: Two minds are unable to 'think' together.
Nonsense. Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto disproves that statement.
Stoller: And should all of Western civilization continue to pay tribute in honor of intellectual property rights to that one person (if it was one person) in perpetuity?
: Who else did it? That man would not live in perpetuity anyway - what benefit would he rationally derive from ownership when dead?
Leaving out the estate here...
: Its an interesting area - intellectual property, its a clue to a persons intent. If one disagrees with it then its clear that the intent is to place each mind as 'communal' property just as is intended with the other means of production.
But capital has all sort of access to OTHER'S intellectual efforts---such as buying favors from university programs, defunding public spending on science so scientists must work for capital's projects, not to mention the 40% of R&D done in America that tax-payers support for capital, risk-free.
Your Randian insinuation that capital itself is Prometheus is seriously over-idealized.
Stoller: Yet capitalism is NOT voluntary. If someone doesn't want to work---on capitalism's terms and at capitalism's wages---that person will go homeless and starve. That's indirect coercion.
: The 'got you over a barrel' argument is intended (i think) to portray the capitalist as a man by the lake side with a rope and the potential worker as a man adrift, in danger of drowning. The 'moral' derived from this is that the rope carrying man is obliged to save the stranger or he is held culpible for his situation - held as cause (thats sneaky - a causal con trick) as if he pushed the man in himself! Thats the allusion to coercion. Were such to be made enforceable law it would be in every mans interest to discard their rope (ability) so as not to be held culpible for the other fellows situation (need). Not a pretty scenario.
That overdetermined metaphor is your positive contribution to the point I raised?
All you are saying is that the proletariat is a hapless soul drowing in a lake; without capital's promethean abilitiy to rescue him / her, he / she would perish.
You are pretty sure of yourself, claiming that capital proves superior intelligence, resourcefulness, discipline, etc.
Yet the fact that education and skill are rationed BY capital doesn't disturb you.
Yet the fact that capital owns all the resources in which to produce anything doesn't worry you.
Yet the fact that capital (ownership of labor-power's produce) alone creates the extra incentive that mere employees do not have does not faze you.
You see that capital has all the advantages in the world---and that alone is your 'proof' that capital earned those advantages.
Hmmmm.... isn't that tautological?
Nevertheless---capital has one fundamental means of coercion over the proletariat: work or starve.
And when I say the same will happen in socialist society (only equally), you call me all sorts of unpleasant names...
I say that's hypocritical.
Stoller: OK, you're defending the social division of labor
: No, I am saying its going to happen *anyway*
Biological determinism to the rescue!
If intelligence (following Rand) is so natural, why then do all those successful capitalists need university educations?
And if university educations ARE necessary for success, then doesn't preventing 75% of the population from being educated strike you as a bit suspect?
If biological determinism REALLY wanted to 'prove its case,' why not offer higher education TO EVERYBODY in order to 'prove' that 'stupid' proletarians---who can't learn to swim without capitalist ropes----are irremediably stupid as biological derterminism posits?