proletariat? If yes, then the majority of Americans aren't in the proletariat. |
Not really. Most Americans who own stock do so in retirement plans, and own a very small piece of the pie. Controlling interest still resides in the top 10%, and the top1% owns the lions share of that. Furthermore, much of the stock owned by proletarians is not voting stock.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001 time: 00:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
How would it be capitalist? If the means of production can produce freely without the need for much if any labor, then how does the proleteriat earn money? |
The proletariat doesn't have to, because if the thing is essentially free, anyone can make it.
quote: What would they buy the good with? Capitalism does not mean only private ownership-there was private ownership in the feudal and in the merchantalist system, in the slave economies of the classical age...and none of that made it capitalist. Capitalism implies a hwole range of relationships that would become impossible or invalid once we get to this infinite productivity. |
Capitalism is just freedom of contract and freedom of property.
Last edited by Kuciwalker on 20-04-2004 at 07:52
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:35
|
|
quote: Some people here are of the view that intellectual property is not, in fact, property. That was a stipulation that the following argument was true if one did not hold to their point of view |
Again:
"That sounds like a circular argument. If the state expropriates a bunch of stuff and calls it their property, does that make these actions consistent with freedom of contract?"
And which people? I've never said that IP isn't property. Or even that it wasn't justified.
quote: 1) It is arguable that you, by implication, were bound to a contract by buying the ablum |
I've never agreed not to upload an album when I've bought it. Nor did I ever agree not to download an album, which is also prohibited by our IP laws.
quote: 2) That aside, you did not sign a contract not to take my money, either, but you can't. |
Bad logic. Freedom of contract implies the consent of the relevant partners (those who have a good and those who wantg it). If I take your money without your consent, that contradicts freedom of contract.
quote: 1) It is arguable that you, by implication, were bound to a contract by buying the ablum
2) That aside, you did not sign a contract not to take my money, either, but you can't. Does that make laws against theft violations of freedom of contract? No. |
quote: A certain amount of state interference in those liberties is justified on utilitarian grounds (though not by Libertarians ) - another example is standardized currency. They make things run more smoothly. |
And it's another example of how capitalism is not about freedom of contract. Justification isn't part of the argument, I'm just demonstrating the nature of capitalism.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003 time: 06:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, and on 'property rights', they aren't absolute rights, HOWEVER, if there is an absolute right to life, then I don't see how you cannot have an absolute right to property, because, at the very least, your body is your own property. |
Is it? The law, at any rate, does not recognize full ownership rights over one's body, which would, among other things, include the right to sell it.
(I, of course, mean selling it in the literal sense, not with reference to prostitution, which really is only yet another service which does not alter your legal rights wrt your body any more than mowing your neighbour's lawn for monetary reward does.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001 time: 00:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ramo
Again:
"That sounds like a circular argument. If the state expropriates a bunch of stuff and calls it their property, does that make these actions consistent with freedom of contract?"
And which people? I've never said that IP isn't property. Or even that it wasn't justified. |
elijah
quote: I've never agreed not to upload an album when I've bought it. Nor did I ever agree not to download an album, which is also prohibited by our IP laws. |
wrt uploading, the theory (I'm not endorsing, I'm explaining here) is that it's an implicit contract. wrt downloading, the theory is just like why downloading child porn is as illegal as creating it - you are directly "benefitting" off of the violation of the law, and creating a demand.
quote: Bad logic. Freedom of contract implies the consent of the relevant partners (those who have a good and those who wantg it). If I take your money without your consent, that contradicts freedom of contract. |
Yes, but keeping you from downloading something is not a violation of freedom of contract, because it's outlawing the activity.
quote: And it's another example of how capitalism is not about freedom of contract. Justification isn't part of the argument, I'm just demonstrating the nature of capitalism. |
It is about freedom of contract - which, like all freedoms, is denied by the government in some cases when there is a definite utility in doing so.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:35
|
|

quote:
wrt uploading, the theory (I'm not endorsing, I'm explaining here) is that it's an implicit contract. |
Well, that's a crappy theory. If you can appeal to an "implicit contract" for this, why not every other social relation (thus rendering freedom of contract meaningless)?
quote: wrt downloading, the theory is just like why downloading child porn is as illegal as creating it - you are directly "benefitting" off of the violation of the law, and creating a demand. |
Who said anything about the law? Legal doesn't make it consistent with freedom of contract.
quote:
Yes, but keeping you from downloading something is not a violation of freedom of contract, because it's outlawing the activity. |
And what's your point? Just about every contract involves an activity. Again, are prohibitions on usury as in the middle ages consistent with freedom of contract? What about inheritance, another activity?
quote:
It is about freedom of contract - which, like all freedoms, is denied by the government in some cases when there is a definite utility in doing so. |
So you're saying that some contracts are fine in capitalism and others are not (as in, say, communism; communists would consider their violations of freedom of contract utilitarian)? I thought you just said that capitalism was about freedom of contract?
Last edited by Ramo on 22-04-2004 at 00:09
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35. Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|