4 ms·

> Therefore, I ask why do you feel it's logical to continue down the path of further monopolizations which inevitably harm the economy as a whole and individual

> Therefore, I ask why do you feel it's logical to continue down the path of further monopolizations which inevitably harm the economy as a whole and individuals in their pursuit of material betterment? Why do you assume I'm in favour of a particular form of patent law? (Let alone any patent law?) I'm not (though it's not a super-strongly held prior), and I think that this is perfectly consistent with supporting a very market-based system. I think a no-patents system would probably be more innovative and competitive than what we have now. >But if you demanded a toll for a stretch of road that happens to be out front of your house that would be capital and it would be rent seeking since the act of ambulation isn't improved by the mere act of crossing your part of the road. Are you talking about somebody charging a toll on a road they don't own and don't maintain? Because that's not what I'm talking about or proposing. I mean, who built the road? Someone has to build it and maintain it. It must be refreshed constantly with new investment. It's also not a monopoly on anything - no more than the door in a house is a monopoly on entry into that house. And "ambulation isn't improved by the mere act of crossing a road"? I think roads (and sidewalks, and boardwalks) very much improve ambulation and transportation of all kinds. Building a road and then tolling it is not rentiership in any sense. Capital is not a fixed pool of items or goods. Owners of capital are not inherently rentiers. They can be, in many cases, but that's not because they own capital. > It's not gigantism because it's not done at a national level. I support radical localism. Well, now you're back to, essentially, private property. Some "radically local" entities are going to be more successful than others, and become more prosperous, making membership in them more valuable. They will have to trade between themselves, making prices and property (even if collective) necessary. And unless you're prepared to keep people in their locality permanently, you're going to see localities that change size radically. And if you're going to keep localities of a similar size, who enforces that? And if they do, you're back to gigantism.

norea-armozel 10y ago
>I think a no-patents system would probably be more innovative and competitive than what we have now. Glad we agree at least on this point >Are you talking about somebody charging a toll on a road they don't own and don't maintain? Because that's not what I'm talking about or proposing. >I mean, who built the road? Someone has to build it and maintain it. The road analogy is specifically dealing with the idea that land itself can be an exclusive good and thus individuals who naturally exclude others (someone's home, factory, farm, etc are the property on the land but not the land itself) should cover for the loss through the exclusion. Allowing people to exclude others but also to extract rents through mere passage or occupancy without actually producing any value (land speculation and slum lords are an example of this). This ultimately leads to a social order where those who own title to land can reign supreme over others who rent the land. >Capital is not a fixed pool of items or goods. Owners of capital are not inherently rentiers. If you have a monopoly on the capital goods in question then you are a rentier. There's no way around it and it needs to be addressed if you want to fix the fundamental problems that plague society. >Well, now you're back to, essentially, private property. Property is a necessary but not sufficient condition of capital. And property isn't the issue (read Proudhon) but rather the title acting as impersonal property over personal property as use. Meaning that one with title can exclude others from its use even if they're not using it or even care to use it ever (again land speculators and patent trolls are a great example of this). >Some "radically local" entities are going to be more successful than others, and become more prosperous, making membership in them more valuable. Cooperatives in themselves are a union among workers thus you can't elevate yourself above fellow workers in the cooperative in terms of economic primacy. All have their say in equal capacity (as in shares != more votes). >They will have to trade between themselves, making prices and property (even if collective) necessary. And none of this is capitalism. I think the onus is on you to show me how a market needs a capital owner and not the other way around. Because at it's heart two individuals free of exclusivity that comes with capitalism trading among themselves is no more a capitalist than is a musician a capitalist just because they're paid big bucks to sing at concerts. You're not a capitalist either just because you decide to use your car to drive Uber fares part time because the act of work itself isn't excluding others from working (i.e. being Uber drivers themselves). A capitalist by definition can and will extract rents from capital and exclude others from its use (be it labor, machines, factories, ideas, or land) via the State or equivalent institutions. None of this in any form is necessary to the definition of a market system. A market system is merely free exchange of goods at some price (social credit, barter, money, etc). That's it, nothing else defines a market. And as such it takes a capitalist to make capitalism; no ands, ifs, or buts.
- snrplfth 10y ago
  > The road analogy is specifically dealing with the idea that land itself can be an exclusive good and thus individuals who naturally exclude others (someone's home, factory, farm, etc are the property on the land but not the land itself) should cover for the loss through the exclusion. Allowing people to exclude others but also to extract rents through mere passage or occupancy without actually producing any value (land speculation and slum lords are an example of this). I don't see why land is special. Sure, it has a few peculiar properties, but it's not that different. Land has value for all sorts of reasons - perhaps it has fertile soil (which must be stewarded), perhaps it has valuable buildings or infrastructures near or on it (which must be built and maintained), perhaps it has certain climactic advantages - but this doesn't mean that anybody who owns some has a "monopoly" on it, any more than the owner of any other thing has a "monopoly" on that particular object. There's a limited number of, say, aluminum atoms on earth, does that mean that anyone who owns some aluminum is a monopolist? I mean, I can go buy a swathe of desert and put a fence around it, it doesn't mean I've got a monopoly on anything. Land ownership - especially urban land ownership, where most of the value is - is hugely fragmented, there's no monopoly to be found. I exclude others from my home, and the land it's on. Why should I be able to exclude people from my house legitimately, but not the attached land components? >If you have a monopoly on the capital goods in question then you are a rentier. What capital goods do people actually have a monopoly on, though, which has not been granted to them by special law? Any capital good you can think of (outside patent or copyright) can be, and usually is, owned by many people. > Meaning that one with title can exclude others from its use even if they're not using it or even care to use it ever (again land speculators and patent trolls are a great example of this). How do you define use, though? (Patent trolls we've covered.) What if I leave land fallow for the pure enjoyment of it, or for natural restoration? What if I use it in a way that others don't like? Who decides? A "land speculator" is investing in the possibility of future returns - what if the "speculator" intends to build houses on a lot, but is still trying to raise money to do so? What's the difference between a land buyer employed by a homebuilder, and a freelance one? Is it only speculation if a profit is returned? (I can speculate on land for years and make no money.) Speculation is nearly impossible to clearly define. > Cooperatives in themselves are a union among workers thus you can't elevate yourself above fellow workers in the cooperative in terms of economic primacy. All have their say in equal capacity (as in shares != more votes). Great, what if a cooperative fails, as they will? Those people will have to go find new or other cooperatives to work for. Will all cooperatives be required to take those people in and give them an equal say, even though they've not contributed the same amount of time and may have helped cause a failure? Can you fire people from a cooperative if they're no good? If everyone else in your cooperative besides you leaves, can you still have a single-person cooperative? > I think the onus is on you to show me how a market needs a capital owner and not the other way around.....You're not a capitalist either just because you decide to use your car to drive Uber fares part time because the act of work itself isn't excluding others from working (i.e. being Uber drivers themselves). A capitalist by definition can and will extract rents from capital and exclude others from its use (be it labor, machines, factories, ideas, or land) via the State or equivalent institutions. Because all goods are essentially capital - or rather, all capital is essentially just goods. There's no obvious distinction. Let me recast your example: "You're not a capitalist either just because you decide to use your garage workshop to build chairs part time because the act of work isn't excluding others from working (i.e. making chairs themselves.)" And you can expand that - "You're not a capitalist because you decide to use your factory to create steel...." If you own a car you're excluding others from using that car - but you're not inherently a monopolist rentier, because others can make and own cars. If you own a factory you're excluding others from using that factory - but you're not inherently a monopolist rentier, because others can make and own factories.

norea-armozel 10y ago

>I think a no-patents system would probably be more innovative and competitive than what we have now. Glad we agree at least on this point >Are you talking about somebody charging a toll on a road they don't own and don't maintain? Because that's not what I'm talking about or proposing. >I mean, who built the road? Someone has to build it and maintain it. The road analogy is specifically dealing with the idea that land itself can be an exclusive good and thus individuals who naturally exclude others (someone's home, factory, farm, etc are the property on the land but not the land itself) should cover for the loss through the exclusion. Allowing people to exclude others but also to extract rents through mere passage or occupancy without actually producing any value (land speculation and slum lords are an example of this). This ultimately leads to a social order where those who own title to land can reign supreme over others who rent the land. >Capital is not a fixed pool of items or goods. Owners of capital are not inherently rentiers. If you have a monopoly on the capital goods in question then you are a rentier. There's no way around it and it needs to be addressed if you want to fix the fundamental problems that plague society. >Well, now you're back to, essentially, private property. Property is a necessary but not sufficient condition of capital. And property isn't the issue (read Proudhon) but rather the title acting as impersonal property over personal property as use. Meaning that one with title can exclude others from its use even if they're not using it or even care to use it ever (again land speculators and patent trolls are a great example of this). >Some "radically local" entities are going to be more successful than others, and become more prosperous, making membership in them more valuable. Cooperatives in themselves are a union among workers thus you can't elevate yourself above fellow workers in the cooperative in terms of economic primacy. All have their say in equal capacity (as in shares != more votes). >They will have to trade between themselves, making prices and property (even if collective) necessary. And none of this is capitalism. I think the onus is on you to show me how a market needs a capital owner and not the other way around. Because at it's heart two individuals free of exclusivity that comes with capitalism trading among themselves is no more a capitalist than is a musician a capitalist just because they're paid big bucks to sing at concerts. You're not a capitalist either just because you decide to use your car to drive Uber fares part time because the act of work itself isn't excluding others from working (i.e. being Uber drivers themselves). A capitalist by definition can and will extract rents from capital and exclude others from its use (be it labor, machines, factories, ideas, or land) via the State or equivalent institutions. None of this in any form is necessary to the definition of a market system. A market system is merely free exchange of goods at some price (social credit, barter, money, etc). That's it, nothing else defines a market. And as such it takes a capitalist to make capitalism; no ands, ifs, or buts.

snrplfth 10y ago
> The road analogy is specifically dealing with the idea that land itself can be an exclusive good and thus individuals who naturally exclude others (someone's home, factory, farm, etc are the property on the land but not the land itself) should cover for the loss through the exclusion. Allowing people to exclude others but also to extract rents through mere passage or occupancy without actually producing any value (land speculation and slum lords are an example of this). I don't see why land is special. Sure, it has a few peculiar properties, but it's not that different. Land has value for all sorts of reasons - perhaps it has fertile soil (which must be stewarded), perhaps it has valuable buildings or infrastructures near or on it (which must be built and maintained), perhaps it has certain climactic advantages - but this doesn't mean that anybody who owns some has a "monopoly" on it, any more than the owner of any other thing has a "monopoly" on that particular object. There's a limited number of, say, aluminum atoms on earth, does that mean that anyone who owns some aluminum is a monopolist? I mean, I can go buy a swathe of desert and put a fence around it, it doesn't mean I've got a monopoly on anything. Land ownership - especially urban land ownership, where most of the value is - is hugely fragmented, there's no monopoly to be found. I exclude others from my home, and the land it's on. Why should I be able to exclude people from my house legitimately, but not the attached land components? >If you have a monopoly on the capital goods in question then you are a rentier. What capital goods do people actually have a monopoly on, though, which has not been granted to them by special law? Any capital good you can think of (outside patent or copyright) can be, and usually is, owned by many people. > Meaning that one with title can exclude others from its use even if they're not using it or even care to use it ever (again land speculators and patent trolls are a great example of this). How do you define use, though? (Patent trolls we've covered.) What if I leave land fallow for the pure enjoyment of it, or for natural restoration? What if I use it in a way that others don't like? Who decides? A "land speculator" is investing in the possibility of future returns - what if the "speculator" intends to build houses on a lot, but is still trying to raise money to do so? What's the difference between a land buyer employed by a homebuilder, and a freelance one? Is it only speculation if a profit is returned? (I can speculate on land for years and make no money.) Speculation is nearly impossible to clearly define. > Cooperatives in themselves are a union among workers thus you can't elevate yourself above fellow workers in the cooperative in terms of economic primacy. All have their say in equal capacity (as in shares != more votes). Great, what if a cooperative fails, as they will? Those people will have to go find new or other cooperatives to work for. Will all cooperatives be required to take those people in and give them an equal say, even though they've not contributed the same amount of time and may have helped cause a failure? Can you fire people from a cooperative if they're no good? If everyone else in your cooperative besides you leaves, can you still have a single-person cooperative? > I think the onus is on you to show me how a market needs a capital owner and not the other way around.....You're not a capitalist either just because you decide to use your car to drive Uber fares part time because the act of work itself isn't excluding others from working (i.e. being Uber drivers themselves). A capitalist by definition can and will extract rents from capital and exclude others from its use (be it labor, machines, factories, ideas, or land) via the State or equivalent institutions. Because all goods are essentially capital - or rather, all capital is essentially just goods. There's no obvious distinction. Let me recast your example: "You're not a capitalist either just because you decide to use your garage workshop to build chairs part time because the act of work isn't excluding others from working (i.e. making chairs themselves.)" And you can expand that - "You're not a capitalist because you decide to use your factory to create steel...." If you own a car you're excluding others from using that car - but you're not inherently a monopolist rentier, because others can make and own cars. If you own a factory you're excluding others from using that factory - but you're not inherently a monopolist rentier, because others can make and own factories.