Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site csd2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!csd2!sykora
From: sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Politics and Ethics--Socialism, Libertarianism, and Capitalism
Message-ID: <4340047@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Jan-86 23:37:00 EST
Article-I.D.: csd2.4340047
Posted: Fri Jan 10 23:37:00 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 17:58:46 EST
References: <1547@hound.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 97

>/* berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) /  4:47 pm  Dec 28, 1985 */

>Your split is the following: the owner pays cash the people for their
>work, so he acquires the rights to fruits of labor.  The actual work
>of the owner may be no larger than the work of any other person involved.

The actual "work" of the owner involves administration and management.  Often,
this can be the most difficult task.  That is why good managers are paid
well.  In a competitive system, investors must work hard to earn what
economists call profit (as distinguished from what accountants call profit).
The owner (and possibly his banker) bear all the risk.
If they don't get a return appropriate to the amount of risk taken they
won't bother with the investment.

>See above - the profits in the last case are not due to expenditure
>of labor, but due to expenditure of money.  Money in turn do not need
>to reflect any past work of the owner.

How else?  Inheritance?  --  Then the one who passed on the money had a right
to do with it as he/she pleased, including giving it to his/her "undeserving"
offspring.

>You do not seem to share the latter opinion: the notion of the work
>efficiency which may differ more than, say, 1000 times from individual
>to individual may be natural, to me it is not.

Please eleborate.  I do not understand this.

>What I am saying here is the following: the equality under the law
>of two sides of a transaction does not provide equal opportunities 
>to bargain.

The phrase "to bargain" needs elaboration if one is to comment on your
assertion.

>> >Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive.

>> What do you mean by a deal?

>Sell labor, instead of keeping to shop around for a better deal.

It is quite often possible to do both.
Would you prefer it if the capital owner also had a tougher time?

>> >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.).

Note that while the owner of capital is shopping around he is missing out on
potential profits.

>   In my approach, the profits of the owner of capital are at least
>partially due to advantage of his position, and not exlusively due to
>his skills, enterprenourship etc.

By "position," I take it you mean those who have inherited wealth.  
But the right to inherited wealth is foremost a right of the giver.

>Thus it may be fair that he shares
>his profits with the rest of the society.  In particular, your 'glib
>phrase' is used to oppose taxation.

Which parts of society helped in the creation of this wealth.  It's only
right that those who participated in the creation of the wealth get a
share, not every member of society.  How do you determine how much should
be taxed away?

>  I claim that it contains so much
>of systematic idealization of reality that it cannot be used to justify
>any ethical conclusions.

????

>> >Is human work worth only as much as it is paid?

>> How do you define "worth?"

>I was asking a question!

And I was asking you to clarify your question because I did not fully
understand it.

>> >Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected?

>> "Value" to whom?  There is no such thing as objective value.

>Then OK, we both agree: we are free to redefine the value of work
>is such a way that the difference between compensation/profit
>and the "actual" worth will be equal to a tax, this way taxing
>does not take away any contribution from an individual.

Hold on there.  I don't agree to that.  I merely said that value is subjective.
If value is subjective, then what does "actual worth" mean?

>Piotr Berman

Mike Sykora