Paleo And Politics page 6

[Cryptocode]

I guess the above is about surplus value, which Marx thought came from the worker getting paid less than the value he creates. I'm not sure what's "wrong" about this idea. I'd think now it's a given.

What's wrong with it is that it's incorrect. And it's certainly not a 'given'. None of the 3 primary schools of economics accept it. Our Federal and State Gov't do not accept it.

Also, if that profit were to be given to the workers, why would anyone start a business if he gave all profit to the workers?

Well, the worker is "welcome to do so" but good luck with that if you don't have any money. And the worker actually "forwards" his labor to the boss before getting any pay. In effect he gives the capitalist an interest-free sweat loan.

The worker forwards (interest free) typically 1-2 weeks work. The owner forwards (interest free) the workers pay untill all the product is sold. If the risk were a bad one, and the sale is at a loss, the worker is still paid, out the the owners additional saved money. The worker is guarenteed his wage, the owner is not.

The worker is welcome to. He's working, he can save some money instead of spending it all. That saved money is called "Capital".

[Urban Forager]

Cryptocode, The world you describe sounds a lot like present day Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Russia after the fall of Soviet Union, replete with garrisoned fortresses private armies and monopolies of essential resources.

I find your description of "first aggressors" problematic. Who would be the arbiter of what comprises an act of aggression?

The world you describe sounds heartless and without compassion, where might makes right. Those who could afford protection would have it.

[Cryptocode]

I don't see it that way of course. But please answer my question. What would your perfect ideal America look like and how would it function?

[Urban Forager]

Am I more free when a rent-a-cop is beating on me or when I sit in a private jail?

You're looking at it the wrong way.....you'll be able to hire your own police and even have a private jail!

[Cryptocode]

Urban Forager, Who would be the arbiter of what comprises an act of aggression?

The Courts, private of Course. Today, because the case load is to high and the courts so underfunded, you can choose to hire a retired Judge and pay him in order to speed up the court date.

Monoopolies of essential resources. Wait. Remember we suppose pure competition. No one would be able to gain such advantage. Although it was tried in the 70's in silver here, and it was not the SEC, courts or any agency that stopped it. The free market stopped it.

I didn't mean to start an argument here.

[Cryptocode]

Am I more free when a rent-a-cop is beating on me or when I sit in a private jail?

If you're going to be a criminal, you're not free either way.
Maybe in your perfect ideal America criminals are treated differently?

[Cryptocode]

Cryptocode, The world you describe sounds a lot like present day Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Russia after the fall of Soviet Union, replete with garrisoned fortresses private armies and monopolies of essential resources.

Russia has a very strong central gov't that is (was) communist. It is culturally very different from Afghanistan and Nigeria. Didn't they both have strong-man dictators? Neither are culturally like America. We're not, to date, communist, and we're not a tribal culture.

We were, at least earlier in time, a culture of independent, self-sufficient followed by mutually sufficient (in towns and villages) culture. It is (was) our culture that made us unique, although similar to Britan, a nation of very independent sea-farers.

If we had no gov't, but had a non-agression policy applied by all individuals, why do you think we'd have "garrisoned fortresses private armies and monopolies of essential resources". Of course you may be right. I am remembering a time when I was much younger.

I remember being stunned by a newspaper article in the early 70's about a Congresswoman from Texas who owned land next to the border. She rented out really bad shacks to illegal mexicans who worked neighboring fields, but there was no water available to the shacks. Instead she installed a well and sold water by the cup full. When quired she replied that she was doing nothing against the law. And she was right. But what stunned me was that she could defend her moral action with the law.

That was the first time I saw morals confounded with laws. Since that time we've gone way, way down that path. Yet before that time Americans individually had a very strong moral sense which was upheld, even enforced, by their communities, and was not based upon criminal or civil law. In fact the opposite, criminal and civil law was based on existing enforced morals. Today that moral sense may no longer exist.

Still though, I don't think we'd become garrisoned fortresses, I haven't lost all faith in our moral senses. Do you think that every person who could steal from others would do so? would you?

The world you describe sounds heartless and without compassion, where might makes right. Those who could afford protection would have it.

Why? Certainly I never said that might makes right. Do you suppose that every person who had might would turn it against others. If so, maybe it is an extension of your opinion of our leaders. Those you know must be a much more evit bunch.

How do you react to the film earlier in this thread? Are you alright with that?

[Urban Forager]

That was the first time I saw morals confounded with laws. Since that time we've gone way, way down that path. Yet before that time Americans individually had a very strong moral sense which was upheld, even enforced, by their communities, and was not based upon criminal or civil law. In fact the opposite, criminal and civil law was based on existing enforced morals. Today that moral sense may no longer exist.

Still though, I don't think we'd become garrisoned fortresses, I haven't lost all faith in our moral senses. Do you think that every person who could steal from others would do so? would you?

Why? Certainly I never said that might makes right. Do you suppose that every person who had might would turn it against others. If so, maybe it is an extension of your opinion of our leaders. Those you know must be a much more evit bunch.

How do you react to the film earlier in this thread? Are you alright with that?

I think you are looking at the past through rose colored glasses. I see you are also from California, perhaps you're familiar with what happened to the native population in the state. Indeed the "moral sense" was enforced and upheld by the communities acting righteously against those they felt didn't belong resulting in incidents like: Bloody Island Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I think you are much more optimistic/naive than I am.

I'm not able to watch videos on this computer so I can't comment on it.

Now I'm off to bed.

[canio6]

I didn't mean to start an argument here.

You're in the correct forum and, seemingly, thread for it so have fun. It is interesting to read. I think in a perfect world your ideas work fine. I have no desire to rob my neighbor or fund a private army. I also have no desire to sell migrant workers water by the cup, however, I do not have as optimistic an opinion of others. We are no longer a country of individuals seeking to carve out our piece of America through hard work and the like. Perhaps part of this is due to the fact that if you do the government confiscates much of what you earn through taxation, but another part of it is that a certain portion of the population is quite happy to sit and live off the work of others.

[SouthBeachPrimal]

I think you are much more optimistic/naive than I am.

I always find it funny how socialists argue we are too "evil" to be free, yet believe in a political creed which creates a massive police state and gives these same "evil" people absolute control over our lives.