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.