3 ms·
I've never agreed with the idea that labor is the "sole" or even "primary", source of value. For example, I find nothing more valuable than clean air and water
by jqm 13y ago
I've never agreed with the idea that labor is the "sole" or even "primary", source of value.
For example, I find nothing more valuable than clean air and water.
Off topic, but I believe this should be the basis for funding society rather than appropriating a portion of people's productive labor.
Land is valuable. But you don't really "own" it because no one made it. Likewise the Aluminum in a can or the steel in your car. You just borrow them for a time. When we are all dead and gone these things will still be here and people will likely use them.
Society should charge for the use of what really belongs to everyone instead of this part time modern indentured servant hood called payroll taxes. It seems much more just.
As a side benefit... consumption is discouraged and production rewarded. What better for society than that?
- chii 13y ago> consumption is discouraged and production rewarded. how can this both be true? if consumption is discouraged, then what would be the reward for production? if it is something that is to be consumed, then by definition consumption is desirable. If the reward is not something that is consumed, the what is that reward?
- jqm 13y agoI'm not sure I understand your point. Or maybe you don't understand mine. Mine is that one should be taxed on the use of land and materials (which, from a larger perspective, belong to society and humankind as a whole) rather than on innovation and labor (which is, from a larger perspective, a form of theft and slavery). By taxing like this, you reward innovation and production while discouraging wanton consumption of resources (leading to more efficient use of resources and more investment in innovation).