Re: does capitalism like philosophy?

On Jul 5, 10:41=A0am, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:37:35 -0700, calvin wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 9:32=A0am, tg <tgdenn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Jul 5, 8:46=A0am, calvin <cri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> > On Jul 5, 8:22=A0am, tg <tgdenn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> > > On Jul 4, 1:16=A0pm, calvin <cri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> > > > On Jul 4, 1:00=A0pm, tg <tgdenn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > ... Free markets only exist when
> >> > > > > there is no scarcity of resources, and it is difficult for
cap=
italism
> >> > > > > to exist without that scarcity.
>
> >> > > > Yes, it's hard to sell a box of sand at the beach,
> >> > > > but what's your point?
>
> >> > > My point, as usual, is to point out what's propaganda and what's
r=
eal.
>
> >> > > You can turn beach sand into computer chips and sell those. Then
t=
here
> >> > > is a market that optimizes utility. But if someone expends labor
t=
o
> >> > > prevent you from getting the sand (that is, he 'owns' the sand),
t=
hat
> >> > > labor contributes nothing to the total wealth.
>
> >> > So you're against owner****p. =A0That's the way things are going.
> >> > I hope you enjoy your Marxist utopia.
>
> >> From my statement that you can turn beach sand into chips and sell
> >> them you conclude that I am against owner****p? How can you sell the
> >> chips if you don't own them?
> >> Do all you fundatarians have a reading problem?
>
> > Don't be a fool. =A0Review your own statement:
>
> > "But if someone expends labor to
> > prevent you from getting the sand (that is, he 'owns' the sand), that
> > labor contributes nothing to the total wealth."
>
> This statement is in error because labor is expended in keeping people
ou=
t
> of the way so the entrepreneur can harvest the sand. =A0

I don't know what you mean by 'keeping people out of the way'.  Either
rational actors are trying to exploit the resource themselves or they
would stay out of the way because it is in their interest to have
computer chips produced.

In the condition of scarcity, where people are competing to exploit
the resource, labor is wasted in that competition that could be used
for other purposes.  I don't see how you claim that it is minimal (I
hardly think the US colonial forces in Iraq come cheap)  but even if
it were it wouldn't refute my statement.

If you are saying that efficiencies of specialization or scale would
counterbalance that labor requirement, then you would have to be
defending monopolies, since that achieves maximum specialization and
scale.

-tg








>But the point is
> that labor is expended in that policing process. =A0There is a cost to
la=
nd
> allocation, i.e. the division and specialization of land. =A0The costs
ar=
e
> minimal and they are further minimized by the specialization of labor
and
> the return to scale inherent in assigning tenant rights enforcement to
> government. The _USE_ of the land does not require owner****p of the
land.
> And unused land should not be restricted from use and is then cost free.
> Such land is free for anyone to bid for its use and to pay all excluded
> others for the rights of exclusive use.
>
> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend