Is profit different from unfair tax?

[Ramo]

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?

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).

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?

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.

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]

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]

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

Significant wealth disparities, where one makes orders of magnitude more than a janitor as in the status quo.

[Velociryx]

Again, I see nothing wrong with even significant wealth disparities. An economic system is orderly. It is rules based. Some people will have more exposure to, and a greater understand OF those rules than others. Some won't give a rat's arse, and that's their thing. Fine and dandy.

But being rules-based, those who deeply understand the rules will do heads and shoulders better economically than those who don't pay attention to them.

That'd be like naming Chess as our national game, but stipulating that nobody could have higher than a 45% win record....you know, just arbitrarily pick a number so the win loss ratio isn't too out of proportion, and that way even the worst chess player will feel pride in our national game.

Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

-=Vel=-

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Significant wealth disparities, where one makes orders of magnitude more than a janitor as in the status quo.

Depending on the job, you probably deserve orders of magnitude more pay than a janitor.

[Ramo]

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.

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.

[Ramo]

Again, I see nothing wrong with even significant wealth disparities.

If for no other reason, significant wealth disparities should be opposed because it leads to the nanny state you object to. Either by the rich who would use the state to maintain these disparities (Taft-Hartley, etc.) or by the poor who would use the state to seek redress (welfare, etc.).

[Velociryx]

I disagree. My goals and ambitions are my own, and they may or may not coincide with yours.

Only IF every extremely wealthy person in the country shared the exact same ideology would we run the risk of that occurring, and while that is a statistical possibility, I'll not lose any more sleep over it than I will the statistical possibility of an asteroid taking our planet out before sunrise tomorrow....

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the rich doesn't use state coercion to maintain wealth disparities?

[Velociryx]

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=-

[Ramo]

Why do you keep bringing up nanny state?

[Ramo]

And while there may be a team of other guys fighting tooth and nail agains robber-barons, they usually get dismissed by the bipartisan consensus as a bunch of leftist extremists.

[Velociryx]

I keep bringing it up, cos that's what the Reds want! Forget all about the theory as it looks on paper....THAT's the pipe dream. Forget about the promised utopia, because until you totally change the basics of human nature, when you talk communism (which was the genesis of this thread, essentially), you talk state-controlled everything. Nanny State.

And if what you're saying is true 'bout the fate of those who fight against the machinations of the robber-barrons, then we'd all be working in sweat shops now, and would have been since...oh....1850 or so! Since that is clearly not the current state of affairs in this country, I have to conclude that there's a problem somewhere in the argument!

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

I'm not a red. I'm not a communist. I never said anythign about state-controlled anything.

And in a lot of way's we're back in the 19th century, where labor has been systematically undermined by state oppression.

[Ramo]

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.