Property Rights Take a Hit

[Agnapostate]

The criticism that full employment is needed, regardless of cost, and a free market doesn't provide - in of itself holds no water. The Free Market shall, and should not, employ people against their will. For if employed - if they are given financial capital for a service (such as voting for the 'right' candidate) - they would undoubtedly produce a more inefficient system that is, in laymen terms, referred to as a "overheating" economic system. In which too many units of currency, or an approximation such as fiat legal tender, is 'chasing' to few goods.

Indeed, to have a medium of unemployment, is not - economically proven - to be bad in of itself. Undoubtedly, unwanted employment; the actual inability to possess any job of any kind, is a poor situation. Yet that sort of position is practically non-existent; most unemployment is voluntary to some degree or another.

For example in a hypothetical situation: you are, for lack of a better term, 'fired' from your job. Yet at any time, if you so desire, work is available simply by accepting lower nominal wage rates. Though many do not do this, thus unemployment. Literally, the best and most efficient use of a useless good. Which is, to be radical, a over educated bum who wants more money then he should get.

This all aside, what is your actual - technical - definition of one unemployed?

What are you even saying? You've strung entirely incoherent phrases together to render these paragraphs gibberish. Hence, none of this is even a response to any comment made in my post.

 

[Metternich]

There is a distinct difference between a free market system in which "democratic elements" sift through the various energies it produces for the most efficient result - versus - and a participatory system in which the worker loses the initiative to find the most efficient result (for he has a monopoly on the production, and decision making abilities) because frankly: he has a predisposition towards his own creation.

Namely, a factory worker in a free market system has only one consideration: value. In any other system, he has to take the considerations of a myriad of other factors that inevitably reduce the efficiency of the factory by making it - to be blunt - a popularity contest.

There is no "free market" for you to speak of; the mixed nature of the capitalist economy is a permanent reality for that system. Capitalism will naturally have a propensity toward inefficiency because of the sufficiently high equilibrium unemployment rate necessary to maintain internal firm efficiency and ensure effort extraction. Since unemployment is a form of static inefficiency, we're left with a paradoxical state of affairs in that external inefficiency is a necessary condition of internal efficiency in the capitalist economy.

The criticism that full employment is needed, regardless of cost, and a free market doesn't provide - in of itself holds no water. The Free Market shall, and should not, employ people against their will. For if employed - if they are given financial capital for a service (such as voting for the 'right' candidate) - they would undoubtedly produce a more inefficient system that is, in laymen terms, referred to as a "overheating" economic system. In which too many units of currency, or an approximation such as fiat legal tender, is 'chasing' to few goods.

Indeed, to have a medium of unemployment, is not - economically proven - to be bad in of itself. Undoubtedly, unwanted employment; the actual inability to possess any job of any kind, is a poor situation. Yet that sort of position is practically non-existent; most unemployment is voluntary to some degree or another.

For example in a hypothetical situation: you are, for lack of a better term, 'fired' from your job. Yet at any time, if you so desire, work is available simply by accepting lower nominal wage rates. Though many do not do this, thus unemployment. Literally, the best and most efficient use of a useless good. Which is, to be radical, a over educated bum who wants more money then he should get.

This all aside, what is your actual - technical - definition of one unemployed?

I don't know if this makes much sense to you... But the bolded in your post corresponds to the bolded in my post - same with underlined. Everything else just being an extended analogy.

In short, you say capitalism has a problem with full employment - I say it provides as much employment as its people want.

You say capitalism is a paradox with unemployment inefficiency, I say it is the most efficient use of people who do not want to work.

It's simple, really.

 

[Oddball]

Saying that you don't own property because you are taxed on it is like saying you are a slave because you are taxed on your labor.

Let's see if that logic hold up...

Who is it that determines how much of the product of your labor you will keep and how much you'll "contribute"??

Is there really such a thing as a part-time slave??

 

[Toro]

Saying that you don't own property because you are taxed on it is like saying you are a slave because you are taxed on your labor.

Let's see if that logic hold up...

Who is it that determines how much of the product of your labor you will keep and how much you'll "contribute"??

Is there really such a thing as a part-time slave??

See, I think the analogy is a false one, which was my point. We aren't slaves and we own land, even though the government taxes both. I do not equivocate taxes with slavery. Taxes may be suffocating but they do not change the concept of ownership of either our land, labor or capital.

 

[Oddball]

Ownership = control.

Who is claiming control over how much money you'll keep from the products of your labor?

False logic indeed.

 

[Toro]

I do control my labor and I do control my property.

Of course, government puts some restrictions on both. I cannot work as a drug pusher and I cannot build a skyscraper on my residential property. Likewise, society has deemed it such that both will be taxed for a variety of reasons. But under the law, I generally control both.

 

[Oddball]

You do realize that Houston, Texas, still has no zoning laws, don't you??....Do you see any skyscrapers in residential neighborhoods there??

Income and property "taxes" (they are in fact not lawful taxation but outright expropriation) are in no way about raising revenue for needed services, they are about authoritarian control....Period.

 

[Toro]

Yeah, I know. I've been to Houston. Nice city, that. But FFS, in many residential communities, you can't even paint your house any color that is not approved by the homeowners' association.

Sorry, having worked in government, I do not believe taxes are about control, not as I saw it. Hey, I read Ayn Rand too. It is about raising revenue. Whether or not a certain level is "needed" is an open question. But that's democracy, isn't it?

 

[Agnapostate]

I don't know if this makes much sense to you... But the bolded in your post corresponds to the bolded in my post - same with underlined. Everything else just being an extended analogy.

In short, you say capitalism has a problem with full employment - I say it provides as much employment as its people want.

You say capitalism is a paradox with unemployment inefficiency, I say it is the most efficient use of people who do not want to work.

It's simple, really.

It doesn't, because it ignores the reality that unemployment is a form of static inefficiency.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I do control my labor and I do control my property.

Of course, government puts some restrictions on both. I cannot work as a drug pusher and I cannot build a skyscraper on my residential property. Likewise, society has deemed it such that both will be taxed for a variety of reasons. But under the law, I generally control both.

It's simply a different point of view, I suppose. As I see it, if the government taxes the income that I earn then that means that there is a period of time where I'm working for the benefit of the government. That would be slavery because I'm forced to do that against my will. If the government taxes my property then that means that it's not really my property and that I'm only there because the government allows me to be there.

 

[Oddball]

I do control my labor and I do control my property.

Of course, government puts some restrictions on both. I cannot work as a drug pusher and I cannot build a skyscraper on my residential property. Likewise, society has deemed it such that both will be taxed for a variety of reasons. But under the law, I generally control both.

It's simply a different point of view, I suppose. As I see it, if the government taxes the income that I earn then that means that there is a period of time where I'm working for the benefit of the government. That would be slavery because I'm forced to do that against my will. If the government taxes my property then that means that it's not really my property and that I'm only there because the government allows me to be there.

Perzactly.

Lawful de jure taxes are only levied on the person who is using the given gubmint service...Fuel taxes to pay for roads and bridges, for instance.

 

[Toro]

I do control my labor and I do control my property.

Of course, government puts some restrictions on both. I cannot work as a drug pusher and I cannot build a skyscraper on my residential property. Likewise, society has deemed it such that both will be taxed for a variety of reasons. But under the law, I generally control both.

It's simply a different point of view, I suppose. As I see it, if the government taxes the income that I earn then that means that there is a period of time where I'm working for the benefit of the government. That would be slavery because I'm forced to do that against my will. If the government taxes my property then that means that it's not really my property and that I'm only there because the government allows me to be there.

And another point of view is that all paid labor is exploitation and private property is theft.

That's not my view, but there are a whole gamut of views.

 

[Oddball]

Except that those two ages-old collectivist boilerplate bullshit notions, designed to rationalize the enslavement and theft of the authoritarian tyrant, don't hold up to objective analysis.

Paid labor = Exploitation: By whose definition of "exploitation"?...If the person selling his time and labor believes he's getting a just return for his efforts, who is any third party, who has nothing to lose, to step in and say who is exploiting whom??

Private property = Theft: Theft from whom?? In order to claim theft, someone has to be claiming ownership to begin with.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You own your land you say? Tell ya what? Test that theory. Do not pay your taxes and see what happens to that land you claim you own.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You own your land you say? Tell ya what? Test that theory. Do not pay your taxes and see what happens to that land you claim you own.

That's the point. If it's my property why do I have to pay rent to the government, or risk being arrested?

 

[Toro]

You own your land you say? Tell ya what? Test that theory. Do not pay your taxes and see what happens to that land you claim you own.

We can get into an esoteric argument all day. I'm most concerned about what the law says, not some theory or philosophy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You own your land you say? Tell ya what? Test that theory. Do not pay your taxes and see what happens to that land you claim you own.

We can get into an esoteric argument all day. I'm most concerned about what the law says, not some theory or philosophy.

Yes, but if the law is unjust then it needs to be repealed and done away with.

 

[Toro]

You own your land you say? Tell ya what? Test that theory. Do not pay your taxes and see what happens to that land you claim you own.

That's the point. If it's my property why do I have to pay rent to the government, or risk being arrested?

Because you aren't paying rent. You risk being arrested because society cannot operate in anarchy.

 

[Toro]

You own your land you say? Tell ya what? Test that theory. Do not pay your taxes and see what happens to that land you claim you own.

We can get into an esoteric argument all day. I'm most concerned about what the law says, not some theory or philosophy.

Yes, but if the law is unjust then it needs to be repealed and done away with.

I'd agree. However, what is defined as just is what society determines or will determine to be just, not what a single individual thinks as so.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You own your land you say? Tell ya what? Test that theory. Do not pay your taxes and see what happens to that land you claim you own.

That's the point. If it's my property why do I have to pay rent to the government, or risk being arrested?

Because you aren't paying rent. You risk being arrested because society cannot operate in anarchy.

If I'm not paying rent then am I free to stop paying my taxes? Or would I be arrested and have my property confiscated? Not paying taxes on property constitutes anarchy?