[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Perhaps, but you have not shown why.

Boiling down rights to being extensions of property rights is a literal example of autistic thinking. This is because property rights are not the foundation of human rights and civil liberties as defined in various forms throughout the world. As mentioned, libertarian views, held by people like yourself, Voluntarism, and other people who claim to be libertarian or ancaps and so forth are not universally shared. The definitions used for negative and positive rights are both flawed and simplistic, as a wide variety of things can be attributed as a "negative right" which clearly a libertarian or ancap would disagree with: a community being free from a exploitative few, workers being free from wage slavery, and so forth. The terminology itself and the division of types is ill-defined and ultimately meaningless, as it doesn't even make sense when you stop to think about it.

Your views on property rights are not universally shared, and even using your criteria for different types of rights, none of it really makes sense. Being free from exploitation is thus a "negative right" shared by the working class. A society being free from a privileged few owning the vast majority of wealth and production, or most of the land, is a "negative right", to use your definition. However, you seem to attribute anything contradictory to "cultural relativism" and thus avoid thinking about how these views are overly simplistic and flawed.

How can a libertarian or ancap argue for their ideology when their ideological positions are so incoherent that we can easily apply their own definitions to things a socialist or a fascist would say, which goes against libertarian ideology? The way libertarian ideologues appear to dismiss addressing ideological incoherency is to claim "cultural relativism" and claim that other people and cultures simply "don't get it" and then go back to repeating the same things even though they continue to make no sense.

The fact that you completely dismissed my post without addressing libertarian positions that are linguistically and logically incoherent illustrated my point beautifully.

The poor are kept poor because their property rights are routinely violated by government officials acting on behalf of crony-capitalists.

I'm sure the poor are kept poor because the horrible government is preventing the captains of industry from aiding the working class.

[Eran]

This is because property rights are not the foundation of human rights and civil liberties as defined in various forms throughout the world.

True - the view that all (legitimate, negative) rights are merely manifestations of property rights isn't universally accepted. That certainly doesn't make them "absurd". Equality for women isn't universally accepted (and was, 100 years ago, virtually universally rejected).

The definitions used for negative and positive rights are both flawed and simplistic, as a wide variety of things can be attributed as a "negative right" which clearly a libertarian or ancap would disagree with: a community being free from a exploitative few, workers being free from wage slavery, and so forth. The terminology itself and the division of types is ill-defined and ultimately meaningless, as it doesn't even make sense when you stop to think about it.

I don't think so. Perhaps if we could spend some time exploring what libertarians actually do say (as opposed to straw-men often constructed by anti-libertarians) you would see that.

Negative rights (or perhaps the one, singular, negative right) is about being left alone. About having one's peaceful projects not physically interfered with by others. Workers, for example, are perfectly free from "wage slavery". It so happens that most workers welcome the condition you refer to as "wage slavery". They welcome the ability to have relatively stable income within an organisation that provides complementary factors of production to their own labour. But "wage slavery" isn't really slavery in the sense of people being compelled to work. Rather, it is the result of the free choice of millions.

You may disagree with the libertarian position, but the claim that it is "absurd" or "ultimately meaningless" is clearly stemming from ignorance.

Rather than exposing that ignorance, why don't you ask us libertarians some questions that will help you understand our views? You can then decide whether to accept them or not.

How can a libertarian or ancap argue for their ideology when their ideological positions are so incoherent that we can easily apply their own definitions to things a socialist or a fascist would say, which goes against libertarian ideology?

Which libertarian ideological positions are "so incoherent that we can easily apply their own definitions to things a socialist or fascist would say"?

The fact that you completely dismissed my post without addressing libertarian positions that are linguistically and logically incoherent illustrated my point beautifully.

Because you haven't presented a single such position.

I'm sure the poor are kept poor because the horrible government is preventing the captains of industry from aiding the working class.

Exactly. Not, mind you, out of altruism (though there is as much altruism amongst "captains of industry" as amongst elected officials), but out of their own self-regard. Captains of industry (excluding the crony types, of course) get to that position by satisfying the preferences of millions of people, many of them working class. Walmart and McDonald's are two prominent (but far from exceptional) examples of successful corporations catering, to a large degree, to working class people.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

True - the view that all (legitimate, negative) rights are merely manifestations of property rights isn't universally accepted. That certainly doesn't make them "absurd". Equality for women isn't universally accepted (and was, 100 years ago, virtually universally rejected).

Sure it does. The very notion that these rights are founded upon property rights in one way or another is absurd, autistic, or both. It's analogous to attributing a wide range of concepts to something unrelated and being completely impervious to comprehending the sheer incoherence of such a position.

I don't think so. Perhaps if we could spend some time exploring what libertarians actually do say (as opposed to straw-men often constructed by anti-libertarians) you would see that.

The issue is of course far more complicated. I was specifically responding to Voluntarism's exact, more or less, position on the matter. But sure, we can discuss your views and why you think you are the only true libertarian.

Negative rights (or perhaps the one, singular, negative right) is about being left alone. About having one's peaceful projects not physically interfered with by others. Workers, for example, are perfectly free from "wage slavery". It so happens that most workers welcome the condition you refer to as "wage slavery". They welcome the ability to have relatively stable income within an organisation that provides complementary factors of production to their own labour. But "wage slavery" isn't really slavery in the sense of people being compelled to work. Rather, it is the result of the free choice of millions.

You're completely missing the point. Libertarians like yourself claim that capitalists use "peaceful projects" to acquire wealth, control production, give wages to others in exchange for their labor without allowing them their fair share in the process of production, and so on. Often, words like "coercion" are thrown into the mix. Simultaneously, a complete denial of the condition of the working class arises: it is completely ignored that the working class sell their labor for wages to produce profit/goods/etc for people who own the means of production, and do not share in the fruit of their labor; or the coercion that exists in society for these same people who find themselves with few choices or rights with the utilization of their labor, forced to compromise too much, give too much for a completely unfair, undeniably exploitative arrangement.

Poor people do not welcome poverty. How can you say such an incredibly absurd, ridiculous thing like that? The working poor have no choice but to sell their labor and hope for the best; they have no control over the means of production or the conditions of their exploitation in a capitalist system.

Using your terminology, negative rights for working class people still include being left alone from capitalists who exploit their labor. They should have a proportionate say in the means of production. Communities, using your terminology, have the negative right to be left alone from wealthy individuals who own a disproportionate amount of land, wealth, and property which creates social ills for the community: societies have every right to re-appropriate this stolen material and be free from a small minority which unjustly maintains control over land and property.

You may disagree with the libertarian position, but the claim that it is "absurd" or "ultimately meaningless" is clearly stemming from ignorance.

Rather than exposing that ignorance, why don't you ask us libertarians some questions that will help you understand our views? You can then decide whether to accept them or not.

I would not say all libertarian positions are absurd or meaningless, but as the most vocal voices in PoFo's libertarian community today repeatedly restate ancap views over and over and over, this is essentially the type of ideology most people are addressing when they refer to libertarianism on the forum. So, when I said "utterly meaningless" I was specifically referring to the benign misuse of language by libertarians in explaining some of their views. The incoherence of "negative and positive" rights is what is ultimately meaningless; despite trying to frame it in libertarian terms, it isn't coherent or well-defined enough to be exclusively libertarian or make sense, and breaks down with a minimal amount of effort. Thus, it is ultimately meaningless because it really doesn't mean anything.

Of course, it's obvious that the point attempting to be made by libertarians is that the property rights of the upper middle class and the wealthy is paramount, but this is dressed up in vague and incoherent terminology like "negative rights". I.e. it's okay to exploit/misuse/control/take the labor of the working class, but it's not okay to exploit/misuse/control/take the property of the capitalists/upper class. This terminology is so vague and ill-defined that it still doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

[Nunt]

Using your terminology, negative rights for working class people still include being left alone from capitalists who exploit their labor. They should have a proportionate say in the means of production. Communities, using your terminology, have the negative right to be left alone from wealthy individuals who own a disproportionate amount of land, wealth, and property which creates social ills for the community: societies have every right to re-appropriate this stolen material and be free from a small minority which unjustly maintains control over land and property.

That's not a very good use of the terminology. Working class have (or 'should have' in a libertarian world) a negative right to be left alone by capitalists. Everyone is free to use their own labor and resources to start their own firm. That's the negative right.

[Eran]

Libertarians like yourself claim that capitalists use "peaceful projects" to acquire wealth, control production, give wages to others in exchange for their labor without allowing them their fair share in the process of production, and so on.

Have you seen me or other libertarians claim that capitalists fail to allow others a "fair share in the process of production"? Even if you feel that is the consequence of our views, we certainly do not claim that is the case.

Simultaneously, a complete denial of the condition of the working class arises: it is completely ignored that the working class sell their labor for wages to produce profit/goods/etc for people who own the means of production, and do not share in the fruit of their labor;

The working class sell their labour to employers. Capitalists sell their capital to employers. Employers may or may not own the means of production. They can just as easily rent or borrow those means of production.

Poor people do not welcome poverty. How can you say such an incredibly absurd, ridiculous thing like that?

Where did I say that poor people welcome poverty?

The working poor have no choice but to sell their labor and hope for the best; they have no control over the means of production or the conditions of their exploitation in a capitalist system.

Capitalists have no choice but to sell their capital and hope for the best; they have no control over the interest they get in exchange, have no control over the means of production purchased with their money or the conditions of exploitation of savers in the central-bank system.

Workers, on the other hand, always have choices. They can change employer, start their own business, become self-employed, or form, with other workers, a co-op or a syndicate.

Using your terminology, negative rights for working class people still include being left alone from capitalists who exploit their labor.

Absolutely.

They should have a proportionate say in the means of production.

They have absolute (not "proportionate") say in their own labour. As for the means of production, their control is with their owners. A worker cannot be compelled to work. A capitalist cannot be compelled to give up his capital. Workers and capitalists come together (typically being coordinated by entrepreneurs) to contribute their assets (labour in the case of the former, capital in the case of the latter) towards a joint enterprise and under agreed terms.

Workers can work for a fixed amount (wages) or variable amounts (bonus, profit sharing)
Capitalists can contribute their savings for a fixed (lending money for interest, buying bonds) or variable amounts (buying equity).

it's okay to exploit/misuse/control/take the labor of the working class, but it's not okay to exploit/misuse/control/take the property of the capitalists/upper class.

No. It is wrong to "take" labour/property from anybody, regardless of class, without their permission.

Note that there is little correlation between capitalist and upper class in today's society. Capitalists, defined as people predominantly living off their wealth, tend to be retirees and (rare) heirs. Upper class is made of people from various arenas (celebrities, athletes, politicians and, of course, business people) are, almost invariably, work and work hard to gain and/or maintain their wealth.

After all this, however, I am still no nearer to understanding what it is that you find vague or incoherent about the libertarian concept of negative rights. The concept fundamentally boils down to people's right, regardless of class, national origin, professional, income or wealth, to be allowed to pursue their (peaceful) projects without physical interference from others.

And while (by definition) wealth people have more wealth than poor people, it isn't the case that they benefit more from a regime of strict property rights protection. The reason is that wealthy people tend to be much more politically-powerful than poor people, and thus use the political system to further their ends by violating the property rights of poorer people.

If you have billions, you can afford to have millions stolen from you through taxes. But when you are poor, you can ill-afford the various ways that government violates your property rights.

[anticlimacus]

That's not a very good use of the terminology. Working class have (or 'should have' in a libertarian world) a negative right to be left alone by capitalists. Everyone is free to use their own labor and resources to start their own firm. That's the negative right.

But not everybody has access to the necessary capital (economic or social) in order to start their own firm. The problem is that wage earners end up having nothing to sell but themselves. I think what Bulaba is correctly pointing out is the farce that is "freedom" in a right-wing libertarian world: choosing between starvation and selling yourself to a capitalist is not liberty.

[Eran]

But not everybody has access to the necessary capital (economic or social) in order to start their own firm.

Wrong. Everybody has access to capital, through banks/credit unions/investment funds/venture capital funds to start their own firm. Absent government regulations, even more sources of fund (crowd sourcing) would become available.

Most entrepreneurs who start firms aren't rich heirs. They aren't even rich. They have a good idea, and manage to persuade others to work with them or fund their venture.

The problem isn't lack of capital, but lack of entrepreneurial drive.

The problem is that wage earners end up having nothing to sell but themselves.

And capital owners end up having nothing to sell but their capital. And land owners end up having nothing to sell but their land. So what?

[Phred]

There is no reason to expect that economic resources obtained by government decision-makers through taxation will, generally, be put to a better use than those resources would have been put to if left with the people who actually earned them.

Neal Boortz, a Libertarian radio talk show host (since retired), once proposed the following: that an essential pre-condition for the passage of any new piece of legislation coming out of Congress contain the following clause, signed by the president of the United States as well as every congressperson who voted for the bill --

"The undersigned sponsors of the foregoing legislation do hereby state and affirm their sworn belief that it is more important for the federal government to spend the funds necessary for the implementation of this legislation than it would be for the taxpayer who actually worked for and earned these funds to retain them for use in caring for and investing in the future of their own families."


Phred

[Drlee]

There is no reason to expect that economic resources obtained by government decision-makers through taxation will, generally, be put to a better use than those resources would have been put to if left with the people who actually earned them.

On the contrary. This very statement is preposterous. You try to raise an army. You make a fundamental mistake. You equate an individual with an organization. The argument is never whether the individual will do better anyway. It is about whether two similar organizations can. Comparing the government with a corporation or private nonprofit is quite a different thing. Examples abound of either performing exemplary work and of either fucking things up royally.

There is no inherent reason that government need be inefficient or wasteful. Indeed in the US health care system its performance exceeds that of the civilian sector on both points.

[Phred]

Indeed in the US health care system [government's] performance exceeds that of the civilian sector on both points.

That would be the VA, Medicaid, Medicare and the Indian Health Service, I presume. Sterling examples of government outperforming private enterprises, all. [/sarc]


Phred

[anticlimacus]

Wrong. Everybody has access to capital, through banks/credit unions/investment funds/venture capital funds to start their own firm. Absent government regulations, even more sources of fund (crowd sourcing) would become available.

Most entrepreneurs who start firms aren't rich heirs. They aren't even rich. They have a good idea, and manage to persuade others to work with them or fund their venture.

The problem isn't lack of capital, but lack of entrepreneurial drive.

Everybody has access to capital in theory, just like everybody has the potential to become a wealthy investor in theory. The reality is that this is not how it works. Capital is controlled by the wealthiest few, and the fact that one must have an "entrepreneurial drive" in order to make capital work for them is ridiculous. People should be able to control their own working lives and their own production without, at the same time, wanting to become wealthy business owners--which is and always will be a reality for a very small group of people within the capitalist system. This is a structural issue, not an issue of attitude.

And capital owners end up having nothing to sell but their capital. And land owners end up having nothing to sell but their land. So what?

So you are equating the ownership of factories and finance and the capacity to employ thousands of workers with the single ability to sell oneself? The surfs kicked off their land during the enclosure movements and therefore had to flock to the cities to find employment were on the same playing field as the few private owners of industry in the early mills? The single individual worker, with only his/her labor power to sell, simply has NEVER had the same amount of power as accumulated capital. In both theory and history there is simply no sense in equating the two.

[Nunt]

Everybody has access to capital in theory, just like everybody has the potential to become a wealthy investor in theory. The reality is that this is not how it works. Capital is controlled by the wealthiest few, and the fact that one must have an "entrepreneurial drive" in order to make capital work for them is ridiculous.

There is nothing "in theory" about this. Go to the bank with a sound businessplan and you will get a bankloan to start your firm. Banks give tons of loans to small and mediumsized enterprises. The decision to grant you the loan will not be made by the wealthiest few, but by a middle class bank clerk. The money that you will receive will not come from the wealthiest few, but from the savings of millions of middle class households.

Besides, to start your own business, you don't need millions of start up capital. You have to stop looking at the world through 18th century glasses. Start your own firm does not mean start your own steal mill or coal mine. To start your own business you need a relatively small amount of capital: an office (could be your home), a laptop, and an internet connection, maybe a car too. There's plenty of things you could do without being dependent on an employer.

-Financial services: accountant, consultant,
-Health services: psychologist, at home nurse/midwife, speech therapist, elderly care
-Transportation services: freelance delivery, taxi driver
-Software services: webdeveloper, app developer, web designer
-tutor, teacher
-construction services: welding, masonry, architect, home renovation
-small shop or restaurant owner
-tons more...

[Eran]

You try to raise an army.

I don't think Washington used taxes to raise the army that beat the British forces. Neither did any successful revolution.

You equate an individual with an organization. The argument is never whether the individual will do better anyway. It is about whether two similar organizations can. Comparing the government with a corporation or private nonprofit is quite a different thing. Examples abound of either performing exemplary work and of either fucking things up royally.

I wrote that economic resources will, in general, be put to a better use by the people who actually earn them. That use may well involve large organizations. Buying insurance, education, road services or giving to organized charities are all things individuals can decide to do with their own earnings.

There is no inherent reason that government need be inefficient or wasteful.

There are several inherent[/b] reasons why government is (relatively) inefficient and wasteful. Note I am not saying government programs cannot be of value - merely that the same funds could produce greater value by being voluntarily rather than coercively utilised.

Here are some of the [i]inherent reasons why government is generally less efficient:
1. Government faces no competition. Competition is a primary drive for quality, efficiency and innovation.
2. Government tends to offer one-size-fits-all solutions, whereas private actors tend to offer a variety of services with individuals able to fit the service they want to their individual preferences.
3. Government doesn't utilise profit/loss signals to identify whether value is created or destroyed.
4. Government decision-makers obey primarily political signals whereas private actors obey economic signals. Government programs are likely to be more politically-popular. Private programs are likely to be more economically-efficient.

Capital is controlled by the wealthiest few, and the fact that one must have an "entrepreneurial drive" in order to make capital work for them is ridiculous.

Due to a range of government policies, from too-big-to-fail to heavy regulatory burden, the number of banks in the US is at a historic low. Only 6,891 banks as of the end of 2013. The "only" is, of course, ironic. There is more competition, still, in the banking sector than in virtually any other sector or industry because money is so portable.

One needs entrepreneurial drive to start a new business. Obtaining capital is just one, and not the greatest obstacle to doing that. A person (or group) capable of coming up with an innovative idea, recruiting workers, building a product-line, identifying customers, building reputation and brand-name, managing supply-chain logistics, negotiating with suppliers and retailers, and navigating mountains of regulations will find raising a loan from one of thousands of competing banks relatively easy.

People should be able to control their own working lives and their own production without, at the same time, wanting to become wealthy business owners--which is and always will be a reality for a very small group of people within the capitalist system. This is a structural issue, not an issue of attitude.

Who said anything about becoming wealthy business owners??? I keep bringing up the option of a group of workers forming a syndicate. What's stopping them?

So you are equating the ownership of factories and finance and the capacity to employ thousands of workers with the single ability to sell oneself?

No, I am equating the savings of a single retired person with the labour of a single person. Or the aggregated savings of a few thousand people to the aggregated labour of a few thousand workers acting together to form a syndicate.

It wasn't surfs but free agricultural workers that swarmed the cities. And it wasn't due to the enclosure movement, but rather the agricultural and industrial revolutions. But that is completely beside the point. We are talking about the 21st century, not the 19th.

[lucky]

Really? You can find cultures that wouldn't agree with that.

Or with equal rights for women. [...] Human Rights are universal.

So you're saying women actually had equal rights in, say, Ancient Greece, or that they already have equal rights in Iran? What in the world does that mean? How do those rights manifest themselves exactly?

I think you ascribe some alternate, metaphysical meaning to the word "rights", but I have no clue what it is even supposed to be. I have given up hope that you do, since you only keep repeating this funny magical usage over and over and over, but never define it.

[Eran]

I am using "rights" in the normative sense. In the sense, yes, women in Ancient Greece and today's Iran do have the right to be treated equally under the law (as do all people). That right was violated both in Ancient Greece and in today's Iran.

Saying that a person has right X is the same as saying that it is wrong for others to interfere with that person's enjoyment of X. Whether others recognised that such interference is wrong and whether they modify their behaviour accordingly is beside the point. Such behaviour is still wrong.

Capturing people into slavery is morally wrong. It is evil. It has always been evil, and always will be evil. That most people living in the ancient world, or even the early modern world, didn't recognise that slavery was evil merely means they have been wrong in their moral judgement.

[Drlee]

I am just too tired of rehashing the same old shit with libertarians. They live in a theoretical world and propose impractical solutions in search of imagined problems.

Go ahead with your arguments Eran. I have better things to do.

[Phred]

I am just too tired of rehashing the same old shit with libertarians.

Tanslation into English -- "I can't offer a substantive rebuttal to any of Eran's arguments, therefore I will imply that his arguments are so obviously incorrect there is no need to address them, allowing me to disengage with my pride intact from the discussion in which I am being beaten like a gong."


Phred

[lucky]

Saying that a person has right X is the same as saying that it is wrong for others to interfere with that person's enjoyment of X.

You're not providing a definition, you're giving more names for it.

Let me ask again - how do those "rights" (or "wrongs") manifest themselves? Or are they more like angels, in that they exist somewhere else and are invisible? How does somebody check whether they have a "right" to do something? Is it whatever Eran says? It does not seem like a very useful or even meaningful concept for women in Ancient Greece. How would they know? How would they use them? Do chimpanzees have equal rights? Don't just give me a yes or no, tell me what it means, i.e. how we can check, other than by asking you.

Secondly, even if you know what you're talking about (and just can't express it), you're misusing language, since this is clearly not what people mean when they say "equal rights for women". Ask 100 people on the street whether women have equal rights in Iran (or better yet, Saudi Arabia), and you'll get 100% "no". It's not because we are all mistaken and don't "recognize" something, it's because we use a different, more down to earth, definition of the word in this context from how you seem to interpret it.

[Drlee]

I am just too tired of rehashing the same old shit with libertarians.

Tanslation into English -- "I can't offer a substantive rebuttal to any of Eran's arguments, therefore I will imply that his arguments are so obviously incorrect there is no need to address them, allowing me to disengage with my pride intact from the discussion in which I am being beaten like a gong."


Phred

[anticlimacus]

Due to a range of government policies, from too-big-to-fail to heavy regulatory burden, the number of banks in the US is at a historic low. Only 6,891 banks as of the end of 2013. The "only" is, of course, ironic. There is more competition, still, in the banking sector than in virtually any other sector or industry because money is so portable.

One needs entrepreneurial drive to start a new business. Obtaining capital is just one, and not the greatest obstacle to doing that. A person (or group) capable of coming up with an innovative idea, recruiting workers, building a product-line, identifying customers, building reputation and brand-name, managing supply-chain logistics, negotiating with suppliers and retailers, and navigating mountains of regulations will find raising a loan from one of thousands of competing banks relatively easy.

Government policies supported and counted on by private corporations. This is important because capitalism has always employed the use of state force, and private corporations have often benefited from this force and required it.

Certainly, money is more portable--hence that is one of the main advantages it has over labor. But money is also tightly controlled by a small percentage of the super wealthy. For instance, in the US the top 1 percent controls 35% of total financial wealth with the next 9 percent controlling 42 percent of total financial wealth. There is not this abundance of income or financial wealth floating around, accessible to all.

Yes one needs, among other things (like a good education, recommendations, networks, experience of success, luck etc.), an "entrepreneurial drive" (i.e. read--a desire to make more money by selling things). But this again begs the question: why should capital only be controlled by those with an "entrepreneurial drive"? This, once again, assumes that business and business interests--and especially those who become successful business men and women--should have all the say over capital. I see no reason to make that assumption, particularly when business interests are often so destructive. Capital should be publicly controlled, we should all have say over what happens to the means of production, and it should not simply be controlled by the private deals and interests of those seeking to make a private profit.

Who said anything about becoming wealthy business owners??? I keep bringing up the option of a group of workers forming a syndicate. What's stopping them?

Well, the capitalist economy for the most part. Syndicates do form, but this requires more unity among workers and a change in worker culture if it is to happen on a larger scale. The same goes for unions. They are broadly supported, but nevertheless on the decline. It takes much worker unification, something of which goes against the interests of private ownership.

No, I am equating the savings of a single retired person with the labour of a single person. Or the aggregated savings of a few thousand people to the aggregated labour of a few thousand workers acting together to form a syndicate.

It wasn't surfs but free agricultural workers that swarmed the cities. And it wasn't due to the enclosure movement, but rather the agricultural and industrial revolutions. But that is completely beside the point. We are talking about the 21st century, not the 19th.

"Free agricultural workers"? The enclosure movements created a pool of people who no longer owned anything at all except themselves, these then became the wage labor for those in the cities. This was often state enforced movements that created pools of labor for the bourgeois. Labor now had a choice, they could either sell themselves to capitalists or they could starve. This is an example of a key difference that continuously pops up in the history of capitalism: state violence backed and supported by those with private property, and calling those who have nothing but their own labor power to sell as "free" in relation to those who own and control the means of production.