Re: does capitalism like philosophy?

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:52:48 -0700, tg wrote:

> On Jul 5, 10:41 am, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:37:35 -0700, calvin wrote:
>> > On Jul 5, 9:32 am, tg <tgdenn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 5, 8:46 am, calvin <cri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> > On Jul 5, 8:22 am, tg <tgdenn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> > > On Jul 4, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> > > > On Jul 4, 1:00 pm, tg <tgdenn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > ... Free markets only exist when
>> >> > > > > there is no scarcity of resources, and it is difficult for
capitalism
>> >> > > > > 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
real.
>>
>> >> > > You can turn beach sand into computer chips and sell those. Then
there
>> >> > > is a market that optimizes utility. 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.
>>
>> >> > So you're against owner****p.  That'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.  Review 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
out
>> of the way so the entrepreneur can harvest the sand.  
> 
> 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.

If the stuff is useful (scarce), then there is competition for it and
there should be rules of order to determine who gets to use the resource. 
That is not a gift from Santa.  The rules have to be accepted by
the vast majority and then enforced.

> 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.

We are not talking about forces in Iraq.  We are talking about the
enforcement of use rights on this supposed beach.  It is assumed that the
right to use the sand has cleared a free market. The fee for that use has
been paid to the "common fund".  Some small amount of that common fund is
than used to enforce the exclusive use rights of the people that PAID FOR
THE USE RIGHTS and won this contract in an open market.  The rest of the
money is redistributed EQUALLY to the people.

> 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.

Government has a monopoly on force.  That is so because using a sharp
pointed stick or an A bomb is best left to those who specialize in that
sort of work.  It is no different than s**** charmers doing what they do
or farmers being farmers. Much cheaper to do it with a centralized
government than it is for each person to hire his own army or learn to
use a sword.  The return to scale is also operational.
 
>>But the point is
>> that labor is expended in that policing process.  There is a cost to
>> land allocation, i.e. the division and specialization of land.  The
>> costs are 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 Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend