Is profit different from unfair tax?

[David Floyd]

Kid,

Again with the freedom to make the best decision available. How am I free if the best decision to make results in my own exploitation?

OK, let's play your game. It's "exploitive" for Vel to charge you to use his tool. But even if this is so, why is this bad? If you don't get the tool, you don't produce any more, and if you do get the tool, you produce 10 more units, with the drawback that you give one to Vel and end up with an extra 9 - 9 units that you did nothing extra for.

So, you come out ahead on the deal. Now, Vel also has to find some way to come out ahead, right? I mean, he spent time and money inventing his machine, didn't he? And he's only asking for 10% of your EXTRA production - if you don't take his tool, he isn't demanding any of your original production, so his cut only comes from what you are producing AS A RESULT of his invention that he's allowing you to use. Remember, you don't HAVE to use the new tool, but you're only hurting yourself is you do not.

Getting back to the point, though, freedom is simply the absence of coercion. In this example, you are perfectly free to either refuse to use the tool, or to agree to use the tool and give 10% of your extra production to the toolmaker. You aren't hurt either way - although refusing the tool certainly doesn't help you any. If you are hurt as a result of your competitor using the tool, well, then we can just chalk that up to your own stupidity - if you aren't smart enough to take advantage of opportunities, then why should you be in business to begin with?

Ramo,

And it is.

So it's unfair that you don't own what I build?

Sure, but I happen to think that force can be wrong regardless of who initiates it.

And I agree - ASSUMING that you have not VOLUNTARILY agreed to be subject to certain rules. That is, if you wish to enter into a contract with another person, you are voluntarily agreeing to give them certain things in exchange for certain things. This is only coercive if you didn't voluntarily agree to the contract in the first place.

For example, you are implying that it is wrong for an employer to expect you to work for your wages, and that it is wrong for the employer to fire you if you don't do what is expected of you. Is this your claim?

If by "right," you mean state sanction, freedom means both.

Rights have nothing to do with state sanctions. State sanctions are called laws, and laws can just as easily infringe on rights as they can protect rights.

No. Lack of money can be even more of a constraint (i.e. lack of freedom) than a law. For instance, I smoked up without much worry of being imprisoned this weekend, but for instance if I wanted to get a car, it'd be much, much more difficult.

That's silly. Freedom is simply the absence of constraints, and if you think freedom means the ability to take what you want for free, then what you are saying is that freedom is the ability to put constraints on others (taking someone else's car is certainly a constraint). So, then, in a free society, do you think it is required that you be able to take the property of another person?

As for smoking up, if a cop had been around you would be arrested. That's a constraint on your freedom. If you were browsing for cars at a car dealership, and a cop saw you, the cop wouldn't arrest you. That's an example of your freedom not being constrained. Surely you see the difference.

But that isn't relevant as I was addressing Vel's argument, not something that didn't exist in his post.

Morality is implicit in any argument, whether or not it is being recognized.

Why should the amount of money spent on education be proportion to the wage a worker recieves?

Because the amount of money spent on education TENDS to be be proportionate to the value of that person's labor, in the eyes of most people. Little amount of money spent on education = little worth in the job market. Lots of money spent on education (law school, medical school) = lots of worth on the job market.

Why is this true? Well, because doctors and lawyers are finite resources. Not everyone - and in fact very few people - can be a doctor or a lawyer, so the value of the labor of a doctor or a lawyer is necessarily higher than the value of the labor of a janitor. Anyone can be a janitor, it isn't that tough.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
Kid ain't that young though.

People generally become more and more conservative the less dependent they become on the government.

Only if their vested interest in the status quo increases.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So, you come out ahead on the deal.

I'm not ahead on the deal. Vel is. The system favors him, because it allows him to profit from my work. The deal would only be fair if I got to keep the total benefit of my work.

You're just saying that I benefit from my work when Vel profits from it. That is true and I don't agrue. I only argue that it isn't fair because I don't recieve the FULL benefit from my work, that Vel benefits from it at my expense.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Getting back to the point, though, freedom is simply the absence of coercion.

Again, I can't really argue with you there. If you want to define freedom that way you are free to do so. I believe in freedom of coercion too, as long the result is equal treatment. When people are treated unfairly justice must be served at the expense of freedom of coersion.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I'm not ahead on the deal. Vel is. The system favors him, because it allows him to profit from my work. The deal would only be fair if I got to keep the total benefit of my work.

You're just saying that I benefit from my work when Vel profits from it. That is true and I don't agrue. I only argue that it isn't fair because I don't recieve the FULL benefit from my work, that Vel benefits from it at my expense.

I haven't read the rest of the thread properly, but I assume you want to pay Vel a flat rate to acquire/use his tool, or at least on variable basis related to the fair cost of using the machinery (e.g wear and tear, depreciation, insurance risks etc..)?

I think the argument that you shouldn't have to pay on a per profit basis is a reasonable one if a suitable costing basis can be made. My counter-argument would be that Vel's benefit in owning and building the tool is not being realised correctly unless it is valued on the amount of profit it can generate. If his tool can increase your profit by 30% shouldn't he get more from it in rent than if it only increased profit by 20% (assuming all other things are equal)? If he gets just as much from you in rent in both circumstances then he is obviously missing out on the full benefit from his effort. If he gets paid on a commision basis he will be more likely to try and improve the quality of the tool so that it can make a profit of 40%.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I haven't read the rest of the thread properly, but I assume you want to pay Vel a flat rate to acquire/use his tool, or at least on variable basis related to the fair cost of using the machinery (e.g wear and tear, depreciation, insurance risks etc..)?

I think the argument that you shouldn't have to pay on a per profit basis is a reasonable one if a suitable costing basis can be made. My counter-argument would be that Vel's benefit in owning and building the tool is not being realised correctly unless it is valued on the amount of profit it can generate. If his tool can increase your profit by 30% shouldn't he get more from it in rent than if it only increased profit by 20% (assuming all other things are equal)? If he gets just as much from you in rent in both circumstances then he is obviously missing out on the full benefit from his effort. If he gets paid on a commision basis he will be more likely to try and improve the quality of the tool so that it can make a profit of 40%.

No, I want the tool to be community property. This is from part of the discussion that Vel was having with Ramo. I think it is 2-3 pages back. I'm not sure exactly what Vel was getting at.

[Dauphin]

Out of curiousity, do you consider that computers should be a communal property? They are tools that vastly improve productivity.

[Kuciwalker]

Kid - if the tool would become community property, why would he bother inventing it at all?

Actually, how about he invents it, and then USES it to make the same product you do. He then sells that product for half the price. This is exploitive, HOW? He has used his OWN intelligence and his OWN labor to make something. If he wants to sell it cheaply - which means more people can afford it, even those poor exploited workers - why can't he?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The system favors him, because it allows him to profit from my work.

Well you are profiting from Vel's intelligence and risking his capital (his work). Without his work you wouldn't get jack.

[Kuciwalker]

The system favors him, because it allows him to profit from my work.

YOU are profiting from HIS work as well, because you are producing 90% more than before. So I guess the system favors you, as well.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by skywalker

The system favors him, because it allows him to profit from my work.

YOU are profiting from HIS work as well, because you are producing 90% more than before. So I guess the system favors you, as well.

Don't confuse Kid with the obvious!

[DAVOUT]

The only way for Kidicious to reach his ideal not exploitive economic system is the individual absolute autarky. No more labour contractual agreement, no more sales at pseudo agreed prices ; I grow the corn with which I make my bread, I carve my sabots in the wood of the tree I cut myself, and nobody can even try to benefit from my (hard) work. Commerce and cooperation are evil traps invented to exploit me, and I much prefer the hardship of absolute autarky which provides hardly enough food, let alone healthcare and comfort, with a life expectancy not exceeding 30 years.

[Velociryx]

Oh yes....and there's the crux of it.

Kid wants to pluck the idea from my (individual) head, co-opt it to the state, so he can use it for nothing. That way, he can exploit me without *calling* it exploitation.

What he does not realize is that if I have no means of getting any sort of compensation for my invention, it will never get invention, and he'll be stuck at 10/day.

Kid, people enter into contracts all the time.

If you have children, and have to PAY a daycare center to watch them while you're at work, they're not exploiting you when they charge you, EVEN THO they're (to couch it in your language) "robbing you of some of the value of your day's production" - the point is, you don't HAVE to make use of their service! If you choose to, you pay the price for it (some of your day's production). If you don't choose to, then you keep that bit.

Choice.

Contrast that to your utopia where there IS no choice. It's the state's way, or die.

If you want, I'll buy you a ticket to China. Go get a taste of heaven firsthand....

-=Vel=-

[rah]

Don't worry, he'll find another aspect to argue since he has lost this one AGAIN. Or he'll just ignore it and say you're wrong.

[Velociryx]

Of that, good sir, I have no doubt!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

I'm not ahead on the deal. Vel is. The system favors him, because it allows him to profit from my work. The deal would only be fair if I got to keep the total benefit of my work.

Incorrect, because if you use MY tool in what you are doing, it is now "our work" and OUR WORK (20/day) is better than YOUR WORK (10/day). And you get to keep most all the gain from OUR WORK. I get a little, but we both get more than we had.

-=Vel=-