But all you’ve done is show that people expect a return for their trouble–this is otherwise known as a wage. [/quote]
Yes. And capitalists also expects to be compensated for delaying consumption.
[quote]
The whole concept of seeking payment for use of your material resources and evaluating everything from a financial point of view shows up nowhere in human history until a few hundred years ago.[/quote]
Really?! Are you telling me the concept of renting is that new to the human imagination?
And even if the understanding of it were that does not mean it existed outside the possibility of the human imagination.
That I can peaceably rent property from my landlord is only because he has set it aside for me to do so…capitalism explains why he does even if you aren’t aware of it.
Oh shit indeed, for you’ve removed one of the main planks in the classic attempt to justify profit–the “managing and directing” function of capitalists.
That’s just it–managing and organizing is itself a form of work- This is one reason that competent government management is usually more efficient than market-driven approaches. If it is truly organization that needs to occur, then the work that is organized oculd be definition not be done as efficiently without it, and so of course the organizers deserve a part of the increased produce.
Indeed, day-to-day operations would NOT be very different in most industries, because the workers themselves are 99.9% of the time the ones who manage and organize. The only difference is, the money would go exclusively to those who work. This would also free industry to be used for the satisfaction of community-determined needs, not chasing profit.
[/quote]
But I haven’t. I admit the government can, and in many instances does, provide management of resources. I contend this is precisely what owners of businesses do as well.
You may have different feelings on this, but from what I have gleaned from your comments and many of the posts in this thread there is a feeling that business owners are exploiting their workers by profiting from their labor, as if there organizing efforts were not also a job which demands a wage for the organizing work done. In short, a business owner is being productive by his organizing efforts so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (i.e. the individual laborer).
If a business owner is NOT productive as you define it, then it is difficult to surmise how government organization also funded by the work of others IS productive. And if it is not, and capitalist/business owners are exploitative of their workers and effectively thieves, how then can we say the government is in any way different in this regard? Or do you simply believe that a government is going to be superior at organizing given enough information (this would assume objective price theory to be correct as otherwise values are by definition unknowable and in fact different from person to person)?
Following from this, the question would then become which method is superior at producing wealth as both rely on fundamentally the same method of organizing/exploitation (forgoing the ethical arguments). I would say an objective glance at the wealthiest societies would show that market systems are superior to centrally planned ones in pure efficacy.
I am also foregoing for the time being the distinction in types of government intervention (i.e. tax rates vs. regulatory measures- both affect the market but are not synonymous even if they are often highly correlated with each other).
except that, in the libertarian perspective, there is no “community-determined needs”.
they refuse to acknowledge the difference between “profitable” and “socially useful”.
if the market don’t want it, it’s not useful, no matter what.
if the market want it, it’s useful, no matter what.
the market know better, therefore the only way to determine values is not democracy, but supply and demand.
individuals can only agree on something if they exchange money. not if they exchange informations, words and arguments.
for libertarians : “community-determined” = “violence”.
it’s an autistic and asocial ideology.
you are wasting your time debating with them.[/quote]
How is it autistic when your very definition implies that we must interact with other people to establish what the actual monetary value, i.e. relative scarcity of any given good is?
Your “ideology” however, as far as it exists, consists of shit you want to do with other peoples money. I can think of a lot of things I would do with your money I would not do with my own and so can every sleazy scumbag that manages to get elected.
It is really quite simple, money talks, bullshit walks.
except that, in the libertarian perspective, there is no “community-determined needs”.
they refuse to acknowledge the difference between “profitable” and “socially useful”.
if the market don’t want it, it’s not useful, no matter what.
if the market want it, it’s useful, no matter what.
the market know better, therefore the only way to determine values is not democracy, but supply and demand.
individuals can only agree on something if they exchange money. not if they exchange informations, words and arguments.
for libertarians : “community-determined” = “violence”.
it’s an autistic and asocial ideology. [/quote]
Bravo! This is precisely the libertarian ethic. Only I can determine what is helpful or hurtful to me.
[quote]
you are wasting your time debating with them.[/quote]
Argument helps to foster the expansion of ideas.
And while dialog is not necessary it is helpful because every individual has a unique perspective. I think the study of libertarianism is what teaches me this.
except that, in the libertarian perspective, there is no “community-determined needs”.
they refuse to acknowledge the difference between “profitable” and “socially useful”.
if the market don’t want it, it’s not useful, no matter what.
if the market want it, it’s useful, no matter what.
the market know better, therefore the only way to determine values is not democracy, but supply and demand.
individuals can only agree on something if they exchange money. not if they exchange informations, words and arguments.
for libertarians : “community-determined” = “violence”.
it’s an autistic and asocial ideology.
you are wasting your time debating with them.[/quote]
How is it autistic when your very definition implies that we must interact with other people to establish what the actual monetary value, i.e. relative scarcity of any given good is?
[/quote]
Valuation is autistic. That’s all that is meant by that.
except that, in the libertarian perspective, there is no “community-determined needs”.
they refuse to acknowledge the difference between “profitable” and “socially useful”.
if the market don’t want it, it’s not useful, no matter what.
if the market want it, it’s useful, no matter what.
the market know better, therefore the only way to determine values is not democracy, but supply and demand.
individuals can only agree on something if they exchange money. not if they exchange informations, words and arguments.
for libertarians : “community-determined” = “violence”.
it’s an autistic and asocial ideology.
you are wasting your time debating with them.[/quote]
How is it autistic when your very definition implies that we must interact with other people to establish what the actual monetary value, i.e. relative scarcity of any given good is?
[/quote]
Valuation is autistic. That’s all that is meant by that.[/quote]
It is done on an individual level, that does not necessarily mean that it does not take other peoples desires into account.
you would be free to (wrongly or rightfuly) determine what is helpful or hurtful to you if you lived in an hermetic bubble and if you were the only one affected by your decisions and actions.
but you don’t live in an hermetic bubble.
you live in (and by) a society which has every right to determine (by collective and global processes) what is helpful or hurtful to itself.
[quote]kamui wrote:
but you don’t live in an hermetic bubble.
you live in (and by) a society which has every right to determine (by collective and global processes) what is helpful or hurtful to itself.
[/quote]
But society cannot act. Only individuals act. Only individuals exist. A world view based on “society” will always fail.
except that, in the libertarian perspective, there is no “community-determined needs”.
they refuse to acknowledge the difference between “profitable” and “socially useful”.
if the market don’t want it, it’s not useful, no matter what.
if the market want it, it’s useful, no matter what.
the market know better, therefore the only way to determine values is not democracy, but supply and demand.
individuals can only agree on something if they exchange money. not if they exchange informations, words and arguments.
for libertarians : “community-determined” = “violence”.
it’s an autistic and asocial ideology.
you are wasting your time debating with them.[/quote]
How is it autistic when your very definition implies that we must interact with other people to establish what the actual monetary value, i.e. relative scarcity of any given good is?
[/quote]
Valuation is autistic. That’s all that is meant by that.[/quote]
It is done on an individual level, that does not necessarily mean that it does not take other peoples desires into account.
[/quote]
But my valuations of their desires is still subjective. I cannot know your will; you cannot know mine. It can only be determined after I act and vice versa.
you would be free to (wrongly or rightfuly) determine what is helpful or hurtful to you if you lived in an hermetic bubble and if you were the only one affected by your decisions and actions.
but you don’t live in an hermetic bubble.
you live in (and by) a society which has every right to determine (by collective and global processes) what is helpful or hurtful to itself.
[/quote]
So what cannot be justified by this line of thinking? Is this not in and of itself a tautology every bit as much as ethical egoism (which so many socialist and utilitarians would claim)? At what point does the want of the majority stop and why? Do individuals have any rights in the face of the majority? If so, why?
[quote]
So what cannot be justified by this line of thinking? Is this not in and of itself a tautology every bit as much as ethical egoism (which so many socialist and utilitarians would claim)? At what point does the want of the majority stop and why? Do individuals have any rights in the face of the majority? If so, why?[/quote]
yes, at some point, we need a absolute definiton of morality.
and if we don’t have one, we are lost. and it doesn’t matter if we are lost in a communist, capitalist or fascist system. we are just lost.
when they try to defend capitalism, (true) conservatives would be wise to not forget that it is by nature an utilitarian (ie : amoral) system. just like marxism.
[quote]
So what cannot be justified by this line of thinking? Is this not in and of itself a tautology every bit as much as ethical egoism (which so many socialist and utilitarians would claim)? At what point does the want of the majority stop and why? Do individuals have any rights in the face of the majority? If so, why?[/quote]
yes, at some point, we need a absolute definiton of morality.
and if we don’t have one, we are lost. and it doesn’t matter if we are lost in a communist, capitalist or fascist system. we are just lost. [/quote]
Soooo we have to all believe in the same moral system (judging from your post I assume you mean religion here) for society to operate? Sounds reasonable enough.
But just in case we can’t get EVERYONE to agree to the same moral/religious code, again I ask you, at what point does the power of the majority over the minority stop? Does it stop? Or can anything be done to anyone if enough people deem it necessary? If not why?
On a side note, is it that crazy of a notion that we agree as a society vis a vis a minimal government to abide by the minimal number of rules such as don’t kill each other and don’t steal someone else’s property (if they voluntarily and uncoerced give you their stuff that is not stealing)? Is a society of people agreeing to only engage in voluntary, non-violent transactions and interactions with each other such a terrible thing?
You are right. The market doesn’t really exist either. It is just an abstract description of the aggregate exchanges that people make. Individuals do make exchanges and the result of those exchanges can be measured somewhat accurately if not ephemerally as prices.
[quote]
Soooo we have to all believe in the same moral system (judging from your post I assume you mean religion here) for society to operate? Sounds reasonable enough.
But just in case we can’t get EVERYONE to agree to the same moral/religious code, again I ask you, at what point does the power of the majority over the minority stop? Does it stop? Or can anything be done to anyone if enough people deem it necessary? If not why? [/quote]
we don’t need to all believe in the same religion.
but we need traditions. (and probably even rituals, but it’s another story).
[quote]
On a side note, is it that crazy of a notion that we agree as a society vis a vis a minimal government to abide by the minimal number of rules such as don’t kill each other and don’t steal someone else’s property (if they voluntarily and uncoerced give you their stuff that is not stealing)? Is a society of people agreeing to only engage in voluntary, non-violent transactions and interactions with each other such a terrible thing? [/quote]
it’s absolutely not a crazy notion.
what is crazy is to think such a society could be stateless and taxeless.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So, I participated in redistribute my wealth day. I went to McDonald’s and gave a homeless man a fifty spot so he could get some Mad Dog 20/20, coffee, and McDoubles for a week.[/quote]
Good ol Mad Dog. Drank that stuff back in high school. Didnt know they still made it.[/quote]
The only thing more manly than Mad Dog, is 4Locos.
And how can such a simple act as cut all bs spending ( what is bs spending and whats not bs spending btw ) you suggest solve all the problems of america? this is not sarcasme, if you are able to explain this please do.
[/quote]
First of all, the US government gets 19% of the GDP max in the long run.
It was never able to get more, no matter what the tax rate. If they raise it tax evasion goes up, people work less and companies flee the country.
Then, they spend more money on their military than all other nations combined, run two unneccessary wars and spend more on education than almost, if not everyone, else with very little to show for it.
Then there is pork, subsidies, redundant organizations that exist on a federal and on a state level like the DOE…
[/quote]
why does the us government only get 19% of GDP?( what does GDP stand for btw? ) Is it constitutional or is it based on some economic law? ps. doe you have any links wich explains it further?
sorry for my ignorance in economics, but what is tax evation?
I agree on the military spending, the empire should be shut down, but of other reasons than tax, but if it helps the governments money problem its a bonus.
education: If its the most expensive in the world, but doesnt give the best payback it must be for some reason. find the reason and solve the problem should be the obvious solution. Education is a long term investment that will help the society in the long turn. So I would say no cutting.
[/quote]
No matter what the marginal tax rate was, the US federal government never got more than 19% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Tax evasion: It might be shocking for you, but if taxes are getting too high, some people refuse to pay them, Some even go so far as to lie to the government about how much money they made!
The reason why they get very little in return for their investment is pretty simple: socialiced education.
Catholic schools get better results with half the money.
[/quote]
Oh know I get the tax evasion point. Its actually a topic that are discussed alot in my country, but one argument for bringing evasion down is making the tax system more social. If regular workers who pay theire taxes see that the richest members of society get away with paying less taxes than them because of loopholes, generous tax cuts for top % of the population etc. The average citizen feels that the tax system is unfair. So this problem can be fixed by getting rid of loopholes and making the tax system more fair.
[/quote]
That is not tax-evasion, what Wesley Snipes did is tax-evasion. Finding loopholes is just part of the system, just not paying your taxes is what this is talking about.
[quote]
When it comes to socialised education, you might be right about the chatolic schools. But if the government terminated the public school system, kids would be without schools and commercial education corperations would take its place. This would not be cheaper if the federal and local state had to pay the corperations as they do with healthcare today, it would be more expensive. Remember that the healthcare in america are run by privat corperations and that it is more expensive than the 100% socialised healtcare in europa pr capita.[/quote]
No, healthcare is not run by private corporations, there are a lot of state hospitals, and they are by far the shittiest I have been in. If know a hospital is a state run hospital, I’ll request to go to the next one.
I don’t think you realise this, but public school is not free. You have to pay taxes for it, however, private schools (like Prep schools) are usually cheaper between not paying taxes and having scholarships to go to that school. Catholic schools usually get a lot of donations both from Catholic and non-Catholics because of the quality of education.
However, Americans are notorious for their lack of willingness to support public education. Take Sun City for example, has never had a bond passed to pay for local schools, they won’t have it. However, I was helping with a scholarship drive up in Sun City, in one Sunday three full scholarships and two partial scholarships were paid for. I think the old people have a good head when it comes to school, they know this bullshit America tries to pull off as school is merely a boring version of baby sitting for twelve years.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
OK, semantics. Yes, we have the right to work. But we do not have the right to force someone to provide us a a job and pay us for it.
Saying we have the right to work is like saying we have the right to breathe. It is something we need to do in order to merely exist but I cannot force someone to provide me air to breathe should I ever happen into that situation.[/quote]
I don’t even think it is semantics. Do I have a right to work? Not having a right does not mean I am restricted from doing that.
If I have a right to work, that means someone is obligated to give me work. So, because I have a right to work…who here is obligated to give me a job? Anyone? Oh…so no one is obligated to give me work, well then must mean I don’t have a right to work.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
OK, semantics. Yes, we have the right to work. But we do not have the right to force someone to provide us a a job and pay us for it.
Saying we have the right to work is like saying we have the right to breathe. It is something we need to do in order to merely exist but I cannot force someone to provide me air to breathe should I ever happen into that situation.[/quote]
I don’t even think it is semantics. Do I have a right to work? Not having a right does not mean I am restricted from doing that.
If I have a right to work, that means someone is obligated to give me work. So, because I have a right to work…who here is obligated to give me a job? Anyone? Oh…so no one is obligated to give me work, well then must mean I don’t have a right to work.[/quote]
We need a distinction of positive and negative rights.
A positive right is one that is granted such as the right to a job might be considered.
A negative right is one that cannot be taken away such as the right for me to work to make a living would be considered.
The right to employ my own labor is a valid right.
The right to force someone else to employ me is not.