Thanks for engaging with me today made the day go by so much quicker at work…sorry was unable to respond to every question (rebuilding a 4 cycle engine which I changed the cylinder out and rebuilt carb…still doens’t work, frustrated…but getting to go home now so gives me something to do tomorrow) and I am sure we will continue this engagement again at a latter time

“The market is a consumers’ democracy.” this is a fallacy and a misuse of the word Democracy…Democracy demands equality of personhood where one person is fundmentally equal to the other in that his/her/it’s vote counts exactly as much as does any other…the Market reflects no such demand and is subject to the will of Capitol…that peverts the collective WILL..the many may demand Mosquito nets to prevent malaria but unless their is the Capitol their collective pleas will go unaddressed and the Market will still grind out I-Pods…if the Market was a Democracy of equals then we would not be having this arguement

and going back to my little problem with reduction of people to property that those who profess property rights demand…one can regulate a PERSON one can’t regulate a THING/Property…my LAW that says one can’t strike another with a HAMMER has not regulated the HAMMER but PEOPLE…the whole Libertarian NeoCon nonsense dilebrately confuse this issue…so I can regulate and infringe upon what people sell and how they sell it without infringing upon THE MARKET nor enslaved my breathern

“The syndicalists want to transform it into a producers’ democracy.”

YES this is the point of anarchosyndiclism

“This idea is fallacious, for the sole end and purpose of production is consumption.”

I for the life of me have no earthy idea what this means…this does not remove in the least Democratic Production should bow before “Democratic Consumption”…sorry there is nothing to this arguement other than one of aesthetics…he/she favors Consumption because he likes it, ?I favor Production because I like it…and would bet dollar to donuts that if the Consumption was based on Democratic principles and not monatary one’s he/she wouldn’t favor democratizing what the Market is geared towards…so I maintain its a false arguement and intellectually dishonest as I maintain a good chunk of the author’s other points

“In [the syndicalist's] eyes the individual plant or workshop as it exists and operates today is a permanent establishment. It will never change. It will always turn out the same products. He ignores completely the fact that conditions are in a ceaseless flux, and that the industrial structure must be daily adjusted to the solution of new problems.”

No Sysndiclist would ever make this arguement…it is a cariciture of the ideology…quite the opposite…syndiclist would say that one demands more democratic control because of the need to continuously adapt to changing material conditions…sorry Democratic institution can closer reflect changing dynamics in a community or society the any form of hierachical one…yes decession making is easier in autocratic ones (BIDDNESS as it is now constituted is autocratic at its best and totalitarian at its worst) but history has shown us that Autocratic bodies change slower than democratic ones.

the author I believe is not engaged in meaningful discussion but grinding axes…COOL I do this from time to time…but hope I try to maintain some semblance intellectual honesty…I may cliff notes my oppositions ideas but do not completely reframe them to suit my ends…

my ideology is not set in granite but is hard enough to sustain me through life…and I recognize the flaws in my philosphies

Thanks for your reply.

“Are you arguing the actions of a capitalist only benefit him/herself?”

yes they are primarily to the benifit of the individual that what it means by definition…now while Alexander conquering the world brought the Helenistic tradition to greater prominence and I sorta favor that I shan’t say it was worth it or to the greater good or any other such nonsense…what he did he did out of service to self any ancilary benifits do not factor into the equation morally speaking…otherwise Annabella slavery should be praised for extending the natural life span of African slaves…it gets worst too Colonolilism, Imperilalism WARS all have “benifited” individuals and socities

“Are you arguing for individual property rights to enable personal autonomy and security of person and property OR are you arguing for collective rights to property and thus collective decisions over property and the actions of people?”

this is hard to fashion truthfully…Locke knew there was a thorn inside his theory and that was the finite nature of the World…so there is his caveat of “As good and of the same quaility” in saying that one was free to mix one’s labor with the material sbubstence and thus secure ownership…this is a problem that both Capitolist and socialist overlooked in crafting their individual theories..they both accept and demand infinite growth to ensure material progress…

while I don’t buy the whole PEAK EVERYTHING movement I do believe there is limits to the material world…this limits can only be recognized collectively which constrains “individual autonomy” in a certian manner namely doing as one pleased with the material world regaurdless of its impact upon others…this in my opinine isn’t the same enfrindgement upon a person as BONDAGE…and there is degrees…so we are in a balencing act…I try to fudge the issue with the personal individual is autonomous and secured in self (able to decide any and all issues that only reflect upon self)…when in relation to the material world he/she/it will be in relation to others and therefore all decesions must take into account the other

is this perfect…HE!# NO!!! I recognize this

no more answers…

“The root of the syndicalist idea is to be seen in the belief that entrepreneurs and capitalists are irresponsible autocrats”

Strawman arguement no Syndiclist would make that arguement other to rouse the troops…if one is curious as to what most syndiclist accept or argue…one can’t beat Rudolph Rockers Anarchosyndiclistn also rocker’s Nationalism and Culture would offer one of the best primers of and Anarchist picture of Western Civilization…along with the normal junk of Noam Choamsky and Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia…gives an honest broker account of the last time Anarchism was given an honest try on Catalonia and Barceleona during the Spainish War

Thanks for your reply.

>> I will oppose all forms of relations that people “freely” enter into that are explotive….I won’t do the dance either of “if the relation were explotive by it basic nature it could never be classified as freely undertaken”

Can you provide examples of what you mean by exploitative given the scenario of someone voluntarily making a contract with another party.

A few maxims of law might be useful in considering how the law can provide remedy for bad faith in voluntary contracts:

#A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null.
#He who contracts, knows, or ought to know, the quality of the person with whom he contracts, otherwise he is not excusable.
# A concealed fault is equal to a deceit.
# He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived.
# Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.

http://ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html

>> I try to maintain balence personal autonomy with equality

If I may, this sounds like a passionate argument for adherence to common law to which everyone has an equal access.

>> I know I slide on the question of property rights

If the below proof of property rights is valid, you have proved both your property and your rights to it by engaging in our exchange of questions.

Freedomain Radio: A Proof of Property Rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tobN6iY4iIs

“It is impossible to argue against property without using property.”

Would you agree?

as to this question “So, you support ALL voluntary relations, yet oppose the voluntary relations you don’t like? Isn’t this an inconsistency?”

yea I’ll cop to that…I will oppose all forms of relations that people “freely” enter into that are explotive….I won’t do the dance either of “if the relation were explotive by it basic nature it could never be classified as freely undertaken” that modern Libertarians do to dance away from Slavery

I think the ideaology I try to maintain balence personal autonomy with equality…if I am to err it would be on the side of equality because I maitain it ensures stability and dictates of personal empathy make this demand upon me…so if one wishes to reduces my arguement to one a Yea Boo…I will accept that and willing go into the public domain with them as they stand because I don’t believe I need a giant speghetti monster (GOD, Transedental TRUTH, or REASON} in the sky for my ideas to garner acceptence…an honest debate my side wins

even Nozick admitted that Rawls system would be the one he would accept therefore his little venture was intellectal masturbation

>> Property Rights sound purdy but there is no foundation to this RIGHT or any RIGHT it is habit

Can YOU explain why this is so?

Thanks.

Thanks for the reply.

>> Capitolism is predicated upon self enrichment

Are you arguing the actions of a capitalist only benefit him/herself?

>> it is worth it for the increased security and personal autonomy…but that is for us collectivally to decide

Are you arguing for individual property rights to enable personal autonomy and security of person and property OR are you arguing for collective rights to property and thus collective decisions over property and the actions of people?

>> I admit fully my system is unable to maintain the current world levels of production…so there would be a lost in some material comfort

Are any of the following criticisms of syndicalism valid?

Mises Institute — The Fallacies of Syndicalism
‘The root of the syndicalist idea is to be seen in the belief that entrepreneurs and capitalists are irresponsible autocrats who are free to conduct their affairs arbitrarily. The fundamental error of this argument is obvious. The entrepreneurs and capitalists are not irresponsible autocrats. They are unconditionally subject to the sovereignty of the consumers. The market is a consumers’ democracy. The syndicalists want to transform it into a producers’ democracy. This idea is fallacious, for the sole end and purpose of production is consumption.

Under the competitive conditions of the unhampered market economy the entrepreneurs are forced to improve technological methods of production without regard to the vested interests of the workers. The employer is forced never to pay workers more than corresponds to the consumers’ appraisal of their achievements. …consumers are not prepared to pay more for any commodity merely because the worker has a large family.

In [the syndicalist's] eyes the individual plant or workshop as it exists and operates today is a permanent establishment. It will never change. It will always turn out the same products. He ignores completely the fact that conditions are in a ceaseless flux, and that the industrial structure must be daily adjusted to the solution of new problems. His world view is stationary. It does not allow for new branches of business, new products, and new and better methods for manufacturing the old products. Thus the syndicalist ignores the essential problems of entrepreneurship: providing the capital for new industries and the expansion of already existing industries, restricting outfits for the products of which demand drops, technological improvement. It is not unfair to call syndicalism the economic philosophy of short-sighted people

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec2.asp

Lockean Property Rights are a corner stone of modern Western Thought just as much as the Great Unmoved Mover was before him….but our need for Causality lead us to that Aritsitiliean conception but when this is pushed on there ain’t much to it…Property Rights sound purdy but there is no foundation to this RIGHT or any RIGHT it is habit…and a Habit that is destructive and catches its purponets in easy snares… namely Suicide and Slavery…the little appeal to reason they use to try to unsnare themselves don’t work…unless your are under the habit to begin with…Locke created this little folly to rationalize his betters owning of that which was given in Common…and ever since it has entrapped everyone from Marx to Alan Greenspan

“Why would it be that there is only one party (A) who has food to offer?”

as you have rightly pointed out relations in a society are multi spectral…ABCDEFGH and so forth…an Anarchist would maintain that individual relations are what WE are striving for…to turn every encounter into an “ENDS” based encounter (using the Kantian conception)…and in every exchange no party can benifit greater than the other…Capitolism is predicated upon self enrichment I am not making a Normative claim here…I am not ascribing whether this is good or bad.

the problem of complexity (ABCDEFG) leads a large swath of my brethern into the Primitive anarchist camp…because of the nature of production has so drastically altered human interaction they wish to roll back the clock to aid in maintaining this ENDs based relation…I am in the anarcho-syndiclist fraction that wishes to hold onto some of the material advances via democratic control over the means of production…but admit in my system the balence of retaining personal autonomy and equality at the same time is HARD if not impossible…I admit fully my system is unable to maintain the current world levels of production…so there would be a lost in some material comfort…but would argue that it is worth it for the increased security and personal autonomy…but that is for us collectivally to decide

and sorry Pluristically is the only way we as a species can hope to govern ourselves

Also, re Ron Paul’s speech “NEO-CONNED!” in this case, the otherwise insightful Ron Paul is speaking from personal experience: He named his son, Rand Paul, after AYN RAND, one of the infamous Radical Right-Wing (female) GOD-FATHERS of the Neo-Con movement – she’s right up there with Leo Strauss, Milton Friedman, Irving Kristol, and “Dr. Death” Henry Kissinger!!
Wow – Ron Paul, nothing less than the one “Great white hope” of the WASP “heartland” American voters – most of whom arent’ reflexively ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ (eg. Minnesota and Kansas populists, Ohio & Michigan blue-collar workers, etc.) – who feel besieged by minorities, immigrants, and now the Israel war lobby (Neo-Con) dominance of both parties
(which is to say, “America’s entire government, press/media, war department, state department, Big Business, Big Finance, and economic system”) –
– well, THAT Ron Paul named his son after one of the insane icons of the Neo-Con elitists, economy killers, and nuclear (warmongering) extortionists!