"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Try reading Das Kapital and get back to us.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work and take
profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the laborers?


Gilligan wrote:
Because getting other people to work and organizing their labor is work
and value added.

In other words, "leadership" and "initiative" are themselves valuable
commodities.


I don't view labor as a commodity. But leadership, iniative and risk
taking does have value.



It is not a tax because the laborers agree to a wage and are paid that.



In cases where the laborers agree, sure.
What about cases where the laborer is coerced, or given false
information about the terms of his employment?


Deception is a form of force as is coercion. It is then theft. You call
it tax. I say taxation is theft, but not all theft is taxation.







I am poor. I earn less than minimum wage. I think progressive taxation
is punitive.


Well then, are you in favor of regressive taxation?

I'm in favor of no taxes. I'm in favor of simple, direct fees -
preferable paying for only the gov't services you use. Buy contract
insurance from the gov't to pay for courts, etc. For the military,
criminal courts, police and such charge every citizen of voting age and
above a flat annual fee. The same for everyone regardless of income. Do
not tax businesses. Keep government small and essential.






Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses from
becoming so enraged at their lot in life (as compared to yours) that
they riot and burn your house down.



One can use the same argument for owning assualt rifles.


One can, except it would take a very callous and foolish rich person to
think that he is going to keep a determined crowd of rioters away, in
the event of serious class warfare. For one thing, they'll be armed too.
For another, there will be more of them than the rich person has
bullets.

There's a natural incentive for the wealthy not to have the poor riot.


I think we should bring back the custom of rich people hiring bands of
armed retainers. Livery and maintenance! Feudalism rules!

It already exists under our allodial system.




It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true that *every*
fool is. If we are going to appeal to logic, then let's use accurate
logic.



I said any fool can go out and earn tons of money. I did not say all
fools go out and earn tons of money.


Nor are all rich people foolish.

True. Actually the wealthy tend to be quite smart. Poor is not
fundamentally an economic condition, it is a mental condition for most.


DSK






I've read a good portion of it. 2 semesters of Marx/Engels as an undergrad.

My argument about organizing, allocating capital and labor and assuming risk
as having value exposes the flaw of Marx's central thesis in Das Kapital.
The "profit" is the market value of the capitalists work. Even more
fundamental is Marx's assertion that labor and capital work against each
other. I do not suscribe to that malevolent view at all. People individually
and voluntarily enter into contracts with each other. Both sides must agree
to terms. Marx's views best describe the workings of labor unions which are
self defeating and exist only by force/government legislation.

"Gilligan" wrote in message
news

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Try reading Das Kapital and get back to us.

I've read a good portion of it. 2 semesters of Marx/Engels as an
undergrad.

My argument about organizing, allocating capital and labor and assuming
risk as having value exposes the flaw of Marx's central thesis in Das
Kapital. The "profit" is the market value of the capitalists work. Even
more fundamental is Marx's assertion that labor and capital work against
each other. I do not suscribe to that malevolent view at all. People
individually and voluntarily enter into contracts with each other. Both
sides must agree to terms. Marx's views best describe the workings of
labor unions which are self defeating and exist only by force/government
legislation.

Perhaps you haven't read enough, or perhaps your comprehension level is low.
Marx is a tough read in some respects today because his idealized theories
don't work well in the real world.

The rise of labor unions in the US were a direct result of poor management,
and had little gov't envolvement except as an afterthought.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Gilligan" wrote in message
news

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Try reading Das Kapital and get back to us.

I've read a good portion of it. 2 semesters of Marx/Engels as an
undergrad.

My argument about organizing, allocating capital and labor and assuming
risk as having value exposes the flaw of Marx's central thesis in Das
Kapital. The "profit" is the market value of the capitalists work. Even
more fundamental is Marx's assertion that labor and capital work against
each other. I do not suscribe to that malevolent view at all. People
individually and voluntarily enter into contracts with each other. Both
sides must agree to terms. Marx's views best describe the workings of
labor unions which are self defeating and exist only by force/government
legislation.

Perhaps you haven't read enough, or perhaps your comprehension level is
low. Marx is a tough read in some respects today because his idealized
theories don't work well in the real world.

Tell me were I'm wrong rather than fling insults. I've pointed out exactly
why his theories don't apply to the real world. All theories are idealized,
that's what a theory is. The idealization is a set of limiting boundaries in
which the theory applies. Marx argued about classes and completely
disregarded the actions and desires of the individual.


The rise of labor unions in the US were a direct result of poor
management, and had little gov't envolvement except as an afterthought.

Read he

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1685

You understand that unions are exempt from antitrust acts and can compel
people to join them against their will. They can do this as a result of law
and it was through these kinds of laws that unions had the most growth.

Look for the union label on the baseball bat coming through your windshield!




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Oh come on... I thought you had more sense than to think this was much of an
"insult."

Unions rose due to poor management. After that, the gov't got involved.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Gilligan" wrote in message
news

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Try reading Das Kapital and get back to us.

I've read a good portion of it. 2 semesters of Marx/Engels as an
undergrad.

My argument about organizing, allocating capital and labor and assuming
risk as having value exposes the flaw of Marx's central thesis in Das
Kapital. The "profit" is the market value of the capitalists work. Even
more fundamental is Marx's assertion that labor and capital work against
each other. I do not suscribe to that malevolent view at all. People
individually and voluntarily enter into contracts with each other. Both
sides must agree to terms. Marx's views best describe the workings of
labor unions which are self defeating and exist only by force/government
legislation.

Perhaps you haven't read enough, or perhaps your comprehension level is
low. Marx is a tough read in some respects today because his idealized
theories don't work well in the real world.

Tell me were I'm wrong rather than fling insults. I've pointed out exactly
why his theories don't apply to the real world. All theories are
idealized, that's what a theory is. The idealization is a set of limiting
boundaries in which the theory applies. Marx argued about classes and
completely disregarded the actions and desires of the individual.


The rise of labor unions in the US were a direct result of poor
management, and had little gov't envolvement except as an afterthought.

Read he

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1685

You understand that unions are exempt from antitrust acts and can compel
people to join them against their will. They can do this as a result of
law and it was through these kinds of laws that unions had the most
growth.

Look for the union label on the baseball bat coming through your
windshield!




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com