Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
So each worker can have his own tractor but they must sit idle when that particular owner is not using it because paying a wage or rent is not permitted. ( and allowing free use is nonsensical when one considers the wear and tear)

Well that makes no sense does it? So it's not economical to own your own tools. It's economical to use the public tools.

[Velociryx]

So Kid....when you come to power and make everything "fair" what will you do to someone like me, who....say, hypothetically OFFERS to let my neighbor "exploit me" by paying me a (gasp!) wage to cut his lawn, freeing him up with more time to do other stuffs?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Getting any converts this go 'round, Kid?

Not trying to get converts Vel. This was a discussion of the history of wage labor and serfdom and the relationship between the two. It had nothing to do with morality untli Berzerker started attacking my morals. So now I'm trying to end this forever, by outlining the difference in our moralities, to end such interuptions in the future.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well that makes no sense does it? So it's not economical to own your own tools.

Hmm so I am free to work hard and buy my own tools but in a system where private ownership makes no sense. So your system "allows" private ownership while gutting all the benefits of private ownership

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's economical to use the public tools.

Ahh the state owned tools again.

Do I get free use of the tractor? Obviously not as then people would use them inefficiently.

Do you pay for them? I can't see how rent paid to the state is any less offensive to you than rent paid to an individual . . .

How do I get the use of a tractor/ rototiller/powertool?? Nowadays I can rent such things.

Are there central planners involved in setting out how many of each tool is available? Won't the central planners then exploit their position to advantage as have 95% of the authority figures in centrally planned economies in the history of humanity?

[Flubber]

Freedom !!

I prefer the current economic model where yes I may be forced to work to support myself but I have innumerable choices to make as to how much I work and in what types of fields.

In previous discussions about Kidtopia it was quite clear that there would be a LARGE element of state direction in all aspects of our lives. I still recall your statement that Mrs Flubber would be REQUIRED to work as our ption to have her remain at home would not be allowed. Somehow her doing so was "exploitive" for reasons that weren't clear and then you "ignored" all my requests for confirmation/clarification.

On my definitions of freedom, we are infinitely more free in the current system than anything I have seen you propose. The current system is not perfect and many people have limited freedom due to economic constraints but I can't forsee any workable system with "complete freedom". There will always be practical real world constraints on what people can do . . .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



Hmm so I am free to work hard and buy my own tools but in a system where private ownership makes no sense. So your system "allows" private ownership while gutting all the benefits of private ownership



Ahh the state owned tools again.

Do I get free use of the tractor? Obviously not as then people would use them inefficiently.

Do you pay for them? I can't see how rent paid to the state is any less offensive to you than rent paid to an individual . . .

How do I get the use of a tractor/ rototiller/powertool?? Nowadays I can rent such things.

Are there central planners involved in setting out how many of each tool is available? Won't the central planners then exploit their position to advantage as have 95% of the authority figures in centrally planned economies in the history of humanity?

I think there should be fees, yes. About the planners, yes, there is the possibilities for corruption. That's a political problem, not an economics problem. You need a functioning criminal justice system to fight that.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I think there should be fees, yes. About the planners, yes, there is the possibilities for corruption. That's a political problem, not an economics problem. You need a functioning criminal justice system to fight that.

Lets get this straight.

If I pay a fee for use of a tool ( lets call it rent!!) to the state, thats ok.

If I pay the same or a lesser fee for the same tool to an individual, thats exploitation.

Do I have it now ?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Freedom !!

I prefer the current economic model where yes I may be forced to work to support myself but I have innumerable choices to make as to how much I work and in what types of fields.

In previous discussions about Kidtopia it was quite clear that there would be a LARGE element of state direction in all aspects of our lives. I still recall your statement that Mrs Flubber would be REQUIRED to work as our ption to have her remain at home would not be allowed. Somehow her doing so was "exploitive" for reasons that weren't clear and then you "ignored" all my requests for confirmation/clarification.

On my definitions of freedom, we are infinitely more free in the current system than anything I have seen you propose. The current system is not perfect and many people have limited freedom due to economic constraints but I can't forsee any workable system with "complete freedom". There will always be practical real world constraints on what people can do . . .

Well exploitation is morally correct for you. The point is, it's not for me. So let's move on.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Lets get this straight.

If I pay a fee for use of a tool ( lets call it rent!!) to the state, thats ok.

If I pay the same or a lesser fee for the same tool to an individual, thats exploitation.

Do I have it now ?

It's only exploitation by the state if the state is corrupt.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well exploitation is morally correct for you. The point is, it's not for me. So let's move on.

Nope-- I never brought morals and exploitation together at all. I only mentioned exploitation since somehow you had seen someone's choice not to work as exploitive.

Personally I am amazed at how often doing something that would better someone's economic circumstances compared to their alternatives is exploitive of them.


If you want to talk freedom, fine by me. You can start by telling me how a centrally planned economy will lead to more freedom. The only freedom you seem to want to enhance is everybody's freedom to have exactly what everyone else has . . .

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's only exploitation by the state if the state is corrupt.

Sorry BUT


Every state has some corruption. At what level does the same something go from "a-ok" to "exploitive"??


Personally, I love the fact that your ideas are so marginal and outdated that their chances of implementation are fantastically small.

I like regulated capitalism and can support the social safety net. I agree that unregulated capitalism could be a disaster and the beauty is that most people agree and have created minimum wages and worker protection legislation, occupational health and safety rules, unemployment insurance etc . . . these things are far from perfect but they do do a lot to protect workers.

[Velociryx]

quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious


It's only exploitation by the state if the state is corrupt.



Now THAT is solid gold!

Just to chime in in support of Flubber....let me make SURE I understand you.

Let us assume an absolutely NON corrupt state (fairy land, I'm sure you'll agree).

Such a state charging a "usage fee" for the tractor is non-exploitative, however,

If I charge a fee (even if said fee is LESS) to let my neighbor use MY tractor, I'm exploiting him/her?

Am I hearing you correctly?

-=Vel=-
(too easy....WAY too easy)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Nope-- I never brought morals and exploitation together at all. I only mentioned exploitation since somehow you had seen someone's choice not to work as exploitive.

No you didn't, but you resonded to a post relating the two. Appearantly you think that it would be moral for Berzerker to require that I work for him since he 'owned' the island.

Personally I am amazed at how often doing something that would better someone's economic circumstances compared to their alternatives is exploitive of them.

You shouldn't be if you are looking at the results on society, specifically those without property.

If you want to talk freedom, fine by me. You can start by telling me how a centrally planned economy will lead to more freedom. The only freedom you seem to want to enhance is everybody's freedom to have exactly what everyone else has . . .

Nope, just freedom from those who would impose rule over us. Isn't that freedom?

[Odin]

Kid, you don't convince people by being an idealist, you convince people by being a realist.

[Velociryx]

Nope, just freedom from those who would impose rule over us. Isn't that freedom?

Kid would make the switch from a "master" of his own choosing (deciding all by himself where he wishes to apply for a job...note that employment is not guaranteed, but if he has the talent, he'll get the job), for a State-decreed master who will tell him what is fair, and call this "freedom."

Forgive me if I'm not all in a rush to sign up....

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Is not state imposition of their brand of "fairness" an imposition of rule?