ckaihatsu wrote:Just because you disdain the *non-equity* type of capital
See? You can't even bring yourself to call things by their correct names: production goods and privilege.
doesn't mean that such *rentier* capital in any way curtails the potential for a 'free' (unregulated) type of market.
False. Privilege inherently deprives others of their rights to liberty. A market whose participants trade in others' rights to liberty is a slave market. A slave market is not a free market, duh.
So any quasi-free-market, being based in the market mechanism, is inherently *capitalist*, and *not* anti-capitalist.
No, you haven't.
Yes, I have.
The use of *any* kind of capital, in *any* kind of market, is the very practice of capitalism and is *not* 'anti-capitalist'.
No, that contradicts the definition of capitalism: private ownership of the means of production (production goods and natural resources (land)).
Don't call me 'junior'.
Very well, child.
Don't leave huge blank spaces in your messages.
Land, like anything else under capitalism, is a *commodity* -- it is bought and sold on the market.
No. It is not a "commodity" like anything else because unlike anything else -- and most specifically production goods -- its supply is fixed: it cannot be produced, and the entire supply is always available to the market with no help from its owners or any previous owners. Why do you refuse to know that fact?
You happen to *disdain* this fact, but it remains the existing practice under capitalism's markets.
It's not a question of disdaining the fact, it's a question of knowing what it implies. Which you clearly do not, or you would not be disingenuously pretending that land is a commodity like anything else.
You're even *acknowledging* that it's a necessary practice ('capitalism requires landowning').
It's only "necessary" because that is how capitalism is DEFINED. HELLO???
I'll repeat the question, How else would people handle the apportionment of land within capitalism, if not through land-commodity markets?
I'll repeat the answer: there is BY DEFINITION no way to apportion land under capitalism but through private ownership and trade because that is what capitalism IS.
My politics *don't require* belief because my reasoning / ideology is based in the empirical world.
No. Your politics is based on absurd and anti-scientific Marxist bloviation.
My *politics* is for the working class. That's it.
So you gladly sacrifice liberty, justice and truth, putatively for the working class. Hence the idiotic Marxist gibberish. OK.
This is the *opposite* of a fact, because, yes, the markets are capitalist, and, yes, libertarians *are* capitalists because they / you support the 'free market' ideal.
Already disproved. Capitalism is defined by OWNERSHIP, not MARKETS.
No, you haven't proved jack-shit
Yes, I have proved everything I said I have proved.
-- you're proving that you think your own repetition of a falsehood will somehow alter the greater objective world,
No, that's you -- and all Marxists/socialists.
so that it magically conforms to your opinions and wishes, much like Trump. The world doesn't work this way.
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
(And, by this admission, I'll ask you / the reader to look into what economic mechanism / dynamic *is* favored by libertarians -- it's the *markets*, and markets are a feature of *capitalism*, so libertarians favor capitalism and are *not* anti-capitalist.)
No. Libertarians favor markets because markets work by CONSENT. Capitalism cannot work by consent because land is not and cannot be property by consent.
By 'liberty' you mean 'private property ownership',
No, the right to property in the fruits of one's labor is different from the right to liberty.
and you *don't* mean 'government upholding of people's own individual civil rights,
Yes, in fact, I do.
by punishing those who violate these civil rights, for social justice'.
Social justice is an oxymoron. Justice can only apply to individuals.
Socialism says to extend these personal civil rights into the *economic* realm as well, so that each person is seen to have a birthright stake in an appropriate portion of the *material* world, for their needs for life and living, instead of leaving these needs to the whims and vagaries of privately-controlled ownership over the same.
Right: socialism refuses to distinguish between the material world that is provided unconditionally by nature and the material world that is produced by others' labor.
No, I *know* that labor is not the only input to production -- I have it in a graphic right here:
Which is wrong.
But here's the thing, TTP -- all of the 'other inputs' to the process of commodity-production were created only because of the *main* input, labor.
False. Land was never created by labor.
So the landscaped land, the buildings, the equipment / machinery, the tailored raw materials, etc., are available only because they're 'dead labor', or the value that comes from applying human labor to the rough materials directly from nature.
Including the vital labor of the entrepreneur/provider of production goods.
You barely even *acknowledge* that labor exists at all,
and much less that it contributes anything materially to the productive process that creates commodities (exchange values, and use values) under capitalism.
So you're against feudal land rights,
Also private property in land.
and you're for equity capital in modern capitalism.
But called by its correct name: production goods.
Everyone on this thread knows your position as well as their own kids' names at this point.
You just got through proving you don't know anything at all about my position.
With *this* line, TTP, you're showing yourself to *not* be a 'free market' person, because you're *upholding the state and its regulations*,
The free market can't exist without a state to secure liberty, property and contract rights.
in this case to close national borders to a free flow of human labor, and the economic opportunities in the markets on the other side of the border for those laborers.
The state is only responsible for the rights of its own citizens, not every other state's.
Currently there *are* no socialist-type countries in existence.
Sure there are: Cuba, North Korea and Laos.
Workers can *only* get jobs through private ownership, so whether it happens to be this-or-that particular employer is of *no importance* to the job-seeker.
The conditions that define his bargaining position are.
The whole dynamic is correctly called 'wage slavery' because one cannot avoid having to sell one's labor to an employer if one happens to need wages / income, to buy the necessities for one's life and living.
It could not be called wage slavery if people had their liberty rights to use land to earn their own living.
I think it's more accurate to term you a ruling-class ideologue at this point.
And you claim to know my position??