Upping the dosage of caffiene right now…

But Chicago is not. That was also a 2A challenge. So how was that ruling justified? And Kelo (Connecticut)? And Brown v. Bd of Ed (Kansas)?

Still waiting for Len to tell me where the Constitution doesn’t apply to the states. And for anyone to identify a SCOTUS case that didn’t hinge on its constitutionality.

I don’t believe in the communist version of the theory, against which most of the criticisms are leveled. Very few also apply to “to each according to his deeds”, which calls not for central planning and direct redistribution of all products of labor, but for people’s labor to be the significant factor in their remuneration!

I believe that unearned income should have higher tax rates than earned income, not that it shouldn’t exist!

I stand corrected, though technically I’m sitting-on-my-ass corrected at this particular moment.

Despite years of studying political theory (which of course included Proudhon), I really had no idea there was still a going concern known as mutualism. So it seems you guys are the OTHER last remaining group that still believes in the labor theory of value. And therefore I was wrong to see a Marxist influence in your remarks.

May I ask: how are you not troubled (by which I mean “totally convinced”) by the well-known criticisms of that theory? And are you familiar with the various theories of interest and capital income that try to explain why they should not be treated as simply unearned rents?

Because DC is under Congress’s direct authority. In recent decades, Congress has granted DC a degree of home rule, but those powers are simply delegated by Congress and subject to all the constitutional restrictions on Congress.

Because capital by it’s nature lends itself to utilizing the state to suppress completion, as it has since the 70′s in the West. To some degree, this is unavoidable if you’re going to have a social infrastructure, but it can and should be compensated for.

“it’s just that the only serious group to stick with that theory after 1870 was the Marxists”

Again, you’re ignoring the fact I’m a mutualist, not a radical at the end of nowhere. I’m a moderate, yes, but the entire point is that we’re gradualists – revolution eats it’s children.

And you’re completely ignoring the disruptive effects of some kinds of inventions, of course. I’m certainly not arguing for technological suppression, but automation can put people out of work – that’s not beneficial to all parties: you can’t ignore the effects on society.

Then there’s other things which are “good” which have been captured near-entirely by capital: For example, IP. (I’m no PirateParty radical, but it’s getting out of hand as a control measure…)

Based on your answer to question 1), I do owe you a partial groveling apology. It was not the same as mine, but it was not quite Marxist. Although the phrase “current power of capital should [not] go unchecked” does have a certain ring, and does raise a small question: why do you not say “the current power of capital in collusion with the state?” Because its not as though capital itself has any of the powers that distress you when you speak of Corporatism.

But…your answer to question 2) would be considered Marxist by most people, since it contains the notion that profit comes from a disparity between what a worker produces and what he is paid. And again, it’s not that Marx invented the idea (Smith and Ricardo had it before him), it’s just that the only serious group to stick with that theory after 1870 was the Marxists. Or I should say, the Marxists and evidently also Leon.
______________________________________________________________________________

In case you care, here are my answers to the same two questions – though in a sense they are really facets of a single question:

1) Who decides what price a worker is paid for his labor?

No one “decides”. Ultimately, the value of labor is decided by what people are willing to pay for its produce. So you could say “everyone decides a little tiny bit”. Which is definitely closer to your answer than I expected.

2) If a voluntary worker uses capital owned by a voluntary investor to produce a good voluntarily purchased by a consumer, at whose expense has the profit been gained?

At no one’s expense. As described, the transaction is beneficial to all parties.

Marx /took/ many elements of Proudhon and twisted them to fit his own stateist, revolutionary ideology. Marx cribbed wholesale from Proudhon, for example, the theory of surplus value – which Proudhon used critically.

@1 – The Free Market. With a floor based on basic living requirements. But, bluntly, that doesn’t mean I think the current power of capital should go unchecked. Or that Unions shouldn’t have powers (the /same/ powers, none of this closed-shop nonsense) in terms of collective bargaining, regardless of the employer. Or that, for example, worker cooperatives should be disadvantaged as they are in many cases under the present system.

@2 – I’d ask who profits? The capitalist, unduly, under the current system. The actual producer of the goods is seeing his share of the added value being constantly reduced. This isn’t sustainable.

I think you might find the Mutualist view of property as something whose “ownership” should be based on usage more radical, frankly. (But again, it’s a long-term aim)

Yes I do know more than you. Yes I’m right, and I don’t care of sounds cocky to you.

Conceited much? No, it doesn’t sound cocky at all. It sounds absolutely irrational given your very unique reading of it. Yes, I’m right and I don’t care if that sounds condescending to you.

And it must really suck to have to keep telling everyone how smart you are. I mean, why can’t everyone just tell your a freaking genius on sight? Probably because you’re constantly telling people they’re wrong without the slightest shred of support for that stance. None.

So I now repeat myself, as someone who has actually bothered to spend years of studying the USC…

Yup. You’re the only one on this entire thread who’s “actually bothered to spend years studying the USC.” The rest of us, we just apply the Rules According to Barney.

Look: if the Constitution doesn’t apply to the states – or at all? again, it’s not clear what your claiming here – then why were the 1A and 2A cases I cite above decided that way? How did DC manage to turn back their unconstitutional gun laws if they didn’t apply to lower-than-federal entities?

I’m serious. I’m at a total loss to understand what justification you believe exists for this position? You keep ad homineming all over while referring to the same Constitution that we’ve all read – and studied hard, I assure you – and have come to a wildly divergent interpretation of it compared to the rest of us.

And while you’re at it, explain it to the Supreme Court as well. Because they sure seem to think it applies to the states.

1) Who decides what price a worker is paid for his labor?

2) If a voluntary worker uses capital owned by a voluntary investor to produce a good voluntarily purchased by a consumer, at whose expense has the profit been gained?

If you can answer those questions in a non-Marxist way, I’ll be so obsequious in my apology you’ll feel embarrassed just to read it.

You absolutely refuse to admit that there can be different strands of left-thinking thought. It’s like me comparing you with Palin, bluntly. Sure, you’re both on the right…

The ideals of Marxism – a revolutionary, anti-free market philosophy and Mutualism – a gradualist, pro-free market philosophy are VERY different.

“to believe wages are arbitrary”

Not at all. Capital pushing out wages is anything but “arbitrary”. It’s an *expected result* in a Corporatist system. When you have an ever-decreasing percentage of income paid as wages, what do you think happens?

It’s simple cause and effect. And it can be seen across the developed world.

You wrote: “Marx isn’t my friend.” Hey, we all have friends we’d rather not be seen with in certain places. Some libertarians prefer to keep Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard locked in a closet, so they can pretend they just happened upon some interesting political theories on their way back from breakfast or something.

I just noticed when arguing with you elsewhere about wage rates that you seem to follow the exploitation model of profit, to believe wages are arbitrary, that the misery of the workers must inevitably increase in a race to the bottom, etc.. Those are all Marxist concepts – not necessarily original with him, but definitely best known through his brand. In any case, there’s no shame in acknowledging his influence.
______________________________________________________________________________

“This shit’s real. It’s people’s lives.” Points for the homage to Bad Boys II.

The problem is that Neoliberal economics has caused terrible damage – it’s allowed capital to push out wages in the economy, and only the countries which have resisted in are now doing well, among the modern economies.

I’ve said this before, I care about results and not theories at the end of the day, and people are facing starvation, turning off utilities and homelessness as the Juggernaut of capital rolls on.

In the UK, I am in a group allied with Libertarians both right and left against the current excesses of Corporatism for exactly that reason. 38 Degrees – http://www.38degrees.org.uk/ – is part of it, but it goes well beyond that.

We want, for instance, PR – so that our diverse views can be properly represented (neither the left as a whole nor the free market right are represented in the present UK government). We’re all

You’re trying to weaken Government, but without doing anything about the Corporate power networks, which will inevitable dramatically extend their power and they’ve proven both anything but farsighted and in some cases actively hostile to people’s interests.

This shit’s real. It’s people’s lives.

You do me a disservice here, dude. How can you say that I blame the state for everything after I wrote this back @ #71:

“Many of the worst abuses I’ve witnessed in my life were done by private actors, in a context that did not directly involve state power. If we are honest we must admit that our philosophy does not address all of these things.”

You could have said “Sean assigns the state no credit whatsoever, and much blame”. That would have been fair.

But even I recognize the state is not behind everything bad in this world. To borrow an example from your friend Karl Marx: even Libertopianism cannot solve the problem of unrequited love.

The biggest component of the answer is classical (and nominally extant in the US) antitrust law. Applied like it used to be applied, but not the way it is applied now.

Tax structure also needs changed, but that is secondary and should not be done for the purpose of increased wealth distribution I don’t think. This thread isn’t the place for details on that.

antitrust libertarian

that’s the buzzword.

Burgers, out!

We’ve created this fiction where having a high-paying, easy job with lots of prestige is a right.

No. They’ll bitch about that, too.

I understand that in the real world employees can’t just get up and quit when they don’t like their boss.

I deny this is the case…mostly because it happens every day (I’ve certainly done it). Granted, it is harder for some people. But, that’s like saying no one can slam dunk.

I am not talking about welfare here. or socialized education. or socialized medicine.

I said antitrust libertarian and that is what I meant, nigmaligs.

I have tried for years now to convince Mr. Balko that the most important function of the government in peacetime is to protect the lower economic classes from the upper one(s).

Yuck. Disgusting. The lower classes don’t need “protection”; they need education. They need to increase their value to society to better their economic situation.

Teach a man to fish.

I understand that in the real world employees can’t just get up and quit when they don’t like their boss. But no mater how tight your finances might be, you have absolutely no right to demand payment for unsolicited services.

We’ve created this fiction where employment is somehow distinct from any other free market trade of services.