Where in the Constitution does it say anything about social engineering?
Where our labor and individual rights are subservient to the state welfare programs?
But for welfare to occur, you require structure, hierarchy, authority to forcibly confiscate wealth and redistribute it.You are evidently unfamiliar with the tenets of anarchism, which involve opposition to all unwarranted hierarchy, which would include capitalism.
You need not only law but mechanisms to forcibly steal wealth from individuals.
I believe you need to go back to the drawing board and discover who you really are or want to be.* "No rulership or enforced authority." 
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."
* A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists).
* Independent from rule or authority.
Anarchist sounds cool... but looks silly if you contradict yourself with such panache.
Perhaps you could start a new sect: Amarxists. Marxists who are confused and believe they are Anarchists.
Last edited by zimmer; 03-19-09 at 07:58 AM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
The bald fact of the matter is that Marx was quite simply completely wrong, and there never was any such thing as "surplus value", nor was there this "coercion" you allege.
As Noam Chomsky notes:
So I'd advise you to correct the fallacy, and then move on to collecting empirical evidence to support your claims.Well, it's true that the anarchist vision in just about all its varieties looks forward to dismantling state power-and personally I share that vision. But right now it runs directly counter to my goals: my immediate goals have been, and now very much are, to defend and even strenghten certain elements of state authority that are now under severe attack. And I don't think there's any contradiction there-none at all, really.
For example, take the so-called "welfare state." What's been called the "welfare state" is essentially a recognition that every child has a right to have food, and to have health care and so on-and as I've been saying, these programs were set up in the nation-state system after a century of very hard struggle, by the labor movement, and the socialist movement, and so on. Well, according to the new spirit of the age, in the case of a fourteen-year-old girl (sic) who got raped and has a child, her child has to learn "personal responsibility" by not accepting state welfare handouts, meaning, by not having enough to eat. Alright, I don't agree with that on any level. In fact, I think it's grotesque at any level. I think those children should be saved. And in today's world, that's going to have to involve working through the state system; it's not the only case.
So despite the anarchist "vision," I think aspects of the state system, like the one that makes sure children eat, have to be defended-in fact, defended very vigorously. And given the accelerating effort that's being made these days to roll back the victories for justice and human rights in the West, in my opinion the immediate goal of even committed anarchists should be to defend some state institutions, while helping to pry them open to more meaningful public participation, and ultimately to dismantle them in a much more free society.
Underpaid and Overworked: Measuring the Effect of Imperfect Information on Wages, which incorporates the stochastic frontier regression technique to reach its conclusions regarding mass underpayment of workers.
As noted by the abstract:
As to the coercive nature of capitalism, it's simply a matter of the aforementioned utilization of wage labor. Since the means of production are privately owned, large components of the public have no alternative but to subordinate themselves under an employer. The best way to illustrate this form of authoritarianism is to use the "robbery analogy." If a person were to be violently tackled by an assailant and have his/her valuables torn out of his/her pockets, we would accurately call this a robbery. Now, if the assailant were to instead point a gun at the victim and demand that the valuables be surrendered, we would still call this a robbery, as coercion was used to gain the valuables, if not outright physical violence. The fact that the victim technically "consented" to surrender his/her valuables is not pertinent, since it was consent yielded while under duress.This paper investigates the degree of shortfall between the wages workers earn and what they could earn assuming perfect or costless information in the labor market. The authors use the stochastic frontier regression technique to estimate the degree of shortfall found in wages on an individual basis. The paper tests, in addition, a number of hypotheses supplied by search theory in this context. The results generally confirm the propositions from search theory and indicate that, on the average, worker wages fall short of worker potential wages by approximately 10 percent.
The former example represents the direct tyranny of statism, often blunt, direct, and brutal, whereas the latter represents the more subtle tyranny of capitalism, specifically wage labor, in which a person technically "consents" to work for an employer, but does this only because he/she has no other alternative for sustenance.
Moreover, while laborers work for a capitalist employer, a significant component of value above their pay, or surplus value, is extracted from their labor during the production process, another unjust imposition of private ownership. That unjust extraction of surplus value is then followed by a "subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation," as was mentioned above.
The worker is not peddling "information", he is peddling his day's work, so your attempted doublespeak about "information" is summarily rejected as off-topic. It is poppycock, new age, redefinitionist, mumbo jumbo, crap, and I'm not fooled for a second.
Further, if private ownership is unjust then what about that worker privately owning his "labor factory" ?
You sound like a Marxist:
More and more...That is the value of free speech.
People identify their true selves.
Of course, in Obama's case... they attack those that get the Oaf to say what he really means.
No.As Noam Chomsky notes:
For example, take the so-called "welfare state."
What's been called the "welfare state" is essentially a recognition that every child has a right to have food, and to have health care and so on-and as I've been saying, these programs were set up in the nation-state system after a century of very hard struggle, by the labor movement, and the socialist movement, and so on.
There is no "right" to have food.
That is a responsibility by parents.
When they cannot fulfill this simple responsibility, others usually step in.
It's compassion that triggers these responses.
This is a pretty big concession for an Anarchist.
Health care is not a right either.
It's a service.
You can try to make it a "right" through coercion.
By forcing individuals, Doctors to provide care.
Not quite the anarchists mode... perhaps the Amarxists.
Like this is a common occurrence.Well, according to the new spirit of the age, in the case of a fourteen-year-old girl (sic) who got raped and has a child, her child has to learn "personal responsibility" by not accepting state welfare handouts, meaning, by not having enough to eat.
This is the typical Marxist ploy; take a freak and use THAT as the baseline.
Make the remainder of society pay for the rare occurrence.
You know, there are a lot of charities that help such people.
Of course ObaMarx wants to cut deductions for individuals supporting such organizations.
Saved?I think those children should be saved. And in today's world, that's going to have to involve working through the state system; it's not the only case.
Helped... yes, and private organizations are there if family is not.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
Well the question of health care fore children is a basic choice between who you want to "punish" for the mistake of the parents. Either the innocent child that don't get the health care it's need or the taxpayer that gets a bit higher taxes. Personally I choose to "punish" the taxpayer over the child. Also raising a child takes 18 years so it can be very hard to predict everything that can happen during all those years. That you can have a hard working tax payers that get a child, but after 12 years her partner dies and she loses her job at the same time. Then it could be good to have the security that the child at least get the healthcare it needs.
Also I don't think health care will lead to a lot more children. Because even with payed health care it will be a lot of cost having children. Instead things like saying that after day pills are murder or that condoms are bad have a lot more responsibility for unwanted pregnancies.
Last edited by Bergslagstroll; 03-19-09 at 10:16 AM.
If I have a 'right' to health care, then by definition some other individual must be coerced to provide it. The same with food or shelter.
On the other hand, I can exercise my 'right to free speech' by disgorging voluminous posts on message boards from sunup to sundown... and no one else need lift a finger.