6 ms·

They were not "supported by the community", they used other's people work to get rich but they paid each of those people fair amount of money, called "salary".

by michas 13y ago

They were not "supported by the community", they used other's people work to get rich but they paid each of those people fair amount of money, called "salary". that's all they owe society: paying their workers their salary. I also never told I don't want to pay the police, in fact it is one of three things that are worth paying taxes for: police and courts to provide internal safety and justice, and army to protect from external enemies (other countries, terrorists etc.) Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies. In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. You can only break this by introducing high employment costs. If you tax work at the same level as luxury goods (and all taxes average worker has to pay add up to about 50% of his gross income) then work itself becomes "luxury". And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job.

flyinRyan 13y ago
>they used other's people work to get rich but they paid each of those people fair amount of money If they paid them a "fair" amount of money, how did they get so fabulously rich? But even if I allow your dubious use of fair, did they really pay them all? Did they pay for the streets that they used? Did they pay a higher price for the fire department since they probably have a lot more, much more expensive properties than me? Did the pay the police more for similar reasons? Did they pay their parents for raising them into privilege? And on, and on, and on. Anyone rich today got there on the backs of the society they lived in. Elon Musk would be nothing had he been born and raised in an Amazon tribe and you know it. >Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies. Now you're just showing off ignorance [1]. Chile was as close to laissez faire as has ever been tried on that scale. Where did their mass unemployment come from? >In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. Ideological dreaming. Nothing more. > And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job. Reagan's "welfare queens" lives on. Anyway, even if that's true, how about you mind your own goddamn business and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their lives? I suspect we'd get enough Tesla's out of such a system to offset all your mythical welfare queens. [1] http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC11.html http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC11.html
- michas 13y ago
  > If they paid them a "fair" amount of money, how did they get so fabulously rich? But even if I allow your dubious use of fair, did they really pay them all? Did they pay for the streets that they used? Did they pay a higher price for the fire department since they probably have a lot more, much more expensive properties than me? Did the pay the police more for similar reasons? If police, streets and so on were funded from taxes, then yes, they paid much more. If they were built by private companies - the same is true. >Did they pay their parents for raising them into privilege? That's that pure luck, agreed. But you can't punish people for being lucky. You just have wrong understanding of the concept of people being equal. We can be considered equal in our basic rights, but we'll never be equal in talent, IQ, motivation, and so on. So if two people start doing the same thing they can have equal chances at the beginning, but will never achieve exactly the same results. One person will always be more successful than other, and there's nothing wrong with that. It is like sprinters race on the Olympic games: you have to ensure that all competitors will start running at the same time, but forcing them to also cross the finish line at the same time is just ridiculous. And that's what you postulate. > Chile was as close to laissez faire as has ever been tried on that scale. Where did their mass unemployment come from? Stupid monetary policy (fixed exchange rate between dollar and peso), which was against liberalism philosophy that Friedman tried to impose. However Chile basically continues this liberal economical politics and their unemployment rate is currently 6.1% >>In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. >Ideological dreaming. Nothing more. That's not a dreaming, just a mere fact: people's needs are unlimited, we always want new cars, computers, clothes, exotic holiday journeys, etc. otherwise economical growth would have stopped once we had learned how to provide basic food and shelter for everyone (which was in late Middle Ages, i think) >Anyway, even if that's true, how about you mind your own goddamn business and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their lives? That is just ridiculous statement when coming from your mouth: it is my goddamn business when someone tries to rob me from my money in a name of your weird understanding of "fairnes" Poor people can do what they want with their lives as long as they stay away from me.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    >However Chile basically continues this liberal economical politics No they don't. They use the mix of capitalism and socialism that every functioning country on earth uses (though their settings and dials are unique, like everyone else is). >people's needs are unlimited And at some point, given enough time, robots will be able to fulfill even unlimited demands. Your world view has no answer to such a situation. >it is my goddamn business when someone tries to rob me from my money in a name of your weird understanding of "fairnes" It's not "robbing". Money itself is something the state made, so consider taxes a charge to use it. You're welcome to trade in "widgets" if you can find anyone who will. > Poor people can do what they want with their lives as long as they stay away from me. No they can't because you've bought up all the land and allocated all the resources despite using a small fraction of them.
yungchin 13y ago
> that's all they owe society: paying their workers their salary. No, that's what they owe their workers. What they owe society is tax [0]. And society can decide to use that tax to provide basic income, or anything else. [0]: see also http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#theft http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#theft which addresses the "taxation is theft" view of the world

by michas 13y ago

flyinRyan 13y ago

>they used other's people work to get rich but they paid each of those people fair amount of money If they paid them a "fair" amount of money, how did they get so fabulously rich? But even if I allow your dubious use of fair, did they really pay them all? Did they pay for the streets that they used? Did they pay a higher price for the fire department since they probably have a lot more, much more expensive properties than me? Did the pay the police more for similar reasons? Did they pay their parents for raising them into privilege? And on, and on, and on. Anyone rich today got there on the backs of the society they lived in. Elon Musk would be nothing had he been born and raised in an Amazon tribe and you know it. >Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies. Now you're just showing off ignorance [1]. Chile was as close to laissez faire as has ever been tried on that scale. Where did their mass unemployment come from? >In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. Ideological dreaming. Nothing more. > And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job. Reagan's "welfare queens" lives on. Anyway, even if that's true, how about you mind your own goddamn business and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their lives? I suspect we'd get enough Tesla's out of such a system to offset all your mythical welfare queens. [1] http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC11.html http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC11.html

michas 13y ago
> If they paid them a "fair" amount of money, how did they get so fabulously rich? But even if I allow your dubious use of fair, did they really pay them all? Did they pay for the streets that they used? Did they pay a higher price for the fire department since they probably have a lot more, much more expensive properties than me? Did the pay the police more for similar reasons? If police, streets and so on were funded from taxes, then yes, they paid much more. If they were built by private companies - the same is true. >Did they pay their parents for raising them into privilege? That's that pure luck, agreed. But you can't punish people for being lucky. You just have wrong understanding of the concept of people being equal. We can be considered equal in our basic rights, but we'll never be equal in talent, IQ, motivation, and so on. So if two people start doing the same thing they can have equal chances at the beginning, but will never achieve exactly the same results. One person will always be more successful than other, and there's nothing wrong with that. It is like sprinters race on the Olympic games: you have to ensure that all competitors will start running at the same time, but forcing them to also cross the finish line at the same time is just ridiculous. And that's what you postulate. > Chile was as close to laissez faire as has ever been tried on that scale. Where did their mass unemployment come from? Stupid monetary policy (fixed exchange rate between dollar and peso), which was against liberalism philosophy that Friedman tried to impose. However Chile basically continues this liberal economical politics and their unemployment rate is currently 6.1% >>In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. >Ideological dreaming. Nothing more. That's not a dreaming, just a mere fact: people's needs are unlimited, we always want new cars, computers, clothes, exotic holiday journeys, etc. otherwise economical growth would have stopped once we had learned how to provide basic food and shelter for everyone (which was in late Middle Ages, i think) >Anyway, even if that's true, how about you mind your own goddamn business and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their lives? That is just ridiculous statement when coming from your mouth: it is my goddamn business when someone tries to rob me from my money in a name of your weird understanding of "fairnes" Poor people can do what they want with their lives as long as they stay away from me.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  >However Chile basically continues this liberal economical politics No they don't. They use the mix of capitalism and socialism that every functioning country on earth uses (though their settings and dials are unique, like everyone else is). >people's needs are unlimited And at some point, given enough time, robots will be able to fulfill even unlimited demands. Your world view has no answer to such a situation. >it is my goddamn business when someone tries to rob me from my money in a name of your weird understanding of "fairnes" It's not "robbing". Money itself is something the state made, so consider taxes a charge to use it. You're welcome to trade in "widgets" if you can find anyone who will. > Poor people can do what they want with their lives as long as they stay away from me. No they can't because you've bought up all the land and allocated all the resources despite using a small fraction of them.

yungchin 13y ago

> that's all they owe society: paying their workers their salary. No, that's what they owe their workers. What they owe society is tax [0]. And society can decide to use that tax to provide basic income, or anything else. [0]: see also http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#theft http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#theft which addresses the "taxation is theft" view of the world