Basic economics for Democrats/Socialists

[Seymour Flops]

Did anyone of them use God to justify a right to property? Stop deflecting and address the words of the very people who the Founders based our societies rights on, including the right to property.

Why must I defend the words of the founders when I haven't cited them as an authority?

Great. Glad we got that settled.

You just put your words in a quote supposedly from me?

I would suggest then that you use other words rather than right or wrong then when making your arguments unless you're refering to objective distinctions which require proof and evidence.

Then prove it objectively.

I appreciate your frequent advice on how to post. I give it careful consideration.

Well the passage I quoted you from Bastiat makes it clear he sees and function of government not structured around protecting the accumulated wealth of citizens to be the very definition of injustice.

Write him a letter?

That's a clearer statement than they would be right to. What it doesn't do is support the notion that labor creates property. That's not an objective notion, it is subjective sentiment.

If You can objectively prove it wrong I'm all ears.

All economies are managed.

What economy exists without management?

You don't seem to have the best grasp on history.history

Tell me some historical examples of where you ideology has been successful.

 

[Curried Goats]

Why must I defend the words of the founders when I haven't cited them as an authority?

You just put your words in a quote supposedly from me?

I appreciate your frequent advice on how to post. I give it careful consideration.

Write him a letter?

If You can objectively prove it wrong I'm all ears.

Tell me some historical examples of where you ideology has been successful.

That's not how that works. If you want to argue that labor creates a right to property then that's on you to prove it. I'd say objectively labor can create something new, but the notion that that new thing belongs to you, as far as I can tell, is entirely subjective.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That's not how that works. If you want to argue that labor creates a right to property then that's on you to prove it. I'd say objectively labor can create something new, but the notion that that new thing belongs to you, as far as I can tell, is entirely subjective

Can you prove that it is subjective?

 

[Curried Goats]

Can you prove that it is subjective?

It's not on me to prove your claim that your labor + natural resources = your right to product. That's on you. Objectively I recognize the natural resources + labor = a product but who has a right to that product isn't a statement I understand objectively. I believe you can have possession of a thing, and that can be objectively determined by whether or not it is in your possession, but a right to it? Other than a legal right, who's parameters are determined by law, I don't know what that is.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's not on me to prove your claim that your labor + natural resources = your right to product. That's on you.

By what objective standard is that on me?

Objectively I recognize the natural resources + labor = a product but who has a right to that product isn't a statement I understand objectively.

Why not?

I believe you can have possession of a thing, and that can be objectively determined by whether or not it is in your possession, but a right to it? Other than a legal right, who's parameters are determined by law, I don't know what that is.

When you find out, let me know.

 

[Curried Goats]

By what objective standard is that on me?

Why not?

When you find out, let me know.

It's on you because it's your claim. That's the basics of debate.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's on you because it's your claim. That's the basics of debate.

Can you prove that that's the basics of debate?

 

[Curried Goats]

Can you prove that that's the basics of debate?

Argument: Claims, Reason, Evidence

 

[Seymour Flops]

Argument: Claims, Reason, Evidence

In your own words.

That someone who wrote an intern article has the same opinion is not proof.

 

[Curried Goats]

In your own words.

That someone who wrote an intern article has the same opinion is not proof.

It is an opinion, whether from me or others that if you're making an argument it's on you to prove it's veracity. If you don't feel as if you should have to prove the veracity of your claims, so be it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is an opinion, whether from me or others that if you're making an argument it's on you to prove it's veracity. If you don't feel as if you should have to prove the veracity of your claims, so be it.

And if you don't feel as if someone can own something without government telling him that he does, so be it.

 

[Curried Goats]

And if you don't feel as if someone can own something without government telling him that he does, so be it.

Well you certainly haven't been able to prove that they do so why should I?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Who would decide who gets promoted from experience to have higher pay because of higher positions? Is it automatic by seniority? That would be inviting Peter to move into the company, wouldn't it? Or a worse version in which people keep getting promoted, even if they are not competent in their current level.

What would be the collateral for the loan? It sounds pretty risky. If the company fails, the loans will never be repaid. Typically, people are willing to invest in risky ventures if there is the possiblity of large returns based on ownership.


Do you envision some financial incentive to prompt the worker/owners to work hard and make the company successful? It sounds like a way for everyone to feel good about themselves right up until the company goes bankrupt.

I get the anger at some people being rich because their parent were hard-working and successful, not themselves.

No Point in Arguing With Those Who Hungrily Lick Their Chains

When you start demonizing employee-owners with slavishly imaginary strawmen, it proves how much you've been mind-raped by the present smothering and authoritarian system. You have been stripped of all rational and realistic arguments by your self-appointed Masters.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Well you certainly haven't been able to prove that they do so why should I?

You havent' been able to prove that people do own things if government says that they do.

But you don't have to do that, either.

You shouldn't have to do anything that you don't want to do.

I'm libertarian!

 

[Seymour Flops]

No Point in Arguing With Those Who Hungrily Lick Their Chains

When you start demonizing employee-owners with slavishly imaginary strawmen, it proves how much you've been mind-raped by the present smothering and authoritarian system. You have been stripped of all rational and realistic arguments by your self-appointed Masters.

Who is demonizing employee-owners?

I'm only asking how you envision the employees becoming owners.

Your answer about wealthy investors pumping large sums of capital into an employee owned company with no return expected except the simple interest due for an unsecured personal loan, and no more control over the company that they now have in effect lent to eimployees, other than a chance to be promoted based on seniority, seems unlikely to happen.

If you are stating it as an ideal only, I'm fine with that. Absolutely. I'm libertarian, so I would have no business ridiculing an unlikey to happen ideal.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The incredible benefit of the completelly invented concept of privately-owned land

To remind where we left off talking about control of land we talked about how the territorial ruler, who exacted tribute from farmers in his territory would deal the the problem of an unmanageably large area:

(the ruler would) Pick one of his most trusted men for each village (except the closest) and send him to live in the village. Tell each that the village is "theirs" so long as they keep bringing the ruler tribute, minus a cut for themselves, of course. Keep the closest village as "headquarters," with all of the wealth for the ruler. Sons often make the most loyal of such vassals, but new blood in the mix, selected by merit are useful also.

Under a system like that, the trusted men are not expected to give all but barely above starvation subsistance to their rulers and suffer the deprivation along with the workers. Rulers found it was actually more lucrative to charge a percentage of the produced goods, or a set amount. That motivatged the vassals to drive their serfs to greater production. Even if the amount is set, the ruler will be aware when there are increases in production and raise the set amount.

This introduced the vital element of motivation to farming. No longer were the stewards of the king's land content to grow just enough to make the yearly payment. The more food they grew, the more wealth they would have.

But is extra food really "wealth?" If farming methods improve such that the same number of workers can grow twice or three times the amount of food, won't it go uneaten and rot, there being the same number of workers to feed?

No.

Food is fuel for workers. If your existing workers are better fed, they will breed more workers. The more capable of the workers can be put to work as fishers, hunters (with the master leading the hunt, of course), cooks, maids, footmen, tailers and seamstresses, carriage builders, carpenters, stone masons, miners, blacksmiths, silversmiths, jewellers, singers and musicians, artists, chefs, prostitutes, healers, and other non-farm workers that provide what will soon be seen as "necessities" above and beyond the day's ration of bread and beans.

The Egyptions were able to build the Pyramids, not because they had any alien spacecraft lifting the rocks for them, but because the fertility of the Nile allowed them to feed enough workers to lift them.

With all that wealth creation, it is nearly impossible to keep everyone poor. A middle-class develops and gains its own wealth. That's one of the reason the Egyptions build pyramids, to find an outlet for the wealth other than letting the workers keep it. It wasn't free market "capitalists" who invented keeping the wealth away from the workers, that was a long established tradition. The later free markets that brought the industrial age made the poor the healthiest, wealthiest and best educated poor in history.

Anyway, sooner or later the middle class found ways to get land of their own. Non-noble tennents were the first proto-private land owners, paying rent to the nobility. The nobility soon realized that they could give a deed to a landowner, making it private property and still be paid in the form of land taxes.

Working land with a set part of the crops as tribute to the ruler was more motivating than working land and giving all but a subsitance to the ruler. Working land as a tennat with a set monetary payment was more motivating still. Working land as an owner with a set yearly tax, not connected to production was most motivating of all. At that point, the yearly tax was likely less than the yearly increase in the land value, so it was more a bookkeeping nuisance than a serious bite of the landowner's wealthy.

The king must have hated that, right? Wrong. Small amounts of taxes, on so much land, almost willingly paid by landowners was much more reliably lucrative for the king/government than the old feudal system. Certainly better than the middle period where the nobles became so wealthy and powerful that they king had to often beg them for money to raise an Army. With private property and taxes, the central government was now back in the catbird seat.

To this day, I don't know of a single acre of privately owned land not subject to taxation as real estate. Privately owned land is and likely always will be allowed by government at the price of tribute.

Which makes sense. Owning land, by definition takes away the rights of others to walk on it. Under pure feudalism, walking on the nobleman's land was not tresspassing. Where else would people walk, if the noble controlled all the land and forbade people from walking on it. Besides, the people worked to produce his wealth. They were his peeps. He would no more tresspass them, than he would tresspass his cattle and chickens.

Anyway, the private ownership of land led to an agricultural revolution similar to the industrial revolution but at a much slower pace. That private ownership of land sharply increased the output of food and reduced the amount of labor to produce the increased amounts. Not because plowing was much different in the 1600's as it had been in the 800's, but because there was motivation and drive in what had once been an industry worked by slaves or people barely above slave status. More workers outside the farm led to banking, education, experimentation, and eventually to factory production that started the Industrial Revolution.

With all that benefit, it would be hard to argue for going back to a primitive state in exchange for being able to walk the Earth anywhere since no one owned it. The primitive people's belief that no one could own land was a product of their religious beliefs in the land, air, water, and trees as living and sentient beings, not of any concern for individual rights and liberty.

 

[Curried Goats]

You havent' been able to prove that people do own things if government says that they do.

I wasn't aware that I need to but I can. If the law says they do and the government is able to enforce the law then they do have legal property rights. They still wouldn't have a moral right to property.

But you don't have to do that, either.

You shouldn't have to do anything that you don't want to do.

I'm libertarian!

But not a very good debater.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I wasn't aware that I need to but I can. If the law says they do and the government is able to enforce the law then they do have legal property rights. They still wouldn't have a moral right to property.

Goes back to my point that if you don't believe in rights, other than "legal rights," there is no point is trying to give "evidence" that this or that is a right. You don't really believe in rights, you just want to call government powers and privileges "rights." It would be like me asking you about people with dwarfism (for some reason), and you responding by talking about leprechauns only.

By your logic, when the founders, who cited as authorities, had the right to maintain the international slave trade for as long as they granted it to themselves in the constitution they wrote.

I say that they had no such right, no matter the constitution said, because the Africans had a right not be so traded, regardles of whether their government "gave it to them," or whether they had a government or not.

If you say they had no such right, any further argument on rights is futile.

Question: Why does government have the right to determine what is a right? Show what a good debater you are by not using circular reasoning when you answer (like you did in the above post).

 

[Curried Goats]

Goes back to my point that if you don't believe in rights, other than legal rights, there is no point is trying to give "evidence" that this or that is a right, in the absence of government to deem it a right.

No point or you simply can't?

My your logic, when the founders, who cited as authorities, had the right to maintain the international slave trade for as long as they granted it to themselves in the constitution they wrote.

My point is that whether or not you think they had a right to they did exactly that. That's the difference between your subjective emotion and objective reality.

I say that they had no such right, no matter the constitution said, because the Africans had a right not be so traded, regardles of whether their government "gave it to them," or whether they had a government or not.

But what good is you saying that? I can claim to have a right to be King of the Universe but that doesn't make it so.

If you say they had no such right, any further argument on rights is futile.

Your argument is only futile if you can't prove it.

Question: Why does government have the right to determine what is a right? Show what a good debater you are by not using circular reasoning when you answer.

I don't think the government does have that right. I think if they have enough support and that support is able to muster the appropriate force that they may have the ability to determine laws and enforce those laws on their citizens but I don't argue in terms of morality because it is ultimately subjective.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No point or you simply can't?

Both. How can I argue about rights with someone who doesn't believe they exist?

My point is that whether or not you think they had a right to they did exactly that. That's the difference between your subjective emotion and objective reality.

This is a perfect example. Now you claim that because they did it, they had a right to do it. Arguing in a circle.
By your logic, the founders had a "right" to continue the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the Spanish had a "right" to enslave the natives in South America, Hitler had the "right" to slaughter the Jews, and Stalin had the "right" to slaughter everyone.

If that is your logic - and you have a right to that logic - there is no point in discussing the much finer points of economic rights.

But what good is you saying that? I can claim to have a right to be King of the Universe but that doesn't make it so.

What is the point of any debate among people who have no power to enact laws as soon as they settle the debate?

Your argument is only futile if you can't prove it.

I don't think the government does have that right. I think if they have enough support and that support is able to muster the appropriate force that they may have the ability to determine laws and enforce those laws on their citizens but I don't argue in terms of morality because it is ultimately subjective.

Then - again - you don't believe in rights, but you've made no attempt to show why you think that they don't exist. Any argument I make about rights would then be met with the equivelent of "nuh-uh!"

The government's ability to determine laws and enforce those laws is a power, not a right. Sorry, I'm not going to change the meaning of words because you want to re-define them.

You might want to ask yourself someday: Why do socialists/marxists/whatever insist on this amorality? What is it about the morality of mass slaughter and totalitarianism that they want to avoid discussing its right and wrong so badly?