User talk:Salvor Hardin

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Allen 09:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

wiki-addiction
Yep, I had that same feeling when I started... turns out I know myself pretty well, I guess... One thing I like about Wikipedia as an internet addiction, though, is that I probably don't spend too much more time online than I did before, but now, when I leave the computer, something in the world is a tiny bit better than before. So I don't feel nearly as guilty about my internet time-wasting. (Which could be a bad thing too, I guess, but I'm keeping on the sunny side.) --Allen 09:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Positive Liberty
Could you please describe why you tagged Positive liberty with a missing information tag? It would help if you clarified your reasons for the tag on Talk:Positive liberty.--Bkwillwm 21:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't create frivolous AfD nominations. There is already a stress on the system without that sort of thing.  The article is very coherent.  Please withdraw the nomination. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it's frivolous. The article is incoherent IMO. Salvor Hardin 22:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on. Anyone with a kindergarten education knows the difference between "I can do this but I don't want to" and "I must do this."  Same thing here.  Free speech- you can say all Republicans are evil, but you don't have to.  Positive education right- you have a right to an education, and the government must provide you with one. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You've changed the subject to positive rights. That's a totally different subject.  There's no such thing, even conceptually, as "positive freedom".  Salvor Hardin 23:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. But even if you're of the opinion that a "positive freedom" cannot exist there's obviously some literature and discussion on it; therefore, an encyclopedic topic.  The article talks about the ability to do something as opposed to freedom from some force of coercion. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "the ability to do something" is just that, an ability to do something. You can also call it "power".  Using the the word "freedom" instead of "power" is some kind of bizarre perversion that came about I don't know how.  If that really is what the article is supposed to mean, it can certainly be radically clarified.  Salvor Hardin 23:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say a freedom is by definition a personal power. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Freedom is defined as a lack of constraints. I may have the power to write this, but not the freedom to do so.  Conversely, I may have the freedom to write this, but not the power to do so.  Salvor Hardin 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The usual example given is that anyone is 'free' to own a TV network (or something similar). In practice, this 'negative freedom' (i.e. 'no one's stopping you') is not real for the majority of the population. Those with sufficient money do have a 'positive freedom' to choose to buy a TV network. Relative poverty in this case is a constraint.--Jack Upland 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe "constraint" isn't the best word. Replace it with "coercion". Salvor Hardin 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it does get into word games, doesn't it? What precisely is the difference? Is a person in a locked room constrained or coerced? And does it matter?--Jack Upland 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends on whether someone locked them there or it was an accident. Yes, it makes a big difference.  Accidents can be avoided.  Salvor Hardin 10:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Crimes can be avoided too. What's your point???--Jack Upland 10:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that if you don't have liberty, being locked in a room cannot be avoided. Crimes cannot be avoided if they are mandated by the government.


 * Bottom line, liberty is about being secure in your person and property -- not having a right to other peoples' persons and property. It's pretty simple.  Salvor Hardin 04:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding the issue. If you are locked in a room, obviously you don't have liberty. If you have 'a right' to other people's property, obviously it's not their property. Everything's 'simple' if you rely on truisms.--Jack Upland 09:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, whether you have liberty or not in a locked room completely depends on how you got there. Liberty is not a quantifiable physical state.  It is a political condition. As for what constitutes property, that's a whole other discussion. Salvor Hardin 20:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See, I think that's nonsensical: if you're trapped in a locked room, you're not free. You on the other hand seem to be arguing that it depends on who is to blame, or more concretely freedom can only be taken from you by a government (particularly a nasty socialist one). Hence your definition of liberty is inherently biased and all your arguments are worthless.--Jack Upland 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And I say THAT's nonsensical. I'm trapped on Earth; I can't fly into outer space -- that means I'm not free?  You've removed all meaning from the word.  Salvor Hardin 20:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't fly into outer space - but neither can other people. But if you're trapped in a room, when others are able to move round, of course you're not free.--Jack Upland 10:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that if everyone is locked in the room, we're all free. Was that your intent?  As for people flying into outer space, maybe you should consult this: www.nasa.gov    Salvor Hardin 13:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how you interpret your romantic notion of flying away into space. I would say we are all - even NASA - 'trapped on Earth' to use your phrase. To some extent, freedom is relative, like wealth. (For instance, medieval kings were wealthy even if they lacked modern amenities). As for your notion of the entire world being locked in one room, I am reminded of Rousseau's phrase that man is orn free, but everywhere he is in chains. But even more, I am moved to note the fact that conservatives of your type prefer to argue in absurd abstractions. Now, why is that??--Jack Upland 09:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Flying into space" is pretty straightforward. There's nothing "romantic" about it -- astronauts do it all the time.  Your assertion that freedom is relative basically denies the concept of political freedom itself.  We can be more or less free, but there is a maximum to the amount of freedom we can achieve.  This is true freedom -- what you would call "negative freedom".  As for absurd abstractions, what are you referring to?  Abstractions illustrate the principles.  Salvor Hardin 01:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that no one is exiled to Earth (except Doctor Who). As interstellar travel is impossible for everyone (including astronauts - and even cosmonauts) it is an irrelevant issue. And by the way, you can now purchase a space flight if you have money, so in your narrow terms your argument is invalidated.--Jack Upland 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is exiled to a locked room, either, simply by virtue of being there. I never said anything about "interstellar travel".  And as for being able to purchase space flight, you obviously haven't been paying attention to my argument at all.  I specifically said that *I* have the freedom to fly into space, but not the *power*.  Other people do have that power, which was my point.  Different capabilities, equal freedom.  Salvor Hardin 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is no, no, no, if you're in a locked room, you're not free, no ifs, no buts, no nothing... Everything else is pseudo-intellectual obfuscation.--Jack Upland 05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And MY point is that you are using a nonpolitical definition of "free" that is irrelevant to this discussion. If you don't agree that "freedom" and "liberty" are political concepts, then we really have nothing further to discuss. Salvor Hardin 21:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

criticism of libertarianism
You've added a number of responses to criticism in the form "libertarians say..." None of these are sourced, which makes it sound like original work. The point of a Wikipedia article on an ideological debate is to document the debate, not to engage in it, so all arguments mentioned should be sourced. I didn't revert anything because many of the arguments, I think, would be worth including if you could quote or reference someone making them - but if they remain in the present state, they'll need to be removed, as per Wikipedia policy on weased wording and original research. Kalkin 03:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I admit that they may be original research. However I don't exist in a vacuum, so I'm sure I can source them all to one writer or another, given time.  Cool?  Salvor Hardin 04:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's cool, that's what I thought. Take your time, just remove anything you can't source. Kalkin 17:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Society
Please include references on the Great Society page limited to criticisms of the Great Society. Your reference was deleted because the citation does not make any reference (or even include the words) Great Society, except in the blog portion of the page. If a better citation exists, please add it and restore your text.Leuliett 22:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Hunter
Whats a NPOV Hunter? And who should look out? --193.183.18.85 21:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * An NPOV Hunter is someone who roots out bias (usually political, but not always) in articles. I actually found some cultural bias in the "ramen" article that I brought attention to.  The people who should look out for me, for the most part, are communists/socialists/liberals who attempt to state in false terms the principles and consequences of their ideologies.  Salvor Hardin 06:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You say that as though you don't think that there's a difference between a communist, socialist & liberal. You seem quite certain of yourself.  Do you think that those who are communist, socialist or liberal are intellectually or otherwise inferior to you? mp2dtw 05:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that there is little substantial difference between a communist, socialist, and liberal. I am using liberal in the American sense here.  I would say that they are morally inferior to me, yes, since I see these ideologies as immoral.  I cant say simply based on the ideology someone holds at a given moment what their intellectual capabilities are.  However, if someone was a communist their whole life I think I can say with some security that they don't have a firm grasp of reality.  Salvor Hardin 05:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you'll explain why you believe that I, as a democratic socialist, am morally inferior. Perhaps we don't use the term the same way, but I've never thought of any group as morally inferior to any other.  When I see people who seem hurtful/hateful to me, like Rev Phelps or the KKK, I'm deeply saddened that they're bringing upon themselves and others that level of anguish, but I've never thought that they were deficient or inferior in any way. I look forward to reading your thoughts tomorrow. Must go to bed to get up in 6 hrs. take care. mp2dtw 06:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Morally inferior" means "less moral". Maybe you have no morality.  I do.  And my morality tells me that stealing is wrong, no matter what high-minded justification you give for it.  Salvor Hardin 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My morality tells me stealing is wrong. Killing is wrong. So why do so many people like you claim to have high morals and them go steal and kill? Europeans, like us, do not steal - we have social democracy, not capitalism. We do not kill - we have virtually no crime, we have very few wars, at least since postnationalism has taken root.


 * I know that you'll want to argue with me about how socialism is stealing from people. It's not, but capitalism is stealing, because capitalism is getting rich off of others by any means necessary, you end up with a few rich and many poor and a very large Gini index. There is a huge middle class in Europe, because we don't have monopolies stealing from everyone to make the top 1% rich. We also do not go invading countries, killing people while self-righteously reading the Bible, which specifically states not to kill, and then claiming we were freeing some people from some dictator, while they make it clear they do not want us there.


 * Finally, I could not help but notice that you yourself have a heavily biased POV. You claim that you find POV statements and correct them, which is a very good thing, but if you take true statements (middle of section, where you "find" a "POV") and call them POV, then it's not NPOV hunting anymore. It's a fact that social liberals stand for social liberalism. Social liberalism entails all freedom except financial. Hitler wanted to kill millions he thought were unfit for the world (and he sadly succeeded), he was a social conservative. Kim Jong Il wanted to force his people to stop communicating with the outside world, he was a social conservative. Bush wanted to restrict the rights of immigrants choosing to work in your country and gay couples getting married, he was a social conservative. Stalin wanted to kill hundreds of thousands of Polish civilians ans POWs (he too succeeded), he was a social conservative. I don't see, after these four prominent examples, why you would quote the following as POV: "social liberals are generally the most outspoken defenders of human rights and civil liberties". Social liberals ARE outspoken about individual rights, we believe the government has no right to tell anyone, you or me, what do do with ourselves. We don't think governments should be killing people or locking them up, because they are "inferior" or "untraditional" or "in the way". And that's exactly what social right-wing governments do, the mutual opposite of social liberal governments.


 * I hope I have been able to show you some sense through presenting my points logically and calmly, but I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't read all of what I wrote, or if you respond to bits and pieces of what I wrote with poetically-packaged "socialism sucks". 68.35.55.55 (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Labor Theory of Value
With regard to our discussion of Marx's theory (which you consider 'nonsensical')I would be glad to post a point-by-point refutation of the 'Disproof of the LTV' here if you're interested. I just think it might be too long for the discussion page of the article...--Jack Upland 00:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means, go ahead. This should be interesting. Salvor Hardin 03:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done it - but it's 4 pages. Do you still want me to post it here??--Jack Upland 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not? Salvor Hardin 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, here goes:

The pamphlet, ‘The Labor Theory of Value’ by Donald C Ernsberger, published by the International Society of Individual Liberty, purports to be a disproof of Karl Marx’s theory. I contend that it is a hodgepodge of misrepresentation and fallacy. This misrepresentation is aided by Ernsberger’s glaring failure to provide citations. In making my case, I will deal with his arguments in the haphazard succession with which they are delivered.

Ernsberger begins with a historical misrepresentation of the labour theory of value (LTV) as peculiar to Marxism, though it was actually common to the classical economists, including Adam Smith and David Ricardo. In fact, Marx himself credits Benjamin Franklin as the originator of the concept (Value, Price, and Profit, VI). Ernsberger later implies that the LTV is only held by opponents of the free market system (paras. 7 and 9) and finally resorts to scare tactics, describing it as leading to the ‘end of all economic freedom’ (para. 20) and ‘political slavery’ (para. 24).

Ernsberger’s explanation of ‘how the LTV works’ (para. 4) is, like the analysis that follows, rather simplistic. In his example, he ignores the cost of machinery, tools etc worn out in the course of production. Of course, as he grudgingly acknowledges in the next paragraph, these too are products of labour. This is gives the reader the impression that Marx is blind to the role of capital goods. In fact, in his Critique of the Gotha Program (I, 3) Marx polemicises against the simplistic view that workers should receive the ‘undiminished proceeds of labour’, arguing that funds were needed to cover maintenance, expansion etc.

Ernsberger characterises the LTV as an ‘intrinsic-value theory’ in which ‘value is inherent in objects’ (para. 7). However, this again misrepresents Marx. In the Critique of the Gotha Program, he argues the LTV is a social construction, accusing capitalists of ‘falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labour’ (I, 1) and states that, under socialism, as ‘the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labour employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them’ (I, 3).

Ernsberger’s purpose is to contrast the LTV with the ‘fundamentally different’ ‘market-exchange theory’ (paras 7 and 8). However, he then makes a startling admission: At first glance, both theories seem to make sense. It is generally true that the more labor invested in an object, the more it is worth [para 9]. So it appears that the LTV which he derides as ‘absurd’ and ‘nonsense’ is ‘generally true’. But he will not be stopped in his stride merely because he shot himself in the foot. Instead, he waves this away, asserting that both theories cannot be right (para. 10). The distinction he draws is that the market theory says value is based on demand, while he accuses the LTV of ‘ignoring demand entirely’ (para. 24). According to him, the LTV posits that value ‘remains constant despite changing demand’ (para. 7). This is a common misconception. In fact Marx said:

the oscillations of market prices, rising now over, sinking now under the value or natural price, depend upon the fluctuations of supply and demand… It suffices to say that if supply and demand equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say, with their values, as determined by the respective quantities of labour required for their production. [Value, Price, and Profit, VI]

At this point Ernsberger’s edifice falls in a heap. The alternatives he presents are not ‘diametrically opposed’ (para. 10) at all.

After misrepresenting the LTV, Ernsberger tries to pick holes in it:

The assertion that only labor gives an object value ignores the fact that many natural objects in which no labor has been invested – such as scenic views, pure water, gems and minerals, and wild fruits and vegetables – have economic value. [para 11]

Yet again, this misrepresents Marx who stated categorically:

Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labour [Critique of the Gotha Program, I, 1]

Marx here is distinguishing ‘use values’ (or utility) and ‘exchange values’ (or market values). Ernsberger, like most market economists, conflates the two. Later on, he uses the term ‘enjoyable’ (para. 13), as if enjoyment and price are identical. The best illustration of the distinction is air, which is obviously vital for all living things as well as chemical processes such as combustion. Air therefore underpins the economy but has no ‘economic value’ as expressed in price. But by using the ambiguous word ‘value’ Ernsberger blurs this important distinction. After all, who precisely is supposed to be paid for nature’s gifts? Mother Earth? As Marx explains:

in so far as man from the beginning behaves towards nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labour, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labour becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth….precisely from the fact that labour depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labour power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labour [Ibid]

But let’s look at the examples that Ernsberger gives of ‘natural objects’. For starters, ‘gems and minerals’ have to mined, and ‘wild fruits and vegetables’ have to be picked, so the suggestion that no labour is involved is fallacious in the extreme. As for water, its collection, purification, and distribution do involve labour and hence incur a charge. But rain, like air, is free.

Then there’s ‘scenic views’. Now, we have all experienced the wonders of natural beauty, city lights etc, without paying a cent. So Ernsberger must mean residential views. But the homeless can also have harbour views. So Ernsberger really means property – specifically ‘location’. This is essentially an example of a monopolistic distortion of the market, where the LTV doesn’t actually operate (see VP&P, VI).

Ernsberger then frivolously compares leaves with diamonds. Now, no one would seriously believe that picking leaves involves the same labour as mining and cutting diamonds. Yet Ernsberger, confident in his capsule of misrepresentation and fallacy, asserts that the LTV ‘cannot by its nature account’ for the difference in value.

The next misrepresentation is that: ‘The labor theory of value also fails to take into account changing consumer desires and the contextual nature of value’ (para. 12). Actually Marx argued: ‘to produce a commodity, man must not only produce an article satisfying some social want, but his labour itself must from part and parcel of the total sum of labour expended by society’ (ibid). This also answers the objection about oil in a reservoir (para. 13) – it clearly isn’t a ‘social want’.

The next trivial example is the value created by the aging of wine (para.13). Ernsberger here ignores the labour involved in cellaring.

Ernsberger now announces ‘Perhaps the most grievous theoretical fault’ with the LTV (para. 14), saying:

most workers prefer to be paid when their work is completed rather than when their products are sold – which may be months later. For workers to be paid now, rather than later, someone must advance their wages, and clearly this service has a value. But proponents of the labor theory would have it both ways: workers are to receive the full future value of their product now. [para. 15]

This is simply silly. The workers sell their labour to the employer and are paid on completion. That’s it!

Following this ‘grievous’ stupidity, Ernsberger changes tack to misrepresentation, accusing the LTV of a ‘value-effort fallacy’, stating, ‘It is folly to assume that all effort produces value’ (para. 16). Actually Marx said:

In saying that the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour worked up or crystallised in it, we mean the quantity of labour necessary for its production in a given state of society, under certain social average conditions of production, with a given social average intensity, and average skill of the labour employed. (VP&P, IV)

And he specifically stated that lazy and clumsy workers do not produce more valuable products (ibid). Ernsberger returns this misconception later, raising the case of ‘shoddy work’ ‘hacked out by a beginner’ (para. 19).

Ernsberger goes on to question how the LTV explains innovation and investment, if profits are merely based on exploitation (para. 17). This argument is itself absurd. The LTV doesn’t deny that capitalists compete with each other and try to minimise costs. While an individual innovator achieves higher profits in the short term, in the long term the innovation is copied by competitors and the increase in labour productivity leads to cheaper products. Hence this example supports the LTV rather than undermining it.

We now come to Ernsberger’s second damning admission:

Communist countries have not abolished profits. They have merely transferred all profits to the state [para.18]

(This was written prior to the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.) So, after insisting that profits were generated by free markets, that value was created by consumer choice, that what Marx called exploitation was really entrepreneurship, Ernsberger now, with a rush of blood to the head, asserts that under Communism – where he acknowledges none of these factors were present – ‘all profits’ were ‘merely’ transferred to the state, i.e. that the generation of profit was undiminished and identical. He has hence contradicted his entire argument.

Further compounding his illogicality, Ernsberger then slips into the common misconception of the LTV as a theory of what should be rather than what is (para 19). As he himself as already shown, the LTV does not advocate that sellers be ‘compelled’ to sell at a particular price.

Our would-be analyst then moves on to ‘methodological fallacies’, in particular a proof which he claims occurs somewhere in Capital, Volume 1 (para. 22). Here he makes his third startling admission, labelling as true the premise that ‘Some factor in the production of a good gives it value’. Once again, he has contradicted his central argument that value is created in the market. The second premise he identifies is that ‘Only those goods to which man has applied labor have value’ which he boldly labels false. We have already seen the failure to disprove this point. Moreover, here he is committing his own methodological fallacy by assuming what he has to prove (i.e. that the LTV is wrong). The next point in his analysis is a ‘procedure’ which he labels ‘arbitrary’: ‘Examine all the factors producing a good by discarding those which did not create equal value in equal quantity, and end up with one factor – Labor.’ However, this is by no means arbitrary. As Marx argues in Capital, Volume 1, (I, 1) given their exchangeability, ‘the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity’. If there were a diverse range of factors, how could the relative value of each be assessed, without resource to a common denominator?

Ernsberger then moves on to Capital, Volume 3 – once again without citation. He states:

Marx proclaims that two types of capital exist in production, only one of which can produce "surplus value". Thus exchange of items of equal value can have uneven mixtures of these two types of capital, implying that labor alone is not the sole determinant of value. [para. 23]

He appears to be referring to the ‘Transformation Problem’ discussed in Chapter 9 but has got it totally confused. What he vaguely describes as ‘two types of capital’ are capital used to employ workers on the one hand, and capital used to purchase machinery, raw materials etc on the other. The fact that items of equal value can be produced by ‘uneven mixtures’ of these doesn’t contradict the LTV at all, since both involve labour – current in one case, past in the other. The actual issue of the ‘Transformation Problem’ is equal rates of profit – not values. But we can’t expect Ernsberger to get anything right.

He then veers off the topic to assert that labour is ‘voluntary’ under capitalism (para. 25), blithely ignoring economic necessity.

This is followed by a fourth major contradiction, in which Ernsberger justifies profits by referring to an entrepreneur’s ‘organizational ability, foresight, and management skills’ (para. 26). This could be summarised in the proposition that profits are a ‘reward’ for entrepreneurial labour. Yet again he has backhandedly conceded that he accepts the LTV is correct. After this shambolic performance, Ernsberger proudly concludes, ‘Marx has been in his grave for over 100 years. It is time that his theories were buried as well.’ It is clear that our bumbling gravedigger has merely dug a hole for himself.

References
 * Karl Marx, Value, Price, and Profit, 1865.


 * Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1, 1867.


 * Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875.


 * Donald C Ernsberger, ‘The Labor Theory of Value (An Analysis)’, International Society for Individual Liberty, 1988.


 * A skilled rebuttal Jack. Of course, Ernsberger was clearly a sloppy thinker and an easy target.

"Ernsberger then frivolously compares leaves with diamonds. Now, no one would seriously believe that picking leaves involves the same labour as mining and cutting diamonds. Yet Ernsberger, confident in his capsule of misrepresentation and fallacy, asserts that the LTV ‘cannot by its nature account’ for the difference in value."

You miss the point. In a market economy, it doesn't matter whether the diamond was mined, cut, and brought halfway across the world, or whether it simply fell out of the sky into my lap. All that matters are two things: The supply of diamonds, and the demand for them. That's what determines value.

The LTV posits that if I spend one hour picking leaves, and one hour mining diamonds, then I've produced exactly the same amount of value. Absurd on its face. Salvor Hardin 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I think you miss the point. To refute the LTV you cannot merely assert that supply and demand alone determine price. I would suggest that if you spent an hour picking leaves you would have an awful amount of leaves, but one hour mining diamonds would leave you with exactly nothing.  Let's not be theoretical.  Let's try it.  You go for diamonds and I'll go for leaves!!!!!--Jack Upland 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting silly quickly. Let me just ask you this, Jack:  Of what practical *use* is the LTV?  -- Salvor Hardin (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You take a year to respond, say I've made a 'skilled rebuttal', and then say the discussion is 'getting silly quickly'??? And you suddenly demand a theory be practical?! Obviously the immediate practical fact is the market price. The theoretical question is what determines the market price. In practice, a business wants to minimise its costs and these can be resolved into labour costs. You can waffle about supply and demand, but producing a labour saving device, increasing labour productivity etc, is going to have greater impact in practice.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Social activist
I've added the "prod" template to the article Social activist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day"). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Social activist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Bytebear 07:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC).

User page
I'm requesting per WP:USER that you remove the statement "look out commies" from your user page. Wikipedia is worldwide and there are undoubtedly sound editors who identify as communist, who should not be told to "look out". This statement is inflammatory and divisive, and does not create an atmosphere of collegiality. Thanks. Relevant text below. Tyrenius 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What can I not have on my user page?
Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian. Examples of unrelated content include:

libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea
 * Polemical statements:
 * - Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder and leader


 * Hilarious! Thanks for that, Tyrenius, you made my day.  :D  Salvor Hardin 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been identified as a communist (but don't self-identify). Nevertheless the warning that I 'look out' is much appreciated. I will peer cautiously from beneath the bed while typing furiously on my wireless laptop...--Jack Upland 10:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your comments on the overpopulation talk page
I like the stuff you said on the comment page. I added some comments to the talk page too, and a few edits to the article. My gosh - that article tries to blame every problem on overpopulation, including poverty, famine, AIDS, and unemployment. I added some information to prove that was not true, along with links. I also compared rich capitalist South Korea to poor communist North Korea. You obvisouly understamnd this, but a lot of other people don't. Much of what's in that article is simply wrong. Grundle2600 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)