Reviews for Capitalism
No Trust chapter 1 . 3/2/2005
“Let us be human:”

Huh?

”need would of course encompass more than subsistence level; adhering to the physical and psychological desire of humans for more than the bare minimum, of substantial "needs" would allotted to all of the masses. The "needs", containing extra food, clothing, whatever it may be, will be shared communally and produced communally.”

Who decides who needs what, and how?

"Money is valuable insofar as it is useful to someone, which is exactly why people with less money have less value to use; as money, being a value, is used for legal transactions, the less money you have, the less one can buy.”

The less muscle mass you have, the less physical force you can exert on the world around you.

So what’s your point?

”Likewise, the less they can comfortably live and/or obtain the most basic needs. A rope can save a man from falling – it is valuable to the man.”

Some ropes are valuable to some men.

”Without the rope, or with a lesser rope, the life of man is threatened, as the value of his life source is diminished.”

This is crazy shit. What are you smoking?

”Value is extrinsic, but when applied to something (applying its attitude toward something), that something is characterized by that value and thus obtains intrinsic elements. Like the a nation’s GDP (extrinsic) determines its economy (intrinsic), and therefore determines the entire economic situation of that nation.”

Oh, my fucking god. You have reached a level of incoherence beyond that of Metallica’s “St. Anger”. I hadn’t thought such a thing possible.

“Materials (as you mentioned) are traded. These materials have a certain value, and thus are traded according to their value.”

Materials are valuable according to their usefulness.

”And set values, such as monetary values, are traded, just according to inflation and whatnot.”

There is no such thing as a ‘set value’. Supply and demand are dynamic.

“Money is useful to most people because it’s the international means of legal value. While trades do occur on "every observable level", the given standard is the monetary unit.”

Are you really this stupid? Is it an act?

”It is not money itself that directly plunges countries (or individuals) into debt and poverty; rather, money is the characterization of such things.”

What plunges individuals into debt is spending on credit (borrowing).

“However, with the lack of money comes the lack of trade or the acceptance of trade for less money.”

Moron, if money is an article of trade, it’s obvious that having less money means you’ll be “less accepted in trade”. Meaningless statement of the fucking decade.

”While it is truly material value conceived as money that defines wealth and, in consequence, defines trade, in modern society a legal citizen abides by the money standard for all commercial and government transactions.”

I see a lot of Marxoid inflated syntax here, and no substance. Commerce exists because of money. Without money you don’t have commerce, you have barter.

”Trades in this instance are exceptions.”

No.

“Useful according to whom?”

The capitalists who pay them and by extension the people who patronize the capitalists’ services.

”All the laborer needs is education to be self-sufficient,”

Do you have any clue how low everyone’s standard of living would be if everyone was “self-sufficient”?

”It is ironic that institutions such as the World Bank are meant to quell the inevitable circumstance that capitalism renders by merely existing and operating.”

Eh, are you equating massive credit expansion with ‘capitalism’? Because most intellectual defenders of free-markets have decried baseless credit expansion as, you know, harmful to capitalism.

”Exploitation is defined as an employer-employee relationship, whereas the employer exploits the employee by gaining more money.”

And you’re so fixed on the Marxoid ethical definition of an economic word that when it’s explained to you exactly *why* some people make more money than others, and why that does not constitute ‘exploitation’, you reflexively cough up a barely coherent cluster of buzzwords and call it an argument.

” A laborer does not need the capitalist when capitalism is not needed; the exploitation you speak of is communal, something only present in communism where equal shares go to collective efforts, and where everyone is useful to the other.”

Right, everyone dies to himself and becomes a happy slave of the hive-mind. Well if humans ever become simple ant-like automatons, something very much like communism will emerge. I don’t see why that’s something to wish for. That’s like saying, “hey, if I chop my dick off I won’t need sex anymore”. It’s completely true, but it doesn’t make me want it to happen.

“Taxes, the great eyesore of capitalism, were apparently forgotten when you wrote this. Basic subsistence, when paired with a capitalist/quasi-capitalist government, bears below the most basic need.”

Taxes existed before Capitalism (as Marxoids define it). In feudal Japan, for instance, they collected taxes in units of rice.

"Materials have economic value, no matter how many times between how many businesses or markets it varies."

Uh, no.

"Exploitation is when kids have to work and don’t have as good as an opportunity as their "civilized" counterparts."

’Opportunities’ don’t just spring out of the fucking ground. It takes several generations of capital investment to reach the point America has. Child labor and ‘sweatshops’ will exist in third world countries until they are no longer profitable overall for all the determinate actors, just as they did in the west.

All right, how about: Exploitation is based on the general established economy – value as it pertains to the employer-employee relationship – and the differences in the amount of capital each individual owns(specifically between each separate employer-employee relationship), summarized in classes (the generalization of such relationships).

”And usefulness of the employer is only a judgment valid with the premise that capitalism exists.”

Have you ever tried starting and running your own business? It’s a lot of fucking work, and not everyone can get a worthwhile return on it. That’s why not everyone does it.”True, but facts can be taken from the world economy to prove something.”

True, but you haven’t done any such thing.

“Statistics are never independent, i.e. they are used to back up an argument, not as the argument. Thus, statistics paired with cause and effect assessments are very valid.”

Cause and effect assessments are valid or not independent of statistics given. Statistics are a kind of red herring unless they themselves are the point of argument. And there is almost no such thing as reliable statistics.

“Besides the whole taxes trip, subsistence farming is a harder alternative, seeing that capitalism renders efficient tools only purchasable by the economic system,”

Capitalism renders efficient tools… because of the diverse division of labor enabled by a liquid medium of exchange (money).

”not to mention natural factors and a shortage of labor that would make the endeavor an exceedingly difficult one.”

Well then why are you bitching?

”When people aren’t educated at the same level, reared in the same circumstances, and therefore aren’t presented equal opportunity, any judgment on someone’s capability is void of truth.”

No, it’s not. If I judge that someone can not satisfy my desires and is thus not useful to me, that judgment’s truth or falsity is not affected by what that person *might* be capable of in some alternate universe where everyone is equally born with a silver spoon (or in grinding poverty, as the case may be).

“Capitalism renders the mentioned circumstances; communism rights them. “

Not seeing any empirical evidence, not hearing any sound logical arguments…

“The point being, the "usefulness" that these people can exhibit is limited chiefly by the capitalist system.”

That’s a pre-generated Marxoid propaganda line. It doesn’t even seem to have a coherent meaning. Explain what the fuck you just said in plain fucking English. Please.

”Your example, seeing that it is illogical concerning any progressive human endeavor, is thus irrelevant to this argument on capitalism.”

No, it’s not. Capitalists have money. They have money because they have proven themselves useful to consumers, investors, etc. and oftentimes because they have spent a great deal of time as laborers, who lived below their means and saved their money.

Other people want this money. They could try to steal it but stealing is dangerous. So they provide a trade: labor for money. Labor itself is not inherently valuable. Laborers like everyone else are compensated by those their efforts are valuable to.

“To exploit is exactly what is it – the money gap between workers and employers. Coinciding with its definition, capitalist exploitation is "using" or "developing", just for personal gain.“

Likewise, the laborer labors for the capitalist because there is something in it for him: money. The laborer wants the money he will be paid for his time and energy more than he wants the results of using that time and energy any other way he can imagine he could. That’s why he does what he does.“Oil goes from developing nations to the US (an example), clothes, technology. While civilized countries are to a certain extent self-sufficient (developed), they prey on the smaller countries for stability and profit.”

Fiat money, is bad. For foreigners and westerners. Eventually foreigners will lose faith in the dollar and the price of foreign-produced goods will rise dramatically relative to FRNs, decreasing American living standards noticeably. However, cutting off foreign trade will not solve anything, and certainly will not benefit all the huddled masses you pretend to care about.

“"Civilized" pertains to the money standard, and thus I don’t recognize it as a fair term.”

No, learn something about basic etymology you stupid fuck. Civilized means ‘live in cities’. To be ‘civilized’ is to have character traits conductive to living in close quarters with lots of other people.

“Are you denying that the money gaps between employers and laborers don’t actually exist? Exploitation is a fact, its interpretation may differ.”

I am denying that money gaps constitute exploitation.

”Capitalists have problems with socialism because it takes away their money. You’d have this problem as well.”

So what was that about taxation being a feature of capitalism? That’s right, nothing.

”And, by "correcting" my "faulty" visions, your displaying your ideology. It has a lot to do with things.”

No, I straight-up outlined my ideology so that I couldn’t be accused of sneaking it into arguments over economic analysis.

”I mean, as the money standard is debated, a man’s life affected by the money standard would also be debated. By the money standard, would this dead man be of any value? No – he died poor, but that isn’t much to the capitalist.”

Very few people measure all value in money terms. Those that do are at best idiot savants in the business world.

”Those people are born in the "shitholes", and are "bad" at living because of a lack of opportunity. If you don’t understand the capitalist concept of opportunity is a sham, then you’ll never have any comprehension of communism.”

I never said anything about ‘opportunity’ and it’s not that important to me but yes, capitalism affords more people more opportunity for decent lives.

”Oh, and while tribal societies represented primitive quasi-communist societies, I prefer to model a working communist model off of, say, the Paris Commune.”

You speak of them as if they’re two different things.

“My ideology is based on proof, the proof of existing establishments from which ideology can be drawn and based.”

Ideologies are not based on ‘proof’.

”If I don’t use proof, you don’t in the same token.”

My ideology is not the result of proof. My ideology is the result of my desires and moral standards. My measurements of the worth of others by its standards, are, however, based on ‘proof’.

“Your over-exaggerations are merely childish. Refrain from this ignorance and step up to the real argument.”

I’m not exaggerating. The fact that you’re stupid and don’t grasp economics or even the proper way to study it, does not make me ‘childish’.
holocaustpulp chapter 1 . 3/1/2005
No Trust: "Define ‘need’. Does ‘need’ here mean "require to survive until the next ingestion of food? You would reduce everyone to subsistence simply to have your equality?"

Let us be human: need would of course encompass more than subsistence level; adhering to the physical and psychological desire of humans for more than the bare minimum, of substantial "needs" would allotted to all of the masses. The "needs", containing extra food, clothing, whatever it may be, will be shared communally and produced communally.

"Money only ‘measures value’ to the extent that any other tool does. It is valuable insofar as it is useful to someone."

Money is valuable insofar as it is useful to someone, which is exactly why people with less money have less value to use; as money, being a value, is used for legal transactions, the less money you have, the less one can buy. Likewise, the less they can comfortably live and/or obtain the most basic needs. A rope can save a man from falling – it is valuable to the man. Without the rope, or with a lesser rope, the life of man is threatened, as the value of his life source is diminished. Man is as good as monetary value, and this is the outcome of capitalism.

"Value is extrinsic, not intrinsic. It is an attitude towards something."

Value is extrinsic, but when applied to something (applying its attitude toward something), that something is characterized by that value and thus obtains intrinsic elements. Like the a nation’s GDP (extrinsic) determines its economy (intrinsic), and therefore determines the entire economic situation of that nation.

"Value can not be bought or traded. It is a mental construct. Trade/interaction occurs because of people’s valuations (person A values a sack of potatoes more than he values three bucks and trades it to person B who values three bucks more than the sack of the potatoes); but values themselves are not traded."

Materials (as you mentioned) are traded. These materials have a certain value, and thus are traded according to their value. Indirectly my statement was true as it pertains to (in this instance) the indirect affiliation of materials to value. And set values, such as monetary values, are traded, just according to inflation and whatnot.

"The use of money has become widespread because it is widely deemed beneficial and its widespread use reinforces its usefulness to most people. However, trades not involving money take place all the time, at every observable level. And I do not mean that only in the tautological sense that all human interaction is trade. There’s an argument to be made about the weakness inherent in legal fiat money, but it’s not an argument against money itself."

Money is useful to most people because it’s the international means of legal value. While trades do occur on "every observable level", the given standard is the monetary unit. It is not money itself that directly plunges countries (or individuals) into debt and poverty; rather, money is the characterization of such things. However, with the lack of money comes the lack of trade or the acceptance of trade for less money. While it is truly material value conceived as money that defines wealth and, in consequence, defines trade, in modern society a legal citizen abides by the money standard for all commercial and government transactions. Trades in this instance are exceptions.

"Capitalists exploit laborers and laborers exploit capitalists. One capitalist exploits a multitude of laborers and a multitude of laborers exploits one or a few capitalists. Generally capitalists are wealthier than laborers because a given capitalist is more useful to more people than a given laborer."

Useful according to whom? All the laborer needs is education to be self-sufficient, but he was too busy slaving away as a child to become independent. It is ironic that institutions such as the World Bank are meant to quell the inevitable circumstance that capitalism renders by merely existing and operating. Exploitation is defined as an employer-employee relationship, whereas the employer exploits the employee by gaining more money. Only capitalist bureaucracy (i.e. business divisions, such as corporations) results in this. A laborer does not need the capitalist when capitalism is not needed; the exploitation you speak of is communal, something only present in communism where equal shares go to collective efforts, and where everyone is useful to the other.

"Wait, you mean they can’t provide enough food through subsistence farming?"

Taxes, the great eyesore of capitalism, were apparently forgotten when you wrote this. Basic subsistence, when paired with a capitalist/quasi-capitalist government, bears below the most basic need.

"It is obvious a couple will need more food than the individual, a large man more food than a small man. An absolutely equal amount of goods is inconceivable and unrealistic. Definitely, however, no one would starve to death in a socialist society."

Define "need". Does "need" here mean "require to survive until the next ingestion of food"? You would reduce everyone to subsistence simply to have your equality?

"Money: A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account."

Money only "measures value" to the extent that any other tool does. It is valuable insofar as it is useful to someone.

"Materials have economic value, no matter how many times between how many businesses or markets it varies."

Value is extrinsic, not intrinsic. It is an attitude towards something.

"This value is bought with money."

Value can not be bought or traded. It is a mental construct. Trade/interaction occurs because of people’s valuations (person A values a sack of potatoes more than he values three bucks and trades it to person B who values three bucks more than the sack of the potatoes); but values themselves are not traded.

"Man has become dependent on money, as it is the only legal means by which he can obtain these needed materials."

The use of money has become widespread because it is widely deemed beneficial and its widespread use reinforces its usefulness to most people. However, trades not involving money take place all the time, at every observable level. And I do not mean that only in the tautological sense that all human interaction is trade. There’s an argument to be made about the weakness inherent in legal fiat money, but it’s not an argument against money itself.

"Exploitation is when kids have to work and don’t have as good as an opportunity as their "civilized" counterparts."

Capitalists exploit laborers and laborers exploit capitalists. One capitalist exploits a multitude of laborers and a multitude of laborers exploits one or a few capitalists. Generally capitalists are wealthier than laborers because a given capitalist is more useful to more people than a given laborer.

"This is an utterly vacuous statement." (to: Exploitation is based on the general established economy and the differences in the amount of capital each individual owns, summarized in classes.)

All right, how about: Exploitation is based on the general established economy – value as it pertains to the employer-employee relationship – and the differences in the amount of capital each individual owns(specifically between each separate employer-employee relationship), summarized in classes (the generalization of such relationships).

"You’re using it [exploitation] as an ethical term. So yes, it is."

Though it is relevant to my ethics, exploitation is proven in the relationships described above. And usefulness of the employer is only a judgment valid with the premise that capitalism exists.

"World economy proves nothing but world economy."

True, but facts can be taken from the world economy to prove something.

"Even accurate statistics are meaningless. All they prove is the numbers that are displayed; they say nothing about cause and effect."

Statistics are never independent, i.e. they are used to back up an argument, not as the argument. Thus, statistics paired with cause and effect assessments are very valid.

"She works in the textile factory because it’s the best she is capable of. She could always do the whole subsistence farming thing. She just prefers not to."

Besides the whole taxes trip, subsistence farming is a harder alternative, seeing that capitalism renders efficient tools only purchasable by the economic system, not to mention natural factors and a shortage of labor that would make the endeavor an exceedingly difficult one. When people aren’t educated at the same level, reared in the same circumstances, and therefore aren’t presented equal opportunity, any judgment on someone’s capability is void of truth. Capitalism renders the mentioned circumstances; communism rights them.

"They are paid less because their work is not as useful. If I spend three sleepless days and nights digging ditches in my back yard and then filling them back up, I’m pretty sure no-one is going to pay me ANYTHING. Even though I’m expending more calories and passing up more opportunities than a third-world laborer would in that timeframe, I will make less money than they do.

So what’s your point?"

The point being, the "usefulness" that these people can exhibit is limited chiefly by the capitalist system. Your example, seeing that it is illogical concerning any progressive human endeavor, is thus irrelevant to this argument on capitalism.

"No-one’s denying that there are differences in wealth distribution. However, disparity between income is not ‘exploitation’. To ‘exploit’ is to ‘use’ or ‘develop’."

To exploit is exactly what is it – the money gap between workers and employers. Coinciding with its definition, capitalist exploitation is "using" or "developing", just for personal gain.

"There is only a small sliver of truth to this statement [The luxury of "civilized" nations comes at the expense of less developed nations.]. And don’t put "civilized" in scare quotes; it is simply a word that describes a society where people live in close proximity to one another (i.e. they live in cities)."

Oil goes from developing nations to the US (an example), clothes, technology. While civilized countries are to a certain extent self-sufficient (developed), they prey on the smaller countries for stability and profit. "Civilized" pertains to the money standard, and thus I don’t recognize it as a fair term.

"No, it [exploitation is not [a hardcore fact]."

Are you denying that the money gaps between employers and laborers don’t actually exist? Exploitation is a fact, its interpretation may differ.

"According to my ideology, no-one is obligated to provide anything for anyone else. Anyone who wants to till their own soil or make themselves useful enough to other people to make a decent living is invited to do so. If exceptionally productive people choose to be charitable to other people with their surplus material goods then they are welcome to do so; I don’t have anything to say about what people do with their own stuff.

This is all moot, however, since most of my argument consists of correcting your faulty approach to analyzing economics and has little to do with my ideology."

Capitalists have problems with socialism because it takes away their money. You’d have this problem as well. And, by "correcting" my "faulty" visions, your displaying your ideology. It has a lot to do with things.

"Huh? Do you mean, would I deny that he died?"I mean, as the money standard is debated, a man’s life affected by the money standard would also be debated. By the money standard, would this dead man be of any value? No – he died poor, but that isn’t much to the capitalist.

"’The economy’ means ‘people doing stuff’. So, what this sentence means is, ‘people act to provide the necessities for their existence and happiness; however, some people are really bad at it, so they live short, hard lives in primitive third world shitholes.’ Also, it says something that Marxists often lionize the primitive tribal society as exemplifying communism."

Those people are born in the "shitholes", and are "bad" at living because of a lack of opportunity. If you don’t understand the capitalist concept of opportunity is a sham, then you’ll never have any comprehension of communism. Oh, and while tribal societies represented primitive quasi-communist societies, I prefer to model a working communist model off of, say, the Paris Commune.

"No, you don’t [use proof for arguments]."

My ideology is based on proof, the proof of existing establishments from which ideology can be drawn and based. If I don’t use proof, you don’t in the same token.

"You’re right, pure communism wouldn’t kill *everyone*. It’d just kill enough people that no-one left alive could pool enough resources to forcibly prevent the rest of the survivors from reverting to capitalist behavior."

Your over-exaggerations are merely childish. Refrain from this ignorance and step up to the real argument.
No Trust chapter 1 . 1/11/2005
“It is obvious a couple will need more food than the individual, a large man more food than a small man. An absolutely equal amount of goods is inconceivable and unrealistic. Definitely, however, no one would starve to death in a socialist society.”

Define “need”. Does “need” here mean “require to survive until the next ingestion of food”? You would reduce everyone to subsistence simply to have your equality?

”Money: A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account.”

Money only “measures value” to the extent that any other tool does. It is valuable insofar as it is useful to someone.

”Materials have economic value, no matter how many times between how many businesses or markets it varies.”

Value is extrinsic, not intrinsic. It is an attitude towards something.

”This value is bought with money.”

Value can not be bought or traded. It is a mental construct. Trade/interaction occurs because of people’s valuations (person A values a sack of potatoes more than he values three bucks and trades it to person B who values three bucks more than the sack of the potatoes); but values themselves are not traded.

”Man has become dependent on money, as it is the only legal means by which he can obtain these needed materials.”

The use of money has become widespread because it is widely deemed beneficial and its widespread use reinforces its usefulness to most people. However, trades not involving money take place all the time, at every observable level. And I do not mean that only in the tautological sense that all human interaction is trade. There’s an argument to be made about the weakness inherent in legal fiat money, but it’s not an argument against money itself.

”Exploitation is when kids have to work and don’t have as good as an opportunity as their "civilized" counterparts.”

Capitalists exploit laborers and laborers exploit capitalists. One capitalist exploits a multitude of laborers and a multitude of laborers exploits one or a few capitalists. Generally capitalists are wealthier than laborers because a given capitalist is more useful to more people than a given laborer.

”Exploitation is poor villages where, because people don’t have enough money, they can’t buy food to live.”

Wait, you mean they can’t provide enough food through subsistence farming?

”Exploitation is based on the general established economy and the differences in the amount of capital each individual owns, summarized in classes.”

This is an utterly vacuous statement.

”Exploitation is not a personal value judgment of mine,”

You’re using it as an ethical term. So yes, it is.

”but rather one proven by the world economy.”

World economy proves nothing but world economy.

”Look at statistics.”

Even accurate statistics are meaningless. All they prove is the numbers that are displayed; they say nothing about cause and effect.

”Further more, go up to a woman in a textile factory in a third world country who gets paid shit for her work and say she’s not exploited – she has every opportunity that a developed country has.”

She works in the textile factory because it’s the best she is capable of. She could always do the whole subsistence farming thing. She just prefers not to.

”The economically exploited (i.e. those who lack money in comparison to others who have more money) people work longer than an office worker, and are paid less.”

They are paid less because their work is not as useful. If I spend three sleepless days and nights digging ditches in my back yard and then filling them back up, I’m pretty sure no-one is going to pay me ANYTHING. Even though I’m expending more calories and passing up more opportunities than a third-world laborer would in that timeframe, I will make less money than they do.

So what’s your point?

”I do not judge personal value either – I use proof of the economy and distribution of money to show the drastic differences between wages.”

No-one’s denying that there are differences in wealth distribution. However, disparity between income is not “exploitation”. To “exploit” is to “use” or “develop”.

”The luxury of "civilized" nations comes at the expense of less developed nations.”

There is only a small sliver of truth to this statement. And don’t put “civilized” in scare quotes; it is simply a word that describes a society where people live in close proximity to one another (i.e. they live in cities).

”That is exploitation, and that is hardcore fact.”

No, it is not.

“According to your ideology, it’s alright if someone doesn’t receive enough money to live, because this "exploitation" would simply be my personal judgment value.”

According to my ideology, no-one is obligated to provide anything for anyone else. Anyone who wants to till their own soil or make themselves useful enough to other people to make a decent living is invited to do so. If exceptionally productive people choose to be charitable to other people with their surplus material goods then they are welcome to do so; I don’t have anything to say about what people do with their own stuff.

This is all moot, however, since most of my argument consists of correcting your faulty approach to analyzing economics and has little to do with my ideology.

”Would that person’s death also be debatable?”

Huh? Do you mean, would I deny that he died? I don’t know. If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is around to hear it, did it really fall? Did it every really exist to begin with? Like, woah, man.

”The "baseless value judgment" isn’t mine, but that of the economy’s, which estimates or meets or half-heartedly attempts to meet (to excessive or the lowest standards) the needs of life.”

”The economy” means “people doing stuff”. So, what this sentence means is, “people act to provide the necessities for their existence and happiness; however, some people are really bad at it, so they live short, hard lives in primitive third world shitholes.” Also, it says something that Marxists often lionize the primitive tribal society as exemplifying communism.

” I use proof for my arguments”

No, you don’t.

”not inane exaggerations.”

You’re right, pure communism wouldn’t kill *everyone*. It’d just kill enough people that no-one left alive could pool enough resources to forcibly prevent the rest of the survivors from reverting to capitalist behavior.
holocaustpulp chapter 1 . 12/6/2004
No Trust: "The word society is misused to describe a collective of people united under some kind of embodiment (this is properly termed a cult). It properly describes the results produced by individuals who cooperate because they find it mutually beneficial for their disparate, atomistic goals." All of these definitions come from . Society: The totality of social relationships among humans (or, among many other specific definitions) An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest. Cult (these are the closest definitions I found to yours): A system or community of religious worship and ritual (or) An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest (or) Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. I can see where one could get confused. When using the term "society," I do not mean it as a cult. That is to say, I don’t mean that all of mankind (society) would naturally agree on all things – if that were so, it would be a cult. If one were to argue then, as I did in my essay, that basically all men believe in rights, at least for themselves, those rights (as you’ve heard enough) are conceived via personal perspective. Society in communism would not mean an absolute decision by all people, but rather collective interest. In other words, general interest - as it is in most nations - would remain the same.

"I’ve seen you write simple, clear sentences that have actual meaning in reviews of other people’s essays; why do you suddenly revert to this kind of semantic tomfoolery when talking about communism and capitalism? You read like some kind of over the top, hostile parody of Marxian literature." It’s funny that you should mention me as some "over the top, hostile parody of Marx" when his writings (at least his early writings) were more of a headache than mine now. In writing both the communism and capitalism essays, I wanted a more serious approach, and therefore resorted to serious writing. I understand that my sentences are long and tangled at times, and I have had trouble in the past with misplaced modifiers and such… I’m presently working to fix that though.

"No, I speak of rationality as in: an action is rational that is conductive to the ends the actor seeks to accomplish by it." So my sentence ("I think you’re describing rationality as a means of individual gain and nourishment, such as getting enough food to eat, and striving for more food.") is then an example.

"Most people don’t put much thought into ‘the established order.’" Hence we have civilization, exhibited best by the wheel which perpetually turns but does not travel any distance.

"What the fuck is a sphere of reality? Is that like one of those crystal ball thingies Mumra uses to spy on the Thundercats?" Hahahahahahahahahaha. But dude, Thudercats is awesome. A "sphere of reality" simply put is someone’s personal morals, or what they conceive as right and wrong in physical reality.

"Man does not ‘depend’ on money, except to the extent that money makes economic diversity possible above a certain level." Man does depend on money, for it is the only legal means by which he can obtain life’s necessities. If man were to independently construct a house, then he’d still probably have to pay tax on it.

"You mean men are *means* to others in a society?" Hmm. First of all, I noticed that men aren’t ends to society, but rather ends within society. I overlooked this small detail. I presume your statement is right after examining my essay. In retrospect, I used some outlandish arguments for slavery against aducknamedjoe. Agreeing with your statement does not mean however that I don’t believe the masses are widely exploited, and while they do receive money for their labor, that money is often too little. In other words, it’s wage slavery. The workers of wage slavery are not totally degraded, but they are underpaid. So yes, they are "means," means suggesting that (which is true) the laborers are economically subordinate.

"The simple answer is: everyone being well armed enough to dissuade aggression." Everyone meaning the government’s army designed in part to suppress the masses in the case of an uprising. Everyone is not well armed – the minority, external government is well armed to stop the populace’s endeavor of a better society. (Note: the army is one of two things that strictly define a country) And private businesses? They’d call on the national army as well if the workers aggressed.

"Money itself is a mere tool." Yes, but it the tool which buys all other tools, whether necessary or not.

"But the employee receives more money than he would’ve had he not worked." The employee (who doesn’t have to be an employee, but rather can be his own employer) must work to live – working can pertain to building one’s house, planting one’s food (a self-employer)… Money is not the necessary item; instead it has only been rendered necessary by "civilized" governments. And, yes, the employee does receive more money then if he hadn’t worked, but he doesn’t receive all of the money he earned. The point here is, the employer needs the employee more than the employee needs the employer, for the employee can work for himself. "You just cannot grasp the concept of subjective value can you?" So you’re saying it’s alright if the employee walks away with five dollars, and the employer 5,0. This was extremely mutual.

"No, he is not." (in response to "Also, the employer is dependent on the employee to produce capital.") Give me an instance where a business gained money without workers. On the other hand, a worker can built his own house, make his own clothes…

"Are you asking why the majority of people don’t start their own businesses? One reason is that it is a fuckload of very draining work, and not everyone has the abilities and disposition to be a successful business owner." No – I was actually referring to a communist society.

"Value is not measured in money. Value is an attitude in the mind of the observer." True, morally. Economically, value is how much money a person has. Value gets you food, shelter, clothing, or it doesn’t if one doesn’t have enough money.

"Uh, how do you overcome the problems presented by 1) the scarcity of resources in nature, and 2) the fact that humans don’t appreciate dying in droves in social engineering experiments?" Revolution encompasses overthrowing the existent authority and using its apparatus, which is already established. If not that, then a socialism society can be established on a commune, where land should have been pre-selected for its fertility. And, social engineering pertaining to capitalism? People die in capitalism for not having enough food to eat, because they can’t buy it. And, these "experiments" were never communist, and were often disrupted by the Western powers, which was their downfall.

"And?" (in response to "As I’ve explained before, the employer obtains more money than the employee does.") This is exploitation, for it is often drastic (note: not in all cases).

"*Why* should he already possess it?" Man should already possess the fruits of his labor because he worked for it, not his employer. His employer merely gave him the money, which is the means by which everyone lives.

"Why should he?" (in response to "the employer does not give all money to the worker.") The employer didn’t do much except usurp money from the employee, now did he?

"The meaning of my statement was that man is capitalist. Man uses tools (capital) and is therefore inescapably capitalist. No human will live very long without using tools. Even socialism (government) can only exist as a parasite sucking the life out of a capitalist society (i.e. voluntary cluster of mutually beneficial economic activity)." Yes. Man is capitalist, but that doesn’t mean society is necessarily capitalist. Men can collectively strive for the common good. As far as socialism being based off capitalism is concerned, this is a very true statement; I believe socialism can only be achieved with a consciousness of capitalism.

"And by what faerie magic is the omnipotent socialist state to whither away?" Theoretically, the socialist state withers away because it is run by the people, and therefore is the people. Thus, the character external force of the common state would not exist. And I don’t believe in the "inevitable" socialist worldwide revolution. I do however believe that imperialistic America is on the verge of total omnipotence.

"You require a massive instrument of violence to make everyone ‘equal’. You need the state." Russia needed that, because the Bolsheviks were the minority. Only the ignorant use what is conceived as communism (feign of communism) to disprove socialism. I don’t need the state.

"People can get on without the state, and better than with it. But all human relationships are based on authority." Can this not be a collective and equal authority?

"So, in communism, everyone would agree with everyone else all the time? Or are you saying that communism would kill so many people as to thin out population density to the extent that humans don’t come into contact with each other anymore? " Everyone doesn’t agree to one thing – this is natural. In a communist society, people would generally embrace the idea of communism but of course have various, smaller differences between them. Others would oppose the society as well, but that is not to say that it couldn’t function. To say that everyone would agree in the communist society is saying everyone agrees in America, Europe… And shut up with the "communist" stereotypes. Either you want to piss me off, or you’re just stupid when it comes to socialist history and theory.

"No. No no no. Value is a subjective attitude of an individual towards a commodity, based on how useful he finds it or thinks it will be to achieving his satisfaction. Money is merely a tool for calculating economic exchanges between individuals, itself a mere commodity subject to the arbitrary valuations of humans." Personal value does not always coincide with how much an item costs. The general standards of money (such as minimum wage) are based off of the idea of gaining more money. Hence, the "arbitrary valuations of humans" must ensure an increase in capital or else the enterprise has failed.

"Real socialism is a political and economic philosophy, that champions universal ownership of everything and everyone by the state. To the extent the state acts, it is with impunity; to the extent the state acts, it is as sovereign owner of what it acts upon; to the extent that the state acts, it is socialism." The state at this point would be the people, or ultimately becoming the people.

"Political decisions necessarily entail violent imposition." People oppose the Patriot Act, but there is not bloody suppression of the dissenters.

"No, YOUR labeling of unequal distribution of money as exploitation entails a value judgment (i.e. sentimental bias) on YOUR PART. You assume everyone is somehow entitled to an equal amount of material goods as everyone else and from that premise construct a system of ethics, labeling any unequal distribution as ‘exploitation’. If you realized this is what you’re doing you might not keep talking out of your pinko ass." It is obvious a couple will need more food than the individual, a large man more food than a small man. An absolutely equal amount of goods is inconceivable and unrealistic. Definitely, however, no one would starve to death in a socialist society. Money: A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account. Materials have economic value, no matter how many times between how many businesses or markets it varies. This value is bought with money. Man has become dependent on money, as it is the only legal means by which he can obtain these needed materials. Exploitation is when kids have to work and don’t have as good as an opportunity as their "civilized" counterparts. Exploitation is poor villages where, because people don’t have enough money, they can’t buy food to live. Exploitation is based on the general established economy and the differences in the amount of capital each individual owns, summarized in classes. Exploitation is not a personal value judgment of mine, but rather one proven by the world economy. Look at statistics. Further more, go up to a woman in a textile factory in a third world country who gets paid shit for her work and say she’s not exploited – she has every opportunity that a developed country has. The economically exploited (i.e. those who lack money in comparison to others who have more money) people work longer than an office worker, and are paid less. I do not judge personal value either – I use proof of the economy and distribution of money to show the drastic differences between wages. The luxury of "civilized" nations comes at the expense of less developed nations. That is exploitation, and that is hardcore fact. According to your ideology, it’s alright if someone doesn’t receive enough money to live, because this "exploitation" would simply be my personal judgment value. Would that person’s death also be debatable? The "baseless value judgment" isn’t mine, but that of the economy’s, which estimates or meets or half-heartedly attempts to meet (to excessive or the lowest standards) the needs of life.

"You’re right, because under pure communism everyone would be dead." I use proof for my arguments, not inane exaggerations.
logical-unreason chapter 1 . 12/4/2004
Thanks, I hate Mr Flames to.

As for the essay it is a superb structured logical progression that I see little flaw in. It is also poetic and heart felt enough to infuse with emotion and purpose the cold logical lines you follow.

Keep writing.
holocaustpulp chapter 1 . 11/23/2004
Aducknamedjoe: Yeah, my fault on Ayn Rand. I’ve expressed that. "Actually, HP, the passage you are attempting to ‘disprove’ is referring to PHYSICAL reality, not social or ethical reality as you seem to think." First of all, let us revisit a passage from the website: "Reality is absolute: Reality is that which exists. It is absolute. It is the standard of the true, the false, and the arbitrary." (Look, I got a dictionary!) Arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle (or) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. When I argue that there are varying spheres of reality, I do not neglect physical reality. To a certain extent, physical reality is absolute. This is very obvious. However, physical realities on encompass the superficial portion of all of reality (including human realities). Therefore, when I refer to varying spheres of human reality, I mean they do have impact on physical reality, such as the plutonium we made deformed people with radiation, or that the USSR fell, and is no longer part of physical reality, but instead a great number of countries. Thus, things are virtually absolute, whereas our non-absolute ideas and actions greatly affect physical reality. "This ‘evidence’ presupposes that good and evil are ‘realities.’ They are not, they are ethical and moral judgments subject to change with added informational input." Varying spheres of reality are ethical and moral judgments. They are a personal view of reality; as many people have different stances on reality (which in turn composes the ultimate physical reality), there are then personal, or different, spheres of reality. "Just because you ‘feel’ something ought to change doesn’t mean it automatically changes unless you or someone else acts on that feeling, a good idea won’t alter reality unless you put it into practice, wishing for a million dollars will be a waste of time with out any corresponding action, a superhighway will not be built just because you desire it to be built, your anger doesn’t change the fact that it’s raining. This is all to say that your different ‘perception’ of reality doesn’t actually change absolute physical reality." Yes, different opinions (moral and ethical judgments) exist. And, as you’ve pointed out, action is necessary to change physical reality. Different realities don’t change much in terms of physical reality – I never said they change much. However, a group with different "perceptions" to the norm have to the ability to change physical reality (such as destroying property), but only with action. "There is no such thing as a collective brain, thus there is no such thing as a collective thought. Also, reason should never be subject to law and order. As Thoreau said, "If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." If you know a law to be unjust, irrational or evil, you should not subordinate your rational faculty and follow that law." When I referred to the "eventually collective thought," I meant the correspondence of individuals who agree on something. This is collective thought. (Collective: Of, relating to, characteristic of, or made by a number of people acting as a group: a collective decision.) Also, I never said any man should abide by an order he does not agree with. This would be outlandish, no? I said that laws are imposed, but I never said that they were kept. This means that, yes, imposition can be broken.

"Since when are God and State "reason?" God is probably one of the most unreasonable beliefs that men still hold. A supreme being? That knows all? Yet never seems to show himself except in subtle, possibly coincidental ways? A being whose existence we must take on faith? Tell me, what is reasonable about suspending one’s own rational judgment to believe in a being that one has neither seen, heard, felt, or otherwise perceived? And how then, is God a means of survival? The state is also not necessary for survival. Hunter gathering savages got on just fine without it. It may be necessary for advancement, but certainly not baseline survival." I couldn’t agree more with your assessment on God. Though, I used to prove a form of state imposition. For instance, God was a means of survival back when it was deeply affiliated with state, in let’s say Britain. People were burned at the stake for disobeying God – thus, they disobeyed the state. God is then a mean of survival because if back you didn’t follow the Bible’s ethics, then you would probably die. Also, I don’t think we need the state either – this is common socialist (the economic and political philosophy, as thought of by Marx) ideology. I think I need to write a separate essay to address some misconceptions, namely No Trust’s, of the state’s role in communism. "You assume here, that society is necessary for survival, and that man must thus cooperate with ‘society’ in order to be permitted to live. You fail to realize that man may take leave of the ‘society’ if he so wishes and go live in the wilderness as a hermit. Hermits seem to survive just fine without "society" and its impositions." Man doesn’t have to cooperate with "society" to live, but his lack in cooperation may result in death (death inflicted from a higher power). Besides that, yes, man can live alone and independently.

"Huh, because edible foods are OF COURSE not present in reality. Really, your reasoning faculties astound me. Did you know if your IQ dips below a certain point you’re considered legally dead?" In my saying, "Rationality is present in choosing edible foods – it is not present in reality," these realities alluded to are all of the human realities (perceptions). Reality was used to encompass all human realities. Thus, since there are no set realities among the human mind, there is no set rationality in the boiling pot of all human realities. I see how one can get confused by this, and I’m glad you brought this to me attention. "…your rational faculty still gives you choices when confronted with brute force and imposition of values: you can choose to allow it, fight it, or refuse it (which in this case probably means death)." Again I was too vague. One can fight imposition or acquiesce to it, yes. However, fighting the force of imposition wont be safe, as you’ve mentioned. Choice is a human rational, but one that suffers consequences when confronting a more powerful force. "Uh, not if there’s no one doing the suppressing. And hey, didn’t you just state an absolute? And didn’t you said earlier that reality is not absolute? Yet your statement exists in reality, and is an absolute. Are you saying absolutes can exist in reality without reality being absolute? Pray tell, how is this possible?" The word to note in my sentence ("Free will is then, in all realities, philosophically abiding to suppression") is "philosophically." Philosophy: Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. My "logical reasoning" cannot be proven by fact – only absolutes are fact.

"Not if he doesn’t let them. Apparently you missed this little piece: ‘As reason is SOLELY the attribute of an INDIVIDUAL (not a ‘collective’), and man's thinking determines his choices and actions, then each man is the master of his own destiny’ EACH man, not ‘society.’" Reasoning is the attribute of an individual, but that doesn’t mean he just dismisses higher orders. Man doesn’t have to let people push him around, but this is often the case. So out of ignorance, apathy, what have you, men then abide by some imposition, but are naturally free to assert their own reason, among themselves or upon other things. And individual minds unite under collective bodies – this alone proves society (Society: The totality of social relationships among humans (or, among many other specific definitions) An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest).

"No. Man is not an end to society." I’ll tell you what I told No Trust: "People have ends, people compose society, and therefore men are ends to others in that society. This accounts for all men, and therefore accounts for society. And, how can humans have a disincentive to aggress on the other if pay is not equal?" Elaborating on that, in the capitalist system men are exploited and underpaid. Man does not instinctively, say, serve those higher in society, but rather has to.

"Um, yes, and capital refers to physical resources or a guarantee of physical resources (i.e. money) so what you basically just said is that man’s existence depends on food, and thus is subordinate to food. I agree with the first part, I don’t even know what you were trying to mean by the second part. Are you saying that man’s existence is less important than food? And isn’t that a value judgment, not an absolute?" Man is subordinate to capital because every material item, or every palpable thing, is obtained by capital. Food is gained by capital. And people aren’t subordinate to food because it is very accessible and very necessary. That is not to say that capital isn’t accessible, but it is something that people have based the economy on (past people, not me), and it isn’t necessary outside of it being the standard force on which we rely. In other words, we don’t need capital. And value judgments aren’t my own, they are of the economy. Exploitation is defined straight from the economy. Usually the judgment value is how much capital man needs to get to live – I didn’t create this, but it is standard.

"It’s called comparative advantage and it will always exist. When a primitive tribe happened upon a precious resource first, they gained comparative advantage over the other tribes. When an industrialist comes up with a good idea and implements it he gains comparative advantage over others in a capitalist society. It is right that the industrialist gets more money than the average factory worker. Without his idea, talent, and drive, there would be no factory." I was not referring to coincidences or good designs in my statement. Instead, I was chiefly referring to the exploitation of the working class. And, without workers (who can potentially strike for having too low of a pay), the idea is practically worthless, as without action (or instigation of action), nothing will materialize.

"Slavery is work under coercion, in a capitalist society no one is forced to work anywhere if they don’t want to." First of, considering the Galt statement, I voiced my theory on that, so I feel no need to repeat it. Now, considering coercion, man is technically forced into coercion at birth, with capitalist society existing all around him. He does not choose capitalism; instead he participates in it. This was not the person’s choice, and further opinions on capitalism will from there be affected (positively or negatively) by this society. And if a man doesn’t work, he receives some aid, but the general idea is that you should work somewhere. This mentality goes in both communist and capitalist systems.

"’A man living for the sake of you is when he produces your capital.’ Uh, not if he gains value out of the work as well. Voluntary trade is different from slavery." Yeah, but does he gain the entire fair share of the work? Again, voluntary slavery under a strict, imposed society.

"Get a fucking dictionary. A person is not a slave if they perform tasks voluntarily, without threat of coercion." See above.

"Actually, you commies and your ancestors were the first to start elaborating about ‘exploitation’ and ‘classes.’ Capitalism doesn’t impose arbitrary classes, those classes are created by differences in ability and work ethic. Nor are those ‘classes’ static and set in stone. In fact, the more capitalist the country, the more social mobility there is." Funny that us "commies" didn’t come up with idea of exploitation and classes, when classes were long ago acknowledged (for example, the caste system in India), and exploitation, when one considers the economic worldwide base, speaks for itself via statistics. If classes are determined by work ethic, then how come people who labor a good 12 hours a day get paid shit by big corporations? And not considering that, a rich person can live his life off of inheritance – that’s not work ethic, now is it? It is true that classes aren’t set, but "social mobility" (I assume this is the ability to graduate to a higher class) isn’t very equal when someone can pay for a better education, such as college. American "opportunity" is a falsification. In the past and present, it lures foreigners just so they can do low paying jobs (building the railroads, grape picking…)

"’Secondly, freedom is not an absolute. One reality is essence has no ‘right’ to impose freedom upon what it considers contrary or evil.’ Two completely different points that have nothing to do with each other except the word freedom." Does the word example ring a bell? "There you go again, thinking you can levitate that pencil just my wishing or ‘perceiving’ it so. You’ve watched the Matrix one too many times man." I’ve clarified myself on the first part. And, yes, I have seen the second and third Matrix too many times.

"How pathetically Utopian of you! We don’t need laws! All the criminals will disappear if we tell them to live by ‘morals’, which aren’t absolute, enforceable by a higher authority, or even universally agreed upon." A voluntary union of people would rid of any criminals – this of course, as it is today, decreed by morality. However, the economy under communism would not give reason to steal. Oh, and the whole point is that there would be no higher authority; the authority would be every equal person.

"Uh, hate to break it to yah, America isn’t a capitalist government…" I’ve become aware of this, but I thank you for reminding me. Nonetheless, it is more capitalist than some countries. "’Freedom of action should be a universal ‘right,’’ But there are no ‘absolute’ rights, correct?" Note "right" (quotes). I meant right here to mean moral. Freedom of action should be a universal moral, universally accepted making it "right" (close to right, but not absolute).

"Who the shit is ‘the world?’ Who defines what is ‘moral?’ The rice farmer in Vietnam? The Mafia Gangster in Russia? The prostitute in Africa? And then what if someone disagrees with what ‘the world’ decides? Should freedom of action be ‘imposed’ on them? Your essay is a study in self contradiction." Moral: Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous. Though morals do pertain to personal rights as well, these rights aren’t absolute. World: The inhabitants of the earth; the human race (or) Humankind considered as social beings; human society. Socialism seemingly is a slow process. Unlike the USSR (who wasn’t communist, and who even lapsed from socialism), the true communist society would not impose its ideals on others. And I think we know rebellion is pretty much inevitable – if someone disagreed with the morals, they’d do something about it. If it harmed the people, the people would act in self-defense, not in imposition (doesn’t the website say something about that?). If you think my theories are self-contradictory, despite the presented logic, then there’s nothing I can really do except present more of my logic. But, likewise, I think capitalism is contradictory.

"Capitalism, at least economically, is the act of voluntary trade between two individuals absent of outside regulation or use of force. The trade can be time and work for money, or money for resources, or resources for resources, or whatever, but it is important to note that it is VOLUNTARY, and free from any coercive measures. So go ahead, eliminate Capitalism. Just see what happens." Not force, but regulations. Something called the monetary unit and such… People are free within capitalism to do things, but this does not mean the capitalist system isn’t absent. Therefore, the voluntary act is under a sphere of imposition that renders unequal consequences and perpetuity in regress and human demoralization. And, my goal is to have a communist society. What will happen when that is achieved is equality.
No Trust chapter 1 . 11/22/2004
“Society does exist - it is the summarization of a collective group of individuals, which compose the faculties that it (society) represents. While individuals are "atomistic" and "sovereign," they unite under one embodiment: society.”

The word society is misused to describe a collective of people united under some kind of embodiment (this is properly termed a cult). It properly describes the results produced by individuals who cooperate because they find it mutually beneficial for their disparate, atomistic goals.

“There are usually leaders (or a leader) of this society. The leaders/leader, whether elected (by individual rights, as leaders are the representation of a collective set of "rights," in this case morals adapted by the majority of society, i.e., the people who compose the majority within a group of individuals in one area, abiding by an established order) or dictatorial (going by personal rights, those which are not moral as they fail to encompass the majority of personal rights within the population [society], or conforming to the former explanation, just having achieved power [a sphere of reality] through different means), have the ability to render realities upon others, and therefore imposing them on people’s personal rights without authorization from the people themselves.”

This is just a really long–winded way to say that sometimes individuals who are stronger than others coerce the weaker into obedience. I’ve seen you write simple, clear sentences that have actual meaning in reviews of other people’s essays; why do you suddenly revert to this kind of semantic tomfoolery when talking about communism and capitalism? You read like some kind of over the top, hostile parody of Marxian literature.

Do you actually *think* in this clumsy terminology?

”And I’m not high, though this wording may be complicated (which I admit to).”

Yes, complicated. Not complicated as in sophisticated; complicated as in tangled.

"I think you’re describing rationality as a means of individual gain and nourishment, such as getting enough food to eat, and striving for more food.”

No, I speak of rationality as in: an action is rational that is conductive to the ends the actor seeks to accomplish by it.

“I don’t see how I use evasive language, if you could elaborate I’d appreciate it.”

If you really can’t see it, it’s not worth it trying to explain it to you."These non-political goals are held intact by the established order - or so people think.”

Most people don’t put much thought into “the established order”.

"Economic imposition does exist, because reality (spheres of power that have established this reality)”

What the fuck is a sphere of reality? Is that like one of those crystal ball thingies Mumra uses to spy on the Thundercats?

”rendered it so man depends on money,”

Man does not ‘depend’ on money, except to the extent that money makes economic diversity possible above a certain level.

”People have ends, people compose society, and therefore men are ends to others in that society.”

You mean men are *means* to others in a society?

”And, how can humans have a disincentive to aggress on the other if pay is not equal?”

The simple answer is: everyone being well armed enough to dissuade aggression.

“Humans can procure tools independently without unreasonable unbalance (men can make more tools without money to assist whatever they mean to accomplish).”

Money itself is a mere tool.

”The employer usually receives more money than the employee does.”

But the employee receives more money than he would’ve had he not worked.

”The mutual benefit here is then one-sided.”

You just cannot grasp the concept of subjective value can you?

”Also, the employer is dependent on the employee to produce capital.”

No, he is not.

”The employee, however, is not dependent on the employer, for why can’t he (the employee, who is also the majority) receive capital in a self-established system and not be cheated out of his work?”

Are you asking why the majority of people don’t start their own businesses? One reason is that it is a fuckload of very draining work, and not everyone has the abilities and disposition to be a successful business owner.

”Also, I use the facts of values to support my argument, not to defeat it – using facts (value wise, as in the amount of money a person earns) I wish to show the true exploitative nature of capitalism.”

Value is not measured in money. Value is an attitude in the mind of the observer.

”Using these facts, one can compare them to the socialist society, where exploitation would be obsolete.”

Uh, how do you overcome the problems presented by 1) the scarcity of resources in nature, and 2) the fact that humans don’t appreciate dying in droves in social engineering experiments?

“As I’ve explained before, the employer obtains more money than the employee does.”

And?

”One, then, is working for the sake of another man, for while he still may receive something (which he should already possess),”

*Why* should he already possess it?

”the employer does not give all money to the worker.”

Why should he?

“People in capitalist countries don’t choose to abide by the standards, but they are expected to. This is not to say in any society that people cannot revolt or disagree with the norm.”

The meaning of my statement was that man is capitalist. Man uses tools (capital) and is therefore inescapably capitalist. No human will live very long without using tools. Even socialism (government) can only exist as a parasite sucking the life out of a capitalist society (i.e. voluntary cluster of mutually beneficial economic activity).

"The state is necessary for some people’s ends. It is not necessary for mine; though it is necessary for yours." “Perhaps if you read up on communism, you’d realize how extremely wrong you are. Even by reading my essay "Communism," one should have picked up that the state withers away in a socialist society”

And by what faerie magic is the omnipotent socialist state to whither away?

“Hence (if you still haven’t picked this up), I don’t need the state for my ends.”

You require a massive instrument of violence to make everyone ‘equal’. You need the state.

”Also, people only believe they need the state, when in fact they can process without this higher authority.”

People can get on without the state, and better than with it. But all human relationships are based on authority.

“Just because rights are "enforced" doesn’t mean they have to be. Only in dog-eat-dog societies, where one must enforce their own rights, do citizens exhibit this behavior.”

So, in communism, everyone would agree with everyone else all the time? Or are you saying that communism would kill so many people as to thin out population density to the extent that humans don’t come into contact with each other anymore?

“And, economic value is money,”

No. No no no. Value is a subjective attitude of an individual towards a commodity, based on how useful he finds it or thinks it will be to achieving his satisfaction. Money is merely a tool for calculating economic exchanges between individuals, itself a mere commodity subject to the arbitrary valuations of humans.

“And, yes, all governments are technically socialist economically, but not politically (true socialism isn’t subject to a capitalist structure, nor does it uphold a state – real socialism is a political and economic philosophy, not just an economic one, which many fail to realize). However, the true economic socialist state (say, Denmark) has more government run programs than say America (such as health care).”

Real socialism is a political and economic philosophy, that champions universal ownership of everything and everyone by the state. To the extent the state acts, it is with impunity; to the extent the state acts, it is as sovereign owner of what it acts upon; to the extent that the state acts, it is socialism.

And, health care in America is mostly government-run."How would it [personal right] be enforced?" Personal right would be enforced via a society, meaning that it would have influence on political and economic decisions.”

Political decisions necessarily entail violent imposition.

“Exploitation is based on the capitalist judgment value, and capitalism does exist, as well as the money that defines this exploitation. As you may argue there is no value judgment, there is still a difference in the amount of money each person has.”

No, YOUR labeling of unequal distribution of money as exploitation entails a value judgment (i.e. sentimental bias) on YOUR PART. You assume everyone is somehow entitled to an equal amount of material goods as everyone else and from that premise construct a system of ethics, labeling any unequal distribution as ‘exploitation’. If you realized this is what you’re doing you might not keep talking out of your pinko ass.

”Again, I use exploitation to prove that it would not exist in communism,”

You’re right, because under pure communism everyone would be dead.

”as there would be no difference in personal money.”

And this is why.
holocaustpulp chapter 1 . 11/21/2004
No Trust: you definitely made some good arguments here - no denying that. Let us review. First of all, a simple misreading (at least in this case) is no big deal. We all make grammatical mistakes. While there may not be a "capitalist ideal," there is still a capitalist philosophy.

"...you read the aggregate rather than studying the human on the level on which he actually operates; the atomistic, anarchistic sovereign individual. ‘Society’ does not exist; it is not an entity with a will or with the faculties to perceive reality. If the term, is to be used at all, then it should be used as a shorthand for the aggregate of interpersonal interactions under study." Society does exist - it is the summarization of a collective group of individuals, which compose the faculties that it (society) represents. While individuals are "atomistic" and "sovereign," they unite under one embodiment: society. There are usually leaders (or a leader) of this society. The leaders/leader, whether elected (by individual rights, as leaders are the representation of a collective set of "rights," in this case morals adapted by the majority of society, i.e., the people who compose the majority within a group of individuals in one area, abiding by an established order) or dictatorial (going by personal rights, those which are not moral as they fail to encompass the majority of personal rights within the population [society], or conforming to the former explanation, just having achieved power [a sphere of reality] through different means), have the ability to render realities upon others, and therefore imposing them on people’s personal rights without authorization from the people themselves. We then see the individual as a part of an embodiment, as governed by higher rule, separate from those it governs. This proves society – whether opposed to the current norm of things (opposed to society) or in defense of it, we are generalized, our personal rights, collectively morals, having consequence to the initiation of another’s personal right, acting underneath the cover of morality. An example of society's generalizations is a person not being a citizen by a designated name, but instead - as part of the embodiment - an American.…And I’m not high, though this wording may be complicated (which I admit to).

"You like the Objectivists make the mistake of trying to measure preferences and values by the metric of rationality." Well, I seem to have said, "…there inevitability is no rationality…" I think you’re describing rationality as a means of individual gain and nourishment, such as getting enough food to eat, and striving for more food. I speak of rationality philosophically, whereas a political rational for instance is nonexistent because it is conceived differently – rational to some, irrational to others – through different spheres of individual realities. Thus, all ends are arbitrary, because there is no rational, as there will always be individual differences. I don’t see how I use evasive language, if you could elaborate I’d appreciate it.

"Most humans actually spend more time thinking about (and thus acting towards) non-political goals than political goals. I see this as a very beautiful thing." These non-political goals are held intact by the established order - or so people think. The norm that is established, however, does affect the thinking about non-political goals, such as one needs to pay taxes (on meals or to the government). And in my sentence, "Man’s thoughts are commonly based around the organization that he regards as the central order, the government that supports society," more pertains to a social (most likely national) bias, one of Americans being that communism is bad and always totalitarian. But I now realize your interpretation was valid in some respect.

Freedom of thought, individual conceptions of right (spheres of right), is only imposed on, not annihilated. Man can hold personal truths to himself, but still have an order imposed upon him. People affecting other people’s actions does not rule out free will. Let me elaborate: spheres of reality limit free will, whereas other spheres don’t, meaning, certain powers do limit free will (but not personal truths) with imposition. (you can at least admit to that…?). Essentially, though, people are technically free to do anything. I’ve announced my stance on this paragraph, yet it appears as if you agree with the idea that society exists if you completely agree with this statement.

"There is no such thing as economic imposition." Economic imposition does exist, because reality (spheres of power that have established this reality) rendered it so man depends on money, and therefore civilizations (societies) depend on foreign jobs to earn money. Just look at the economic global stance – because labor is cheaper in China, people by the millions in some third world countries will lose their jobs. People have ends, people compose society, and therefore men are ends to others in that society. This accounts for all men, and therefore accounts for society. And, how can humans have a disincentive to aggress on the other if pay is not equal? Government does exist because of its moral basis in society ("social incentives"). It is not immune, but that does not mean it isn’t imposing. "There’s no such thing as a free lunch." Obviously. I was trying to explain here that a better education is more expensive, and thus those with more money have more opportunity, disproving universal opportunity. Capital money. Or as a dictionary can tell you: "Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation." However, there are many definitions for this word.

Hmm. I can see your point when I said, "They are then free to set standards (impose standards) upon society via the economy." I meant that those in power impose standards on the weak, or those who don’t make as much money. Thus, the standards are imposed within society, but on a portion (the majority) of society. "Humans can’t survive very well without using tools. Therefore humans are slaves to tools." Humans can procure tools independently without unreasonable unbalance (men can make more tools without money to assist whatever they mean to accomplish). Men procure capital, but it is unbalanced, without being reasonable. "In essence the employer is engaging in a mutually beneficial market transaction with his employees…" The employer usually receives more money than the employee does. The mutual benefit here is then one-sided. Also, the employer is dependent on the employee to produce capital. The employee, however, is not dependent on the employer, for why can’t he (the employee, who is also the majority) receive capital in a self-established system and not be cheated out of his work? The employer merely gives back some of the capital that the employees earned (and that he consequentially gained), and gives only a portion of it back to them. "Unfortunately for you, statistics can never defeat logic. The subjective theory of value renders your entire argument utterly meaningless." I use facts to support my logic, as we all usually do (no?). Also, I use the facts of values to support my argument, not to defeat it – using facts (value wise, as in the amount of money a person earns) I wish to show the true exploitative nature of capitalism. Using these facts, one can compare them to the socialist society, where exploitation would be obsolete.

" But if the reason you are working for another man is to get the money you need to buy other things you want, then you are living for yourself, not for him. As surely as he is using you for his purposes, you are using him for yours. And there is no harm in any of this." As I’ve explained before, the employer obtains more money than the employee does. One, then, is working for the sake of another man, for while he still may receive something (which he should already possess), the employer does not give all money to the worker. So, this proves the employee is being used and exploited (exploited more in drastic cases, of which many exist), and there is harm in this, one example being when the employer does not care for the health conditions of the employee. "…there is no such thing as ‘classes’." Capital creates classes (one can identify classes by how many material items they own, how much land they own…) – classes are a part of society, and society does exist. "These are not man’s individual choices, but those imposed by a different sphere of reality." In my statement here, I think you failed to realize I was talking strictly about money. And, as you’ve said, "capitalism is just what people do." People in capitalist countries don’t choose to abide by the standards, but they are expected to. This is not to say in any society that people cannot revolt or disagree with the norm. "The state is necessary for some people’s ends. It is not necessary for mine; though it is necessary for yours." Perhaps if you read up on communism, you’d realize how extremely wrong you are. Even by reading my essay "Communism," one should have picked up that the state withers away in a socialist society – the product is then communism. Hence (if you still haven’t picked this up), I don’t need the state for my ends. Also, people only believe they need the state, when in fact they can process without this higher authority.

Just because rights are "enforced" doesn’t mean they have to be. Only in dog-eat-dog societies, where one must enforce their own rights, do citizens exhibit this behavior. "Capitalism is only ‘robbery’ if you accept the unfounded premise that there is some objective metric for economic value (be it labor hours or whatever)." When I refer to "robbery" I meant it as it pertained to the passage. And, economic value is money, hence classes exploitation, and capitalism. "‘Rights’ are freeform reciprocal treaties between *individuals*." Um… Yeah. Hence, morality – not an actual right, but an agreed one as determined by personal rights. "The Objectivist—and your—commitment to ‘freedom of action’ is stupid. And there is no such thing as a capitalist government. All governments are socialist by tautology, since socialism means government control and intervention. However, not all governments are equally active." I used the term "freedom of action" to relate (language wise) to the website. And, yes, all governments are technically socialist economically, but not politically (true socialism isn’t subject to a capitalist structure, nor does it uphold a state – real socialism is a political and economic philosophy, not just an economic one, which many fail to realize). However, the true economic socialist state (say, Denmark) has more government run programs than say America (such as health care).

"How would it [personal right] be enforced?" Personal right would be enforced via a society, meaning that it would have influence on political and economic decisions. "Uh, no, because defining something as ‘exploitation’ entails a baseless value judgment." Exploitation is based on the capitalist judgment value, and capitalism does exist, as well as the money that defines this exploitation. As you may argue there is no value judgment, there is still a difference in the amount of money each person has. Again, I use exploitation to prove that it would not exist in communism, as there would be no difference in personal money. "Any argument that has anything to say about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ IS A FUCKING PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT. Btw, thank you for showing me just how much Objectivists and hardcore commies have in common." I guess you’re right about your first point (I’m serious here). When saying fact, I mean that 1 1 inevitably equals 2. However, you can argue against that… Oh, and besides how extremely different Objectivists and communists are, that is, neglecting everything each of them stand for, then, yeah, I guess they are the same.
Aducknamedjoe chapter 1 . 11/20/2004
To No Trust, you’re more Objectivist than you HP, My advice? Get a dictionary, learn what words mean before you use them, and learn to read. It’s AYN Rand, not AMY Rand.

“This would be a flawless statement, if reality in itself was such as it is described – absolute. However, absoluteness of reality is irrelevant when one considers the factors that compose past and contemporary reality, the varying thoughts or ethics, manifested in “civilized” rule, which determine how we live, and determine different spheres of reality.”Actually, HP, the passage you are attempting to “disprove” is referring to PHYSICAL reality, not social or ethical reality as you seem to think. That is to say, a rock is a rock, not a black hole or a mango. If you eat it you will probably die. “According to such a philosophy as presented, government is government. Sub-levels of government are democracy and dictatorship. These are true. However, this explanation does not recognize that feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions determine reality.”

This preceding sentence is exactly wrong, you completely contradict the website (“Things are what they are, independent of our or anyone else's feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions.”) without any good evidence to back up your claims.

“For instance, good and evil is a nonexistent reality. Good and evil differ within the various spheres of the beholder, thus proving that they are in fact contrary visions of reality. Hence, A is to A superficially; within one’s own view, i.e., one who composes and makes possible this reality, reality is not universally absolute, but individually.”

See? You’re missing the point here. This “evidence” presupposes that good and evil are “realities.” They are not, they are ethical and moral judgments subject to change with added informational input. The page was referring to physical reality. Thus, your sentence; “this explanation does not recognize that feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions determine reality” is completely wrong headed. Just because you “feel” something ought to change doesn’t mean it automatically changes unless you or someone else acts on that feeling, a good idea won’t alter reality unless you put it into practice, wishing for a million dollars will be a waste of time with out any corresponding action, a superhighway will not be built just because you desire it to be built, your anger doesn’t change the fact that it’s raining. This is all to say that your different “perception” of reality doesn’t actually change absolute physical reality.

“Survivorship is then subordinate to reality. That is, survivorship is the embrace of reason, reason subject to the individual and eventually collective thought as imposed via law and order.”

There is no such thing as a collective brain, thus there is no such thing as a collective thought. Also, reason should never be subject to law and order. As Thoreau said, “If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.” If you know a law to be unjust, irrational or evil, you should not subordinate your rational faculty and follow that law.

“To obtain food to live is reason, yes; to clothe oneself to live is reason, yes. Nonetheless, reason such as God and State, classified by society as means of survival, impose a sphere of reasoning as a mean of survival. So here, we see the separation of man and embodiment of man. “

Since when are God and State “reason?” God is probably one of the most unreasonable beliefs that men still hold. A supreme being? That knows all? Yet never seems to show himself except in subtle, possibly coincidental ways? A being whose existence we must take on faith? Tell me, what is reasonable about suspending one’s own rational judgment to believe in a being that one has neither seen, heard, felt, or otherwise perceived? And how then, is God a means of survival?

The state is also not necessary for survival. Hunter gathering savages got on just fine without it. It may be necessary for advancement, but certainly not baseline survival.

“To reason to live is only permitted by reason to cooperate – such as those opposed to God and State have been exiled, oppressed, or killed for actions that defied the established reality.”

You assume here, that society is necessary for survival, and that man must thus cooperate with “society” in order to be permitted to live. You fail to realize that man may take leave of the “society” if he so wishes and go live in the wilderness as a hermit. Hermits seem to survive just fine without “society” and its impositions.

“Rationality is present in choosing edible foods – it is not present in reality.”

Huh, because edible foods are OF COURSE not present in reality. Really, your reasoning faculties astound me. Did you know if your IQ dips below a certain point you’re considered legally dead?

“Choice is clearly not an option of rationality when a sphere of reality is imposed upon another.”

You seem to be defining “spheres of reality” as belief system, or perception. And while you are partially right here, mostly, you are wrong. While it is true that reason, and forceful coercion are mutually exclusive (you can’t argue with the point of a gun), your rational faculty still gives you choices when confronted with brute force and imposition of values: you can choose to allow it, fight it, or refuse it (which in this case probably means death).

“Free will is then, in all realities, philosophically abiding to suppression”

Uh, not if there’s no one doing the suppressing. And hey, didn’t you just state an absolute? And didn’t you said earlier that reality is not absolute? Yet your statement exists in reality, and is an absolute. Are you saying absolutes can exist in reality without reality being absolute? Pray tell, how is this possible?

“Man is not the master of his own destiny, as another man or group of men can control destiny”

Not if he doesn’t let them.

Apparently you missed this little piece: “As reason is SOLELY the attribute of an INDIVIDUAL (not a “collective”), and man's thinking determines his choices and actions, then each man is the master of his own destiny”. EACH man, not “society.”

“Due to economic and political imposition, conceived as power (as determined by the history of man’s realities) as a sphere of reality, man is an end to society”

No. Man is not an end to society. He can be USED as an end to other men in society through the imposition of “economic and political power”, but that does not mean he intrinsically exists to serve “society’s” purposes. (who exactly is society? You? Me? Who gets to decide what is best for society? The answer? Individuals.)

“Men are pawns because their existence depends on and therefore is subordinate to capital. All men persist depending on their possession of capital”

Um, yes, and capital refers to physical resources or a guarantee of physical resources (i.e. money) so what you basically just said is that man’s existence depends on food, and thus is subordinate to food. I agree with the first part, I don’t even know what you were trying to mean by the second part. Are you saying that man’s existence is less important than food? And isn’t that a value judgment, not an absolute?

“There is not equilibrium in the capitalist system because some men have more power than others; the man with more money is bound to give his employees less money that he gains.”

It’s called comparative advantage and it will always exist. When a primitive tribe happened upon a precious resource first, they gained comparative advantage over the other tribes. When an industrialist comes up with a good idea and implements it he gains comparative advantage over others in a capitalist society. It is right that the industrialist gets more money than the average factory worker. Without his idea, talent, and drive, there would be no factory.

“John Galt’s statement, when considering this analysis, is crushed by the capitalist ideal”

It IS the Capitalist ideal moron. Your definition of “capitalist ideal” is straight outta the Communist Manifesto. Slavery is work under coercion, in a capitalist society no one is forced to work anywhere if they don’t want to.

“A man living for the sake of you is when he produces your capital.” Uh, not if he gains value out of the work as well. Voluntary trade is different from slavery.

“The idea that each man has a good and evil proves that there are different conceptions of good and evil.”

Perhaps, but the most basic values judgment is that which man pronounces on existence. Is life good, or is it bad? Those that believe it to be bad are dead if they follow their own belief system.

“The slaves of society are those who are on the lower spectrum of imposed society.”

Get a fucking dictionary. A person is not a slave if they perform tasks voluntarily, without threat of coercion.

“The theory of individualism in this respect is then contradictory to the capitalist philosophy, which elaborates on exploitation and classes.”

Actually, you commies and your ancestors were the first to start elaborating about “exploitation” and “classes.” Capitalism doesn’t impose arbitrary classes, those classes are created by differences in ability and work ethic. Nor are those “classes” static and set in stone. In fact, the more capitalist the country, the more social mobility there is.

“Secondly, freedom is not an absolute. One reality is essence has no “right” to impose freedom upon what it considers contrary or evil.”

Two completely different points that have nothing to do with each other except the word freedom.

“as there is no absolute reality – but rather something that is widely embraced by the world population.”

There you go again, thinking you can levitate that pencil just my wishing or “perceiving” it so. You’ve watched the Matrix one too many times man.

“This means that instead of law, a better society would exist upon moral, which would then compose the society’s moral principles”

How pathetically Utopian of you! We don’t need laws! All the criminals will disappear if we tell them to live by “morals”, which aren’t absolute, enforceable by a higher authority, or even universally agreed upon.

“current capitalist governments”

Uh, hate to break it to yah, America isn’t a capitalist government, any government that forces citizens to pay taxes is a socialist government. America has a fairly capitalistic ECONOMY, but not government.

“Freedom of action should be a universal “right,””

But there are no “absolute” rights, correct?

“Freedom of action is also what much of the world considers moral.”

Who the shit is “the world?” Who defines what is “moral?” The rice farmer in Vietnam? The Mafia Gangster in Russia? The prostitute in Africa? And then what if someone disagrees with what “the world” decides? Should freedom of action be “imposed” on them? Your essay is a study in self contradiction.

“capitalism would be gone”

Capitalism, at least economically, is the act of voluntary trade between two individuals absent of outside regulation or use of force. The trade can be time and work for money, or money for resources, or resources for resources, or whatever, but it is important to note that it is VOLUNTARY, and free from any coercive measures. So go ahead, eliminate Capitalism. Just see what happens.
No Trust chapter 1 . 11/18/2004
AYN Rand. Not Amy Rand.

“This essay will review capitalism as based off of the website , which acknowledges Amy Rand as the ideological leader of the capitalist ideal, such as Karl Marx would be considered the leader of the communist ideal.”

Anyway, there is no ‘capitalist ideal’. You’re reading an Objectivist website. Objectivists are a nutso cult who play with the definitions of words and take the notion of objective morality to idiotic extremes. Rand does not represent any kind of capitalist ‘ideal’; there is no such thing as a capitalist ideal because capitalism is just what people do.

“Survivorship is then subordinate to reality. That is, survivorship is the embrace of reason, reason subject to the individual and eventually collective thought as imposed via law and order. To obtain food to live is reason, yes; to clothe oneself to live is reason, yes. Nonetheless, reason such as God and State, classified by society as means of survival, impose a sphere of reasoning as a mean of survival. So here, we see the separation of man and embodiment of man. To reason to live is only permitted by reason to cooperate – such as those opposed to God and State have been exiled, oppressed, or killed for actions that defied the established reality.”

Not even from Objectivists have I ever seen such an empty use of language. You commies and Objectivists all share the same damn fallacy: you read the aggregate rather than studying the human on the level on which he actually operates; the atomistic, anarchistic sovereign individual. ‘Society’ does not exist; it is not an entity with a will or with the faculties to perceive reality. If the term, is to be used at all, then it should be used as a shorthand for the aggregate of interpersonal interactions under study.

“Rationality is present in choosing edible foods – it is not present in reality. Because there is no absolute reality, there inevitability is no rationality, as in one sphere something will appear irrational in another.”

What the hell are you talking about? Are you high?

“Therefore man is also an irrational animal – his reality may dictate something other than a different or opposing reality. Choice is clearly not an option of rationality when a sphere of reality is imposed upon another.”

Humans are inescapably rational. A human will never perform an action that he does not think will maximize his own personal values. You like the Objectivists make the mistake of trying to measure preferences and values by the metric of rationality. It cannot be done; all ends are arbitrary, only means are rational or not.

“Free will is then, in all realities, philosophically abiding to suppression. Man can choose to think, drift, or evade, and he can also choose to impose. Of course, then what is interpreted as free choice is actually influence. Man’s choice is distorted depending on what reality he lives in.”

Must commies all use the same evasive language?

“Man’s thoughts are commonly based around the organization that he regards as the central order, the government that supports society.”

Eh, no. Most humans actually spend more time thinking about (and thus acting towards) non-political goals than political goals. I see this as a very beautiful thing.

“Man’s thinking is licit depending on the imposed bounds of those in power.”

No, actually freedom of thought is the one thing the powerwhores have yet to discover a way to control.

“Man is not the master of his own destiny, as another man or group of men can control destiny.”

Humans live in a world where their actions affect each other. If this rules out “free will” by your definition of the term, then just say so and stop dancing around trying to prove nonsense about ‘imposition’.

“Man is an end in himself, and not a slave to the ends of ‘society.’ Man can gain immense values from living with other men in society - namely knowledge and trade - if it is a human society. A human society is one in which each man holds as an absolute: that every man is an end in himself, and that other men are not his pawns, nor is he theirs. Or, in the words of John Galt, ‘I swear - by my life and by my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.’ Such is the credo of the rational egoist - the independent mind - who recognizes no authority higher than his own judgment of the truth. Such a moralist recognizes that man's life is the standard of value - that which supports man's life is the good, and that which destroys his life is the evil. Individualism is not opposed to man living in society. Individualism is opposed to man living in society as a slave.”

I find this creed unobjectionable.

“Due to economic and political imposition,”

There is no such thing as economic imposition. All imposition is political in nature.

“conceived as power (as determined by the history of man’s realities) as a sphere of reality, man is an end to society.”

Jesus H. flaming Christ on a popsicle stick with a chocolate crown of thorns.

Society is not a being. It has no ‘ends’.

It is true that most individuals treat other individuals as means to ends. This is harmless to the extent that humans have a disincentive to aggress on one another.

“If he were not, government would not exist;”

Government exists because it has established certain social incentives: it is not so powerful that it is immune from destruction, but it is not so tyrannical that the benefits of violently assaulting it outweigh the costs (for most people).

“capitalistic economy would not exist.”

Capitalist economy exists, always and everywhere. All economies (aggregates of mutually voluntary trading) are capitalist. Some economies host a larger socialist parasite (read: government) than others.

“A human society (contemporary society as we know it – in this example, of course a capitalist one) does offer knowledge, but offers it at a price.”

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Everything—from food to knowledge—costs time and human energy to harvest from nature.

“Knowledge is subordinate to capital. Because trade gains capital, those who control trade are then those in economic power.”

What the hell do you mean when you say ‘capital’? The word ‘capital’ in economics is usually either used to mean ‘surplus’ or to mean higher order goods, i.e. tools that are not consumed but used to manufacture other goods.

Let me tell you, life would be pretty short and shitty were it not for capital (using either definition given above).

“They are then free to set standards (impose standards) upon society via the economy.”

The fallacy of the aggregate again.

“Men are pawns because their existence depends on and therefore is subordinate to capital.”

Humans can’t survive very well without using tools. Therefore humans are slaves to tools.

What an idiot you are.

“All men persist depending on their possession of capital. There is not equilibrium in the capitalist system because some men have more power than others; the man with more money is bound to give his employees less money that he gains.”

But the employee works for him because he values the money he is paid more highly than the time and energy he spends working for his employer. In essence the employer is engaging in a mutually beneficial market transaction with his employees; he is buying their labor with his money and they are buying his money with their labor.

“This is the absolute (facts, not differing realities, that can vouch for arguements) of society.”

Unfortunately for you, statistics can never defeat logic. The subjective theory of value renders your entire argument utterly meaningless.

“Living for the sake of another man is providing him with enough money (to get resources) for him to live.”

But if the reason you are working for another man is to get the money you need to buy other things you want, then you are living for yourself, not for him. As surely as he is using you for his purposes, you are using him for yours. And there is no harm in any of this.

“This does not mention society’s bounds of that truth, bounds pertaining to classes, capital, suppression, and so forth.”

There is no such thing as society, and there is no such thing as “classes”.

“These are not man’s individual choices, but those imposed by a different sphere of reality.”

Jesus Christ! You have to be high!

“This is not to say, however, that the external force is at all necessary. Man’s independent rational and willingness to cooperate in a society (whether it is imposed or influenced) proves that state is not a necessity.”

The state is necessary for some people’s ends. It is not necessary for mine; though it is necessary for yours.

“Nevertheless, man should not have to have these rights imposed upon him from a higher organization, and pay that organization due.”

Yes…

“Instead, man should express his freedom as a collective member of society,”

No…

“Rights are exactly what the first line states: “moral principles.” I wish to emphasize the term “moral,” for there are no absolute rights. In social context, man doesn’t need a higher body to determine his rights, that is, establish the boundaries of his personal right, but instead collectively and willingly decide rights with other people.”

No, people have the ‘rights’ that they can enforce. That’s what it comes down to. If you can enforce your ‘rights’ you have them; if you can’t you don’t. This is the basic *fact* of human existence, without any ‘ought’ or ‘should’ imposed on it.

“Morally, rights should not be infringed. The example provided proves the capitalist system’s inadequacy to fulfill its statement. In other words, why should this robbery occur?”

Capitalism is only ‘robbery’ if you accept the unfounded premise that there is some objective metric for economic value (be it labor hours or whatever).

“A moral is something that is not right, but collectively considered to be proper and, by everyone’s personal right, “right.””

‘Rights’ are freeform reciprocal treaties between *individuals*.

“Morally, it is agreed personal rights shouldn’t be infringed upon. However, current capitalist governments abridge the “rights” given to (imposed on) citizens, such as America’s Patriot Act. Freedom of action is then subject to exceptions. Freedom of action should be a universal “right,” i.e., a rational necessity to life. Freedom of action is also what much of the world considers moral.”

The Objectivist—and your—commitment to ‘freedom of action’ is stupid. And there is no such thing as a capitalist government. All governments are socialist by tautology, since socialism means government control and intervention. However, not all govenments are equally active.

“When personal right is mentioned, I consider it to mean that it would have moral influence, not moral imposition.”

How would it be enforced?

“I, according to my right, consider it fine to morally influence. To impose a right, however (your right over another), is not moral. Also, capitalistic exploitation can be proven by facts and therefore is absolute”

Uh, no, because defining something as ‘exploitation’ entails a baseless value judgment.

“likewise, anything that can be proven by fact as right or wrong then can bear their titles without philosophical argument.”

Any argument that has anything to say about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ IS A FUCKING PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT. Btw, thank you for showing me just how much Objectivists and hardcore commies have in common.
Anonymouse chapter 1 . 11/17/2004
Very well written, very well said, very original.
RosElisabeth chapter 1 . 11/16/2004
Excellent.