The following is a log of "Bogus Freedom", a discussion held on Undernet IRC channel #geekspeak on Friday, March 23rd, 1996.  The moderator of this discussion was Tym Parsons <Tym>.

This log copyright 1996 by Tom Wright and Pankaj

Session Start: Fri Mar 22 22:59:46 1996 (EST)
* Logging #geekspeak to: [#geekspe.log]
<Tym> As the term was used by writers of the 
Enlightenment, the Founding Fathers, and 
Nineteenth-century classical liberals, "freedom" 
essentially meant being free of interference 
from other men.  But there is another tradition, 
comprising certain Oriental mystics, Marx, and 
modern-day liberals, that has a radically 
different notion of "freedom".  Over the last 
century, this latter notion has insinuated 
itself into political discourse, with its 
advocates often pa
<Tym> The purpose of this discussion will be to 
distinguish these two competing notions of 
freedom, and to learn how to counter arguments 
made for the bogus one.    
<Tym> Now for the questions.
<Tym> What is the objective definition of freedom 
in the political context?
*** Quits: Gillian (Ping timeout for Gillian[slip129
-37-153-85.on.ca.ibm.net])
<MiDaS> "freedom from interferince from other men"
<MiDaS> ;)
*** Quits: bazyar (Leaving)
<Tym> Anyone care to gainsay Midas?
<MiDaS> muhahhaa
*** Wright sets mode: -m 
<Tym> What does it *mean* to be free of interference
?
<Jim_N> Tym: By other men.
<MiDaS> Tym: essentially freedom from invasion of 
ones inalienable individual rights
*** Joins: Gardner (mjg@solar.eclipse.net)
<Bob_N> barring of initiation of force.
<philtwo> Freedom from initiation of force by the 
government
<Ousey> to be able to act within one's bounds
<Tym> BobN: so "interference" means only phyiscal 
force?
<philtwo> Other men can initiate force but that 
isn't necessarily political force
<Freeman-1> freedom is the absence of coercion.
<Bob_N> tym: or threat thereof.
<MiDaS> Freeman: i like that one
*** Joins: Gillian (dolee@slip129-37-153-84.on.ca.ibm.net)
<<TomM> Freedom basically means living your life by 
your own moral standards, so long as you don't 
forcibly interfer with others.
<BoazJS> to be able to have full control of your 
life.....make your own decisions....decide what 
to do with YOUR money.
*** Joins: BetsyS (~Betsy@ip084.lax.primenet.com)
<BoazJS> hello Betsy!
<Yael> Freedom is the right to life and protection 
of one's life.
<MiDaS> i like Freeman's; it simplifies everything 
and is broad enough to cover all bounds of 
rights, initiation of force,etc.
<Ousey> freedom means being able to have and use 
things like money as one sees fit
<Gillian> Yael, right to it presumes protection of 
it
*** Parts: Kpart (wjc111@ppp112.cac.psu.edu)
<Tym> All: so freedom is intimately tied to one's 
life and happiness?
<Yael> Gilligan: I was just clarifying.
<MiDaS> essentially the right to life, and the 
right to pursue anything nececssary for its 
survival without invading others' similar right.
<Yael> It is tied to life and the *pursuit* of 
happiness.
<Ousey> Freedom means having rights
<Tym> Yael: good distinction :)
<MiDaS> happiness is ultimately a consequence of 
life, as all value (happiness in this case) 
comes from life.
<Freeman-1> one can be free to NOT pursue it also.
<BoazJS> So do we have full control of our lives? 
Do we have *freedom* as defined objectively?
<Yael> Thanks Tym. :)
<Gillian> w/o freedom life and happiness is 
virtually impossible. or flat out impossible
<Yael> Full control of your life as long as you 
don't invade other people's freedom.
<Tym> Boaz: control in *what* sense?  What I'm 
asking here.
<MiDaS> i think the broadest and most primary 
definition, is simply the right to life and 
protection of it. All other things from 
obtaining values to not invading others is 
contained in that right.
<MiDaS> is=are
<TomM> Tym: Control as in the sense of living as 
one sees fit accordding to a self-chosen moral 
code (or none at all, at least politically).
<Tym> OK, I think we're pretty clear on the 
objective def. of freedom.  Anyone unclear?
<Jim_N> Tym: Since we're talking about the concept 
of freedom in the political sense, then freedom 
means the absense of the initiation of physical 
force (and derivitive forms of such initation).
<Jim_N> Tym: We are free when we can act without 
being stopped by other's initiation force 
against us.
<Tym> What are some examples of objective freedom?
<Gillian> Jim, right. independence from other men.
<Gillian> Tym, examples? what do you mean?
<Tym> Gillian: what can you do as a free person?
<Yael> Property rights, for one.
<TomM> Tym: I have the right to sell my wares to 
the highest bidder witout the law telling me 
it's too high.
<Freeman-1> tym: anything you want.
<Gillian> private property rights
<Freeman-1> you are free.
<Tym> Freeman: *anything*?
<Jim_N> Tym: If I'm an employer, I'm free when I 
can hire the people I judge best serve my 
purposes, and I'm not free when the government 
threatens me with a prison term if I don't.
<Yael> Freeman: anything?  
<Freeman-1> tym: barring force, yes.
<Tym> Freeman: OK
*** Joins: Kpart (wjc111@ppp112.cac.psu.edu)
<HardCandy> Exercise voting rights
<Gillian> Yael, anything. of course if you don't 
want to forfeit your individual rights you 
better respect the rights of othere<g
<Tym> Next question...
<philtwo> Tym: Examples of objective freedom ... 
but that should be "examples of life in a 
politically free society" shouldn't it?
<Ousey> Does force have to be against a person, or 
can it be against the person's property?
<Jim_N> Tym: As an employee, I'm free if I can try 
to earn the job I think I'm qualified for; I'm 
not free if the government or someone else 
forces me into a profession I don't approve of.
<Yael> Gillian: no, not *anything*.  Anything that 
doesn't violate other people's individual 
rights.
<Ousey> Thanks, Yael;]
<Gillian> Yael, yup. just said that.
<Tym> What is the Marxist/liberal notion of 
"freedom"?
<Fredrik2> Freedom to escape the laws of nature, 
freedom as a metaphysical and not a political 
concept. An attack on causality. An excuse for 
escaping the responsiblity of cognition.
> freedom from want.. freedom from effort..etc
<Tym> Fredrik: elaborate.
<MiDaS> freedom from poverty etc. freedom from 
offense, racism, effort, etc.
<Ousey> Freedom from life
<BoazJS> freedom from poverty?
<Freeman-1> freedom from reality.
<Fredrik2> Tym: On which part?
*** Joins: Dino (dino@pugsly11.slip.yorku.ca)
<Yael> Freedom for arbitrary whims at other peoples 
expense
<BoazJS> oh..never mind.
<Gillian> Midas,freedom from racism? i can be 
racist all i want if i wanted
<Freeman-1> free of a=a.
<BetsyS> "Freedom" always means the absence of a 
particular kind of restraint which varies with 
the context.  In politics it means the absence 
of force.
<Tym> Fredrik: in what way is it all of the things 
you mentioned?  Is that any different than what 
others have said?
<MiDaS> boaz: yes, those are some of the words they 
use. as toohey said: "you give up one right and 
gain another"...
<BoazJS> freedom from depression.....from 
ignorance.....from hunger...from poverty.
<Jim_N> BetsyS: right, but now we're looking at the 
false views of freedom.
<BoazJS> MiDaS: I know...
<MiDaS> Gillian: i'm giving examples of the 
"liberal" view of freedom.
-> [BetsyS] ping
*** Quits: Ghaki (Ping timeout for Ghaki[umi7.umi.co
m])
<Gillian> Midas, ok.
<Fredrik2> Tym: Not really, just that in orderr to 
live you have to think, they don't want to 
think. So there wanting of freedom is an urge 
not to think.
<BetsyS> The false views of political freedom 
always indicate _which_ restraint the claimer 
wants to be free of -- responsibility, identity, 
etc.
<TomM> Tym: Freedom to the Marxist (and as taught 
by Marxists professors) is the "freedom" to get 
what the haves have.
<MiDaS> i think primarily the fundamental aspect of 
the liberal view, is basically freedom from 
justice; an anti-causality view of not A-->B, 
but magically the gov't. gives you B to make you 
happy, etc.
<HardCandy> freedom from property
<Yael> "economic rights"
<Tym> Integral to the Marxist/liberal notion of 
freedom is the idea of "self-actualisation"  Is 
that what yr referring to Tom?
<Yael> "collective rights"
<Yael> "fetal rights"
<Fredrik2> Tym : e.g. 'A hungry man is not free'. 
He 'shouldn't' have to think in order to eat.
<Yael> "animal rights"
<BoazJS> Yael: exactly.
<BoazJS> lol
<Yael> the right to invade other people's rights
<HardCandy> freedom to redistribute wealth
<Gillian> The word rights has been completely 
destroyed nowadays. Nowadays it usually just 
means claim to eg. right to health care or right 
to an education.
<BoazJS> the right to make as much money as 
everybody else.
<Yael> "group rights"
<Freeman-1> yael: i like that last one.
<Yael> Steve!
<Jim_N> HardCandy: Another way of saying that is: 
Freedom from earning your money.
<Ousey> I still say its freedom from life
<HardCandy> freedom from choice
<Tym> What is "self actualisation"?
<Fredrik2> Tym: Or do seek another root of there 
anti-concept of freedom?
<HardCandy> achieving your potential
<BoazJS> freedom from earning money
<Fredrik2> Living life to the max:)
<BetsyS> The right to have your cake and eat it too 
-- unrestrained by the law of identity. 
<Tym> HC: can you expand on that?
<Ousey> Freedom from the demands of existance
*** Quits: TomM (Ping timeout for TomM[fohnix.metron
et.com])
<Tym> Ousey: not necessarily.
<Yael> "Self-actualize: to realize fully one's 
potential"
<Freeman-1> how would a marxist define freedom?
<Yael> (Webster's 9th)
<BoazJS> freedom from *ego*
<Tym> Freeman: he'd define it as *the freedom to 
self-actualise*
<BetsyS> Freedom from effort.
<Jim_N> Tym: Is the issue of self-actualiziation 
one of your scheduled questions, or just a means 
of clarifying someone's point?
*** Quits: joelm (Leaving)
<philtwo> Hypothesis: All definitions of rights by 
non-essentials must necessarily lead to the 
violation of objective rights
<HardCandy> reaching your potential...freedom to 
pursue happiness 
<Tym> Jim: it's scheduled.
<BoazJS> Freedom from hunger and freedom from 
racism.
<Tym> HC: so "self-actualisation" implies that you 
have to have yr physical wants met first?
<Jim_N> Tym: Then, in what context are you asking 
what self-actualization is?  From an objective 
context or are you asking for the false views?
<HardCandy> yes
<BetsyS> Tym:  I haven't heard that before.  I 
usually associate "self-actualization" with AH 
Maslow -- who was a pretty good psychologist.
<Tym> Jim: as an objective concept.
<HardCandy> a foundation
<Fredrik2> BoazJS: He would say freedom from need, 
and from his fear of not being fit for living.
<Tym> Betsy: that's where I'm taking it from.
<BoazJS> agreed.
<Tym> ...s-a is an valid concept.
<HardCandy> Maslow: five building blocks to self 
actualizatno
<Tym> Anyone unclear on what self-actualisation is, 
or whether it's valid?
<Jim_N> Tym: I'm not familiar with the writings on 
self-actualization, as a concept.
<philtwo> Tym: Can you give a concise summary of 
the idea?
<Gillian> i have no idea what context it's supposed 
to be under
<Tym> HC: what are the five building blocks?  Can 
you name them?
*** Joins: bazyar (~bazyar@204.181.154.9)
<Jim_N> tym: It sounds like a concept refering to 
the need of man to act on his thoughts, to 
create his values in existence, to be 
productive.
<HardCandy> First is having your physical needs 
met...food, shelter, etc
<HardCandy> Hmmmm...my memory fails me
<Tym> HC: then social, mental, spiritual needs, 
right?
<Yael> Right!
<Yael> (I've read that somewhere)
<Ousey> OK, who meets these needs?
<Tym> Ousey: hold on :)
<Fredrik2> Tym: What's the fifth?
<HardCandy> very good
<Ousey> Oops!
<HardCandy> we each attempt to
<Yael> Actually, I thought it was physical and then 
mental?
<Jim_N> Fredrik: The first was physical needs, then 
he listed the other 4.
<HardCandy> self actualization is the fifth
<Jim_N> Ah, sorry, my mistake.
<Tym> Yael: right.  Physical is the basis on which 
the others are built.
<Yael> Tym: I thought mental was before social, I 
mean.
<HardCandy> therefore.
<philtwo> Tym: So that would make them meta-physical
? :)
<Jim_N> Tym: That social comes before mental 
doesn't sound right.
<HardCandy> it is important that freedom from force 
is the most critical freedom
<Ousey> IE, man must be an animal first?
<HardCandy> physical force
<Tym> HC: so when you have physical, social, 
mental, and spiritual needs met, yr self-actualis
ed?
*** Quits: Dino (later all)
<HardCandy> yes
* BoazJS will be RIGHT back
*** Parts: BoazJS (~benzeev@du07.inow.com)
<philtwo> Tym: How does he differentiate between 
spiritual and mental needs?
<Tym> Jim: the *important* thing is that physical 
comes first,right?
<Jim_N> Tym: Can you define what the social, 
mental, and spiritual needs refer to?
<Jim_N> Tym: Yes, physical would come first.
<Tym> Jim: I'm using these terms in the typical 
context, insofar as they're valid.  Nothing 
sneaky here.
<HardCandy> smiling
*** Joins: BoazJS (~benzeev@du07.inow.com)
<Jim_N> Tym: I'm not assuming anything sneaky.  I'm 
just not clear on what is refered to by social 
needs if it comes before mental needs.
*** Quits: Bob_N (Leaving)
<Tym> OK, my point is that for a Marxist or 
liberal, freedom means *free to self-actualise*
<Ousey> The end result, right?
<Freeman-1> tym: I agree with that defininiton of 
marxist freedom wholeheartedly.
<MiDaS> Ousey: or the guarentee.
<BetsyS> Tym:  Or does it just mean freedom from 
physical needs.
<Tym> Jim: I don't imply any hirearchy by the order 
I listed them, save the physical.
<Tym> =hierarchy
<Ousey> Meaning that everything leading up to it 
gets in the way (that is, interferes)
<Jim_N> Tym: If self-actualization is valid, than 
even an objective view of freedom would hold man 
needs freedom from force in order to self-actuali
ze.
<Tym> Jim: right, I'll get to that :)
<Freeman-1> they don't see the contradiction.
<Jim_N> Tym: So I agree with Betsy, I think the 
marxists want self-actualization to be 
automatic, freedom from any needs to achieve 
such actualization.
<MiDaS> Tym: not only free to self actualize, but 
guarenteed self actualization
<Tym> Betsy: can we force others to meet anything 
but our material i.e. physical needs?
<BetsyS> What the Marxist wants to be free of tends 
to vary accoding to the particular Marxist.  
Even Marx was not consistent.
<Yael> Tym: social
<Tym> Midas:  a Marxist would say that's 
meaningless, if you don't have the means to self 
actualise in the first place.
<Jim_N> Tym: To answer that, I'd need a definition 
of social needs.
<Jim_N> Objective social needs can't be achieved by 
force.
<HardCandy> Wasn't Marxism orig. a response to 
feudalism?
<BetsyS> Tym: Marxist dictators forced their slaves 
to meet their needs for recognition, adulation, 
and a bunch of other sick neurotic (but mental) 
needs.
<Freeman-1> hardcandy: it was a "response" to 
capitalism.
<Tym> Jim: what I'm pointing out here is that 
Marxists are primarily concerned with man's 
material situation.
<BoazJS> a response to monarchy.....class systems 
in general.
<HardCandy> but it was very labor oriented
<Kpart> HC not really , Marxism presuposes the 
sucess of capitalism since "after capiutaliusm" 
the goods are then "redistribuited"
<Fredrik2> Wouldn't selfactuallisation be imposible 
if you negated any of the o'ist virtues? e.g. 
cheated on productivity as in the case of a 
marxist.
<Jim_N> Tym: Ah, you confused me, because you said 
the marxists wanted self-actualization, and you 
defined that as all 5 levels.
<BoazJS> Marx was an anarchist.  hehe...how ironic.
<BetsyS> Freeman: Roght!  It was Das _Kapital_.
<Tym> Betsy: guess that's a *consequence* albeit 
unintended.
<philtwo> Tym: Irrational theories can't lead to 
their "expected" results .. reality will do what 
it will
<Tym> Jim: their concern (insofar as they're 
consistent) is to *provide* the physical basis 
on which the later building blocks are based.
<Tym> philtwo: of course.  What trying to do is 
show *why*.
<philtwo> Isn't that why Marxists are purely 
materialistic?
<Freeman-1> so why is the marxist definition of 
freedom so bogus?
<Tym> What are some instances of Marxist/liberal 
"freedom"?
<Gillian> wait a minute. Marxists _wanted_ 
self-actualization? how could that be possible 
while denying man's desires to profit?
<HardCandy> *provided* through a denial of the 
right to property
<Jim_N> tym: socalized medical care.
<Ousey> Marxists want freedom from physical needs
<Jim_N> tym: Free housing.
<Gillian> this isn't makeing any sense.
<Tym> Gillian: they think that profit gets in the 
way of some people's freedom.
<BetsyS> Tym:  The Marxists believed that when 
men's physical needs were met, they would 
magically evolve into happy, spiritual beings.
<Freeman-1> the welfare state.
<HardCandy> Freedom from the responsiblity of 
property
<Tym> Betsy: yup!
<Freeman-1> environmentalism
<Ousey> Gillian:  One man's profit is another man's 
loss
<Ousey> Free education
<HardCandy> TYm: exactly. Just read Wilde's State 
of Man Under Socialism..that's exactly what he 
said
<Tym> Anyone need more instances of this kind of 
"freedom", or what it means?
<Gillian> Ousey, so they thought that wealth was a 
static amount?
<HardCandy> Their focus and hatred of profit
<Gardner> Wrong, Ousey.
<HardCandy> Assumed it is at someone else's expence
<Jim_N> Tym: Nope, it means the destruction of 
objective freedom -- it uses the initiation of 
force to attempt to achieve it's end.
<philtwo> So what are the essential *psychological* 
motives of Marx?
<Tym> Why is Marxist/liberal "freedom" necessarily 
in conflict with objective freedom?
<Ousey> Gardner:  (was referring to Marxists)
<Tym> $$ question
<Tym> philtwo: that's kinda tangental.
<Jim_N> Tym: As I said before you asked, the 
liberal view of freedom is in conflict with 
objective freedom in that it must initiate force 
to achieve its ends.
*** Quits: Kpart (Leaving)
<Jim_N> achieve = attempt to achieve
<Tym> Jim: but why can't you have a mix of both?;)
<HardCandy> Property rights!!!
<philtwo> Tym: Possibly, but I am reminded of 
Rand's article on Philosophic Detection, that 
all irrational philosophies are motivated by 
psychopathologies, if I remember correctly
<Tym> ..why so "rigid"? ;)
<HardCandy> Clash of our ability to pursue 
happiness
<Fredrik2> Tym: Objective freedom dependes 
nessesarrily on a number of virtues, which must 
be consistently meat. Liberal/marxists concept 
of freedom denies that.
<BetsyS> I suspect Marx himself was an unemployed, 
messed-up intellectual wannabe.
<Jim_N> Tym: Because objective freedom means the 
ABSENSE of the initiation of force, not just a 
"small ammount".
<Freeman-1> betsy: unemployed thanks to engels.
*** Quits: MiDaS (Leaving)
<Fredrik2> meat:=fullfilled
<Tym> How does, say, a "right" to health care 
violate true freedom?
<Jim_N> Tym: Besides, the liberal view of freedom 
requires vasts amounts of the initiation of 
force, as it takes over property rights, medical 
practice, employment, etc.
<Gillian> Betsy, actually he was born into middle 
class. the very class he attacked. the burgeousi
<Ousey> Tym:  Because someone has to be forced to 
provide it
<Yael> Tym: a right to health care by who's say, 
and at who's expense?
<HardCandy> Tym: that is a right at the expense of 
another's ability to pursue their happines
<HardCandy> A form of force
<Jim_N> Tym: It violates the freedom of the doctors 
to choose their patients, and it violates the 
freedom of the patient to choose their doctor, 
and it violates the medical research by forcing 
what research is to be permited, etc.
<Tym> Anyone unclear on why the Marxist/liberal 
"freedom" is incompatible with real freedom?
<Jim_N> Nope.
<BetsyS> Marx and the Marxists never focus on _how_ 
what they want was produced.  "The goods are 
here."  They expected then to be there 
"somehow."  But "somehow always means 
_somebody_."
<Freeman-1> the marxist definition of freedom is a 
contradiction.
<Tym> Betsy: true.
<Ousey> Marx etc. assumed capitalism would make it 
all, then they could take it all,
<Ousey> forgetting that economies that produce are 
not static
<Tym> Ousey: but Marx argued that that was being 
accomplished by denying *some* people the 
ability to self-actualise.
<BetsyS> Ousey:  The Marxists didn't forget that.  
They never _knew_ it.
*** Joins: TomM (tmiovas@fohnix.metronet.com)
<Gillian> Tym, i know it. but i haven't seen it 
stated in here clearly.
<TomM> (Sorry, I have a very bad series of 
connections).
<Tym> Gillian: go ahead and state it then.
<Jim_N> Tym: But that *denying* occurred without 
the initiation of force by the producers.  Under 
capitalism even those who lacked something 
valuable were free to pursue it.
<Jim_N> *denying* = "*denying*"
<Ousey> Tym:  I'm saying that Marxists assumed that 
once capitalist "means of production" were in 
place, all it took was brute force to run the 
place
<Tym> Jim: we'll get into that after Gilliam 
speaks.
<Tym> Ousey: Marx talked a LOT of nonsense.  We're 
just focussing on the freedom bit.
<Ousey> OK
<Tym> Gillian rather
<TomM> Tym: Freedom to the Marxists means "freedom" 
to get what was built by -- blank-out.
<BetsyS> I have to go, darn!  see y'all.
*** Quits: BetsyS (Bye for now.)
<Tym> If there is a necessary conflict, does that 
mean that objective freedom is the enemy of 
"self-actualisation"?
<Gillian> Marx states that freedom is about being 
able to relinquich responsiblity for ones own 
life and still live.  real freedom is states 
that relinquish such responsiblity and die.  One 
states that freedom is about dependence while 
the other states that freedom is about 
independence.
<Jim_N> Tym: No, it is the only means of achieving 
it.  It is the liberal view of freedom that is 
an enemy of the true requirements of human life.
<Jim_N> true = actual
*** Quits: GlennM ()
<Tym> Gillian: Marx claimed that he was only trying 
to make the proletariat free of their 
"exploiters"
*** Tym is now known as DevilsAd
*** Parts: HardCandy (~Shess@ppp089-sf2.sirius.com)
<DevilsAd> Jim: what if you have nothing to start 
with in the first place? ;)
<Fredrik2> Tym: No objectiv freedom is a nessesary 
requierment for selfactualisation because the 
fredoom of pursuing ones goal must be there and 
not denied as in the marxist view. (do I 
missunderstand your question?)
<DevilsAd> Fredrik: see question to Jim.
<TomM> Devilsad: We *all* start with nothing.
<DevilsAd> Tom: nonsense!  Some have a leg up 
inlife.
<Ousey> Objective freedom is the enemy of liberal 
"self-actualization", but "self-actualization" 
is invalid
<philtwo> Devil: Steal it from those who *have*. 
After all, there's only a finite amount of 
"stuff" and some have it, some don't
<Gillian> true. but the exploiters were the ones 
that offered jobs which would help them be 
independent.  and independence is what he called 
enslavement. thus "exploiters" would be seen as 
a slave driver because he traded, a sure sign of 
independence.
<Fredrik2> Devil: If you have nothing to start 
with, what does 'you' mean?
<Jim_N> DevilsAd: If you at least have your health, 
then you have that to trade -- your physical 
work for money.  If you don't even have your 
health, you'd have to depend on those who have 
the ability of producing more than their own 
physical needs.
<TomM> Devilsad: Some can go from nothing to 
something...how?
<philtwo> It's a fixed sum game: There's "X" stuff, 
and it can be divvied up only so many ways ... 
so the pic slices "should" be equal (to state a 
bunch of false but commonly accepted premises)
<Yael> Who makes "X" stuff?
<philtwo> The concept of human creation (i.e. 
application of thought and energy to rearrangemen
t of matter) is utterly foreign to Marxists
<Jim_N> DevilsAd: The false assumption in your last 
few questions is that wealth is a static 
quantity.  The truth is that ALL wealth had to 
be created.
<DevilsAd> Jim: but some people alraedy have the 
means to self actualisation because they have 
Property.  Those who only have their labor power 
are at a disaavantage.
<Gillian> phil. yup. that's why the poor will 
always be poor...so they say
<Freeman-1> yael: it's the "social product".
<philtwo> Gill: Or everyone equally poor ...
<Yael> Freeman: huh?
<BoazJS> hmmmm...well....unfortunatly...I have an 
essay to finish.
<Ousey> Yael:  the evil exploiter capitalists
* BoazJS will see you all l.....a..ter.
<Jim_N> DevilsAd: Land, etc, is only wealth if man 
can figure out how to use it to his benefit.  A 
plot of land is worthless if we can't figure out 
how to use it productively.
<BoazJS> goodbye
<philtwo> Yael: According to socialists ... no one 
"makes" X ... it just is. Capitalists have 
stolen an unfair portion of that fixed stuff
<Jim_N> DevilsAd: Are we deviating from the 
discussion on the nature of freedom?
*** Quits: BoazJS ()
<TomM> "Exploitation" is a code-word for the 
Marxists to mean they want what they want and 
don't care to let others live their lives.
<bazyar> For socialists, 'freedom' is "freedom from 
reality"
<Yael> Phil: how can something just "be there"?
<bazyar> freedom from causality.
<DevilsAd> Jim: true, but so what?  My point is 
that those who only have their labor power to 
self can be blackmailed into subsistence wages 
perpetually, and NEVER self-actualise.
<philtwo> Yael: I guess the religious socialist 
would say: A gift from god ;)
<DevilsAd> to sell rather
<bazyar> For socialists, 'freedom' is "freedom from 
reality"
<bazyar> er, oops
<Yael> Phil: *bap*
<Jim_N> DevilsAd: You're raising questions that 
require a lecture on economics to explain.  My 
point is that if we stop the initiation of 
force, nobody is blackmailing anyone.
<Gillian> exploiter capitalist? that's redundant as 
far as marxists are concerned. captialists 
demand interaction with othere men through 
trade. Trade requires each party to give value 
for value.  Marxists don't want that sort of 
responsiblity.  They state that having to give 
value for value is enslvement. THus as far as 
they are concerned capitalism is a threat. 
Capitalists are exploiters
<philtwo> Yael: Hey, I'm just the bearer of bad 
news :)
<DevilsAd> Jim: well, the bottom line is that for 
some peopel "objective" freedom means they can 
never self-actualise, so it's pretty useless to 
them.
<Gillian> they FORCE you to trade
<Gillian> baz, yup
<Jim_N> DevilsAd: As to employing someone who only 
has his physical skills to provide, that is the 
employees entrance into trade with others.  It's 
up to him whether he works to find more 
productive employment, saves his earnings or 
blows it.
<TomM> devilsad: Only a pretentious cluts would 
think a laborer is worth the salary of the 
president of the company.
<DevilsAd> Jim: but some people can *never* save, 
in perpituity.  They're kept on subsistence 
wages!
*** Joins: eminento (eminento@hd43-066.compuserve.com)
<DevilsAd> =perpetuity
<Freeman-1> did betsy already leave?
<philtwo> Doesn't compuserve cost about $3/hr to 
IRC?
<Fredrik2> Anyone: What's the distinction between 
mental and spiriual in the context used earlier?
<Fredrik2> spiritual
<TomM> Devilsad: On in a Marxist country ;)
<Gillian> phil, yup
<DevilsAd> Fredrik: go ask Maslow ;)
<Ousey> Dev:  let them actualize on subsistence 
wages, that's all Marxists need anyway
*** Joins: fumtu (fumtu@204.141.125.57)
<Jim_N> DevilsAd: You have no clue how wages are 
determined, and how progress occurs, even an 
individuals progress.
<DevilsAd> Ousey: I never said that.
<Fredrik2> Devil: Thanks, any first name on this 
maslow?
<DevilsAd> s
<DevilsAd> Fredrik: Abe
*** Joins: Shai (~Joe@stp-fl2-02.ix.netcom.com)
*** Joins: WSLmedia (~wslmedia@snuffyppp24.cybernw.com)
<fumtu> Sorry guys, I'm just qbert's brother.
<Ousey> Dev:  but on subsistence wages (where 
they're kept) they have their material needs 
met.
<DevilsAd> Jim: ad hominem.  
<Fredrik2> Devilsadvertieser: One more question 
please, the books name?
<Yael> re Jasra
<DevilsAd> Ousey: because their situation leaves 
somebody desperate, some employers can just give 
them barely enuf to stay alive!
<Jasra> rere, hi Yael, Phil.
<Jim_N> DavilsAd: It would only be ad hominem if I 
used your ignorance as proof of my claim.  I 
simply used your ignorance as an indication that 
this discussion isn't going to be resolved in 
this context.
*** Parts: fumtu (fumtu@204.141.125.57)
<Ousey> Dev:  Let them find other employers
<Gardner> I'm rewarded well enough by having a 
Macintosh.  ;-)
<DevilsAd> Jim: better expand the context then.  So 
far my notion of freedom is unassailed.
<TomM> So long as the Marxists deny the role of the 
human mind in production, they'll never learn 
anything anyhow.
Session Close: Sat Mar 23 00:04:43 1996