 |
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:31
|
|
Kidicous:
I can see you have put a lot of time into these threads, and I have to admire you for that.
For doggedly defending an absurd argument,
In the face of overwhelming numerical opposition,
(Not to mention all established economic theory,
and a fair bit of common sense),
For enduring grevious rhetorical and logical wounds,
and, above all, for coming back for more,
I hereby invest you as the first member of Apolyton's Order of the Black Knight.
This award comes with a picture suitable for use as your own personal avatar.
Wear this award with pride.
You have certainly earned it.
 Attachment: black knight.jpg
This has been downloaded 84 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
Isn't this dead yet ??
kid
I made my arguments in the last thread-- I still feel violated at Blockbuster exploiting me by daring to RENT me a movie.
Seriously-- renting any number of items for which you have a short term need only makes sense. It would be incredibly wasteful for everyone to have their own lawn roller, moving van or large truck. fence postholedigger, rototiller, copy of very movie we want to see, tuxedo, large hall for weddings, arena or sports facility.
Is your answer that the state pay for all these, taxing people to provide non-necessities to others ??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:31
|
|
Kid, your beef is (and correct me if I'm wrong) ANY attempt by another individual to gain or retain a portion of your sum-total productivity.
Such attempts are, per your definition, exploitive.
Understand this: the ONLY way that your system could possibly function without exploitation, would be for every man, woman, and child, to be his/her own, completely self-sufficient economic machine. That is to say, each person would have to own all the tools and equipment to build his own home, have all the skills to do all the wiring and plumbing, grow all his own food, make all his own clothing, and make any and all electronic devices he/she wished to own, because you see, ANY TIME that anyone charges you for these things, what are they doing but robbing you of a portion of your productivity? Doesn't matter if you're getting something in exchange for that piece of your productivity, the fact that they're demanding it at all is exploitive, right?
And yet flip it around....are you not robbing them if you simply expect them to GIVE you something they created with their labor?
Ahhhh, but that doesn't count, because your world view is purely centered on YOU. And whatever takes a portion of YOUR productivity is exploitation....but it's somehow magically NOT exploitation if you get something for nothing at someone else's expense.
You don't want to have to work for it, because you'd rather spend that time complaining about how "the man" is out to get you, and it is that very attitude that will forever keep you down, not the actions of those who are supposedly nefariously out to get you.
Work for it. It's good for you. 
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
I'm going to answer yes, they are different.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Smith
Kidicous:
I can see you have put a lot of time into these threads, and I have to admire you for that.
For doggedly defending an absurd argument,
In the face of overwhelming numerical opposition,
(Not to mention all established economic theory,
and a fair bit of common sense),
For enduring grevious rhetorical and logical wounds,
and, above all, for coming back for more,
I hereby invest you as the first member of Apolyton's Order of the Black Knight.
This award comes with a picture suitable for use as your own personal avatar.
Wear this award with pride.
You have certainly earned it. |
Hehe. Thanx AS, but I'm not worthy of an avatar because I only post on the OT forum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Understand this: the ONLY way that your system could possibly function without exploitation, would be for every man, woman, and child, to be his/her own, completely self-sufficient economic machine. That is to say, each person would have to own all the tools and equipment to build his own home, have all the skills to do all the wiring and plumbing, grow all his own food, make all his own clothing, and make any and all electronic devices he/she wished to own, because you see, ANY TIME that anyone charges you for these things, what are they doing but robbing you of a portion of your productivity? |
Wow! I previously thought that you understood what I was talking about. Obviously from this post you don't. You need to read some books about communism. Then come ask questions. PM me if you like.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Oh dear. You are so confused. You don't rent to video to do your work. You rent it to be entertained. That's not exploitation. |
Well thanks for responding to my attempt to be humorous and not any of my detailed examples or more serious questions. I assume its because you can't.
So you are saying it is ok for the EVIL CAPITALIST (tm) to rent you things to entertain you but not to do "work".
So rent in and of itself is not exploitive since you do not object to certain things being rented for a profit like a blockbuster movie. Is that correct??
So when does "rent" become exploitive? Before I lay sod in the spring, I plan to turn the soil to loosen it and then rake it level. It will probably take me a couple of days, or I could rent a roto-tiller or I could hire a few people to help
1. Is landscaping my garden "work" in your world? It is to the people that do it for a living and its definitely not entertainment for me.
2. If it is work, Is it exploitive for someone to rent me a roto-tiller ?-- I don't want to have my own since I will need it for less than a day and will probably never need one again.
3. If its not work to me then imagine I hire two guys to landscape my lot. This is obviously "work" to them. They look at the job and decide that they will rent a roto-tiller. They also don't need to own or have one on a regular basis as they don't want to be responsible for maintaining or storing this equipment year round.
So what are the choices to get the land worked efficiently
1. well we could do it all by hand but that would take much longer and much more effort. Does this mean I have to pay the workers more for their greater effort? Imagine they can do the job in one third the time, do it better and with much less effort with the roto-tiller.
CAN YOU AT LEAST AGREE THAT HAVING A ROTO_TILLER IS MORE EFFICIENT FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED ?? lets take that as a given that a roto-tiller will make the job quicker. .. I am willing to pay a higher per hour rate if the roto-tiller is used since my only concern is to get the job done and the workers will net more money in less time by earning the whole fee in a day instead of two
Now we need a roto-tiller so how do we get one??
a) well the evil capitalist can have one and rent it to whomever wishes it for a fee-- but since that is exploitive, this option would not exist
b) I or the workers could acquire one but none of us need one on an ongoing basis and buying one to resell is just stupid
Well I guess that only leaves the state. The means to do work better should be freely provided. Since providing a roto-tiller to everyone is stupid, there must be a pool of common tools . .. Now the full time landscapers would probably need their own roto-tillers full time so of course they could keep theirs and only bring them back when they break for the state to perform the maintenance on them while they take another. There would have to be enough tools for everyone's needs at ALL times since it would be unfair if a worker could not earn the higher rate available if he had a rototiller.
So lets see, making it a state obligation to provide work ools means
1. You would have to keep a larger inventory on hand than under a free-market system so as to not deny any worker their right to tools
2. An economic decision would never enter into it . .. A worker would never find a job small enough that it was not worthy of using the tool ( since you have removed any expense from the decision)-- As a general citizen I would expect that I could get a roto-tiller for free for the day too since it would seem unfair for the state to provide to another that which it would deny me
3. A whole bunch of people have to pay for this big toolshed even though they live in apartments and have no use for ANY of the tools
4. As the state acquires newer and better roto-tillers that are more powerful, there will be the issue as to who gets them. A more powerful tool can accomplish more work in less time. Do you have to discard all the older but still functional models so everyone be equal??
So KID
General contractors need all sorts of tools that they never buy since their need is so intermittent. One day its a roto-tiller, tomorrow a cement mixer, the next a post-hole digger or a compressor and nail gun. Many of these are bulky to move or store so the contractor will rent them if they need them. Tell me how your economic system will efficiently provide these tools.
Oh and I hope your solution is not to have a group of state-salaried handymen who are freely provided the tools they need with a citizen needing to apply to some state agency for approval to have the work freely done. In that scenario, I get a lawn 3 years from now if the handymen can be freed from building another wing on the dachas of the elite
edit-- spelling and adding a few points of clarification
Last edited by Flubber on 05-11-2003 at 20:33
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2003 03:05
|
