Argumentation ethics: the ultimate justification of capitalism over socialism?

[sarahj]

There is no such thing then as a free market because every single country has some form of restrictions on capitalism for social reasons. Even in the US there are regulations on business and in some states these are quite considerable. Socilaism is the state control of the elements of production. Therefore this is totalitarianism because consumers are not free to choose. Not exactly the gulag but still a restriction.

That's simply not true. The socialist system is not "state" control of elements of production. That is state socialism, one type of socialism and the type which has been tried. Socialism itself refers to SOCIETAL control, not state control. That control can come in different forms - one person, councils, a party or everyone. In a libertarian socialist economy, decisions are made ONLY by workers and consumers. As opposed to a market economy, where the boss makes the decisions and the only decision a consumer can make is whether or not to buy a product, in a libertarian socialist economy, consumers have input into what is produced, how and how much (obv depending on the sustainability and the input of the workers).

Yes, the U.S. is very much a state capitalist economy. I never said any different. And the restrictions on the free market are to inhibit its negative effects on the propertyless.

[sarahj]

Why is it 'only' given a bad name if its a legal monopoly?? Do you not consider a private monopoly to be a bad thing?

I don't think he does. We already had this argument. That a monopoly is a monopoly whether or not the govt granted it/allowed it. The causes are different but the effects are the same.

[Christel]

May I ask for the definition of "libertarian" used here? I read the OP's link, and "libertarian" can mean nearly anything it seems.
I tried to find a translation into German, but wasn't successful.

What's the difference between libertarian and liberal? I'm lacking a piece of code here, it seems.

[sarahj]

May I ask for the definition of "libertarian" used here? I read the OP's link, and "libertarian" can mean nearly anything it seems.
I tried to find a translation into German, but wasn't successful.

What's the difference between libertarian and liberal? I'm lacking a piece of code here, it seems.

They're pretty much the same - both are about freedom and rights. And both can come from two differing points of view.

The term libertarian socialist is pretty much another word for a collective anarchist or an anarcho-socialist. That's kinda the broad position I would take.

Whereas (not to speak on behalf of 2000 miles) he is a different type of libertarian, an individualist anarchist ot the anarcho-capitalist kind.

It's pretty confusing and w seem poles apart (and often think we are) but the two positions are very similar in their goals of the elimination of hierarchy and the importance of freedom. However, we differ on the economic system that we feel can make this happen best. 2000 miles believes the free market can bring freedom. I disagree with everything that I am and believe that collective decisions on the distribution of resources is the only sustainable fair way to have freedom.

We are both idealists and both want the best for society but differ in how to get there.

I hope that was of some use to you!

[sauntersplash]

[COLOR=#0066cc]Hans-Hermann Hoppe[/COLOR]'s "argumentation ethics" is a defense of [COLOR=#0066cc]libertarian[/COLOR] rights. Hoppe...asserts that argumentation, or discourse, is by its nature a conflict-free way of interacting and requires individual control of resources; thus, he argues, certain norms are presupposed as true by anyone engaging in genuine discourse. These norms include the libertarian principle of non-aggression, which itself implies libertarian rights. Therefore, no one can argumentatively deny libertarian rights without self-contradiction.

I feel that the fundamental flaw of contemporary political debate is this presupposition. There is no such thing as 'genuine discourse' as it is meant here. The 'norms' which are 'presupposed' are a western liberal fantasy. The global political discourse in our time is defined by a fundamental incompatibility of norms. Debate is reduced to an endless repetition of novelty-jargon, which nobody believes. It is a shadow play. The traditional hegelian dialectic implied by this understanding is a thing of the past in the western world, as are the concepts capitalist/socialist, bourgeoisie/proletariat, owner/producer, reactionary/revolutionary. The 'growth' of societies is a dream.

[FONT=Times New Roman]

[FONT=Verdana]Now, propositional exchanges are not made up of free-floating propositions, but [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]rather constitute a specific human activity. Argumentation between Crusoe and Friday [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]requires that both have, and mutually recognize each other as having, exclusive control [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]over their respective bodies (their brain, vocal chords, etc.) as well as the standing room [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]occupied by their bodies. No one could propose anything and expect the other party to [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]convince himself of the validity of this proposition or deny it and propose something else [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]unless his and his opponent’s right to exclusive control over their respective bodies and [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]standing rooms were presupposed. In fact, it is precisely this mutual recognition of the[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]proponent’s as well as the opponent’s property in his own body and standing room which [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana]constitutes the characteristicum specificum of all propositional disputes: that while one [/FONT]may not agree regarding the validity of a specific proposition, one can agree nonetheless on the fact that one disagrees. Moreover, this right to property in one’s own body and its
standing room must be considered apriori [FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana](or indisputably) justified by proponent and [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]opponent alike. Anyone who claimed any proposition as valid vis-à-vis an opponent [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]would already presuppose his and his opponent’s exclusive control over their respective [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]body and standing room simply in order to say “I claim such and such to be true, and I [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]challenge you to prove me wrong.” [p.5][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana]Now I'm no philosopher. Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana]A collection of arguentation ethics texts: Hoppe: Selected Topics[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana]A couple of criticisms:[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Polycentric Order: The Problem With Argumentation Ethics[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]

[/FONT]

Classic category mistake. There is a difference between asserting that the body is the fundamental space where the flows of power structures are inscribed as say, Foucault, might and attempting to found a totalising economic social reality on this kind of sophomoric metaphysical fencing.

[sarahj]

I feel that the fundamental flaw of contemporary political debate is this presupposition. There is no such thing as 'genuine discourse' as it is meant here. The 'norms' which are 'presupposed' are a western liberal fantasy. The global political discourse in our time is defined by a fundamental incompatibility of norms. Debate is reduced to an endless repetition of novelty-jargon, which nobody believes. It is a shadow play. The traditional hegelian dialectic implied by this understanding is a thing of the past in the western world, as are the concepts capitalist/socialist, bourgeoisie/proletariat, owner/producer, reactionary/revolutionary. The 'growth' of societies is a dream.

I agree with you on that point sauntersplash. In fact these "presuppositions" or "assumptions" are what are holding us back. They instill such a fixed view of the world that no problem can ever be solved from inside such a tight box.

[Hazlitt]

..The socialist system is not "state" control of elements of production. That is state socialism, one type of socialism and the type which has been tried. Socialism itself refers to SOCIETAL control, not state control. That control can come in different forms - one person, councils, a party or everyone.

You say potatoe... etc. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

Are you saying that you cannot equate state control of the means of production with "council" control of the means of production?? Come on !

> One person control over the means of production is a dictatorship.
> Council control over the means of production is the same as party/state control (the only difference may be number of members and name!)
> Everyone - how do you propose this would work? Is it 50.1% of the population get their way, and the other 49.9% inclusive of minorities can go rot !?

.. a market economy, where the boss makes the decisions and the only decision a consumer can make is whether or not to buy a product

...and the consumer (everybody) ultimately directs what society is to produce and in what quantities. In a way it's 'ultimate democracy' as everyone gets a vote in what they want/dont want. The only way "the boss" can stay in business is by satisfying consumer demands.

, in a libertarian socialist economy, consumers have input into what is produced, how and how much (obv depending on the sustainability and the input of the workers).

Can you elaborate on the final sentence here please?

[sarahj]

You say potatoe... etc. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

Are you saying that you cannot equate state control of the means of production with "council" control of the means of production?? Come on !

> One person control over the means of production is a dictatorship.
> Council control over the means of production is the same as party/state control (the only difference may be number of members and name!)
> Everyone - how do you propose this would work? Is it 50.1% of the population get their way, and the other 49.9% inclusive of minorities can go rot !?

It all depends on the structure of the councils (nested councils perhaps) and whether members act as delegates rather than representatives.

Some sort of consensus would hopefully come about based on debate. I can't say exactly how this would happen but there would need to be regular open debate on issues. I'm not saying whether direct votes or councils are the most feasible options, but the focus has to be on consensus, debate and cooperation. ZNet - ParPolity, updated 11/05 there are some great ideas in here for making it work. With internet access in most areas in the country, direct votes can happen easily on many important issues. There's a great bit in this article about users as developers and consumers as producers in the online arena - http://www.extremedemocracy.com/chap...n-Mayfield.pdf I don't have all the answers, I'm just here to challenge your ideas and put some of mine forward. After all, libertarian capitalism is just as theoretical as libertarian socialism.

...and the consumer (everybody) ultimately directs what society is to produce and in what quantities. In a way it's 'ultimate democracy' as everyone gets a vote in what they want/dont want. The only way "the boss" can stay in business is by satisfying consumer demands.

That's misrepresentation of the situation. The situation can never be an "ultimate democracy" unless every person has access to capital, which cannot come about without a redistribution of goods. That redistribution would have to occur by force (not my words, but those of the OP).

Can you elaborate on the final sentence here please?

In brief, I meant that workers would have an equal input over their working conditions as the potential consumers would (as they have expertise which is unique to them AND they should be able to control their working situations). On the sustainability issue - a libertarian socialist society would fulfill everyone's (real and perceived) needs so long as the resources can be sustained...ie we wouldn't decide to produce diesel cars for everyone as the fuel use isn't sustainable) instead we would surely decide to put as many researchers as possible into renerwable energy projects.

[sarahj]

It all depends on the structure of the councils (nested councils perhaps) and whether members act as delegates rather than representatives.

Some sort of consensus would hopefully come about based on debate. I can't say exactly how this would happen but there would need to be regular open debate on issues. I'm not saying whether direct votes or councils are the most feasible options, but the focus has to be on consensus, debate and cooperation. ZNet - ParPolity, updated 11/05 there are some great ideas in here for making it work. With internet access in most areas in the country, direct votes can happen easily on many important issues. There's a great bit in this article about users as developers and consumers as producers in the online arena - http://www.extremedemocracy.com/chap...n-Mayfield.pdf I don't have all the answers, I'm just here to challenge your ideas and put some of mine forward. After all, libertarian capitalism is just as theoretical as libertarian socialism.

I want to add, too, that in the society which I describe, the goals of equity, sustainability and democracy would be key. That debate on issues would be restricted to a certain extent to the achievement of these goals. This would help in reaching consensus as there should be only one way of achieving these goals in any given situation most of the time.

[Hazlitt]

It all depends on the structure of the councils (nested councils perhaps) ... I'm not saying whether direct votes or councils are the most feasible options, but the focus has to be on consensus, debate and cooperation. ZNet - ParPolity, updated 11/05

Hi sarahj, I've read some of that article, and it appears that it deals with the desired goals rather than how to achieve them. There is no concrete proposal for what you are looking for.

I also want to point out that this idea of 'councils' and 'nested councils' is a form of state. Ireland, France & the USA have states, but they are all structured differently. What you (and the ZNet article) propose is a political system (one which doesn't deal with resource allocation btw) and certainly it is just another form of state, just structured differently.

With internet access in most areas in the country, direct votes can happen easily on many important issues.

I think this is an idea our system (at the very least locally) could try adopt and use more of. Of course, our elected representatives probably wouldn't be tremendously keen on having any of their political capital or clout eroded by this measure....but that's another debate altogether. I think it's a good idea.

I don't have all the answers, I'm just here to challenge your ideas and put some of mine forward.

"Ditto" as you say. Discussion of ideas always welcome.

..The situation can never be an "ultimate democracy" unless every person has access to capital, which cannot come about without a redistribution of goods..

I don't agree with this. The way to have access to capital in a capitalistic society is to provide others with what they want. Abstention from a transaction can equally be regarded as a vote as much as participation in a transaction.

In brief, I meant that workers would have an equal input over their working conditions as the potential consumers would (as they have expertise which is unique to them AND they should be able to control their working situations). On the sustainability issue - a libertarian socialist society would fulfill everyone's (real and perceived) needs so long as the resources can be sustained...ie we wouldn't decide to produce diesel cars for everyone as the fuel use isn't sustainable) instead we would surely decide to put as many researchers as possible into renerwable energy projects.

Can you theorise as to how a society would determine everybodys 'real and perceived' needs?

With regards to your example of reallocating labour into research areas, my problem with this is that it is close to impossible for a council or councils to have all the information necessary to decide where these resources should be allocated and also in what quantity, simply because of all the unseen alternatives and tradeoffs. This in my opinion is socialisms major problem.