Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments.
From: Quirk (quirk_at_syntac.net)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: König Prüße, GfbAEV: "Re: A Prison State, If Not a Police State"
- Previous message: sinister: "Re: Henry George mentioned in Wash Post op-ed"
- Next in thread: michael price: "Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments."
- Reply: michael price: "Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments."
- Reply: Zerge: "Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments."
- Maybe reply: Zerge: "Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Feb 2005 05:54:24 -0800
Michael Price wrote:
> > These "some rent collectors" are the elite.
> Then so are the "some workers".
I don't follow, the rent collecting elite make huge unearned incomes
from Rent, how are "some workers" the elite?
> Clearly you can't keep your lies straight.
My "lies?"
Why the acrimony? I'm just stating my opinions.
> If property owners were the elite they wouldn't get
> shafted in the interests of some workers. They do.
Again, I do not follow, what property owners do you imagine are getting
"shafted" in the interest of "some workers."
I've lost track of what you are taking about.
> > 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.
Umm. Ok. Its too bad you decided to stop trying to make this a serious
discusion. I thought it was going well.
> > 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.
No, that is not my claim, I support private property, just not of land.
When I state my claim clearly, and rather than debate it you instead
claim that I really have some other claim, that is called evasion.
Please allow me to speak for myself.
> > 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.
It does.
> Instead it does things like confiscate property which are clearly the
> opposite of that.
For example?
> 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?
No idea what you're talking about, the only example you've given of the
state working against the interests of property is drug laws, which are
mostly enforced against the poor, I have explained that it is not the
property interests of the underclass that the elite want to defend.
> > 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?
That your examples fail to show that the State does not serve the
interests of the propertied elite.
> > 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.
????
I logically refuted both arguments you presented, as many others also
have, you did not refute my refutations and then simple claim I ignored
the basis?
Who do you think you're fooling?
> > "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.
This clearly shows that he believed that the laws of property ought to
have limits, especially when it comes to nature, as did pretty much all
liberals.
> 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.
More evasion, please stop telling me what I believe and take what I say
as my argument.
> That you don't know anything about liberalism whatever the
> definition.
If your prime motivation is to prove that "I don't know anything" about
liberalism, or any other topic, I am not interested in disputing this.
I claim no authority on any topic, my arguments, which you continue to
evade and are unable to refute, stand for themselves.
I'm sorry you have decided that I am the topic.
> > 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 negotiators would make these choices, neither those employed by a
public landlord or a private landlord need to approach these questions
any differently.
> > > 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)?
I am not trying to change anyone from acting in anyway, the only
difference is that the unearned income from Rent is mutualy, not
privately accumulated.
> > > 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.
Yes it is, the point is who collects the unearned income from Ricardian
Rents.
> > > 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.
Again with the "lie."
I am just having a discusion.
And we are talking about Renting, not selling, and it is becoming
crystal clear that you have some idiological bone to pick and have
given up any pretense of logical discusion.
> > 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.
Except that is owned mutually, rather than privately, and you have been
unable to show where my addition fails.
> > 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.
Nonsense, if someone with a greater capacity for violence than you
wants to violate your rights, what would stop 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.
I have explained it, but what's the point of repeating it, since you
clearly will neither accept nor logically refute the proposition?
> 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.
But what right do they have from preventing others to bring the land
into productive use instead of themselves?
> > > 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?
I'll let the people in that community work it out for themselves, I am
interested in the land that's part of the community I do know. The land
which I contribute to the value of.
> > 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?
Because it is a less onerous demand than the demand for a share of
profit that venture capital funds make.
> > Rent-seeking is by economic definition less risky,
> No it's not liar. Nothing is "by definition" less risky.
Again with the "liar."
Why are you getting so desperate that you feel you need to insult me?
Wouldn't it be more productive to try and make a point?
Rest assured that I am just stating my opinions, as accurately as I
can, I am not out to get you, and have no interest in lying to you.
As I understand it, the economic definition of rent seeking is, as I
said, looking for less risky ways to collect unearned income.
> > 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.
????
Are we talking about mutual fund management or VENTURE??
What are you suggesting, that Exxon get out of the oil business, sell
all their land and capital, and instead invest in mutual funds?
Your arguments is getting beyond surreal.
Each of the companies in the "diverse portfolio" can not follow you
advise, somebody actually has to do something.
> > 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.
I have explained why Ricardian rent is unearned, and why it being
shared makes a difference, you don't want to know.
> The original owner still gets income he didn't "earn" according to
> you because he invests the sale price.
That unearned income is privately accumulates outside the model is not
a fault of the model.
> > 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.
Equality of stakeholders is certainly anarchist, and I have explained
the economic theory, you refuse to know it.
> > 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?
The same reason that all organisations want more investment, to expand.
> In any case how is that different from
> BHP which anyone can also invest in.
I don't know what BHP is. Does it have the "three distint properties"
of a venture commune?
> > 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?
I have no idea what this means.
The Commune does not purposely perpetuate inequality outside of it,
what hapenes outside it is simply beyond its influence, and therefore
outside the model.
Why have you resorted to this argumentum ad absurdum?
> > The negotiators and the law.
> No it wouldn't. If it was then it would be no different from the
> free market.
Venture Communism is not in conflict with the Free Market.
> > And the Commune will rent the land to the enterprise that will pay
> > the > most.
> Which aint as easy as it sounds.
Whatever difficulties there are are not changed wether it is a private
land owner or the community.
> > > 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.
All actors in the model can deal with whomever they like, there is no
coercion, what is it you find confusing?
> > > 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.
Key word: collectives, further collectives with specific properties to
ensure that Riciardian Rents aren't hoarded by the unproductive.
> > > 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.
This measure is done regularly by appraisers.
In in anycase is not needed for my model.
> > In anycase, this is not a problem for Venture Communism.
> Yeah right.
Yeah, right.
Because the collective owns both land and capital, not just land,
therefore there is no need to isolate the value of land alone.
> > > 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.
I don't understand what you mean, as I said, my system does not require
it, it is the liberal Georgist model which does.
> > 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?
By taking the highest offer.
> > 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.
As a syllogism:
The least burdonsome means of taxation is the taxation of Ricardian
Rents, compensation paid to investors is a burden to enterprise like
taxation, therefore the least burdonsom means of compensating investors
is by surrendering Ricardian Rents.
> Really? So there's no selenium welling up from deep sea vents
> we don't know about?
In economic terminology Land is not merely the surface area of the
plant, but the planet itself. I explained that I used the Term Natural
Capital because of this confusion, you claimed I did not need to since
you understood what is meant by land, and now here you are
equivocating.
> You're all knowing are you? You know the
> tradejectories and composition of every asteroid in the solar
> system do you?
Nonsensical rhetoric.
> Land productivity is a function of knowledge and resources of
> those who want to use it and changes regularly.
And Ricardian Rent.
> > 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.
Buy //not// demanding Rent of the private owners, as I explained.
> > 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.
Ok, I am an idiot, and you are reduced to ad hominem and fallacy.
> If the land is going to appreciate
> then you might just as well rent it out while it does.
Thus you earn income from the productivity of others, and if no others
want to pay your tax, the land remains unproductive.
If you yourself had to pay rent or give up the land, we would not be in
this dillema.
> > 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.
The point is it that I would not have more land than I could put to
productive use, what is the point of this respons?
> > > There are undiscovered and unutilised land resources.
> > Where, on Mars?
> Well yes, amoung other places.
Oh. OK. Now I understand your argument.
It's called ad absurdum.
> > > So how did the commune get the land?
> > Via a transaction with its enterprises.
> Ok, don't answer the question.
Perhaps I don't understand the question, but that is the answer as far
as I can tell.
> > > 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.
Anarchism is based on syndicates and communes, the Austrian
Libertarians are not anarchists, they are not part of the Anarchist
tradion or community, they just like the term, so they falsely use it.
Do you consider yourself an Anarchist?
> > > 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.
Whatever you think of me doesn't hide the fact that your point is
false.
> > 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?
Because there labour is their investment in the commune, and the
commune needs investment to grow their land and capital base.
> > 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.
Productivity is not rewarded with the ability to exploit others in my
system, you are not rationally discussing my system but just throwing
any fallacy you can think of at the wall.
> > Yes, it does.
> No it doesn't because if it does the wage plus shares package
> would be unsustainable.
I believe it is, if you can explain why it isn't, I am interested, I am
not interested in your insistence.
> > 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.
Wages plus a share, combined, is their compensation.
> > 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?
The productivity of the enterprises.
> You have no capital
Since no actual business plan has been proposed, it is amazing you can
know this.
> and you are buying labour and selling the
> results.
Just like any enterprise.
> In effect you are buying labour and selling it again.
> What makes you think that you are going to make a profit.
The same thing that makes all entrepreneurs think that.
> I give up.
That's OK, I did enjoy our discusion until this contribution of yours,
which is just tiresome ad hominem and evasion.
> You don't want to learn.
If all you've got to teach is Austrian Libertarian Fundimentalism,
thanks, but I've had that class, it was bunk. Only kooks are into it.
In anycase, thanks for your comments.
Regards.
- Next message: König Prüße, GfbAEV: "Re: A Prison State, If Not a Police State"
- Previous message: sinister: "Re: Henry George mentioned in Wash Post op-ed"
- Next in thread: michael price: "Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments."
- Reply: michael price: "Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments."
- Reply: Zerge: "Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments."
- Maybe reply: Zerge: "Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
