Is profit different from unfair tax?

[Velociryx]

I know, I know, you're an anarchist....which is, by the way, a great paradox in terms! (how do you guys organize?! ), 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.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

We organize quite well if I say so myself. We just don't organize at gunpoint.

And the thread seems to me much more about criticizing capitalism than about advocating communism.

[Velociryx]

It truly is, but as with any criticism, there's gotta be an alternative offered to the current state of affairs, and I think it's pretty obvious what Kid's proposed alternative would be....

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

[Berzerker]

We organize quite well if I say so myself. We just don't organize at gunpoint.

That was pithy, Ramo...

[Berzerker]

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....

And that was not pithy...

[Berzerker]

Plato -

Profit is a return on RISK. This is a very simple but highly accurate definition. The profit you earn is simply the rate of return that society assigns to the risk taken (once cogs and other expenses are deducted).

No, I don't think anyone did mention that - nice job!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not a red.

*points to Ramo's avatar*

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm not a red.

*points to Ramo's avatar*

He's too busy using his tool to notice.

[JohnT]

Why does capitalism require the exclusion of worker-contolled businesses?

Definition.

From Britannica.com:

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,

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.

[chequita guevara]

If it makes you feel better John, I'll line you up against the wall myself.

[Kuciwalker]

I've got my helicopter ready

[David Floyd]

And David? Joking about killing people is not funny

Huh?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Care to identify this "greater" than the sum?

Poor Libertarians.

You want to understand how we are not like the mountain lion species. You want to know why we say that in regards to the study of our species that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Mountain lions are independent animals. They each hunt (work) their own territory. Their individual outcomes do not effect the species as a whole. That is, if one mountain lion in territory A catches more prey this week that will have no effect on the amount of prey that the other mountain lions will catch.

We are social animals. We organize our society in way that benefits ourselves. We also prey upon each other. That is our anti-social nature. The social benefits and level of anti-social behaviour that exists in our society must be considered when we evaluate our social system. It is not enough to simply evaluate how well our businesses and priviledged class do within the system.

Now you understand the failure of those economists who have taken microeconomics and created a macroeconomic theory from it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Are you aware of the fact (not the supposition, but the FACT) that retraining workers isn't free? That it takes time, and costs both money and productivity (ie - productivity drops because you a) have to take someone who knows how to do a given job away from that job to train the new guy, and b) the new guy will screw up at least some as he's learning, and even barring that, will take time to become as productive as the folks who have been doing it a while)?

Actually it is free in the terms of opportunity cost. You have to compare it to the next best opportunity, which would be leaving them unemployed and not being retrained.

Where will the money come from? You are thinking of it in terms or the old capitalist system. It doesn't work like that. You simply reallocate resources.