3 ms·

What? I'm willing to pay Apple for a smartphone. Why would I pay them for life? Even if I did pay them for life, what would that have to do with anything? Now

by tks2103 13y ago

What? I'm willing to pay Apple for a smartphone. Why would I pay them for life? Even if I did pay them for life, what would that have to do with anything? Nowadays, everyone uses roads. If you claim today that you are a self-made person that doesn't owe anything to anyone, I could just point out that roads exist and without them you would not be successful. I guess Genghis Khan was pretty successful without roads, but what does that have to do with anything? Right now, other people make things that allow individuals to succeed. Right now, if you succeed and claim other people did not have anything to do with it, you are lying to yourself and everyone else. Edit: And therefore, the idea of a rich man who made his money 'honestly' is too simple to be useful in any framework that manages a modern society. The definition of 'honest' is missing.

Glide 13y ago
One could argue that Ghengis Khan had to owe a part of his success to the culture he grew up in and the ability to use combined arms. We do have a way of rewarding innovators: patents and copyrights. Now, those systems have been abused from everywhere to Texas, but it can be reformed. At least I would like to think so. What I don't get is why people just don't look at the labor side of this argument. A wealthy person certainly didn't create a work force and educate them. He didn't provide them with a stability and other basic needs. Even at a more basic level where do all the consumers come from? Don't they buy products based on their desires that are largely due to society as well? I really do think we find ourselves in an economic "web of life." I don't like the idea of framing it as honest and dishonest either. I would much rather make sure that the wealthy don't have too much leverage overs others in society. An example I would give is how credit card companies have basically pushed the risks out to merchants. Yes combat fraud. Also push for chip and pin in the states so that less of it occurs and figure out something with online purchases. To a lesser extent we have taken steps when we recognize this imbalance. Cigarette companies can no longer market to minors. Young minds being the most impressionable ones.
snitko 13y ago
I'm trying to say here that government is not the only possible provider of things it currently monopolistically provides. If you claim everyone uses roads therefore everyone should pay taxes to keep those roads well maintained I'd say you're only partially right. Government, for the most part, keeps private companies away from owning roads. If there was no government, do you think there would be no roads? Of course there would! And people would be willing to pay for using them. Except that those who use roads once a week wouldn't subsidize those who use them every day. > if you succeed and claim other people did not have anything to do with it, you are lying to yourself and everyone else No, I don't claim that. What I claim is that I would like to know exactly who those people are. If I use a road to deliver what my company produces, I would like to pay for this road before I actually use it. Now my business may fail, or it may succeed, but the owner of the road gets paid. I don't owe anyone more than they asked me to pay at that moment in time. Nor do they. I think that's fair. Don't you?
- tks2103 13y ago
  Infrastructure is very complicated. Typically if you have a guy build a road and you let that guy control the pricing, he charges a lot because he has a monopoly. That transfers wealth to the road builder at the expense of all the would-be businessmen who would build institutions that use the road. So societies use governments to control a relationship between the manager of the road and the people that use the road. The price to use the road dips because of the enhanced bargaining power of the people that use the road through the institution of government. Typically governments even subsidize the unit cost of using the road by paying the road manager directly up front, because the corresponding increase in business is worth it across a society. I think that if you have a system that focuses on individuals and their relationships to roads and road builders without regulation by a large third party that represents all members of the society, you'll get a situation where the road builder uses the monopoly power to price road usage so highly that business investment is hampered. Usually people use government institutions to manage this sort of thing, and usually it works pretty good. I think this is pretty basic stuff, no?
  - snitko 13y ago
    So why do you believe a company which manages the road is a monopolist? Where did you get this? Why is it impossible to build another road? Or go by train? Or by air? By no means road companies would be monopolies. A government, on the other hand, is a monopoly. Furthermore, if for some reason I dislike the quality of the services that are provided or I dislike the way they are provided (for example, I ride a motorcycle and government requires me to wear a helmet, even though it is only my life I risk by not wearing it) then I still have to pay. If I don't pay, I get fined and may go to jail. It's not just a monopoly, it's extortion. Imagine your ISP knocks on your door and says: "Hello sir. You are going to pay us this amount a month, we will provide you with internet access. The quality is going to be completely up to us, you can't unsubscribe and if you stop paying, you'll be fined and may go to jail. Oh, and there are practically no competitors, only very expensive ones. And if you use them, you would still have to pay us." How would you like that? Why roads are different? Nearly everyone uses Internet these days, just like they use roads. Finally, you made this point "Typically governments even subsidize the unit cost of using the road". Actually, taxpayers subsidize it, not government. Government doesn't have any money.

by tks2103 13y ago

Glide 13y ago

One could argue that Ghengis Khan had to owe a part of his success to the culture he grew up in and the ability to use combined arms. We do have a way of rewarding innovators: patents and copyrights. Now, those systems have been abused from everywhere to Texas, but it can be reformed. At least I would like to think so. What I don't get is why people just don't look at the labor side of this argument. A wealthy person certainly didn't create a work force and educate them. He didn't provide them with a stability and other basic needs. Even at a more basic level where do all the consumers come from? Don't they buy products based on their desires that are largely due to society as well? I really do think we find ourselves in an economic "web of life." I don't like the idea of framing it as honest and dishonest either. I would much rather make sure that the wealthy don't have too much leverage overs others in society. An example I would give is how credit card companies have basically pushed the risks out to merchants. Yes combat fraud. Also push for chip and pin in the states so that less of it occurs and figure out something with online purchases. To a lesser extent we have taken steps when we recognize this imbalance. Cigarette companies can no longer market to minors. Young minds being the most impressionable ones.

snitko 13y ago

I'm trying to say here that government is not the only possible provider of things it currently monopolistically provides. If you claim everyone uses roads therefore everyone should pay taxes to keep those roads well maintained I'd say you're only partially right. Government, for the most part, keeps private companies away from owning roads. If there was no government, do you think there would be no roads? Of course there would! And people would be willing to pay for using them. Except that those who use roads once a week wouldn't subsidize those who use them every day. > if you succeed and claim other people did not have anything to do with it, you are lying to yourself and everyone else No, I don't claim that. What I claim is that I would like to know exactly who those people are. If I use a road to deliver what my company produces, I would like to pay for this road before I actually use it. Now my business may fail, or it may succeed, but the owner of the road gets paid. I don't owe anyone more than they asked me to pay at that moment in time. Nor do they. I think that's fair. Don't you?

tks2103 13y ago
Infrastructure is very complicated. Typically if you have a guy build a road and you let that guy control the pricing, he charges a lot because he has a monopoly. That transfers wealth to the road builder at the expense of all the would-be businessmen who would build institutions that use the road. So societies use governments to control a relationship between the manager of the road and the people that use the road. The price to use the road dips because of the enhanced bargaining power of the people that use the road through the institution of government. Typically governments even subsidize the unit cost of using the road by paying the road manager directly up front, because the corresponding increase in business is worth it across a society. I think that if you have a system that focuses on individuals and their relationships to roads and road builders without regulation by a large third party that represents all members of the society, you'll get a situation where the road builder uses the monopoly power to price road usage so highly that business investment is hampered. Usually people use government institutions to manage this sort of thing, and usually it works pretty good. I think this is pretty basic stuff, no?
- snitko 13y ago
  So why do you believe a company which manages the road is a monopolist? Where did you get this? Why is it impossible to build another road? Or go by train? Or by air? By no means road companies would be monopolies. A government, on the other hand, is a monopoly. Furthermore, if for some reason I dislike the quality of the services that are provided or I dislike the way they are provided (for example, I ride a motorcycle and government requires me to wear a helmet, even though it is only my life I risk by not wearing it) then I still have to pay. If I don't pay, I get fined and may go to jail. It's not just a monopoly, it's extortion. Imagine your ISP knocks on your door and says: "Hello sir. You are going to pay us this amount a month, we will provide you with internet access. The quality is going to be completely up to us, you can't unsubscribe and if you stop paying, you'll be fined and may go to jail. Oh, and there are practically no competitors, only very expensive ones. And if you use them, you would still have to pay us." How would you like that? Why roads are different? Nearly everyone uses Internet these days, just like they use roads. Finally, you made this point "Typically governments even subsidize the unit cost of using the road". Actually, taxpayers subsidize it, not government. Government doesn't have any money.