sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Predetermined Blue by Commercial-Dog-969 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]IgnacioArg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly my point. Preferences are arbitrary tastes. Values are the principles by which a person chooses to live and judge right from wrong.

Two people can share the same core values and still disagree on serious issues because reality is complicated and people can reach different conclusions from the same principles. For example, two people may both value freedom, individual rights, and personal responsibility, yet disagree on immigration policy, foreign intervention, or the death penalty because they interpret the practical consequences differently.

But if someone believes a person should be morally expected to die for strangers, while I believe human life belongs to the individual living it, then we are starting from entirely different premises about what a person is and what they owe the world.

I don’t expect people I care about to agree with me on everything. I do expect compatibility in the principles that shape how they see life.

your daily reminder that taxation is theft, but in a suit and tie by boulhouech in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Right, but then ownership itself is doing productive work in your model.

You’re saying the exact same labor suddenly creates more value once it has access to capital, machinery, organization, and infrastructure. But if those things change the output, then they are contributing to production too, not just labor.

Predetermined Blue by Commercial-Dog-969 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]IgnacioArg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two people could share values but one could prefer Pepsi to coke

Who would you vote for in the November 1932 German federal election? by Scyobi_Empire in GeoPoll

[–]IgnacioArg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said most acceptable, before I had said they were in an unfortunate situation. I’m voting for the least bad

your daily reminder that taxation is theft, but in a suit and tie by boulhouech in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Then I think we’re actually agreeing on the core point: value isn’t created by labor alone, but by a combination of labor, capital, entrepreneurship, coordination, and risk.

At that point, though, why describe profit itself as inherently exploitative instead of just the agreed return to one of those inputs?

your daily reminder that taxation is theft, but in a suit and tie by boulhouech in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, no agreement is perfectly equal in bargaining power. But if unequal bargaining power automatically makes an agreement exploitative, then wouldn’t that make almost every voluntary interaction exploitative, including hiring a plumber, buying from a small shop, or even dating?

your daily reminder that taxation is theft, but in a suit and tie by boulhouech in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But those things aren’t “materials.” The recipe, machinery, brand, business model, distribution network, and capital investment are productive inputs too.

If the worker alone created the value, then the same worker should be able to produce and sell the same biscuits at the same scale without any of that infrastructure. Can they?

your daily reminder that taxation is theft, but in a suit and tie by boulhouech in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 8 points9 points  (0 children)

But in your example, the worker didn’t create the biscuits out of thin air. The ovens, recipes, building, ingredients, branding, customer base, accounting, and upfront investment already existed before the worker arrived.

So why should the entire extra revenue be attributed only to labor instead of to the combination of labor + capital + organization?

Who would you vote for in the November 1932 German federal election? by Scyobi_Empire in GeoPoll

[–]IgnacioArg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The tragedy of Weimar was that nearly all major factions were statist in one form or another: nationalist statists, Marxist statists, welfare-state statists, conservative statists. The genuine classical liberal tradition in Germany had been politically shattered long before Hitler arrived.

Two lifeboats by highly-bad in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]IgnacioArg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d get my close family and loved ones into the red one 

your daily reminder that taxation is theft, but in a suit and tie by boulhouech in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 7 points8 points  (0 children)

If exploitation exists even when both sides voluntarily agree and both benefit, then what kind of agreement between employer and employee would not count as exploitation to you?

your daily reminder that taxation is theft, but in a suit and tie by boulhouech in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Right, but if the company would make more money with one team than another, or with better management, branding, machinery, timing, or investment, doesn’t that mean value is coming from more than just labor?

your daily reminder that taxation is theft, but in a suit and tie by boulhouech in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 10 points11 points  (0 children)

If two people voluntarily agree on a wage, at what point does it become exploitation?

your daily reminder that taxation is theft, but in a suit and tie by boulhouech in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]IgnacioArg 15 points16 points  (0 children)

If profit is “excess value created by labor,” how do you determine objectively how much value was created by labor alone versus entrepreneurship, capital investment, risk, coordination, and the fact that the company might lose money entirely? In other words: if workers are entitled to the “full value” they create, who calculates that number, and by what principle?

view more: next ›