Quote :

"So then you define ownership as what the collective of individuals (ie. the government) dictates you own? If so, that's fine, that's a different definition of ownership than the one I am attempting to address."

No, ownership is possession enforced by force or threat of force. That people have decided to form governments to act as a mutual force is besides the point. Ownership exists outside of the government. But if you boiled everything else away, and had just you and me, and you had a dog (or any other object), and I took that dog from you, all of the ranting in the world about your right to own that dog would be nothing if you could not defend your claim to that dog in some way, and force me to relinquish the dog to you. Agreements can be made so that force is not used, but ultimately the agreement is just a threat of force.

Quote :

"I didn't know we were shifting the conversation from capital ownership to self ownership. It's much easier to define self ownership in a less arbitrary way."

So then give it to us. Give us a definition of ownership which does not rely on the use of force.

5/12/2010 7:11:27 PM

Quote :

"But if you boiled everything else away, and had just you and me, and you had a dog (or any other object), and I took that dog from you, all of the ranting in the world about your right to own that dog would be nothing if you could not defend your claim to that dog in some way, and force me to relinquish the dog to you. Agreements can be made so that force is not used, but ultimately the agreement is just a threat of force."

I made the same argument a few months ago. I'm surprised you didn't see the thread.

Quote :

"So then give it to us. Give us a definition of ownership which does not rely on the use of force."

It's irrelevant whether it will work or not, or whatever you're getting at, that's not what I'm asking for.

5/12/2010 7:19:52 PM

It seems like if worker-owned capitalism was so effective and/or popular, it would be somewhat prevalent.

5/12/2010 10:06:45 PM

^ Yeah, that's kind of what I'm thinking, hence the question about a comparison between traditional corporate compensation and hours worked vs worker-owned/cooperative. Still waiting though...

5/12/2010 11:09:56 PM

I also expect people to do my research for me.

I'm still waiting as well.

5/13/2010 12:17:25 AM

Quote :

"I didn't know we were shifting the conversation from capital ownership to self ownership."

what's the difference? are slaves not capital?

5/13/2010 6:56:44 AM

^^ I'm not the one who made the claim that workers were better off under a cooperative system. Burden of proof and all that jazz. Besides, I have done a few quick searches, and all I can find are vague claims and propaganda with no actual studies.

5/13/2010 7:24:36 AM

Quote :

"what's the difference? are slaves not capital?"

Capital is by definition non-human, otherwise there would be no distinction between capital and labor.

Quote :

"I'm not the one who made the claim that workers were better off under a cooperative system. Burden of proof and all that jazz. Besides, I have done a few quick searches, and all I can find are vague claims and propaganda with no actual studies."

I'm not either, but even still, you can't assume it to be false because no one provides you with evidence to prove it true.

5/13/2010 1:37:57 PM

Quote :

"Capital is by definition non-human"

well, that's awful arbitrary, don't you think?

Quote :

"otherwise there would be no distinction between capital and labor"

not at all. What is different about owning a machine that makes a widget and owning a slave that makes the widget? Very little, ultimately. If you pay neither of them, then I see no difference. You are confusing labour with the worker himself.

5/14/2010 8:07:25 PM

Quote :

"well, that's awful arbitrary, don't you think?"

I don't think assigning meanings to words is arbitrary, blue is blue for a reason. Arbitrary and exclusive aren't the same thing.

Quote :

"What is different about owning a machine that makes a widget and owning a slave that makes the widget?"

One is labor and the other is capital.

5/14/2010 9:40:52 PM

so, you aren't going to support your statement with fact. typical Kris.

tell us more about how Republicans are filibustering in the House, dude

5/16/2010 1:44:39 PM

Quote :

"so, you aren't going to support your statement with fact."

What? On the definition of a word? Are you serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_capital

Quote :

"physical capital refers to any non-human asset made by humans and then used in production"

There, are you done with your stupid semantics argument?

5/16/2010 1:51:54 PM

well then, that's simple. I'll just define you as being sub-human. And then you can be physical capital again. So a dog can be capital but a person can't? How the fuck is that NOT arbitrary again?

5/16/2010 2:13:06 PM

Quote :

"'ll just define you as being sub-human. And then you can be physical capital again."

This is the definition of a semantics argument.

Quote :

"So a dog can be capital but a person can't? How the fuck is that NOT arbitrary again?"

A dog is a DOG, and a person is a PERSON. It's not arbitrary by the way the words are defined. Arbitrary would be something that you can't concretely define a distinction between. We can easily define a distinction between a dog and a person, one is a dog, the other is a person. In the same way we can define capital as non-human assets, and labor as human assets.

5/16/2010 3:09:31 PM

paid labor isn't capital, it's labor (or sometimes called "human capital").

There are some economics or business professor rolling in their grave at burro's argument.

5/16/2010 3:26:59 PM

it's not at all semantic. if it is, then you bitching about what people "own" is equally semantic. and that's what I've been getting at.

^ a slave isn't paid shit. so what would he fall under? that's right, CAPITAL. w00t!

5/16/2010 10:56:13 PM

Quote :

"it's not at all semantic"

Yes it is, just look below:
I'll just define you as being sub-human.
Redefining words is an indicator of a semantics argument.

Quote :

"if it is, then you bitching about what people "own" is equally semantic."

My argument is that the common libertarians concept of ownership is arbitrary.

Quote :

"^ a slave isn't paid shit. so what would he fall under? that's right, CAPITAL."

No. Labor isn't defined by whether it's paid or not, it is defined by whether or not it is a product of HUMAN effort. Capital is defined as NON-HUMAN goods that are used in the production of other goods.

[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 11:42 PM. Reason : ]

5/16/2010 11:42:22 PM

You'll have to excuse burro, he doesn't understand how rational discussion works.

5/17/2010 12:52:16 AM

and if I truly believe that you aren't human, then you can clearly be capital. sorry, but you have lost this one.

5/18/2010 9:11:21 PM

if I truly believe that red is actually blue, then red is blue. sorry, but you have lost this one.

5/19/2010 2:10:13 AM

5/19/2010 2:54:13 AM

unfortunately, you have based it all on an arbitrary decision: not to include humans in capital, even though we include other life-forms in it. seems arbitrary, if you ask me...

5/19/2010 6:41:41 PM

The definition of capital is not arbitrary.

5/19/2010 7:24:49 PM

only, it is. today's labour is yesterday's capital

5/19/2010 8:39:36 PM

Your argument is the same as "red is purple because if you add blue to red you get purple"

5/20/2010 1:10:56 AM

only, not at all.

5/20/2010 6:47:52 PM