Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Politics and Ethics--Socialism, Libertarianism, and Capitalism
Message-ID: <1932@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Dec-85 15:08:57 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1932
Posted: Wed Dec 18 15:08:57 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 03:47:36 EST
References: <1547@hound.UUCP> <4340021@csd2.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 41

> >/* berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) / 12:18 pm  Dec 13, 1985 */
>
> >Berman: Who creates the means of production?  People who provide labor,
> >people who provide expertise of people who provide capital?  How you
> >split the contribution?  (I skip the remark about non-scarce resources
> >here).  I claim that the situation is sufficiently messy that it is
> >impossible the formulate an always aplicable first-principle.
>
> The people who provide the labor do so for a fee.  They transfer their
> rights to the product of this labor to the payer of the fee.
> The people who provide the expertise do so for a fee.  They transfer their
> rights to the product of this expertise to the payer of the fee.
> The people who provide the capital do so for a return and/or a partial
> ownership in the finished product.
> The providers of these services are free to provide them at the agreed upon
> price/return or not.
> The contributions are split according to the agreed upon price of services/
> capital.
> This may be messy, but it's alot less messy than government administered
> systems.
>
> Michael Sykora

It is not only messy, but totally defies the phrase "people who created
the means of production", which is emotionally charged and nice.
As we see, taxing profits is not taking away the fruits of hard labor,
but collecting a part of the return on the capital.
Some people also point that people who provide labor are not always
"free to provide them at the agreed upon price/return or not".
While capital may move freely, a laborer is greatly constrained.
Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive.
While the owner of capital may patiently shop around, the laborer
risks personal deprivations when he wants to shop around (move to
other area, abandon a job to seek for another etc.).
While I am not against the privite enterprise, I am not satisfied
with the glib phrase
> they transfer the rights to the product of
> this labor to the payer of the fee.
Is human work worth only as much as it is paid?
Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected?
If labor is just a commodity, is liberty a commodity as well?