rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) (12/09/85)
Politics and Ethics Political labels seem to be treated rather loosely on the net. There are people who believe that socialism promotes freedom; and there are others who think that libertarianism does. I think that such beliefs can only be held by treating those concepts as floating abstractions--i.e., by not carefully identifying the facts that give rise to the terms. Politics is a normative science. It deals with how society should be organized to achieve certain ends. The "how" is the means and might be anarchy, democracy, monarchy, a constitutional republic, or some other form. The means are important; but more important yet are the ends. Throughout history there have been only two variants--the end is the good of the collective or the end is the good of the individual. Even the social systems of absolute rulers were seen as preserving the tribe, the race, the nation, or the empire. To date only one nation has explicitly been designed to promote the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the individual. A political system is embodied in a code of laws that define how man should act when living in a social context. Principles which guide man's actions are moral principles. Thus, a political system rests on a basis of a moral system--a code of ethics. Capitalism is a political system where the social environment supports individual ownership of the instruments of production. More broadly, capitalism is the system that protects the rights of individuals. The ethical base of capitalism is (in a loaded term) selfishness. The unit of value in a capitalist society is the individual. A capitalist government uses its monopoly on legal coercion to prohibit the initiation of force. It uses force only in retaliation against criminals, allowing its citizens to pursue their own rational self-interest free from the arbitrary use of force by others in society. Thus a capitalist society is a free society. Equivocations by some notwithstanding, the unit of value of socialism is a group--just as it is for all other forms of collectivism. The ethical base of socialism is the opposite of selfishness--i.e., self-sacrifice. There is a point in any collective political system where the individual is sacrificed for some collective good. This can be seen when the state initiates force against individuals to achieve some "public good." At some point (in fact at more and more points as time goes on) whoever decides for the state says to the individual, "In this matter you are not free to decide for yourself. Do as I command." Collectivist states are slave states. The world is full of collectivist states--especially totalitarian socialist ones; but there are no capitalist nations today. The United States has come closest but is now that unstable system known as a welfare state--part slave, part free--drifting in the direction of more sacrifice and less freedom. Some of you on the net would like to reverse our drift into slavery and have chosen to fight under the libertarian banner. Please reconsider. The concept of libertarianism allows people to pretend they are in favor of a particular political system (one that promotes liberty) without committing to any particular ethics. The libertarian umbrella shelters conservative "capitalists" who dare not speak in favor of selfishness, hippies who believe in communal living, pragmatists who believe crime can be rational for criminals, anarchists who believe that the concept of contract has meaning in the absence of government, and anyone else who proclaims to be in favor of liberty. This is the sense in which libertarianism takes liberty as an axiom. And this is the reason that libertarianism is anti-philosophical. If it is freedom you want, it is capitalism and rational egoism you have to defend. -- Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (12/10/85)
In article <1547@hound.UUCP> rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) writes: > >Capitalism is a political system where the social environment supports >individual ownership of the instruments of production. More broadly, >capitalism is the system that protects the rights of individuals. Why do individuals have the right to own the means of production? I am looking for a coherent philosophical argument here, one that doesn't beg -- oh, forget it. >The >ethical base of capitalism is (in a loaded term) selfishness. The unit of >value in a capitalist society is the individual. A capitalist government >uses its monopoly on legal coercion to prohibit the initiation of force. >It uses force only in retaliation against criminals, allowing its citizens >to pursue their own rational self-interest free from the arbitrary use of >force by others in society. Thus a capitalist society is a free society. I have written at some length on why a capitalist society is not a "free society": the existence of private property entails rather severe constraints on freedom. Bob has refuted my point in the most effective way: by ignoring it. I have also asked why it is not an "initiation of force" to use coercion to prevent someone from trespassing, stealing, or picking pockets. None of these criminal activities need involve coercion. This point has also been completely ignored. >Equivocations by some notwithstanding, the unit of value of socialism is >a group--just as it is for all other forms of collectivism. The ethical >base of socialism is the opposite of selfishness--i.e., self-sacrifice. >There is a point in any collective political system where the individual >is sacrificed for some collective good.... In this paragraph Bob piles assertion on assertion without any attempt to support his statements or analyze their meaning. Why is "the unit of value of socialism a group," and what does that mean? What authoritative writings of socialists declare that individuals are to be sacrificed "to the common good," and why are these writings to be preferred to the many others that insist otherwise? Never mind; we're not supposed to ask. In fact, it was the basis of Marx's objections (and mine) to capitalism that it sacrifices individuals to the common good. >If it is freedom you want... How about explaining what *you* mean by "freedom," instead of using it as a mere football cheer or a stick with which to beat your opponents? Carefully analyzing the meanings of concepts is one difference between philosophy and merely braying one's opinions. I enjoy discussions with people who have different views. That is how one learns. But such discussions cannot get anywhere if one side makes no attempt to understand what the other side is saying and meet their arguments in a way that could be persuasive. Bob has provided a compendium of Randian slogans without attempting to engage in anything that I can recognize as philosophical debate. Over in net.philosophy, one may read some fairly sophisticated discussions of topics in the philosophy of mind and epistemology. Why is it that people suffer massive neural dysfunction as soon as the subject of politics comes up? I have participated in the discussions in this newsgroup in the hope of enlightenment, but I am frustrated by the grade-school level of many of the articles. I will be happy to continue discussions by e-mail. So long for a while. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/11/85)
>/* carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) / 8:24 pm Dec 9, 1985 */ >Why do individuals have the right to own the means of production? Perhaps, those individuals who create the means of production should have the (transferrable) right to own them, at least those means that are created from non-scarce resources. Michael Sykora
lkk@teddy.UUCP (12/12/85)
In article <4340009@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: >>/* carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) / 8:24 pm Dec 9, 1985 */ > >>Why do individuals have the right to own the means of production? > >Perhaps, those individuals who create the means of production should have >the (transferrable) right to own them, at least those means that are created >from non-scarce resources. > OK, who created the means of production in this country? Well, first lets examine what the means of production are. Certainly raw materials (minerals, wood) are neccessary for production. Who created them? We can't produce things without food, which is grown in the land. Who created the land? We produce things in factories. Who created them? The owners? All by themselves? -- Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa -------- Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/12/85)
In article <1547@hound.UUCP> rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) writes: >A >political system is embodied in a code of laws that define how man should >act when living in a social context. Principles which guide man's actions >are moral principles. Thus, a political system rests on a basis >of a moral system--a code of ethics. This is a half-truth. One can regard the code of laws in any polity at any given time as a moral system, but this ignores the way those laws came into being, and their changing nature. The laws of any nation are more accurately seen as a mix and compromise of various moral systems. Another important point is that no system of laws is a complete moral code. There are customs and other informal arrangements which form an essential part of the functioning of the system. These are not only varying, but not are not even clearly defined. >Capitalism is a political system where the social environment supports >individual ownership of the instruments of production. More broadly, >capitalism is the system that protects the rights of individuals. If you think the right to own the instruments of production is the most important human right, this makes sense. Socialists regard the right to food and shelter as more important. On this point, I must agree with them. I support capitalism because it is, in fact, better at doing this. >The unit of >value in a capitalist society is the individual. >Equivocations by some notwithstanding, the unit of value of socialism is >a group--just as it is for all other forms of collectivism. The ethical >base of socialism is the opposite of selfishness--i.e., self-sacrifice. >There is a point in any collective political system where the individual >is sacrificed for some collective good. This can be seen when the state >initiates force against individuals to achieve some "public good." You talk about the individual good and the public good as though they were different things. The public good is just the aggregate measure of the individual good. Any state acts to restrict the freedoms of its citizens for the public good. A frequent way of doing this is to recognize certain individual rights, and prevent interference with the rights of one individual by another. A libertarian system (which really is what you are advocating) recognizes property rights as the sole form of rights recognized by the state. This choice of rights to be recognized needs explicit justification. Non-initiation of force or fraud does not supply this justification. If a person drops something, and someone else, in plain sight, picks it up and keeps it, there is force or fraud, narrowly defined, involved. One may call it force since the first person has a right to the object; but this pre-supposes property rights, and thus cannot be used to justify them. >The world is full of collectivist states--especially totalitarian socialist >ones; but there are no capitalist nations today. The United States has come >closest but is now that unstable system known as a welfare state--part slave, >part free--drifting in the direction of more sacrifice and less freedom. See above. There are no pure forms of any kind of system. The U.S. is much more free than the Soviet Union, and also much more capitalistic. Chile is about as capitalistic as the U.S., but much less free. France is nearly as free as the U.S., but noticeably less capitalistic. There is a positive correlation between capitalism and freedom in existing states. I do not think that correlation is a coincidence. But just because more capitalist is better, does not mean completely capitalist is best. I see no evidence that the U.S. is drifting in the direction of less freedom. I think we have significantly more freedom than formerly -- thanks in large part to the civil rights movement. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (12/13/85)
In article <269@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Over in net.philosophy, one may read some fairly sophisticated >discussions of topics in the philosophy of mind and epistemology. >Why is it that people suffer massive neural dysfunction as soon as >the subject of politics comes up? I have participated in the >discussions in this newsgroup in the hope of enlightenment, but I am >frustrated by the grade-school level of many of the articles. I will >be happy to continue discussions by e-mail. So long for a while. >-- >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Carnes posting are all - until the last few weeks - among the best in net.politics.theory. I was curious about the reason for the degredation. It appears to be that he's gotten disgusted with what goes on here, something I can feel sympathy for. I, for one, shall miss his postings if he really quits. <mike
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/13/85)
> >Carnes: Why do individuals have the right to own the means of production? > > Sykora: Perhaps, those individuals who create the means of production > should have the (transferrable) right to own them, at least those means > that are created from non-scarce resources. Berman: Who creates the means of production? People who provide labor, people who provide expertise of people who provide capital? How you split the contribution? (I skip the remark about non-scarce resources here). I claim that the situation is sufficiently messy that it is impossible the formulate an always aplicable first-principle.
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/14/85)
>/* lkk@teddy.UUCP / 4:48 pm Dec 11, 1985 */ >Certainly raw materials (minerals, wood) are neccessary for >production. Who created them? I wouldn't include these in my definition of "means" of production. In any case, however, it is important to distinguish between raw materials in a state of nature versus raw materials that have been removed from nature (e.g., minerals embedded in the earth vs. minerals that have been mined). >We can't produce things without food, which is grown in the land. Who >created the land? Since no one created the land, the question of whop should own it obviously cannot be answered by recourse to the question, "who created it?", but perhaps we should consider who enhanced it? We produce things in factories. Who created them? The owners? All by themselves? If people create things by themselves, they should have the right to do with them as they wish, including transferring ownership rights. The owners purchased the factory or purchased the services of those who created the factory, and are therefore entitled to do with it as they wish. >Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa Michael Sykora
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/15/85)
>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 6:55 pm Dec 11, 1985 */ >You talk about the individual good and the public good as though they were >different things. The public good is just the aggregate measure of the >individual good. Can you provide an algorithm for determining this aggregate from the individual goods? Note, the algorithm should include a means of determining what the individual goods are. >A >libertarian system (which really is what you are advocating) recognizes >property rights as the sole form of rights recognized by the state. This >choice of rights to be recognized needs explicit justification. Actually, it would include the rights to life and liberty also. >Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Michael Sykora
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/16/85)
>/* berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) / 12:18 pm Dec 13, 1985 */ >Berman: Who creates the means of production? People who provide labor, >people who provide expertise of people who provide capital? How you >split the contribution? (I skip the remark about non-scarce resources >here). I claim that the situation is sufficiently messy that it is >impossible the formulate an always aplicable first-principle. The people who provide the labor do so for a fee. They transfer their rights to the product of this labor to the payer of the fee. The people who provide the expertise do so for a fee. They transfer their rights to the product of this expertise to the payer of the fee. The people who provide the capital do so for a return and/or a partial ownership in the finished product. The providers of these services are free to provide them at the agreed upon price/return or not. The contributions are split according to the agreed upon price of services/ capital. This may be messy, but it's alot less messy than government administered systems. Michael Sykora
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/17/85)
In article <4340017@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: >>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 6:55 pm Dec 11, 1985 */ >>You talk about the individual good and the public good as though they were >>different things. The public good is just the aggregate measure of the >>individual good. > >Can you provide an algorithm for determining this aggregate from the >individual goods? Note, the algorithm should include a means of determining >what the individual goods are. In practice, determining what the public good is is often quite difficult. One must use such tools as judgement, compassion, and imagination. Opinion polls (including the formal ones called elections) are not worthless either. The result is still imperfect. >>A >>libertarian system (which really is what you are advocating) recognizes >>property rights as the sole form of rights recognized by the state. This >>choice of rights to be recognized needs explicit justification. > >Actually, it would include the rights to life and liberty also. You're right. I want to emphasize that the "liberty" here is a narrowly defined thing, unlike the more common modern use of the word. It means the right to move freely in one's own and public property, and in others' property subject only to the restraint of the owner. I still haven't seen any justification for this choice. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/18/85)
> >/* berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) / 12:18 pm Dec 13, 1985 */ > > >Berman: Who creates the means of production? People who provide labor, > >people who provide expertise of people who provide capital? How you > >split the contribution? (I skip the remark about non-scarce resources > >here). I claim that the situation is sufficiently messy that it is > >impossible the formulate an always aplicable first-principle. > > The people who provide the labor do so for a fee. They transfer their > rights to the product of this labor to the payer of the fee. > The people who provide the expertise do so for a fee. They transfer their > rights to the product of this expertise to the payer of the fee. > The people who provide the capital do so for a return and/or a partial > ownership in the finished product. > The providers of these services are free to provide them at the agreed upon > price/return or not. > The contributions are split according to the agreed upon price of services/ > capital. > This may be messy, but it's alot less messy than government administered > systems. > > Michael Sykora It is not only messy, but totally defies the phrase "people who created the means of production", which is emotionally charged and nice. As we see, taxing profits is not taking away the fruits of hard labor, but collecting a part of the return on the capital. Some people also point that people who provide labor are not always "free to provide them at the agreed upon price/return or not". While capital may move freely, a laborer is greatly constrained. Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive. While the owner of capital may patiently shop around, the laborer risks personal deprivations when he wants to shop around (move to other area, abandon a job to seek for another etc.). While I am not against the privite enterprise, I am not satisfied with the glib phrase > they transfer the rights to the product of > this labor to the payer of the fee. Is human work worth only as much as it is paid? Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected? If labor is just a commodity, is liberty a commodity as well?
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/24/85)
>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 9:30 am Dec 17, 1985 */ >In practice, determining what the public good is is often quite difficult. >One must use such tools as judgement, compassion, and imagination. Opinion >polls (including the formal ones called elections) are not worthless either. >The result is still imperfect. "Judgement" based on what criteria? Is "compassion" a tool? Why should we assume compassion is good? Imagination may be useful in coming up with innovative solutions, but how is it useful in determining what the public wants? (Note, I am assuming, based on your reference to opinion polls, that you see the public's desires as highly relevant to what the "public good" is.) The market has the advantage over opinion polls in that it can measure more accurately than opinion polls can the EXTENT of people's wants, as it forces people to put their money where their mouths are. Originally, you said that the public good is just the aggregate of individual goods. How are the individual goods combined if they conflict? Michael Sykora
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/24/85)
>/* berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) / 3:08 pm Dec 18, 1985 */ >It is not only messy, but totally defies the phrase "people who created >the means of production", which is emotionally charged and nice. You asked how the contributions are split. I indicated how. What's the problem? >As we see, taxing profits is not taking away the fruits of hard labor, >but collecting a part of the return on the capital. Where did you demonstrate this? >Some people also point that people who provide labor are not always >"free to provide them at the agreed upon price/return or not". In what situations are they not? Remember, we are talking about a theoretical system here, not one that is currently implemented. >While capital may move freely, a laborer is greatly constrained. While birds can fly unaided, humans cannot. So??? >Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive. What do you mean by a deal? >While the owner of capital may patiently shop around, the laborer >risks personal deprivations when he wants to shop around (move to >other area, abandon a job to seek for another etc.). Please note that if you omit the "While" clause, the statement is still true. >While I am not against the privite enterprise, I am not satisfied >with the glib phrase >> they transfer the rights to the product of >> this labor to the payer of the fee. What is wrong with it? Wherein lies your dissatisfaction? >Is human work worth only as much as it is paid? How do you define "worth?" >Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected? "Value" to whom? There is no such thing as objective value. >If labor is just a commodity, is liberty a commodity as well? Can "liberty" be bought and sold? I'm not sure. First, liberty needs to be defined precisely. Michael Sykora
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (12/25/85)
> The market has the advantage over opinion polls in that it can measure > more accurately than opinion polls can the EXTENT of people's wants, as it > forces people to put their money where their mouths are. > > Michael Sykora And, of course, it gives the people with the most money the biggest mouths. Baba
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/27/85)
In article <4340026@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: >>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 9:30 am Dec 17, 1985 */ > >>In practice, determining what the public good is is often quite difficult. >>One must use such tools as judgement, compassion, and imagination. Opinion >>polls (including the formal ones called elections) are not worthless either. >>The result is still imperfect. > >"Judgement" based on what criteria? >Is "compassion" a tool? Why should we assume compassion is good? >Imagination may be useful in coming up with innovative solutions, but >how is it useful in determining what the public wants? (Note, I am assuming, >based on your reference to opinion polls, that you see the public's desires >as highly relevant to what the "public good" is.) > >The market has the advantage over opinion polls in that it can measure >more accurately than opinion polls can the EXTENT of people's wants, as it >forces people to put their money where their mouths are. The market is limited to supplying goods where it is relatively easy to assess who benefits from the transaction, and where the greatest part of those benefits can be restricted to those who are willing to pay. There are goods where this is not the case. These are called "public goods" (confusing terminology, in this context). They are generally regarded as including schools, roads, parks, defense, and police protection, among other things. Judgement, imagination and compassion are used for precisely the purpose you mention: attempting to estimate the extent of people's wants. I will also note that there is a theoretical problem with the market as a measure of the extent of people's wants; it weights people by how wealthy they are. Now this is possibly equitable for those who have made their money themselves; but it is not equitable for those who inherited great wealth. (This may sound like sour grapes to some of you. It isn't. I'm doing quite well, thank you.) I favor a mixed economy, more capitalist than otherwise, such as we have now in the U.S., because it works best at serving the public good. Pragmatically, it has done better than any other system tried; and theoretically, there is good reason to expect just that result. >Originally, you said that the public good is just the aggregate of individual >goods. How are the individual goods combined if they conflict? One weights them by how important they are to the individuals involved. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/29/85)
> >/* berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) / 3:08 pm Dec 18, 1985 */ > Michael Sykora > > >It is not only messy, but totally defies the phrase "people who created > >the means of production", which is emotionally charged and nice. > > You asked how the contributions are split. I indicated how. What's the > problem? > Your split is the following: the owner pays cash the people for their work, so he acquires the rights to fruits of labor. The actual work of the owner may be no larger than the work of any other person involved. > >As we see, taxing profits is not taking away the fruits of hard labor, > >but collecting a part of the return on the capital. > > Where did you demonstrate this? > See above - the profits in the last case are not due to expenditure of labor, but due to expenditure of money. Money in turn do not need to reflect any past work of the owner. You do not seem to share the latter opinion: the notion of the work efficiency which may differ more than, say, 1000 times from individual to individual may be natural, to me it is not. > >Some people also point that people who provide labor are not always > >"free to provide them at the agreed upon price/return or not". > > In what situations are they not? Remember, we are talking about a theoretical > system here, not one that is currently implemented. > Wait... > >While capital may move freely, a laborer is greatly constrained. > > While birds can fly unaided, humans cannot. So??? However, the capital flies easily. What I said is that the person with large amount of money has much larger flexibility than the one with small (why otherwise would he bother to have those money to begin with?). What I am saying here is the following: the equality under the law of two sides of a transaction does not provide equal opportunities to bargain. Since this assymmetry is persistent, one cannot ignore it as a statistical aberration. > > >Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive. > > What do you mean by a deal? > Sell labor, instead of keeping to shop around for a better deal. > >While the owner of capital may patiently shop around, the laborer > >risks personal deprivations when he wants to shop around (move to > >other area, abandon a job to seek for another etc.). > >While I am not against the privite enterprise, I am not satisfied > >with the glib phrase > >> they transfer the rights to the product of > >> this labor to the payer of the fee. > > What is wrong with it? Wherein lies your dissatisfaction? > According to your approach, the owner of capital does not need anything from the rest of the society than the services for which he pays, more- over, whatever profits does he have, they are due to his work alone. In my approach, the profits of the owner of capital are at least partially due to advantage of his position, and not exlusively due to his skills, enterprenourship etc. Thus it may be fair that he shares his profits with the rest of the society. In particular, your 'glib phrase' is used to oppose taxation. I claim that it contains so much of systematic idealization of reality that it cannot be used to justify any ethical conclusions. > >Is human work worth only as much as it is paid? > > How do you define "worth?" I was asking a question! > > >Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected? > > "Value" to whom? There is no such thing as objective value. Then OK, we both agree: we are free to redefine the value of work is such a way that the difference between compensation/profit and the "actual" worth will be equal to a tax, this way taxing does not take away any contribution from an individual. In short, taxing is not an ethically wrong thing ('theft'), but admissible semantic manipulation. Piotr Berman
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (01/02/86)
>/* berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) / 4:47 pm Dec 28, 1985 */ >Your split is the following: the owner pays cash the people for their >work, so he acquires the rights to fruits of labor. The actual work >of the owner may be no larger than the work of any other person involved. The actual "work" of the owner involves administration and management. Often, this can be the most difficult task. That is why good managers are paid well. In a competitive system, investors must work hard to earn what economists call profit (as distinguished from what accountants call profit). The owner (and possibly his banker) bear all the risk. If they don't get a return appropriate to the amount of risk taken they won't bother with the investment. >See above - the profits in the last case are not due to expenditure >of labor, but due to expenditure of money. Money in turn do not need >to reflect any past work of the owner. How else? Inheritance? -- Then the one who passed on the money had a right to do with it as he/she pleased, including his/her "undeserving" offspring. >You do not seem to share the latter opinion: the notion of the work >efficiency which may differ more than, say, 1000 times from individual >to individual may be natural, to me it is not. Please eleborate. I do not understand this. >What I am saying here is the following: the equality under the law >of two sides of a transaction does not provide equal opportunities >to bargain. The phrase "to bargain" needs elaboration if one is to comment on your assertion. >> >Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive. >> What do you mean by a deal? >Sell labor, instead of keeping to shop around for a better deal. It is quite often possible to do both. Would you prefer it if the capital owner also had a tougher time? >> >While the owner of capital may patiently shop around, the laborer >> >risks personal deprivations when he wants to shop around (move to >> >other area, abandon a job to seek for another etc.). Note that while the owner of capital is shopping around he is missing out on potential profits. > In my approach, the profits of the owner of capital are at least >partially due to advantage of his position, and not exlusively due to >his skills, enterprenourship etc. By "position," I take it you mean those who have inherited wealth. But the right to inherited wealth is foremost a right of the giver. >Thus it may be fair that he shares >his profits with the rest of the society. In particular, your 'glib >phrase' is used to oppose taxation. Which parts of society helped in the creation of this wealth. It's only right that those who participated in the creation of the wealth get a share, not every member of society. How do you determine how much should be taxed away? > I claim that it contains so much >of systematic idealization of reality that it cannot be used to justify >any ethical conclusions. ???? >> >Is human work worth only as much as it is paid? >> How do you define "worth?" >I was asking a question! And I was asking you to clarify your question because I did not fully understand it. > >Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected? > "Value" to whom? There is no such thing as objective value. >Then OK, we both agree: we are free to redefine the value of work >is such a way that the difference between compensation/profit >and the "actual" worth will be equal to a tax, this way taxing >does not take away any contribution from an individual. Hold on there. I don't agree to that. I merely said that value is subjective. If value is subjective, then what does "actual worth" mean? >Piotr Berman
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (01/03/86)
>/* berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) / 4:47 pm Dec 28, 1985 */ >Your split is the following: the owner pays cash the people for their >work, so he acquires the rights to fruits of labor. The actual work >of the owner may be no larger than the work of any other person involved. The actual "work" of the owner involves administration and management. Often, this can be the most difficult task. That is why good managers are paid well. In a competitive system, investors must work hard to earn what economists call profit (as distinguished from what accountants call profit). The owner (and possibly his banker) bear all the risk. If they don't get a return appropriate to the amount of risk taken they won't bother with the investment. >See above - the profits in the last case are not due to expenditure >of labor, but due to expenditure of money. Money in turn do not need >to reflect any past work of the owner. How else? Inheritance? -- Then the one who passed on the money had a right to do with it as he/she pleased, including giving it to his/her "undeserving" offspring. >You do not seem to share the latter opinion: the notion of the work >efficiency which may differ more than, say, 1000 times from individual >to individual may be natural, to me it is not. Please eleborate. I do not understand this. >What I am saying here is the following: the equality under the law >of two sides of a transaction does not provide equal opportunities >to bargain. The phrase "to bargain" needs elaboration if one is to comment on your assertion. >> >Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive. >> What do you mean by a deal? >Sell labor, instead of keeping to shop around for a better deal. It is quite often possible to do both. Would you prefer it if the capital owner also had a tougher time? >> >While the owner of capital may patiently shop around, the laborer >> >risks personal deprivations when he wants to shop around (move to >> >other area, abandon a job to seek for another etc.). Note that while the owner of capital is shopping around he is missing out on potential profits. > In my approach, the profits of the owner of capital are at least >partially due to advantage of his position, and not exlusively due to >his skills, enterprenourship etc. By "position," I take it you mean those who have inherited wealth. But the right to inherited wealth is foremost a right of the giver. >Thus it may be fair that he shares >his profits with the rest of the society. In particular, your 'glib >phrase' is used to oppose taxation. Which parts of society helped in the creation of this wealth. It's only right that those who participated in the creation of the wealth get a share, not every member of society. How do you determine how much should be taxed away? > I claim that it contains so much >of systematic idealization of reality that it cannot be used to justify >any ethical conclusions. ???? >> >Is human work worth only as much as it is paid? >> How do you define "worth?" >I was asking a question! And I was asking you to clarify your question because I did not fully understand it. > >Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected? > "Value" to whom? There is no such thing as objective value. >Then OK, we both agree: we are free to redefine the value of work >is such a way that the difference between compensation/profit >and the "actual" worth will be equal to a tax, this way taxing >does not take away any contribution from an individual. Hold on there. I don't agree to that. I merely said that value is subjective. If value is subjective, then what does "actual worth" mean? >Piotr Berman
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (01/11/86)
>/* berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) / 4:47 pm Dec 28, 1985 */ >Your split is the following: the owner pays cash the people for their >work, so he acquires the rights to fruits of labor. The actual work >of the owner may be no larger than the work of any other person involved. The actual "work" of the owner involves administration and management. Often, this can be the most difficult task. That is why good managers are paid well. In a competitive system, investors must work hard to earn what economists call profit (as distinguished from what accountants call profit). The owner (and possibly his banker) bear all the risk. If they don't get a return appropriate to the amount of risk taken they won't bother with the investment. >See above - the profits in the last case are not due to expenditure >of labor, but due to expenditure of money. Money in turn do not need >to reflect any past work of the owner. How else? Inheritance? -- Then the one who passed on the money had a right to do with it as he/she pleased, including giving it to his/her "undeserving" offspring. >You do not seem to share the latter opinion: the notion of the work >efficiency which may differ more than, say, 1000 times from individual >to individual may be natural, to me it is not. Please eleborate. I do not understand this. >What I am saying here is the following: the equality under the law >of two sides of a transaction does not provide equal opportunities >to bargain. The phrase "to bargain" needs elaboration if one is to comment on your assertion. >> >Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive. >> What do you mean by a deal? >Sell labor, instead of keeping to shop around for a better deal. It is quite often possible to do both. Would you prefer it if the capital owner also had a tougher time? >> >While the owner of capital may patiently shop around, the laborer >> >risks personal deprivations when he wants to shop around (move to >> >other area, abandon a job to seek for another etc.). Note that while the owner of capital is shopping around he is missing out on potential profits. > In my approach, the profits of the owner of capital are at least >partially due to advantage of his position, and not exlusively due to >his skills, enterprenourship etc. By "position," I take it you mean those who have inherited wealth. But the right to inherited wealth is foremost a right of the giver. >Thus it may be fair that he shares >his profits with the rest of the society. In particular, your 'glib >phrase' is used to oppose taxation. Which parts of society helped in the creation of this wealth. It's only right that those who participated in the creation of the wealth get a share, not every member of society. How do you determine how much should be taxed away? > I claim that it contains so much >of systematic idealization of reality that it cannot be used to justify >any ethical conclusions. ???? >> >Is human work worth only as much as it is paid? >> How do you define "worth?" >I was asking a question! And I was asking you to clarify your question because I did not fully understand it. >> >Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected? >> "Value" to whom? There is no such thing as objective value. >Then OK, we both agree: we are free to redefine the value of work >is such a way that the difference between compensation/profit >and the "actual" worth will be equal to a tax, this way taxing >does not take away any contribution from an individual. Hold on there. I don't agree to that. I merely said that value is subjective. If value is subjective, then what does "actual worth" mean? >Piotr Berman Mike Sykora
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (01/16/86)
> >> >Is human work worth only as much as it is paid? > > >> How do you define "worth?" > > >I was asking a question! > > And I was asking you to clarify your question because I did not fully > understand it. > > >> >Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected? > > >> "Value" to whom? There is no such thing as objective value. > > >Then OK, we both agree: we are free to redefine the value of work > >is such a way that the difference between compensation/profit > >and the "actual" worth will be equal to a tax, this way taxing > >does not take away any contribution from an individual. > > Hold on there. I don't agree to that. I merely said that value is subjective. > If value is subjective, then what does "actual worth" mean? > > >Piotr Berman > > Mike Sykora I am disputing the following libertarian tenet: whatever wealth an individual acquired by its own direct labor and indirect labor (transactions with other individual) is solely his/her: only this individual has the right to dispose this wealth. Sounds very well, additionally allows to draw the following conclusion: any form of tax is a theft (as a disposition of wealth by other person than the owner). My objection was that when market is involved, the connection between labor and reward is not strightforward. In an extreme example, gambling with small stakes takes the same effort as gambling large stakes. The absolute risk is larger in the latter case, but this is not a meassure of effort. The personal risk may be larger in the first case: small gambler may risk his all livelyhood, while the high-roller risks his pocket money. Substitute managing capital for gambling and the same conclusions follow. Then we (both me and Sykora) are coming to the conclusion that it is impossible to find "objective meassures" of the worth of labor. Two persons may study with equal dilligence, but due to the shift in the market, by the time they finish their education the market value of their skills may differ, the fortunate one could have better forsight, but he could also have been more lucky. At this juncture I am making a conclusion which a libertarian refuses to make: since the moral justification for ownership of wealth is the labor which allowed to gather this wealth, and the value of this labor is subjective (to a degree, not totally), the concept of ownership is also subjective, and so are the priviledges of ownership (the full discretion in disposing the wealth). Thus it may be fully justified that a majority defines some limitation on this discretion (you dispose 60% as you see fit, we dispose 40%), even if it is contrary to the wish of some. It may be disputable whether the constaints on ownership imposed by majority are fair, economically efficient etc., but they do not constitute theft, but rather a convention what the ownership is. It may be debatable what this convention should be, but because of the inherently subjective nature of the "worth of labor" (i.e. the proportion of monetary reward which "morally" should be left to the free disposition by an individual), this must be a convention. As it is pointed in the last paragraph, this convention has a moral nature. Thus it should not be changed to freely: morality has sense only if it is stable during lifetimes of individuals. Thus the basic tenets of such a convention belong to constitution, as opposed to a law which may be changed easily and frequently. For the same reason, even small changes should not be undertaken to lightly. As a final conclusion, theft is not a did which may be defined in absolute (i.e. invariant) terms, but in terms of a convention. A libertarian will point at this moment that by the same token the liberty would be a convention. Where then can we draw a line between, say, our founding fathers and Hitler? They claim that without ironclad rules, which are not subjects to changable conventions, we exist on a slippery slope. Thus the morality, law etc. should be based on the objectively developed ethical system. (The system, since only one may be developed objectively.) However, as an atheist, I claim that ethics based on a religion, however usefull, is based on an illusion. Similarly, my logical education suggest that "rational ethics" is similarly based on an illusion of objectivity. Thus we should use our reason not to find ironclad rules (futile), but to find some forsight. Would I forsee that the current system is bound to evolve into totalitarianism, I would vote libertarian. Would I forsee that almost everybody would be better of without a minimal wage, I would advocate its repeal. However, my prediction is different. Piotr Berman