Stolen company

Who defends society: socialists or liberals? Although it may seem absurd to somewhere, the greatest defenders of society are liberals and libertarians, although the words "society" are shielded today. Unfortunately.

Iam the 99%?
Iam the 99%?

We often hear this: "it's nice that you care about the individual, the individual, but you also need to think about society!"

A liberal (or libertarian, as you wish) usually says something in the sense that the basis of society is the individual (at best) or that society does not exist (at worst).

It is true that "society" does not physically exist and that the basis of society is the individual, but the core of the argument should be a little different.

SOCIETY

What exactly is a "society"? It is a voluntary association of different individuals. Diversity is a condition for the emergence of a society - people specialize comparatively in what they are best at, in what they differ, so that they can then offer the skills to others for exchange (what others specialize in).

We can easily apply the law of comparative advantage to society and its origin. Mises had already done so, calling it "Ricardo's Law of Association."

The catch is that this is the basis of any market. The company is thus nothing more than a de facto market - for example, the interpersonal market. A great "metatrh".

Society versus government

There is no need for a government to form a society. As has been said, it arises spontaneously, through the decisions and actions of individuals. It is precisely voluntary cooperation that shapes society and enables it to grow, ie to improve the lives of individuals living in it. It is an environment of voluntary cooperation, ie a market. Capitalism is then a system of voluntary cooperation - capitalism is a system based on the existence of society.

The only thing the government "can" do is enforce. However, enforcement is the opposite of voluntariness. It is clear from this that the biggest anti-social element is the government.

It was the classical liberals who stood up to the absolutist rulers. However, they did not just defend "the market" or "the freedom of the individual", defended society, a free society.

It is sad that socialists of all colors and kinds usurped that "defense of society" for themselves. It does not matter whether there is one big absolutist or many small absolutist dictators called "people", the essence is still the same - the possibility of enforcing, the possibility of various power interventions to disrupt the structure of voluntary relations throughout society.

It was the liberals who defended society. Under the guise of defending society, socialists form the world of dictatorship, the world of government - a world in which society, that is, the market, cannot function. There is no free society if we destroy the market. It's coming two names of the same.

Society versus socialists

The moment we liquidate the "market", we must bring a new way of organizing that company. However, no new "organization" can be built on voluntariness, because it would be a market. However, if we reject the market, we have no choice but to resort to a directive approach. Make people pawns on their own board. Manage their lives. This is called a dictatorship and is an inevitable consequence of the absence of a market.

It is an inevitable consequence of any social engineering, state interventionism and efforts for socialism. All these systems are based on the fact that some - group A, ie rulers - must impose something on others - group B, ie subjects. These are not progressive, but actually highly conservative directions. They don't want to "move us forward", but go back to the times of absolutism and slavery.

These are the directions they aim for destruction of society. Maybe not directly, but it is clearly a consequence of the efforts of their supporters.

Stolen company

The defense of society was the domain of the Liberals. It is still so - if not nominally, then in reality certainly yes. However, the Socialists have found a new god - a selected group, which according to them is a "society". This group was seated on a throne that once belonged to the king.

It doesn't matter if we call this group "99%", "poor", "sick", "helpless" or "ordinary people".

What they are doing is not "society's defense against individualists," but government defense and coercion against those who call for the opportunity to manage their lives voluntarily and to let society continue to form spontaneously. This is nothing more than a dispute over freedom.

Liberals, take what belongs to you. Explain that it is you who defends society! The name "company" has been stolen from you.

0 comments

  1. The individual is just an abstract term. it is part of some philosophical considerations, but in material practice, in the empiricism given by life and biology, no lone individual survives there! It is not biologically adapted for this - it is physically insufficient and mentally very dependent on society. However, if the author speaks of a bear, then of course such an individual can exist on his own and with reference to the necessity of the existence of both his parents, then yes. The market is not the result of human cooperation, it is also given biologically. In the primordial troupe, which arose from the above-mentioned inadequacy of the human individual and his inability to survive in nature alone, various human collaborations were formed depending on the necessary division of labor. Also, the fact that some individuals have greater ability to organize or think while others may be more physically strong and skilled is not a "comparative advantage" giving the former or the latter to rule (whether usurping powers or matter - the so-called. ownership) over others, "unsuccessful", but above all to enable the survival of the gang as a whole and therefore the species !!! The market then becomes the product of a new method of production - namely pastoralism and agriculture, which, unlike gangs of hunters and gatherers, has made it possible to accumulate surplus production for exchange with other gangs. It is only much later, with the disintegration of the ancestral community, that private property arises, which is nothing more than a surplus appropriated by the authority, and with it the exchange relations within the community. By uniting more municipalities, tribes are formed and their rulers form the state to protect their power and property privileges. Thus, the state does not arise as a "social contract," as Hobbes states above, but as an instrument of the ruling classes of the powerful and wealthy to control the classes of the enslaved and the poor. However, there is a partial identification with the state even in the controlled classes due to the superstructure, such as ideology and religion (this is the above-mentioned persuasion of others about the necessity of such an institution). In this way, governments force and persuade the governed in the interests of their founders. The property of a slave, a feudal lord and a capitalist is in itself an institution enforced and maintained by the state, and without it, on the contrary, it would quickly take over. The Bolshevik state only replaced one owner (capitalist, shareholder) with another (the state), the principle that ownership of the means of production allows the owners to exploit and control the non-owners without affecting it! It was, therefore, a capitalist principle, which is not a "voluntary exchange," but a principle of forced slavery, in which the possession of the means of production allows the owner to control and compel the work of the owner of work ability without violence (as opposed to slave and feudal). Unlike the means of production, it is a physical part of man, it is inseparable from his person and therefore his time, which is physically the only real property of every person in this world. So a person forced to sell his labor ability to the owner of the means of production thus loses time, his life. On the contrary - the owner of the means of production is then completely free from participation in the production of goods, he is not forced to physically participate in it and is the free master of his time. And because the owner of the work ability strives for the same, their interests are contradictory: the former wants to force the latter to work as much as possible for the lowest possible remuneration, the latter strives to maximize the remuneration and at the same time succeed as little as possible. That is why they are waging a class war together. Sooner or later, the owner wins by replacing the rebellious worker with a machine or better production technology and getting rid of it as a cost item. But not as a problem, because the non-owner, deprived of the last thing he had - work, ceases to be a customer in the market. He doesn't buy goods, so the machines have no one to make for them. Moreover, hunger leads him to violence against the capitalist and his state in order to survive. The solution is war, where this proletarian is consumed as a furcancanone and at the same time the resulting destruction creates space for new investments. However, WMD technology today will not make it possible to wage wars of such magnitude as to provide solutions such as the two worlds in the 20th century. century. That is why the capitalists are thinking about how to solve the problem. These liberalist pinds are part of those considerations here, but they don't lead much anywhere, or have failed historically. They argue about the return to small-scale production, where individual owners will exchange the products of their machines with each other until they exterminate "surplus human resources" with a virus. But even that is not the solution. Namely, the small-batch production to which such a limited market would lead (for mass consumption would disappear along with the mass of proletarians) is much more expensive, and thus would eventually lead to further differentiation between the class of owners themselves and the new war. This would continue until only the owner of the Globe remained and his death would destroy the human race. In other words, if the human species is to survive, capitalism must necessarily be replaced!

  2. @ygorek

    "If there is no physical 'society' based on the individual, there is no such physical physically."
    Society is simply the name for a group of individuals who act and interact with each other through this action. Society is a concept that includes relationships between people. There is no society without relationships. Therefore, society does not act, just as "relationships" do not, an individual always acts, who can "relate" to things, another individual or a group of individuals. Of course, an individual can physically exist without any other individual - a reference to the need for a biological mother and father does not refute this.

    "The company is not a market, but a platform for market emergence"
    The market is the result of human action, specifically cooperation. Society and market are terms from the same category. For the most part, they overlap, society is perhaps a slightly more general concept.

    "There is no need for government to form a society, because on the contrary, society forms a government."
    Governments create individuals, not society, by usurping rights that do not belong to them and by being able to convince others of the need for such an institution.

    "The market is not an environment of voluntary cooperation, but its means. Capitalism, then, is not a system of voluntary cooperation, but a way of organizing production. Capitalism is a system based on the existence of society as well as feudalism or slavery. "
    How cut from Marxist history. Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange based on the existence of the right to private property.

    "The only thing the government can do is enforce, because that's the purpose for which it was set up. However, enforcement is the opposite of voluntariness, especially if the founder of the government wants to protect his freedom and not give up voluntarily. It does not follow that the government is the biggest anti-social element, not by chance. "
    But it follows. Expropriation of private property and exploitation of owners is a violation of fundamental human rights. Because it happens in an organized way and under the guise of so-called legality, this activity reaches dimensions that a normal robber could only dream of 🙂

    To the rest:
    Complete liquidation of the market probably cannot take place, but all steps to limit private property also restrict the free market. We have already experienced the consequences in the form of Bolshevik socialism. We are experiencing the consequences in the form of interventionism of the current socialist governments right now.

    I'm not entirely sure where your next remarks are going. Basically, you claim that people for the most part only want to control others and that the result can only be a dictatorship. However, this does not in any way justify the existence of state "coercion". Besides, I do not share this Hobbes view. It is not an economic or psychological given. Economically speaking, people resort to violence only when it is advantageous for them, and psychologically, the instinct of survival in a normal person does not have to be realized only by power control of others. Well, ethically, it's completely unsustainable.

  3. @ 11 - cacti

    After all, the word self-defense does not mean that you have to defend yourself! Self-defense means you protect yourself - and it doesn't matter. You can easily call a group of Ukrainians for help or make an agreement with a company providing protection.

    ad Regulation and coercion. No, they are not necessary. Respectively, we probably disagree on what we mean by "regulation" and "coercion". Would you say, for example, that animals use a system of regulation and coercion? I don't. And yet they are able to follow some rules according to which they behave. Or such flying - is it that people cannot fly by regulation or coercion? I don't think so. By regulation and coercion, I mean a situation where someone comes and by violence or threat of violence "motivates" you to do something that you would not do on your own. Therefore, for example, the fact that I have a weapon and I do not hesitate to use it for my own protection is neither regulation nor coercion. I'm not forcing anyone to attack me or stop me from doing so. Feel free to attack me, but don't be surprised.

  4. "Slavery was created by the weakness of the state" it would be more accurate that the Roman central government, like cancer, killed itself and almost killed the hosts, quite a warning example…

  5. and as far as slavery is concerned, it is completely caught up ad absurdum, because there is something like natural laws and the philosophical basis of human rights on which one can build, and therefore it is not against liberalism to claim that people as long as they do not limit others (of course, this is also nothing new, only the number of people concerned gradually expanded - today we all fall here mostly except embryos…)

    as far as slavery is concerned, for example the system of the old Hebrews when it was only about freedom and not life or health for 7 years (then the slave was to be released) was very generous for his time (but I would not like to see such a reintroduced) and they didn't need a king for that with regulations and repression they agreed on it with each other (there is elementary psychology and a bit of game theory - a slave doesn't want to be a bitch at all costs and you never know when you'll end up as a slave yourself…)

    Do you think that "humane" (what is humane in war?…) taking prisoners in wars instead of killing them has also always been ordered from above? again game theory… how we give them to us…
    Have you heard of the Christmas truce during the First World War?

    is a million and one thing that does not have to be ordered from above, but follows from human conscience!

  6. maybe it's not worth it, as the law and the police protect you from a group of thugs? basically not at all, she can catch them to the maximum, or with great luck in preparation, but can you count on it? can you understand something as basic as subsidiarity? Has no neighbor asked you to blink at his barracks from time to time and pick up mail when he has been going somewhere for a long time? why are you pulling the state into self-defense?

    Do you know how unstable organized crime groups are (there is often no win in being in a gang)? and how unstable is its adversary, in a state like ours - with all the corruption, lack of competence, etc.? how much would crime be reduced if government spending were reduced and people learned to defend themselves with weapons for the money saved?

    Do you know that it is not possible to legally obtain a weapon for personal defense in England? Did their police help them significantly against looting gangs? How many citizens in the Šluknov region have a firearm and can handle it?

    understand it! the police only investigate and possibly punish, perhaps even when it works, they monitor a few extremely dangerous (international) gangs, and that's all, the rest is up to the citizens jó But we don't want these times back, do we? Or are you safe over freedom?)

  7. waffles,
    I am the supporter of freedom in particular. Am I saying that liberals say that one must not group together? 3,14ranha writes that "only consistent self-defense will protect you from the thug." I react to this that only consistent self-defense will not protect against a group of thugs.
    Coercion and regulation are needed in society, for example, precisely because they protect freedom. No one can be enslaved in the name of paying off debt. Or is slavery free in the concept of liberals?
    Of course, not everyone can do anything in society. Otherwise it wouldn't be company. But if not everyone can do anything, it is regulation and coercion, which the author opposes.

  8. To be familiar with the article, I took the liberty of making a few remarks.
    Like this - just to think:
    If there is no physical "society" based on the individual, there is no such physical.

    SOCIETY
    What exactly is a "society"? It is a voluntary or involuntary association of different individuals. Diversity is self-evident, because identical individuals do not exist, and it is not a condition for the formation of society, but a starting point.
    The catch is that this is the basis of any market. The company is thus not a market, but a platform for the emergence of a market, such as the market of interpersonal relationships. A huge "metatrh" (that's a Mlamojo modern language, isn't it?).
    Society versus government
    There is no need for a government to form a society, because on the contrary, society forms a government.
    As has been said, society is not created spontaneously, but by targeted decisions and actions of individuals, from below or from above. It can be voluntary cooperation or co-operation forced.
    The market is not an environment of voluntary cooperation, but its means. Capitalism, then, is not a system of voluntary cooperation, but a way of organizing production. Capitalism is a system based on the existence of society as well as feudalism or slavery.
    The only thing the government "can" do is enforce, because that is the purpose for which it was established. However, enforcement is the opposite of voluntariness, especially if the founder of the government wants to protect his freedom and not give up voluntarily. It does not follow that the government is the biggest anti-social element, not by chance.
    It was the classical liberals who stood up to the absolutist rulers. However, they did not just defend the "market" or the "freedom of the individual", they defended a society, a free society that does not exist.
    It is sad that socialists of all colors and kinds usurped that "defense of society" for themselves. It does not matter whether there is one big absolutist or many small absolutist dictators named "people", the essence is still the same - the possibility of enforcing, the possibility of disrupting the structure of voluntary relations throughout society by various power interventions, which is unfortunately a real benefit for most individuals.
    It was the liberals who defended society. The socialists, under the guise of defending society, form a world of dictatorship, a world of government - a world in which society cannot function without restrictions, that is, a market without restrictions, because the market without restrictions has never been sustained. There is no free society, there is no free market, which does not mean that they are two names of the same.
    Society versus socialists
    The moment when we liquidate the "market" cannot occur. Only a revolution can bring a new way of organizing society. And as the classic said, there was only one revolution in human history, and that was the industrial revolution. No new "organization" can be built on voluntariness, because it would only be in the company of identical individuals with "same stomachs", ie (simply) communists. However, if we reject the market, we have no choice but to resort to a directive approach. Make people pawns on their own board. Manage their lives. This is called dictatorship, and it is an inevitable consequence of the existence of the diversity of individuals, of which a relatively stable large percentage makes sense for the existence of control of others.
    All systems are based on the fact that some - group A, ie rulers - must impose something on others - group B, ie subjects. These are not progressive, but actually highly conservative and only possible directions
    These are the directions that aim to control the company. Maybe not directly, but it is clearly a consequence of the efforts of their supporters, as explained above.
    Stolen company
    The defense of society was the domain of the Liberals. It is still so - if not nominally, then in reality certainly yes. However, the Socialists have found a new god - a selected group, which according to them is a "society". This group was seated on a throne that once belonged to the king.
    It doesn't matter if we call this group "99%", "poor", "sick", "helpless" or "ordinary people".
    What they are doing is not "defending society against individualists," but defending government and coercion against those who call for the opportunity to run their lives voluntarily and let society continue to spontaneously form for the same. This is nothing more than a dispute over freedom.
    Liberals, take what belongs to you. Explain that it is you who defends society! The term "society" was stolen from you, even though it existed, like society, long before liberalism.

  9. @ kaktus8k

    It is higher when one denies the truth of what the other does not claim at all.

    Proponents of freedom claim that one must not be grouped into larger groups and units and decide on something together? They don't claim! Therefore, "It is difficult to stand up to self-defense in front of a gang" is true, but no one anywhere has claimed the opposite. FAIL.

    Proponents of freedom claim that there must not be a situation where "one borrows money from the other and guarantees his freedom." No, they don't! FAIL.

    Proponents of freedom say that anyone can do anything? They don't claim! So your argument, "Now one regulation has been denied him by regulation." Is another FAIL.

    The problem is that you have no idea what freedom means, resp. what liberals, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and the like mean. You're looking for arguments against something completely different from what these groups are saying. EPIC FAIL.

  10. The restriction of absolutism is actually the theft of private property. After all, each owner has the right to dispose of his property at his own discretion.

  11. 3,14ranha,
    it has already been invented a lot and you are not showing anything original either.
    In front of a gang, an individual has a hard time coping with self-defense. And most importantly, who says they are crooks? Maybe they just have their own rules and they consider you a crook. Here, too, coercion is applied, as can be seen.
    The prohibition of slavery (or servitude) is an increase in regulation. What is a ban other than regulation? Until then, two individuals were free to agree that one would borrow money from the other and guarantee its freedom. Or when there was a slave in the market, everyone was free to buy it with their own money. Even that was forbidden.
    Slaves defeated in the war also became slaves. The winner was free to decide how to deal with the loser - whether to kill him, paralyze him, imprison him, release him, enslave him. Ď Now one choice was denied him by regulation.
    Slavery was created by the weakness of the state. He could not perform his functions, so they were taken over by private individuals. The obligation could be hereditary, both parties understood. After all, if it were not for the master, the subject would not survive and he would not have children. By abolishing slavery, the state entered into a contractual relationship between the two people and ordered the advantage of one at the expense of the other.
    It is simply in the interest of everyone's freedom that it is necessary to regulate, coerce, limit. Otherwise, some have freedom and others have slavery.

  12. PS: the fact that children do not inherit slavery from their parents is their reduction in regulation - the slave system had to constantly threaten repression in order to keep groups of people in place
    this system also did not arise spontaneously - reflecting the situation during the collapse of the Roman Empire with its bureaucracy, repression against the peasants (who became slaves and later slaves to landowners also for fleeing taxes) and private capital which led to the atomization of Western society into self-sufficient estates despotic central government (today businesses are fleeing to Asia)

  13. re: cacti
    Musí it must be boring to have everything lined up like this according to the communist interpretation of history… how about something from your own head?

    Do you think that the police will protect you from the thug in the hall ??? then you are an idiot with forgiveness, only consistent self-defense will protect you from such an individual…
    the company can later agree on the existence of workers (police, private eyes ...) who will prosecute thugs who have already defeated one or more victims, but this is the second step!

    and as for the limitations of absolutism - it is not true that it is a modern invention and that it has always been dictated from above (by the state), such as the 12th century Italy or the emergence of the US, human rights theory has evolved smoothly since ancient Hebrews and antiquity. (and development is still not finished)
    It may seem that the Middle Ages are barbaric next to antiquity, but try to ask freed slaves, or for the first time in the documented history of single women - the Middle Ages were a progress compared to antiquity, mainly due to reduced regulation!

    and so it is with all communism - on top huj underneath wow (later it's wow at the top and underneath but that's a different story)

  14. Society is created mainly for the common defense and joint livelihood. Specialization and trade are secondary. The company has some rules. In order to function, it must be able to defend itself against those who violate them (for example, thieves attack society by violating its rules, they must take up a defensive function). So coercion necessarily belongs to society (how would a liberal act without coercion against those who break the agreed rules?).
    The liberals of their time were indeed progressive in removing absolutism. So, in essence, they restricted private property and regulated the market, dictated certain rights to all, and enforced them with the help of the state. The absolutist was the winner in the competitive struggle in the unregulated market. All land in the country was his private property. So he could set the rules. The others gave in to him for protection and sustenance. Sometimes hereditary, sometimes they gave up their personal freedom. That was their agreement. An agreement between a master and a subject. Then the Liberals got involved and regulated everything, in the name of freedom. The socialists then took only another step, when, in addition to civil rights, they also guaranteed social rights to everyone (otherwise only the rich have real rights, while others have them only formally). The socialists did not steal the idea of ​​society from the liberals, they abandoned it themselves.

  15. I forgot the main thing.
    What does the note "Iam the 99%" mean?
    Grammatically or logically, it makes no sense.

  16. My view is basically the same.
    You just didn't mention the author of the translation again.
    It should be clear who the author is and who the translator is.

Comments are off.