Is profit different from unfair tax?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ramo
And those businesses are socialist.

Umm, if I understand your argument, you are basicly arguing that a large porportion of businesses in the USA today are socialist!

[Ramo]

That's not relevant to the argument. Vel's argument is based on utilitarian grounds, not on the morality of coercion.

[Ramo]

Yep. If the workers democratically own the means of production, the firm is socialist.

[David Floyd]

Perhaps, but the fact that a moral element exists regardless is not irrelevant. Even though I disagree with utilitarianism as an idea, Vel's scenario, although in part utilitarian, is morally acceptable to me because it does not bring in immoral elements (coercion).

Your scenario DOES bring in the aspect of coercion, and in that way, the scenarios differ fundmamentally.

[Velociryx]

Thank ya, DF! And Ramo, in addition to the fact that our examples are markedly different, I would also say that your answer to the question sorta skates 'round the subject.

Commies say that rent is evil. I gave an example (above) that boils out everything BUT the rent. If it's evil, show me where. Where in the mechanism listed above, is there some notion of evil or exploitation? So far, all silent on the Red front.

It also leads naturally into the question....is THIS (the mechanism above) what the Reds are so frightened of? So scared, in fact, that rather than face the possibility, rather than accepting personal responsibility for their own futures and destinies, the fear of exploitation is SO great, that they'll gladly assign all their rights to the state Nanny, who will make their decisions for them.

I want to know why that's a good trade.

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

Yep. If the workers democratically own the means of production, the firm is socialist.

Better not tell them that, though - socialism isn't exactly a positive thing to most Americans

[Ramo]

I'm attacking his argument, not advocating fascism.

[David Floyd]

Yes, but your attack isn't effective because your counter-example doesn't resemble the original example at a fundamental level.

[Ramo]

Commies say that rent is evil. I gave an example (above) that boils out everything BUT the rent. If it's evil, show me where. Where in the mechanism listed above, is there some notion of evil or exploitation?

Again, it creates economic and eventually political hierarchies which tend to propagate. Rent creates dependencies and reduces net freedom.

So far, all silent on the Red front.

It also leads naturally into the question....is THIS (the mechanism above) what the Reds are so frightened of? So scared, in fact, that rather than face the possibility, rather than accepting personal responsibility for their own futures and destinies, the fear of exploitation is SO great, that they'll gladly assign all their rights to the state Nanny, who will make their decisions for them.

I'm black, not red. You'll have to ask che.

Better not tell them that, though - socialism isn't exactly a positive thing to most Americans

That's because they confuse socialism with the welfare state.

[Velociryx]

I don't know of any worker-owned and operated firm in existance where the workers "democratically" own the means of production. They own the means of production economically, by choosing to purchase stock in the company they work in, or by being given stock options upon accepting employment.

In any case, that truly is a matter of semantics, because it doesn't change the nature or operating capacity of those companies one whit. They are run as capitalist enterprises, through and through.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

How exactly doesn't my argument resemble the original in a fundmental level?

[Velociryx]

So then....how else would you recommend adequately rewarding invention? If we throw away the notion of licensing (which is a newfangled term for rent), what do we replace it with? If we replace it with nothing at all, then were is the motive for continued innovation?

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

I don't know of any worker-owned and operated firm in existance where the workers "democratically" own the means of production.

Take a look at the Mondragon system in the Basque region for instance.

They own the means of production economically, by choosing to purchase stock in the company they work in, or by being given stock options upon accepting employment.

In any case, that truly is a matter of semantics, because it doesn't change the nature or operating capacity of those companies one whit. They are run as capitalist enterprises, through and through.

What do you have in mind, in particular?

[Velociryx]

What did I have in mind? Oh....just every company in America where the workers participate in stock ownership plans....which is quite a number.

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

Rent creates dependencies and reduces net freedom.

Rent does not at all "reduce net freedom". First of all, what IS net freedom? Do you think that freedom is some giant math equation where you add up this freedom and that freedom and multiply by x number of people and come up with some magic number? Come on.

In any case, I'll throw out the word "net" for coherence, and just stick with "reduce freedom".

But how would the concept of rent reduce freedom? Going back to Vel's example, you are VOLUNTARILY agreeing to give Vel 1 units per day, in exchange for the ability to produce 9 extra units per day for yourself.

Of course, if you could invent your own machine, then that would save you a lot of units. And no one is stopping you from going this route, either. But the fact is, only a limited number of people have the intelligence or ability to invent complex tools that will double your manufacturing output, and if you aren't one of those people, that's too bad, but it isn't a result of anyone limiting your freedom.

So you're left with the option of producing less, or producing more. Given that you can't invent the tool yourself, it's in your own self interest to choose to produce more, and give one-tenth of your extra production to Vel. Right?

I just don't see a problem here.

That's because they confuse socialism with the welfare state.

Actually I'm not sure that's all that inaccurate.

How exactly doesn't my argument resemble the original in a fundmental level?

Because your argument brings in coercion.

[Ramo]

So then....how else would you recommend adequately rewarding invention? If we throw away the notion of licensing (which is a newfangled term for rent), what do we replace it with? If we replace it with nothing at all, then were is the motive for continued innovation?

You could offer the tool as a lump sum or a loan, for instance.

[Velociryx]

Ah ah ah....can't offer it as a loan. Time value of money. That means interest, which is the same thing as rent (rent on the money, or in this case, on the time spent using my tool....oh God, that came out wrong, didn't it! ).

If rent's evil, then interest is evil too, see? So the loan idea is OUT.

And if loans are out, then the banking industry will have to curl up and die before the Reds can really take over.

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

I think he means interest-free loans

Which, I grant you, are a silly idea.

[Velociryx]

DF....I'm diggin' bein' on the same side in a debate as you! We should do this more often!

And the basic model I outlined above can be applied on a larger scale.

A guy can sit at a workbench and make shoes, and he'll make some shoes, there's no doubt.

Or, he can come work for me in my factory, using my equipment and machines, and make TONS more shoes than he ever coulda made on his own (ie - without my machines).

Now, he didn't take any risk on himself to have the machines built, or have them brought to my factory, or to have the factory built (but, just as in the other example where he could just figure out how to make his own tool, he can certainly buy his own machines), and because of that, forgive me if I don't just hand him the keys and call him part owner in my factory. If the company goes belly up, the bankers aren't gonna come looking for his head, they're gonna come looking for mine.

So sure! He's welcome to come in and make more shoes than he ever even DREAMED of using my machines....that's great! And I'll pay him to do it. What I won't do is pay him the full value of what he creates, cos what he creates isn't the whole picture anymore. He's creating, using my machines, which in turn were bought and paid for with borrowed money. So OUR production has to do a lot of work....it has to pay him a fair wage, it has to pay for upkeep on the machines, or he might as well be back at his workbench, it has to pay ME, cos I'm the one bearing the risk, and it has to pay the bank who lent us the money to begin with.

That's not exploitation.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Rent does not at all "reduce net freedom". First of all, what IS net freedom? Do you think that freedom is some giant math equation where you add up this freedom and that freedom and multiply by x number of people and come up with some magic number? Come on.

In any case, I'll throw out the word "net" for coherence, and just stick with "reduce freedom".

Every action adds and reduces freedom in certain aspects. Depending on your value system, there may be a net addition or reduction associated with an action. I add "net" to make the statement well-defined.

I just don't see a problem here.

I become more dependent on Vel for my living than if I actually owned it. If he decides to hike the price of rent suddenly, I'd be screwed.

Because your argument brings in coercion.

Which is totally irrelevent.

Ah ah ah....can't offer it as a loan. Time value of money. That means interest, which is the same thing as rent (rent on the money, or in this case, on the time spent using my tool....oh God, that came out wrong, didn't it! ).

Money doesn't qualify as means of production IMO (what does it mean that money should be owned and controlled by those who operate it?). Loans aren't necessarily bad.

And for the record, I don't think rent is always bad either. However, it should be minimized as it tends to lead to power disparities.

What did I have in mind? Oh....just every company in America where the workers participate in stock ownership plans....which is quite a number

Which is in general not socialism. But it does exist.

[Velociryx]

But if I later decide to raise my rate, you're still now screwed! That's just it.

You were making 10 whatevers a day. I license my spiffy productivity enhancing tool to you, and now you're making twenty. I get one, per the original agreement.

So you're makin' 19 instead of ten.

If I double my "rent rate" you're still making 80% more than you were without my tool's help. That's screwing you,.....how exactly?

Sure, if I try and charge you 11 a day, THAT would be screwing you, at which point you'll simply hand me the tool back and say a big no thanks.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Further, what will KEEP me from doing this is free enterprise.

Cos if I start charging you heinous use rates for my tool, then some other clever chap WILL take the time to learn how to make one for himself, and he'll offer it to you for cheaper than I am, and you'll cut me out entire.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

But if I owned it, I wouldn't be subject to such constraints.

[Ramo]

Unless he's sued for violating your intellectual property rights.

[Velociryx]

"But if I owned it, I wouldn't be subject to such constraints."

That's very true, and there's nothing stoping you from making your own. But if you want to use mine rather than take the time and effort to make your own, that's the constraint that comes with it. Doesn't mean you aren't free to shop around, nor to make your own, if you're not happy with my price.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

There are many, MANY industries where that's not a concern.

How many car makers are there again? How many makers of memory chips for computers? Hard drives? Clothing?

True, brand new technologies invented by people with savvy lawyers might see some protection.....it's hardly the norm in the economy taken as a whole.

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

Every action adds and reduces freedom in certain aspects. Depending on your value system, there may be a net addition or reduction associated with an action. I add "net" to make the statement well-defined.

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 become more dependent on Vel for my living than if I actually owned it. If he decides to hike the price of rent suddenly, I'd be screwed.

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.

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.

Which is totally irrelevent.

It's relevant in that it changes the nature of your example to such a degree that your example does not resemble Vel's.

[David Floyd]

But if I owned it, I wouldn't be subject to such constraints.

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).

[Ramo]

Vel, I was being sarcastic.

I really do not have a problem with free enterprise and all that. However, non-worker ownership of the means of production tends to lead to reductions in (net) freedom, wealth disparities, increases in state authority, etc., so I believe there should be as much socialism in the economy as possible.

[David Floyd]

What's wrong with wealth disparities? I damn well better have more money than a janitor!