Is profit different from unfair tax?

[DAVOUT]

Vel, could not you propose a rent a little lower, something like 0.8 instead of 1. This deal is so great that we all believe it would be a shame not to cut it. Dont be too greedy... And I assume that this includes a one year warranty (parts and labour) at least. I assume also that this tool does not incorporate any part imported from a rogue country.

[rah]

Simply stated, invention is work. No different than any other work. Compensation has to incur or that type of work won't be done. It is also one of the most valuable of works and should be compensated at a greater rate then Doctors or Lawyers since the overall value to society is higher, And finally, true invention is considerably rarer.

[Velociryx]

I can always be bargained with, Dave! So sure, we could even do 0.8, but to keep the receipts in "whole units" of production, we'd have to figure it differently....maybe annualize it?

Say you work 200 days a year, gaining 10 extra, from use of the tool. That'd be 2000 extra production, annual. 0.8 would be 160....I'm good with that...

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Rah, I agree. Kid's definition of "work" revolves solely around individual labor.

It does not take into account labor-enhancing devices that may be provided by a third party (which makes "his work" "our work" - oh no, he wants to make full, free USE of those labor-enhancing devices, and keep the full benefit.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

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

There should be community owned computers, yes.

[Kidlicious]

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

He could be compensated for inventing and improving tools.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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.

Did he build the tool? If so then he should use it himself. I don't see anything wrong with that. If he builds it to take advantage of the system and profit from my work then that's another story.

As far as me not getting any benefit from my own work without Vel's work. That's just silly. Vel is just one person. The world would continue without his work. We make our own tools.

[Velociryx]

Invention does not work like that, Kid.

You can't just give some guy off the street a regular paycheck and tell him to go invent something.

What you'll get, far more often than not, is a guy who pockets your money, and goes home to play on his gamecube or post on 'poly. That's why (well, one reason) you're proposed system WON"T WORK.

Add to that the fact that you can't have a functional banking system (rent is evil, remember, which means interest charged on money is evil), and your vision of the revolution is going exactly nowhere.

-=Vel=-

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kidicious

There should be community owned computers, yes.

He was referring to working computers.

[Velociryx]

and Kid, you miss the point. It is far more EFFICIENT for you to not bother with making your own tool, especially if you can't really figure out how right off. And you wouldn't need to. You could be twice as productive by entering into a contractual arrangement with me, and we both win.

You, using my tool, make doube what you made on your own (making you better off, by far), and I get a bit too, for providing the means that doubled your productivity.

NOT exploitation.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by skywalker
So I guess the system favors you, as well.

The system doesn't favor me. You're confusing the benefit that I recieve from the tool with the way the system treats me. We can benefit from the tools in any system.

[Velociryx]

If you see a net 90% gain in your productivity, yes, my friend, the system favors you.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And how does the system "treat you" in this example?

It gives you a clear choice: Continue as you are, with a productive capacity of 10 per day, or double it to 20/day, and give me one for providing you the means of doing so...for turning your work, into our work.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
and Kid, you miss the point. It is far more EFFICIENT for you to not bother with making your own tool, especially if you can't really figure out how right off. And you wouldn't need to. You could be twice as productive by entering into a contractual arrangement with me, and we both win.

You, using my tool, make doube what you made on your own (making you better off, by far), and I get a bit too, for providing the means that doubled your productivity.

NOT exploitation.

-=Vel=-

I'm not proposing that everyone make their own tools. That would be inefficient. The tools should be owned by the community. Then efficiency is equal but more work is done because no one is compensated for simply owning tools. Furthermore, the system treats everyone equally.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If you see a net 90% gain in your productivity, yes, my friend, the system favors you.

-=Vel=-

Not if my productivity is improved regardless of the system. The tool improves my productivity. Not the system.