 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
But you DON'T own the tool, which is precisely the point. If you want to own the tool, then build one yourself, or negotiate a price for which Vel will sell the tool outright (which, by the way, is in most cases more economical than renting the tool indefinitely). |
How is that the point?
quote:
I think the cause of our disagreement is simply a different outlook. You are talking about specific freedoms (the government will allow me to go to church), and I'm talking about broad, general rights (I can go to church because the government recognizes my right to do so).
In your outlook, OK, sure I suppose there can be varying amounts of freedom, but this is much less the case in my system. Either way, though, this is a point not entirely relevant to the discussion, and more of an aside. |
I'm talking about generalized freedoms. And more generalized than you are I believe (not restricted to freedom from the state).
quote:
Umm, in most cases, and if you were smart, you and Vel would have signed a contract guaranteeing the use of the tool for a certain amount of time, in exchange for a certain amount of money.
That's how my apartment lease works. The apartment can't hike the rent up on my whenever they please. When my lease (contract) is up, they can if they want, and if I decide I don't want to pay it, I'll go elsewhere to live. |
What if I can't predict the market and the lease ends at a particularly desperate time?
quote:
Similarly, if you don't want to pay more money for the tool, then don't pay it. The worst case scenario is that you'll be back to your original starting position of 10 units per day, PLUS any profits you have retained from the time in which your production was 19 units per day.
If you failed to save any of your profits, or if you overextended yourself, that's hardly Vel's problem, and you aren't any less free because of it. You might just be worse off financially, which is hardly the same thing. |
I'm less free if I'm worse off financially.
quote:
It's relevant in that it changes the nature of your example to such a degree that your example does not resemble Vel's. |
But once again, Vel's argument had absolutely nothing to do with the morality of coercion. If his argument was valid, so was mine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:31
|
|
I know you were, Ramo.... And in truth, I suspect our positions are not terribly far from each other's. I am a firm believer of a strong social safety net to protect those who cannot (for whatever reason) actively and fully participate in the economic system.
I am not, however, for putting artificial constraints of any kind on the rewards for innovation. The market has proved to be a stellar determinant of price, and when those prices rise too high, the market brings them back to earth rather effectively. There is no need for the State Nanny to arbitrarily fix prices or wages, and in fact, doing so in a system as complex as our modern economy can have drastic, and often unanticipated consequences. It's like a kindergarten student mucking around with a finely balanced eco-system. He might mean well, but the results are almost always a disaster.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
I know you were, Ramo.... And in truth, I suspect our positions are not terribly far from each other's. I am a firm believer of a strong social safety net to protect those who cannot (for whatever reason) actively and fully participate in the economic system. |
Actually, I probably believe in a smaller safety net you do actually. I'm not a huge fan of welfare. I think it's more important to fundamentally change the nature of the economy by introducing socialism (by voluntary means where possible) thus making welfare unneeded.
quote:
I am not, however, for putting artificial constraints of any kind on the rewards for innovation. The market has proved to be a stellar determinant of price, and when those prices rise too high, the market brings them back to earth rather effectively. There is no need for the State Nanny to arbitrarily fix prices or wages, and in fact, doing so in a system as complex as our modern economy can have drastic, and often unanticipated consequences. It's like a kindergarten student mucking around with a finely balanced eco-system. He might mean well, but the results are almost always a disaster. |
I'm an anarchist. I don't care much for nanny state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:31
|
|
Some do, sure. Some don't. Have you ever seen Bono from U2 (who makes orders of magnitude more than I do), lobbying hard to coerce the state to maintain his position? Nope, he's out there, lobbying hard for AIDS research. That's his thing.
I'll not deny that it happens. Of course it does. And for every robber-barron out there doing that, there's a team of other guys fighting tooth and nail against him. My main point is that by making each person responsible for his own success or failure, you create an incentive, a drive to succeed.
By surrendering yourself to the State Nanny, sure, you get a measure of security, and everybody is reduced to the lowest common denominator.
There are some who are okay with selling their soul to the State Nanny, and they try VERY hard to convince the rest of us that we should too. Failing that, they threaten to introduce us to the tender mercies of "re-education camps" so that we may understand their enlightened ways of servitude to the state.
What I see though, is a person who is afraid of relying on the SELF to succeed. And because of that, he'll gladly give up his right to decide on much of anything, just for that shred of security.
That ain't me.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
How is that the point? |
You seem to be implying that the fact that you don't own the tool is unfair in some way.
quote:
I'm talking about generalized freedoms. And more generalized than you are I believe (not restricted to freedom from the state). |
I'm not talking about freedom from the state. I'm talking about freedom from coercion/freedom from the initiation of force against yourself.
quote:
What if I can't predict the market and the lease ends at a particularly desperate time? |
Sorry. It's not as if Vel has a crystal ball, either. That's like arguing that you shouldn't lose your money at a poker game, even though you voluntarily entered into the game, because you couldn't predict at the outset that things might not always go your way.
quote:
I'm less free if I'm worse off financially. |
So you think freedom means the financial ability to do/buy things, rather than the right to do/buy things?
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. One can have the financial ability to do/buy things, but if the state says "no", then the financial ability is meaningless, and certainly not an example of freedom.
On the other side of the coin, though, you can be free to do something without being able to afford to do that thing. You do see the difference, right?
quote:
But once again, Vel's argument had absolutely nothing to do with the morality of coercion. If his argument was valid, so was mine. |
Regardless, the morality of coercion is always a valid point, whether it is addressed or not. Put another way, Vel's scenario is moral for reasons that he didn't state, while your scenario is immoral for reasons you didn't state.
quote:
Significant wealth disparities, where one makes orders of magnitude more than a janitor as in the status quo. |
So a doctor shouldn't make, say, 10 times as much money as a janitor? I bet the doctor spent 10 times as much time and money on his education, though...
[quote]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
quote:
Why does capitalism require the exclusion of worker-contolled businesses? |
Definition. |
From Britannica.com:
quote:
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. |
Also,
quote:
Main Entry: state capitalism
Function: noun
Date: 1903
: an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control |
Unfortunately, Ramo, I am unable to find anything in these definitions that compels capitalists and workers to be separate "classes." As one who both has put his own money and effort (were you working at 12:30 last night, after being in the office for 10 hours that day?) in businesses that I own significant chunks of equity, your and Kids assertion that I am not a capitalist kinda hurts me - what do I have to do to get you to wish for my elimination based upon my work title? Just stop working? But I enjoy it...
And David? Joking about killing people is not funny and is one of the ways that we are easily distinguishable from our ideological opponents - let them make the jokes about the revolution and lining us up against the wall: that's their eventual goal and they're comfortable with it. We'll just talk about how to make money and become rich.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
And David? Joking about killing people is not funny |
Huh?
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-10-2003 08:17
), but my arguments presented here were initially aimed at Kid, who IS a communist and the thread-starter. You and I picked up that discussion, true, but that's why I keep referencing the other stuff. 
We just don't organize at gunpoint.
|