[ckingalt]

(Original post by anarchism101)
What you're essentially arguing is that because you were a victim of exploitation for 20 years, that you should get to be a beneficiary of it after that and you're saying that is somehow just. But it's no more just than slavery would be just if the slaves were freed after 20 years and then allowed to own their own slaves.

Except for that very insignificant distinction that I and my employees have/had a choice and slaves don't.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Jobs are not 'provided', rather they are 'permitted', since the only barrier to the worker's free production in the first place is private property.

What 'hard work'? And 'financial risk' usually really means rewarding the rich for being rich.



Precisely why we seek to abolish private property in the means of production and wage labour.

So entrepreneurs who made it from the bottom were rewarded for being rich? A lot of them built what they had from scratch before they became rich! How can you deny that hard work is needed in order to succeed in business?

Abolishing private property would make an extremely inefficient system and there would be no drive or incentive to better the economy.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Lets take the example of a retail shop. Some workers are good at selling stuff right? Lets say there's a star worker who is able to sell around £500 worth of stuff per day. When he started he was on a £12,000 salary and was given a £12,000 bonus for being a star seller. He isn't being allowed to reap in the benefits of his productive power. The management gets the credit for it and reaps in the financial benefit. His productive power produces £120,000 yet see a fraction of that. And the manager gets the largest fraction. On the basis of him being lucky enough to come from a wealthy family and own a shop. The builders who built the shop should also be reaping in benefits of their productive powers. Same with engineers etc.

It's not about feeling exploitative, it's just that it's inherently exploitative. Don't agree but that's explanation I've heard.

He is being recognised and rewarded by the commission. The employee could set up his own shop if he was so good, via a bank loan. Don't kid yourself that all business owners come from rich families, that's just ridiculous. You are also missing the fact that the resources he is selling are not his own. The initial purchasing of the resources and stocking etc are the risks in business that are needed to get rewards. The selling of those resources is just a small part of it and the employee has taken on none of the risks.

[Nephilim]

What about an indie game designer like Markus Persson who has become a millionaire by creating a game by himself? He did not exploit anybody. Does he deserve to have his money taken away from him?

[antimilitarist]

(Original post by Nephilim)
What about an indie game designer like Markus Persson who has become a millionaire by creating a game by himself? He did not exploit anybody. Does he deserve to have his money taken away from him?

Why do people always view taxation as theft? The majority of that money can go to good use towards healthcare, education ect. and it's not like all his money would be taken away from him. He would still be considered a very wealthy person.

[Nephilim]

(Original post by antimilitarist)
Why do people always view taxation as theft? The majority of that money can go to good use towards healthcare, education ect. and it's not like all his money would be taken away from him. He would still be considered a very wealthy person.

Because he, and others like him, has earnt all that money. People should only be taxed for what they take from society (i.e. using roads and using public-sector services). Otherwise, it is theft.

[antimilitarist]

(Original post by Nephilim)
Because he, and others like him, has earnt all that money. People should only be taxed for what they take from society (i.e. using roads and using public-sector services). Otherwise, it is theft.

Hmm, you view it as theft while I view it as fairness. Income tax is the fairest form of taxation and all other forms of tax should be scrapped. Those who have the most should be expected to give away the most.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
So entrepreneurs who made it from the bottom were rewarded for being rich? A lot of them built what they had from scratch before they became rich!

Well, if we look at society, there's a much greater correlation between what you start with and what you end up with than you'd expect if hard work was all that mattered.

But that's a minor issue. In reality, what they actually did is build up to a certain degree from scratch (possibly, a decent amount of rich businessmen had quite a bit to start with) on their own work, and then used this money to get richer off the work of others.

How can you deny that hard work is needed in order to succeed in business?

I don't. But it's not the hard work of the people who actually get rich out of it, they merely earn off the back of wealth created by workers.

Abolishing private property would make an extremely inefficient system and there would be no drive or incentive to better the economy.

Why? If you want to have an argument about markets vs not-markets then that's a very valid debate but it isn't necessarily tied to private property.

[Pindar]

I'm neither, but you have to concede that this current model of capitalism is undeniably ultimately unsustainable and will collapse eventually somehow. Maybe not in anyone's lifetime.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Well, if we look at society, there's a much greater correlation between what you start with and what you end up with than you'd expect if hard work was all that mattered.

But that's a minor issue. In reality, what they actually did is build up to a certain degree from scratch (possibly, a decent amount of rich businessmen had quite a bit to start with) on their own work, and then used this money to get richer off the work of others.



I don't. But it's not the hard work of the people who actually get rich out of it, they merely earn off the back of wealth created by workers.



Why? If you want to have an argument about markets vs not-markets then that's a very valid debate but it isn't necessarily tied to private property.

No, they don't just get rich off the work of others. If that was true, business would merely be a case of employing people to be successful. Your understanding of business seems to be rather narrow and fails to recognise risk-reward.

They tell the workers what to do, they supply them with the materials to do what they do, and pay them for it. Without access to those materials and instruction how could they carry out their job, let alone gain skills and money?

It is because the desire for private property is a driving part of success. If there was no private property, we would have a country of people pursuing their 'dream job' and end up with a nation comprised mainly of photographers and writers

Out of curiosity, what stage are you at? School/uni/work?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
I'm neither, but you have to concede that this current model of capitalism is undeniably ultimately unsustainable and will collapse eventually somehow. Maybe not in anyone's lifetime.

I think capitalism will always exist in some part of the world. As long as it exists, there will always be a decline of socialism and a brain drain from socialist countries.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by antimilitarist)
Those who have the most should be expected to give away the most.

Should be expected, not forced and coerced.

[RyanT]

(Original post by Nephilim)
Because he, and others like him, has earnt all that money. People should only be taxed for what they take from society (i.e. using roads and using public-sector services). Otherwise, it is theft.

Money is simply an IOU.

How are people able to become millionaires in western states?

Because society itself is wealthy.

The millions of pounds in his bank account represent a % share of national wealth.

If everyone else in the country was dirt poor, he wouldn't of been able to sell the games to raise so much money. So even he benefits indirectly from the state provision of roads, not just for himself but also for his customers and their customers etc. Right-wingers might have a lot more sympathy if they argued why the poor should have to pay taxes, it always seems to be a defence of people who can afford to pay rather then a defence of those who struggle to pay.

We all owe dues to society, we use medical drugs, roads, cars, police, fire services...we use technologies that we couldn't dream of having if we were "independent". Could the state do a better job of reflecting the will of society? Yes.

Does that make it theft? No.

If you want to be independent of society, go live in a jungle alone with nobody else and we'll see how you get along.

[antimilitarist]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Should be expected, not forced and coerced.

This statement seems to imply that taxation should be replaced with charity, which will become the equivalent to the rich throwing crusts of bread at the poor.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
No, they don't just get rich off the work of others. If that was true, business would merely be a case of employing people to be successful.

Ultimately, it is. Or to put it better, it's about spending money in such a way as to try and end up with more money.

Your understanding of business seems to be rather narrow and fails to recognise risk-reward.

Because it doesn't warrant recognition. The presence or lack thereof of risk has no influence on production. The 'reward' is still wealth created by the workers, and the 'risk' is, in the vast majority of cases only able to take place due to money gained through previous 'rewards'.

They tell the workers what to do, they supply them with the materials to do what they do, and pay them for it.

Apart from the first one, what you're saying here is that being able to spend money warrants getting more money.

As for that first, you're assuming the workers can't manage themselves? Who says the owner is necessarily the best person to manage? That is one of the problems with capitalist firms, their inflexibility.

Without access to those materials and instruction how could they carry out their job, let alone gain skills and money?

They would have access to them if the capitalist didn't continually take a chunk of what they produce!

It is because the desire for private property is a driving part of success. If there was no private property, we would have a country of people pursuing their 'dream job' and end up with a nation comprised mainly of photographers and writers

So you're saying that people only work out of a desire that one day they will be able to leech off others' labour? Even though that doesn't even happen for the vast majority of people?

Out of curiosity, what stage are you at? School/uni/work?

No thanks, I've seen plenty of this kind of 'debate' before and I have no desire to get into one here.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Ultimately, it is. Or to put it better, it's about spending money in such a way as to try and end up with more money.


Because it doesn't warrant recognition. The presence or lack thereof of risk has no influence on production. The 'reward' is still wealth created by the workers, and the 'risk' is, in the vast majority of cases only able to take place due to money gained through previous 'rewards'.



Apart from the first one, what you're saying here is that being able to spend money warrants getting more money.

As for that first, you're assuming the workers can't manage themselves? Who says the owner is necessarily the best person to manage? That is one of the problems with capitalist firms, their inflexibility.



They would have access to them if the capitalist didn't continually take a chunk of what they produce!



So you're saying that people only work out of a desire that one day they will be able to leech off others' labour? Even though that doesn't even happen for the vast majority of people?



No thanks, I've seen plenty of this kind of 'debate' before and I have no desire to get into one here.

You have to spend money to make money! Where do you think the initial money came from in the first place? Inheritance is not an acceptable answer because people don't receive that until around their 50s.

The wealth created by the workers would be minimal without risk and business strategy. It is insight, hard-work, and intelligence that drive this ability to succeed at business. Get someone on the dole now, give them £100,000 and tell them to set up a business. See how long it lasts given how many businesses fail in the 1st year. Why don't those businesses succeed given they are hiring workers I wonder...

As I said before, you need to spend money to make money. It is how you spend your money that is the key difference. Forgoing luxuries in order to take a strategic risk.

The owner doesn't necessarily manage the workers. They may hire a decent manager to do it for them whilst they direct and steer the business. As for the question whether workers can manage themselves..from what I have seen, no.

A shelf-stacker would just be given hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of food and a factory labourer would be given hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of machinery? Dream on!

People are motivated to create family wealth, personal freedom, and a legacy. If anything, workers are leeching of the resources and established reputation of the company.

Fair enough. I shall assume there is absolutely zero bias..

[ForKicks]

(Original post by antimilitarist)
This statement seems to imply that taxation should be replaced with charity, which will become the equivalent to the rich throwing crusts of bread at the poor.

It was more of a response to what you said, but I do think there should be greater incentives for charity in the upper tax levels (more than 100% tax deductible).

[ckingalt]

(Original post by anarchism101)
X

I understand your viewpoint even though I adamantly disagree with it. You either fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge the incentive of ownership itself. Anyone who has ever gone from renting their living space to owning one will tell you that their is a very tangible difference in the way they regard the two situations. Anyone who has ever gone from being a worker to an owner will tell you ownership matters beyond the financial incentive. My business in my passion specifically because it's mine. It would be near impossible to find a manager to run my business as well as I do. It's not that there are not more capable managers than I. It's that they simply don't covet it the way I do. There is no replacement for that.

To truly appreciate the value of real ownership you have to experience it. You would deny that experience to everyone.

[screenager2004]

1. Do you believe you will see your social agenda realized within a nation in your life time?

Probably not.

2. Do you accept that there will inevitably be other nations which do not go along initially, if ever? / 3. How do you think this transition will occur? (gradually, through peaceful revolution, through violent revolution, other...)
Connected to Q3, but I think the transition can only occur gradually through globalisation. One country cannot abandon capitalism on it's own when other countries still use it. However we're heading towards an inevitable situation where national barriers and state economies are becoming less relevant. Eventually there will be some kind of global governance, and it's at that point where we realise that capitalism has too many flaws to be sustainable.

4. How will the state go about actually seizing the assets and property? It's easy to freeze accounts and nationalize industries, but what about homes and personal property? Will you evict wealthy families from their luxury homes? What about jewelry, luxury cars, etc.?

There won't be 'seizures' of property - that suggests that there are people unwilling to share global resources equally. As I said before, if capitalism is to be abandoned, it will occur very gradually through a transition of thinking. Human beings will start to consider their identity as a species rather than artificial national barriers. The concept of property will become less socially acceptable.

5. Do you consider such seizures as a necessary injustice which must be endured in order to serve the "greater good", or do you eagerly anticipate the much awaited downfall of the undeserving wealthy?
I don't see how it's an injustice. No one owns the mountains or the sea. It existed before you were born and it will exist after you die. Nothing is ever yours to claim in the first place. Property is an immoral concept. Every single human being inherits this earth. It doesn't belong to anyone.

6. How will you decide who gets to live in what home? Some homes are large, some are small, some are on the beach, some are in the city, and some are just crap locations. There is no way to divide quality of life equally.
The important thing is that all people have access to a minimum quality of life. Not that everyone is exactly equal: chance will always create natural inequalities. Under capitalism there are millions who lack even the basic resources to sustain life. That is the problem.

7. What is your plan for the small business owners who are far from the 1%. Consider a mechanic who worked for 30 years in order to own his own garage. He contributed his life savings to his dream and is just now beginning to earn solid profits. Do you plan to offer him anything for his business you are seizing beyond a "gee, thank for contributing to your fellow man"?
Small business owners are in the 1% - you're not thinking globally. If your income is around £25k or above you're in the 1%. http://www.globalrichlist.com/
I dont see why he is any more deserving to lay claim to global resources for himself than any other human being.
1) EVERYONE works for 30 years. He is not an exceptional case.
2) He could only create that business with the environment and resources available to him. He didn't invent everything from scratch. he used the transport networks, police protection, healthcare and education that EVERYONE paid for to be able to create that business.

8. Will you allow immigration into the country? If yes, then what criteria will you use to evaluate their suitability for a work visa/citizenship. A nation that provides everything to it's citizens will have to be careful in regards to whom they allow in.

9. Will you allow your citizens to immigrate out of the country freely? Imagine that a highly qualified citizen who received the free education your nation provided decided to immigrate to a less socialist system which may provide more incentive. Would you take any measures to restrict his movement?

10. If no to question 9, how can you reasonably argue that a righteous and fair society is one that has to lock it's own citizens in?[/QUOTE]
See Q2/3. National boundaries will no longer be relevant. They're barbaric and inefficient ways of governance.

[paperclip]

(Original post by antimilitarist)
Hmm, you view it as theft while I view it as fairness. Income tax is the fairest form of taxation and all other forms of tax should be scrapped. Those who have the most should be expected to give away the most.

I'd have thought corporation tax was the fairest tax? As it's a tax on profits.

Unless you mean in a socialist economy, because corporations wouldn't exist to be taxed?

(Original post by ForKicks)
It is because the desire for private property is a driving part of success. If there was no private property, we would have a country of people pursuing their 'dream job' and end up with a nation comprised mainly of photographers and writers

Instead we have people working for monetary reward, which impairs performance and therefore stifles economic growth. Self-destructive capitalism