Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments.

From: Michael Price (nini_pad_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: 27 Feb 2005 02:57:55 -0800

Quirk wrote:
> [alt.anarchy.rules removed, sci.econ added]
>
> Michael Price wrote:
>
> > > Tariffs are the children of Mercentalism, which wanted only to
send
> > > goods abroad and bring gold back home. The protectionism protects
> > > local Rent collectors by imposing taxes on foreign ones.
>
> > Nevertheless it's an attack on property rights. It benefits some
> > rent collectors no doubt, but it also benefits some wage earners
too.
> > So obviously it's not about a class war since some workers are
> benefit
> > at the expense of other workers, some capitalists at the expense of
> > other capitalists etc.
>
> These "some rent collectors" are the elite.

  Then so are the "some workers". Clearly you can't keep your lies
straight. If property owners were the elite they wouldn't get
shafted in the interests of some workers. They do.
>
> > > But the police and the State itself are the servants of the
> > > interests
> > > of property none the less, as many have pointed out.
>
> > How? The "interests or property" are far too varied to be served
> > by anyone and why would the State want to serve them?
>
> Because the State is the apparatus of the elite, created and designed
> by them to operate in their interest.

  That's your contention but you're thin on evidence.
>
> > > This is a false dilemma, since costs on tariffs in no way
> corresponds
> > > to spending on police, you are making arbitrary comparisons.
>
> > No it's not a false anything. If more is spent attacking
property
> > rights than defending them then your claim that the cost of
property
> > rights are exporbitant is extremely suspect.
>
> This is not my claim, my claim is that land should not be private
> property.

  Your claim is that private property costs too much. It costs
less than attacks on it.
>
> > > The ruling class against the underclass, like I said.
>
> > Well no, the ruling class (that is the State not property
> > owners) against everyone else.
>
> The State is controlled be the property owners.
>
  Then you would expect that it would only do those things that
are in the interests of property owners. Instead it does things
like confiscate property which are clearly the opposite of that.
In fact it even does it so that it can increase it's own take.
And admits it. So it steals from them, sasys it does so so that
it can make more money and you still claim it's their bitch?

> > > > > However these wars are in no
> > > > > way an attack on the institution of property.
>
> > > > The hell they aren't. The institution of property depends on
> > > > the concept of property not being alienable other than by
> consent.
>
> Property holders do not necessarily share your philosophical views.
>
  They don't have to.

> > > Who's concept of property? Not that of the ruling class.
>
> > Everybody who understands what the term means.
>
> Which, by that definition, does not include the ruling class, who
only
> want their own property protected, not that of others.
>
  So what's your point?

> > > your Austrian libertarians do not understand is that Rent
> > > seeking is also an attack on the ideals of property,
>
> > When did they fail to understand that?
>
> When they make baseless arguments justifying the private ownership of
> land.

  Which they don't. Their arguements are well based you just ignore
the basis.
>
> > > which flow from the idea of
> > > self ownership, and therefore ownership of the fruits of your
> labour.
> > > Land is not the result of anybody's labour, and therefore denying
> > > access to it to others is a violation of their liberty.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> It follows logically from that which comes before it, it is therefore
> not a non sequitur.

  No it doesn't and it's been explained why.
>
> > > The concept of alienation from nature is a common theme in
> > > liberalism, for instance this quote from Thomas Paine "all those
> who have > > been thrown out of their natural inheritance by the
> introduction of the
> > > system of landed property," or from Thomas Jefferson "The earth
is
> > > given as a common stock for man to labor and live on." These are
> > > among hundreds of other I could cite.
>
> > Neither man suggested land be owned in common and both supported
> > private ownership of land, with some provisions.
>
> Huh????
>
> Read the quotes again. Here is Jefferson's at greater length:
>
> "The earth is given as a common stock for men to labor and
> to live on.
> Wherever in any country there are idle lands and unemployed
> poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far
> extended as to violate natural right."

  "... have been so far extended". In other words they weren't
bad they just went too far. In his day that meant that government
had given away too much land to it's friends.

>
> > > > Again, bull***. The concept of the social contract was
> > > > detailed decades before Keynes was even born.
>
> > > Now that is a non sequitur. It doesn't say above that
> > > Keynes is the originator of the "social contract" only
> > > that the Keynes created the dominant economic model to
> > > implement this "social contract."
>
> > That's not what you said.
>
> Yes it is.

  No it isn't. You claimed Keynes was the economic theory
to the political theory. Not a later attempt at an economic
theory but THE economic theory.
>
> > In any case he didn't.
>
> Yes he did.

  Bull*** when did he say that?
>
> > > His concept of "functional finance" has become so much a part
> > > of liberalism that liberalism itself is frequently referred
> > > to as "tax and spend liberalism" by the freepers and their kin.
> >
> > What you call "liberalism" has nothing to do with the original
> > meaning of it.
>
> It has to do with the original meaning, and the evolved meaning as
> well.

  So Keynes was a classical liberal? A free-trader? A non-
interventionist? A believer in keeping government out of business?
>
> > Keynes himself admitted his economic system was
> > more in line with a dictatorial political system.
>
> Since I'm an Anarchist, I agree that liberalism is more in line
> with (or atleast always degrades to) a dictatorial political
> system, also, I prefer George's model to Keynes'.

  Keynes's modal was not liberal in the original sense at all.
In fact it was basically totalitarian.
>
> However it is clear that Keynes model is popular in "New Deal"
> liberalism, and it is not clear what you are trying to prove with
your
> line of reasoning.

  That you don't know anything about liberalism whatever the
definition. It's actually not clear that Keynesianism was popular.
What is clear is that his policies were adopted by a deceptive
*** who campaigned on the opposite policy and that while they
were in force the depression never ended. Compare this to Warren
Harding ending a depression before the mid-term elections.
>
> > > Because it removes the basis of alienation by making the workers
> > > joint owners of land and capital.
>
> > But that only means that coercion is made communal.
>
> ??? I don't agree that it is coercion, but even so, would you
> prefer the coercion be private and benefit a nonproductive
> individual, than be mutual and benefit the productive as well?

  Private definitely. The venality of individuals wanes that of
"the community" doesn't.
>
> > > maintain control of land and capital so long as they are
productive
> > > enough to pay the Rent on it.
>
> > Ok, so who decides what the Rent should be?
>
> The land is offered to the market, and the highest bid is accepted.
>
  And if there's two offers, one for a 5 year lease another for a
twenty year one what happens? Does the commune have to sell raw
materials right now or can it withold them to get a better price
later?

> > The term of the lease?
>
> Negotiated according to law.

  Which law? The law that says they can withold resources to
raise the price (i.e. that they can act exactly like you want
to stop private individuals acting)?
>
> > The ones who decide that have everyone's income in their hands.
>
> Which is the market.
>
  No it isn't. The land isn't in the market in the conventional
sense. If it is then they're be no point.

> > They are in a damn good position to coerce.
>
> Which is nobody.

  No that's a lie. Somebody decides whether the commune sells
land resources or not.
>
> > > However I think we understand each other, and I am happy to use
> > > whatever terms you prefer to facilitate discussion.
>
> > If I understand you correctly your ideas don't work.
>
> Then please explain why.
>
  Well for a start you only create a new set of landowners who
have no reason to behave better than the old ones. Additionally
you can't add up.

> > > Equally shared by all members, as opposed to privately
> > > controlled by privileged parties. It not always a good
> > > idea. However it is a good idea when it comes to that
> > > which we all morally own equally; nature itself.
>
> > You haven't shown that. Being born doesn't give you a moral
right
> > to anything.
>
> No, rights are granted by social institutions,

  No they are inherent. If there were granted they'd be priveleges
and distinguishable from rights by the ability of the social
institutions to withdraw them.

> which are designed according to philosophy, and it has been
> shown that philosophically our claim to the land is equal.

  No it hasn't. You've just claimed it as an axiom. Those
whose efforts bring land into productive use have more of
a claim on it than those who simply exist on the same planet
as it.
>
> > In any case just because everyone might have a moral
> > claim doesn't mean it can be practically exercised.
>
> Nor does it mean that it can not.
>
  Ok, then, tell me how you intend to exercise your moral
right to the land from 123 miles, 59 yards to 122 miles
2 feet East and from 12 miles to 14 miles North of the
corner where Queensland meets the Northern Territory
and New South Wales. Do you know the place? Would you
know if someone was subverting your right to enjoy it's
produce?

> > > from their own profits, which the commune makes no claim on,
> > > without any authorization, and in turn sell it to the
> > > commune and then pay Rent on it.
>
> > Ok I'm confused, why don't they just keep it?
>
> The same reason that enterprises that are funded by venture
capitalists
> don't just keep all their profit, it is a violation of the terms of
> investment.

  But why should they sell their produce to the commune? Why not
deal with landowners who don't make such onerous demands?
>
> > > The concept of Venture includes the concept of risk, yes, but
this
> > > applies to all investment schemes, not only Venture Communism,
and
> > > buy focusing on accumulating Rent, a Venture Communism takes the
> least
> > > risk possible.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> You seem to have a peculiar definition of the term non sequitur.
>
> > Accumulating Rent need not be less risky and is
> > certainly a lower return in the current climate.
>
> Rent-seeking is by economic definition less risky,

  No it's not liar. Nothing is "by definition" less risky.

> when it is possible, and the relationship between risk and
> return is generally considered to be inverse.

  Yet the risk of a sufficently diversified portfolio is
clearly less and the return more than investing in oil
companies.
>
> > In any case the
> > Venture Commune would still act like a private firm. So what's
> > the advantage?
>
> That earned income is individually retained, while unearned income is
> shared, thus what normally becomes the apparatus for coercive
> exploitation becomes instead the apparatus of mutual gain.

  You haven't shown the any income in unearned and in any case
all you're doing is getting someone who owns the right to this
"unearned" income to sell it to others so that the second group
can get unearned income. The fact that it's shared makes no
difference.
The original owner still gets income he didn't "earn" according to
you because he invests the sale price. The profits can still
be the apparatus for what you call "coercive exploitation".

>
> > > However the Venture Commune has specific properties which
> > > make it different, these have been explained and are
> > > embodied in the "three distinct properties," which makes
> > > the venture commune in line with
> both
> > > anarchist philosophy and economic theory.
>
> > Which are?
>
> 1- The basis of mutualization is rent not profit.
> 2- All shareholders are equals.
> 3- Shares are earned, not bought.

  None of which are particularly anarchist nor in line with any
coherent economic theory.
>
> > > Because the one who uses it has an obligation to compensate
> > > those who are thus unable to use it; he pays Rent, which is
> > > shared by the others.
>
> > But only those others who invested in that particular Commune
> > right?
>
> Which anyone can invest in, because share prices are denominated in
> hours, not money.

  But they aren't going to want new investors once they've bought
the land. Why would they? In any case how is that different from
BHP which anyone can also invest in.
>
> In anycase, all groups have borders, including Communes, States,
> Corporations, Families, Tribes and all other collective forms.
>
> The questions is how is membership qualified, and how equitable is
the
> group //internally//, Venture Communism embodies what I believe to be
> the most equitable means of qualification and internal wealth
sharing.
>
  Well who cares how "equitable is the group //internally//" if they
are inequitable outside it. If the KKK was equitable internally would
that make it alright?

> > > The Rent would be set by the market yes, whoever can make the
most
> > > productive use of it can have it. Normal fair dealings, including
> > > leases, would of course be respected.
>
> > But who defines what's fair?
>
> The negotiators and the law.
>
  No it wouldn't. If it was then it would be no different from the
free market.

> > I mean the Commune wants to get the
> > most rent and the enterprise pay the least.
>
> And the Commune will rent the land to the enterprise that will pay
the
> most.

  Which aint as easy as it sounds.
>
> > So if the normal fair dealings apply why wouldn't the deal
> > with other communes?
>
> They would and are welcome to.
>
  You're confusing me.

> > And if they do how is that different from a normal capital market?
>
> Unearned income is not accumulated privately.
>
  Sure it is by private collectives you call communes.

> > > How many other things to you think you can find that Friedman and
> > > Galbraith *agree* about?
>
> > The theory that you can detemine the actual unimproved value is
> > nonsense.
>
> No, it is not. It is common practice.

  No it's not. Attempting to do so is common practice and is somewhat
successful when you can sell it, somewhat not completely. When you
can't sell it then the value is a matter of conjecture.
>
> In anycase, this is not a problem for Venture Communism.
>
  Yeah right.

> > It can only be established by selling the land unimproved,
> > which it generally isn't.
>
> It can also be established by comparing it to the sale of similar
> land,

  Not well it can't, and in any case your system doesn't allow for
that as I understand it.

> but again, Venture Communism does not need to make this distinction,
> since both land and capital are owned by the Commune.
>
  Then how does it know if it is getting a good deal?

> > In any case you haven't managed to get a
> > system where land is the thing "taxed". You charge a fee for using
> > capital not land.
>
> In Venture Communism neither is taxed, enterprises, as part of the
> voluntarily agreed upon terms of investment, agree to compensate the
> investors by selling them land and capital and in tern renting it,
> instead of, as is the normal Venture Capitalist practice,
surrendering
> a portion of their profit.
>
> However the logic of using rent as the basis of return on investments
> is derived from the taxation argument, that the least bad tax is one
on
> Ricardian Rents. If it is the least bad tax, it stands to reason that
> it is the least bad burden on enterprises too.

  Not really.
>
> > > > Non sequitur. Taxing income from land does reduce supply
> because
> > > > it means people devote less effort to finding new land
resources
> or
> > > > conserving what they have.
>
> > > Again, you may not agree, but it is not a non sequitur, since it
> > > clearly does follow logically from what precedes it.
>
> > No it doesn't, unless you assume that there are no land resources
> > left to discover.
>
> And indeed, there are none.

  Really? So there's no selenium welling up from deep sea vents
we don't know about? You're all knowing are you? You know the
tradejectories and composition of every asteroid in the solar
system do you?

> The only land that is not owned is
> submarginal, land who's net productivity is lower than the net
> productivity of land you could rent.

  Land productivity is a function of knowledge and resources of
those who want to use it and changes regularly.
>
> There is however new land resources to be //develop//, however the
> private ownership of land discourges such development, encouraging
> instead land to be hoarded for its speculative value.

  How? If you say "by demanding rent" that's exactly what you do.
>
> > > However, it is exactly the concept of requiring users of land to
> > > compensate nonusers that accomplished the idea of conserving what
> > > they have,
>
> > No private property did that.
>
> No, if land is my private property I would want as much land as I
> could get, since I could just sit on it and wait for it to
> appreciate in value from the economic activity of my neighbours,

  That's because you're an idiot. If the land is going to appreciate
then you might just as well rent it out while it does.

> if I have to compensate my neighbours for using the land, then I
> am more likely to want to have only as much as I can put to
> productive use.

  No because you have to pay to do that.
>
> > > and while there are no new land resources,
>
> > There are undiscovered and unutilised land resources.
>
> Where, on Mars?

  Well yes, amoung other places.
>
> > So how did the commune get the land?
>
> Via a transaction with its enterprises.
>
  Ok, don't answer the question.

> > How is it different from any other landowner?
>
> The unearned income is not privately accumulated.
>
  Only if the Communes are governments, which kinda
means you're not an anarchist at all.

> > > Yet this discusion is about wether one has the moral right to
sell
> > > their time, which clearly they do.
>
> > Only if they haven't already sold that time. It's pretty simple,
> > you get to sell it once. Not twice or a thousand times.
>
> As I said, they clearly have the right to sell there time,

  You're either stupid or lying.

> and the
> Venture Commune has no more magic charm against fraud than any other
> form of organization. What is your point? That fraud is possible? So
> what? In which system is it not?
>
> > > And those people are rewarded accordingly, why do you ignore the
> > > entire terms of the bargain, which are for wages and a share, not
> just a
> > > share?
>
> > No they are not rewarded accordingly. They get a share and
> > $XY for Y hours and those whose labour is worth half their's get
> > $XY/2 and a share for labour worth half as much. The number of
> > shares they get per dollar of labour is halved.
>
> Yes, and the value of their labour effects their share of earned
> income, not their share of unearned income, which is equal to
everyone
> else.

  But if it's unearned income why the hell are they working to
earn it?
>
> Greater productivity is rewarded with greater consumption, not the
> ability to exploit others.

  But productivity is rewarded with the ability to exploit others,
that's the point of your whole system.
>
> > > It is the //wages// portion of the bargain that compensates
> > > accordingly for greater market value.
>
> > No it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does.

  No it doesn't because if it does the wage plus shares package
would be unsustainable.
>
> > > Nor should they be. They have already been compensated with
higher
> > > wages.
>
> > No they haven't. If the wages fully compensated for the labour
> > then why would anyone get a share at all?
>
> A share represents their membership in the community, which they have
> earned by contribution.

  No they haven't earned it by contribution because their contribution
was paid for via wages.
>
> > > No, it is zero plus the value of what was produced, exactly as I
> > > said, And in anycase all venture must compete with the market.
>
> > It's zero plus the value of what is produced MINUS THE COST OF
> > RESOURCES USED TO PRODUCE IT! Unless you outperform the market
> > just putting in labour won't produce a surplus value over the
> > cost of the wages.
>
> Yes, and the result of that subtraction is net revenue, and all
> ventures must compete in the market.

  And why would their be net revenue? Where does it come from?
You have no capital and you are buying labour and selling the
results. In effect you are buying labour and selling it again.
What makes you think that you are going to make a profit.

  I give up. You don't want to learn.

> It is understood that ventures
> that fail to perform in the market will fail, regardless if they are
> funded by venture communes or venture capital funds.
>
> > > In a market system all ventures compete for the factors of
> > > productions. So? what does have to do with venture communism per
> say?
>
> > What it has to do with it is that you are trying to input
labour,
> > pay wages and come out with a surplus. So is everyone else. You
> have
> > to outcompete them for that to happen. You haven't shown any
reason
> > why your commune should be able to do this consistently.
>
> We haven't spoken about any specific business plan, you haven't show
> how my model prevents this from being done consistently.
>
> However, I have explained several advantages.
>
> One is that Venture Communist funded enterprises are able to retain
all
> earned income, while their Venture Capitalist funded competition must
> surrender earned income to nonproductive owners.
>
> Two is that Renting, not owning, land and capital encourages them to
> put it to productive use or make it available to others, not just let
> it sit.
>
> > > Exactly. You must add value or go broke. There is nothing novel
> > > here.
>
> > There is also nothing to indicate you can do it.
>
> The question is what indication do you see that it can't be done?
>
> > If you input capital as well you would have a better shot but you
> don't.
>
> Capital //is// input, its input is just not rewarded with private
> privilege.
>
> > Why
> > do you believe that your commune could find a way to use labour
> > that makes it more valuable than the uses others could put it to?
> > What's the edge you have?
>
> All entrepreneurs believe this, what edge do others have?
>
> One edge that Venture Communism has is that the model is not burdened
> by a parasitic class. This is a significant advantage,
>
> > > Labour and capital can replace each other, this is well
understood
> in
> > > economics. Labour investment is thus comparable to capital
> > investment.
>
> > So it is, although generally you need some of both to succeed in
> > business.
>
> And it is assumed the commune will have some of both, however
ownership
> is only granted for the contribution of labour.
>
> > > It does introduce challenges to the investment group, but all
> > > investment groups have challenges.
>
> > It introduces a challenge that is impossible to meet
consistently.
>
> I do not agree that it is impossible, however you are entitled to
your
> opinion.
>
> > You are trying to achieve what corporations do without their funds
or
> > resources.
>
> Even dwarves started small.
>
> > You are trying to make buying labour profitable without
> > any particular advantage in selling the results and a big
> disadvantage
> > (no startup capital).
>
> Little startup capital is not none, the current modern economy with
its
> large services and information sector has plenty of low capital
> opportunities, and there are other ways to get startup financing
> besides selling equity, issuing bonds for example.
>
> > > the scarcity of investors by using a more widely available
surplus;
> > > surplus labour.
>
> > How is that a "more widely available surplus"? If there are lots
> > of people with surplus labour why aren't they forming profit-making
> > firms now?
>
> Because they do not know how to. They are called Capitalism's reserve
> army of the unemployed.
>
> And, BTW, I'm not saying that I *do* know how to, but that is the
goal
> of my projet, which the feedback I get from yourself and others helps
> me understand better.
>
> > > That's why the statement begins with "within the model," there is
> > > certainly no dispute that the Commune's enterprises must compete
> for
> > > the factors of production with those outside the commune, as must
> all
> > > others.
>
> > So how does the enterprise gain from dealing with the commune?
>
> The Commune invests in it, or works with the entrepreneurs to found
it
> in the first place.
>
> Regards.

Quantcast