Comments on: Deconstructing and Refuting “Anarchist” Logic On Capitalism – B.4

By: Simon Jester

Simon Jester — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:19:00 +0000

Is the immigrant who starts his own landscaping business or hot dog cart ‘elitist’ ?
It IS simple to start your own business but that doesn’t make it easy. The state creates a climate where to be a fully legal business you need to comply with codes that have you paying money for permits, special licences, approved equipment, etc. It is the state that makes it difficult and costly to start a business legally. It may be easier for those with money to start a business but money makes most kinds of projects easier. The assumption that most entrepreneurs are already rich or privileged is not born out by the facts. Most entrepreneurs did not start out rich. Obviously YOU have something to start a business with, you must have a computer or you wouldn’t have been able to comment on this. How much do you really think you need in order to start a business? Its always easier to complain than it is to take a risk. One last thing, if it wasn’t for entrepreneurs you wouldn’t have anything that you couldn’t make yourself. No computers, no cell phones, no athletic shoes, no cars, no house, no clothes, no food. Entrepreneurship is responsible for EVERYTHING we have in the modern world.

By: Dae Inaworldwithoutwalls

Dae Inaworldwithoutwalls — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:59:00 +0000

all of this elitism of the enterpeurers who assume it’s just that simple to start your own company reaks of being entitled privledged white kids from the suburbs who had every opprunity HANDED to them. Most of us don’t get that. We don’t have ANYTHING with which to start a business with. To them it’s always “well they can ask their parents for that money” except we CAN’T

By: Dae Inaworldwithoutwalls

Dae Inaworldwithoutwalls — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:58:00 +0000

it takes money to MAKE money so starting your own company is NOT free and thus the oppression continues as well. We aren’t all boundless innovators that can come up with ideas that not only change things but would be in demand high enough to support ourselves. If a risk entails the risk of stavation and death then most people will simply not take it, it’s reasonable to assume.

By: Dae Inaworldwithoutwalls

Dae Inaworldwithoutwalls — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:56:00 +0000

http://julieannamos.hubpages.com/hub/WHY-MOST-SMALL-BUSINESSES-FAIL-WITHIN-THEIR-FIRST-YEAR But as to the reasons not many of us have a vision creative and yet in demand enough to actually create demand for our pruduct. Assume we managed to pay our taxes and all of that filing properly. We still don’t have a marketable idea nor the budget for advertising which can only come from coercive labor. The average person starts off with a budget to file a business and all of that of 0.00. period. Nothing. nothing in savings, nothing at all. So even to start their own corporation they have to choose a master for a time.

By: Dae Inaworldwithoutwalls

Dae Inaworldwithoutwalls — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:53:00 +0000

the reason left libertarians attack the idea of “starting your own business” is because the vast majority of business startups fail and the result of that risk could be starvation itself. thus it’s not a worthy risk. You’re making up a fabriication that makes it look like starting a business is easy and anyone can do it without any real problems. in the current system starting your own business is a pipedream and it remains as such under a free market libertarian system.

By: Freedom vs. the State: Logic, Truth and History Always Favor Freedom… » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog

Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:37:29 +0000

[...] Michael Suede: Deconstructing and Refuting “Anarchist” Logic on Capitalism [...]

By: Michael Suede

Michael Suede — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 15:25:00 +0000

That’s exactly my point Jonathan.

Clearly one can not own labor, which is an action. However, one certainly owns the product of their labor, which is some “thing.”

While some may feel this argument supports IP, I don’t believe it does. Because clearly copying something requires it to be copied using some other resource other than what was used to create the original object.

This could be different paper, different hard drive space, or what have you. The original owner is never deprived of his resources under copying.

By: Rudd-O

Rudd-O — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 05:32:00 +0000

You guys going to address the contents of the article where it demonstrates that labor has nothing to do with ownership? Or are you going to continue in the circlejerk?

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 04:41:00 +0000

That article only states that you don’t own the action insofar as it is a concept. It makes no claims about the physical products of labor only about the actions used to complete them.

“In my view, Locke’s argument can be simplified by dropping the weird
argument that labor is owned. Homesteading still results in property
because a homesteader, by being the first to emborder or transform some
unowned resource established a better claim to that resource than any
latecomer”

Did you even read the article you posted? This is exactly what the above author is arguing.

He stated:
“And because it is self-evident that I own myself, it follows that I own the PRODUCT of my own labor.”
Not, the labor itself.

By: Michael Suede

Michael Suede — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 02:09:00 +0000

If you want to nitpick, then clearly state what the problem and your solution is.

“an alteration on it by our labour” instead of “owing the product of our labor”, I can agree to that. No need to be testy about it.