public responsibilty of goverment

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Well yes, you dont see why someone who is responsible for creating a product that advances humanity forwards significantly deserves to live in a better house than a binman.

But you would reward him (or her) to an extent that society still had a net gain.

If he invented something, and patented it, and took high royalties for 20 or so years then society is actually back from where it would be if he hadn't invented it and someone else had a few years later and not patented it.

Why would society reward someone for making life worse for everyone?

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by acropolis
certainly wouldn't be good, but society would still get by, and all that together wouldn't have the slightest fraction of the damage that the removal of the farmers, or the police, or the soldiers, or the truckers, etc. would have.

I think that if it came to that, the Doctors would have an easier time learning to drive trucks than the truckers learning to be Doctors.

we pay doctors etc. so much more not because what they produce is more valuable or more necessary, but simply because their skills are less common. supply and demand, and they are rich.

And why are their skills less common? It is because there aren't as many who can master them.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Assume it happened 200 years ago - that was the point. Would you currently be sitting in a nice comfy house with a computer talking to people over the internet, or would you be working in a factory packing boxes? The comforts of modern society exist because of the hard work of talented individuals, and it would look very different without them.

this is true.

but, if two hundred years ago it was the farmers who were taken away again the society would have collapsed and those talented individuals wouldn't have made their progress anyway.

and again i'd be packing boxes, if not worse.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by acropolis
But you would reward him (or her) to an extent that society still had a net gain.

No. "Reward him" means taking something from society and giving it to him as a reward. This isnt what anyone is suggesting - they simply want society to stop taking what he has created away from him, and allow him to claim the full value of his work. Refraining from stealing someones work is not a 'reward'', neither is allowing someone to keep what they have earned.

If someone creates a product and earns 10 billion pounds from the sales of it, then society has lost nothing - the 10 billion pounds is value created by the product, and hasnt been 'taken' from anyone. Economics is not a zero sum game.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by acropolis
this is true.

but, if two hundred years ago it was the farmers who were taken away again the society would have collapsed and those talented individuals wouldn't have made their progress anyway.

and again i'd be packing boxes, if not worse.

100 farmers?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
She believed that people who create value should be allowed to keep the value which they create (and which wouldnt exist without them and their work), while you would rather have it distributed amongst society more or less equally.

I merely reject the notion of people "creating" value in some objective way. I remember a particularly stupid business studies teacher I had once claiming that the man who invented something (I think it was the Polaroid camera, possibly some kind of radio, who knows) had "created" 500 million dollars worth of value via his invention. I just tend to find this kind of reasoning silly. With manual labour we can of course objectively measure how much an individual labourer has produced (generally - not for cleaners, etc though). How much value has Isaac Newton created? If he didn't invent anything that can be copyrighted, do we have a general world vote and decide how much he should be paid, or what? Or is it corporate sponsorship or something?

Intellectual advancements are obviously useful, but they are rarely the domain of an individual. As Newton himself said : "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.", etc. As you say in your previous post - there's no way either view can be proved (without time-travel ofc) but this is my take on it.

Yes, to a certain extent, brilliant individuals now are dependent on brilliant individuals previously. But none of these people are necessarily "inherently" better than anyone else (to any really measurable way). It's like saying that Michael Owen (or whomever) is a better footballer than everyone else on his team because he scores the goals. Obviously without a midfield to pass him the ball it'd be rather bloody hopeless.

Similarly, Mr X (inventor) might actually be the bloke who crosses the finishing line and get's all the publicity for the Theory of Relativity 2 (this time it's personal) but his work is the result not only of his biology/psychology but the tens of thousands of people he has interacted with. Every book he has read on physics will have contributed to where he is now (in some tiny way). Taking this one individual and saying "This is the man who built society" is stupid. He might just happen to be the one to publish the paper at the really interesting point. The ten thousand physicists who all contributed to his theory along the way (directly and indirectly) aren't necessarily less hard-working or intelligent - they're just not where he is. If he had never been born (speculation again) someone might have invented what he did never, or the week after, or even the week before (if he had the last scholarship place at Oxford or whatever).

I happen to think of our 100 greatest doctors were removed we would be in a bad state, but not necessarily because they are ubergeniuses in their own right. Merely because they've had hundreds of thousands of pounds invested at each and every stage in them. Really, really clever people aren't actually that rare. People who have the chance to utilise it (and those that do) are obviously.

p.s. I'm off to bed. I'm not one of the hundred greatest anythings and so I need to catch the 6:47 to Orpington.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nodrog
100 farmers?

you didn't say 100 scientists, and in the post of mine you were replying to i was comparing all scientists to all farmers.

Originally posted by Nodrog
No. "Reward him" means taking something from society and giving it to him as a reward. This isnt what anyone is suggesting - they simply want society to stop taking what he has created away from him, and allow him to claim the full value of his work. Refraining from stealing someones work is not a 'reward'', neither is allowing someone to keep what they have earned.

If someone creates a product and earns 10 billion pounds from the sales of it, then society has lost nothing - the 10 billion pounds is value created by the product, and hasnt been 'taken' from anyone. Economics is not a zero sum game.

when he creates it, i assume he will sell it (if he wants a reward).

the society will give him money, and goods or services in exchange for his thing.

Originally posted by Tactitus
I think that if it came to that, the Doctors would have an easier time learning to drive trucks than the truckers learning to be Doctors.

And why are their skills less common? It is because there aren't as many who can master them.

but then, if the doctors became truck drivers we wouldn't have doctors and we'd be in the exact same situation as if we didn't have doctors.

overall i'm not sure the point you are driving at. mine is as follows:

"the value created by the common crafts is greater than the value created by the professional crafts"
by which i just mean we need those basics more than we need the non-basics. needs > wants etc.

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
This is a valid enough economic analysis but is invalid in moral terms.

Part of the Rand-style argument is that the rich are morally better than the poor. There is quote (I think it originally comes from Prodhoun) that's used by Rand (once again, I think) about what would happen if you removed the 100 greatest scientists, engineers, architechts, etc from society. This is directly equating economic production with some kind of moral value. Of course, someone with a billion pounds invested in the equity markets is "producing" more than someone who digs sixteen tonnes of number nine coal - in economic terms. But we're talking about moral evaluation of the individual here, not economic categories.

I never mentioned Rand with a word. I detest Rands morality, as I detest yours. There is no objective value or good, it's all determined by how much individuals value each thing.

Isaac Newton, with his discoveries, have increased the output of pretty much every kind of manual labour everywhere, directly or indirectly. That does not mean he "should" get paid. It means he created value, even tho he didn't stand in a mine and hacked coal. I don't buy the "right" to be rewarded for your efforts. If you want to be rewarded for your efforts, you better make sure you get paid before you share.

And if you doubt the importance of brilliant individuals, look at the history of assasinations, and their results. Yes, perhaps a brilliant individual gets all his brilliance from society (or more likely other brilliant individuals). So what? Unless society made sure it got paid by this individual, it is owed nothing.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by acropolis
but then, if the doctors became truck drivers we wouldn't have doctors and we'd be in the exact same situation as if we didn't have doctors.

My point wasn't that the Doctors would replace the truck drivers; just that they could. In fact, just about anyone could replace them--and without all that much training either. As a teenager, I learned to drive a cement truck in a few hours. I wasn't that skillful, but I could get it from point A to point B. If all the truck drivers disappeared tomorrow; they could be replaced fairly quickly. There'd be major disruptions, but no one would starve.

If all the Doctors disappeared, it would take years to replace them. You might be able to get a broken bone set, but everyone who needed something major like open heart surgery or a tumor removed wouldn't get it--they'd die.

overall i'm not sure the point you are driving at. mine is as follows:

"the value created by the common crafts is greater than the value created by the professional crafts"
by which i just mean we need those basics more than we need the non-basics. needs > wants etc.

I'd need your definition of "value" to comment on that.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tactitus
My point wasn't that the Doctors would replace the truck drivers; just that they could. In fact, just about anyone could replace them--and without all that much training either. As a teenager, I learned to drive a cement truck in a few hours. I wasn't that skillful, but I could get it from point A to point B. If all the truck drivers disappeared tomorrow; they could be replaced fairly quickly. There'd be major disruptions, but no one would starve.

If all the Doctors disappeared, it would take years to replace them. You might be able to get a broken bone set, but everyone who needed something major like open heart surgery or a tumor removed wouldn't get it--they'd die.

I'd need your definition of "value" to comment on that.

my definition of value:
given a choice between two things, which would i pick? the one i pick is the one that is more valuable to me.

i owuld pick food before medical care and clothing before legal counsel. therefore i consider them to be of more value.

there's also a monetary value that really just depends on scarcity.

now, a doctor could truck, and a trucker couldn't...doc. but if truckers disappeared, then the doctors would have to become truckers (assuming no one else was available). no point in practicing medicine when people are starving because food isn't coming in.

but if the doctors all disappeared, the truckers wouldn't go to replace them even if they could, because then everybody would starve.

so i'm kind of saying there is a 'filling order' more than anything else, and the professional types are the last places you would fill.

my bottom line not that farmers or truckers are better, but that i don't believe that any profession has a moral superioroity over any other*.

* i don't consider crime to be a profession

[G_frog]

Originally posted by Nodrog
You are not given the option of "leaving it". A person is not currently free to live on his own property (or on property owned by others who have given him permission to be on it) interacting with people as and when he chooses to do so, without the state initiating force against him. Even if you oppose land ownership, the same applies - if an individual cannot own land then neither can a group.

If no one can own land per se, you can still organise groups by mutual contract so that each member is obliged to respect the land 'owned' by others.

A state which acts against natural law is not neccesarily illegitimate.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by acropolis
my definition of value:
given a choice between two things, which would i pick? the one i pick is the one that is more valuable to me.

Er, yes... but it's not a static choice. Your choice may be different depending if you wake up with hunger pains or chest pains. Static valuations are suboptimal because needs and priorities change.

i owuld pick food before medical care and clothing before legal counsel. therefore i consider them to be of more value.

there's also a monetary value that really just depends on scarcity.

And scarcity depends on what? It's not just random chance that Doctors are scarcer than truckers.

now, a doctor could truck, and a trucker couldn't...doc. but if truckers disappeared, then the doctors would have to become truckers (assuming no one else was available). no point in practicing medicine when people are starving because food isn't coming in.

But someone else would be available--that's the whole point. Docters are too valuable as doctors; so people from other professions would be converted to truckers.

but if the doctors all disappeared, the truckers wouldn't go to replace them even if they could, because then everybody would starve.

Er, if the truckers could replace the Doctors they would--in a New York minute. Given the pay increase, you couldn't stop them even if you wanted to. But they can't, so it's a moot point.

so i'm kind of saying there is a 'filling order' more than anything else, and the professional types are the last places you would fill.

Well, no, there is no filling order (except maybe in some kind of a state-controlled society). People pick their own professions, for the most part, based on salaries and their own abilities, interests and opportunities.

my bottom line not that farmers or truckers are better, but that i don't believe that any profession has a moral superioroity over any other*.

* i don't consider crime to be a profession

I don't see any moral superiority involved one way or the other. On a purely pragmatic basis I consider my doctor to be more important to me than the trucker(s) who deliver my food. That's reflected in the percentage of my wealth that goes to each. Again, this is not a moral judgment.

[queball]

Originally posted by acropolis
my definition of value:
given a choice between two things, which would i pick? the one i pick is the one that is more valuable to me.

i owuld pick food before medical care and clothing before legal counsel. therefore i consider them to be of more value.

there's also a monetary value that really just depends on scarcity.

now, a doctor could truck, and a trucker couldn't...doc. but if truckers disappeared, then the doctors would have to become truckers (assuming no one else was available). no point in practicing medicine when people are starving because food isn't coming in.

but if the doctors all disappeared, the truckers wouldn't go to replace them even if they could, because then everybody would starve.

so i'm kind of saying there is a 'filling order' more than anything else, and the professional types are the last places you would fill.

my bottom line not that farmers or truckers are better, but that i don't believe that any profession has a moral superioroity over any other*.

* i don't consider crime to be a profession

Yes, opportunity cost and value are very much related. But then you go on to talk about taking away elements from society and ascribing value based on what happens. Similar to mixing up statics and dynamics in a physical equibrium, you are unlikely to convinve anyone.

There main factors that determine price are cost to produce, and value. In a free market these should converge. Now you could argue that the £30K/year doctors are producing the same value than the £20K/year truckers, and the price is higher because less people want to become doctors. But there is still plenty of competition... actually, doctors are a bad example in the UK, and I would consider programmers but they're a bad example too now. Lawyers are a bad example since they don't produce much of worth anyway, just paperwork and bureaucracy. OK, a great example: plumbers! Now there is plenty of competition and the training is nothing compared to a doctor, yet plumbers can still make £40/hr or more. Now you could say plumbers don't generate more value than truckers, but then why aren't there more plumbers? The working conditions aren't great. It's a hard job. Would you say it's highly paid because people like cleaner jobs?

I think you have the idea that the value of a job is the number of manhours used. Maybe when you mix up value and morality in the same post, you're talking about a different kind of value than the neoclassical economists. :\

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
I don't buy the "right" to be rewarded for your efforts.

Neither do I, which was my point.

And if you doubt the importance of brilliant individuals, look at the history of assasinations, and their results.

I'm not sure what this would tell me. Yes, there are individuals which are important. If these individuals are "special" in some way, then perhaps a moral argument (independent of economics) can be made for rewarding them. After all, without them, we'd be ****ed. However, my point is that these individuals may be important (due to the value invested in them, etc) but aren't particularly special. Yes, when individuals (generally important ones) are assasinated, a lot happens. This is due (generally) to the importance they've been given by society. So when Archduke Ferdinand was killed, half of Europe was engulfed in war. But it'd be erroneous to presume that it was his special ability that was keeping Europe together.

Yes, perhaps a brilliant individual gets all his brilliance from society (or more likely other brilliant individuals). So what? Unless society made sure it got paid by this individual, it is owed nothing.

It's an important distinction to make since we might otherwise think individuals somehow are independent of the social system they are in. Once again, it's all about calculating value. Nod's example is a man who invents "Substance A" which creates 20 billion dollars worth of value. Clearly for the state to take away this man's twenty billion would be wrong, theft, etc. I just don't happen to agree with such an argument. Even if you think 90% of society is scum then this 20 billion dollar gentleman was probably assisted by the 10% elite.

Basically, the argument is that Nodrog thinks that using this gentleman's invention (without paying him I presume) would be theft. There are three arguments I can see against theft :
1. Moral - it's wrong to do so. (independent of practical consequences)
2. Personal-Pragmatic - if you steal from me, I'll give you a good kicking (or have you put in prison, etc).
3. Social-Pragmatic - by not rewarding me for my efforts you are encouraging I and other inventors/entrepeneurs (etc) to not produce anything of value in future. You are hurting everyone.

Now, the 2nd of these relies on the coercive power of the state. I am saying the 1st of these is invalid (with intellectual property) and the 3rd is the only one we're left with. I'm happy with the idea of the inventors who are motivated by money to stop producing if they wish.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
If someone creates a product and earns 10 billion pounds from the sales of it, then society has lost nothing - the 10 billion pounds is value created by the product, and hasnt been 'taken' from anyone. Economics is not a zero sum game.

I think this is part of the problem with conventional economics. Let's say I invent a new type of multimedia device (a DVD2 player say) which generates sales of $100 billion. Have I created value? Of course, $100bn worth, right?

But how have I actually _created_ this? I have diverted funds which would have been spent elsewhere to my product. Some of these funds will then be split between the labourers who make the device, some to me, my shareholders, etc, etc. But where is the actual creation? Clearly the only body which can "create" money is the state through the issuing of new banknotes, bonds or in it's role as lender of last resort. So we're talking about something else, obviously.

The only way I can see that people can create value in an economic sense is :
1. Through labour - increasing the amount of labour available for work, or organising it more efficiently so more labour is available or that more work can be done per man-hour. Alternately, it might be creating a labour saving device so less work needs to be done overall. Finally, you might develop a product which encourages more people to work.

2. Through resources (incl. land) - finding a new/better way of extracting resources, better utilisation of current resources, alternate resources, and so on.

These seem to be the only two "finite" things in economics. If I invent a DVD2 player then sure, I might be improving the world (in some social sense) but I don't see where new value has come from. Unless lots of people (who were currently unemployed) went out and got a job just to be buy my product, I don't see how anything has been created (on the economic side).

The problem with this, is that if someone invents a chemical additive which can be added to gasoline to make it last 5000 times longer the actual financial effect would be simply to destroy the world oil industry by massively reducing the demand for petrol. Alternate energy fields would also face massive share drops since there products would become less viable now. Sure, more cars would be sold (as cars became massively cheaper to run) but I doubt this would outweight the depression the oil industry would face. Similarly, the treasury would need to raise taxes everywhere else to make up for the billions lost.

So how much value has this gentlemans additive "created"? To me it'd be brilliant (although it'd probably feck our atmosphere indefinitely) and certainly has massively increased the longterm productive power of humanity, but the financial effects aren't so clear.

My point is that financial effects (value created destroyed or created) aren't easy to equate to economic value.

[queball]

IMO, value theory is where economics ends and psychology begins. We can't say exactly where value comes from but it would probably be terrible if we could. Unfortunately the subjective theory of value is only a should/is fallacy away from consumerism.

Dante Hicks, you seem to be saying that certain valued technologies are not useful. But there are technologies that are genuinely useful. Now the people that "invented" those technologies aren't necessarily better than anyone else, but hindering their ability to make useful technologies surely is. Like it or not, capital can be used to generate goods and services. I think you're saying this isn't a reflection on the capitalist, and I believe this is partially true. The value comes from the landowners who have ensured maximal use of their capital, AND from the institutions which enforce private propery rights.

I've never cared much about owning the means of production, but I do believe property is theft - capitalism is a service, and the government steals it by keeping a monopoly on force (or enforcing restrictions on home defence, security guards, guard dogs, security agencies, etc). But I would certainly argue that the government and the police are partially responsible for production, and so can claim credit. Like trade union members can claim responsibilty for safety measures their employer implements, or whatever.

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I think this is part of the problem with conventional economics. Let's say I invent a new type of multimedia device (a DVD2 player say) which generates sales of $100 billion. Have I created value? Of course, $100bn worth, right?

But how have I actually _created_ this? I have diverted funds which would have been spent elsewhere to my product. Some of these funds will then be split between the labourers who make the device, some to me, my shareholders, etc, etc. But where is the actual creation? Clearly the only body which can "create" money is the state through the issuing of new banknotes, bonds or in it's role as lender of last resort. So we're talking about something else, obviously.

The only way I can see that people can create value in an economic sense is :
1. Through labour - increasing the amount of labour available for work, or organising it more efficiently so more labour is available or that more work can be done per man-hour. Alternately, it might be creating a labour saving device so less work needs to be done overall. Finally, you might develop a product which encourages more people to work.

2. Through resources (incl. land) - finding a new/better way of extracting resources, better utilisation of current resources, alternate resources, and so on.

These seem to be the only two "finite" things in economics. If I invent a DVD2 player then sure, I might be improving the world (in some social sense) but I don't see where new value has come from. Unless lots of people (who were currently unemployed) went out and got a job just to be buy my product, I don't see how anything has been created (on the economic side).

The problem with this, is that if someone invents a chemical additive which can be added to gasoline to make it last 5000 times longer the actual financial effect would be simply to destroy the world oil industry by massively reducing the demand for petrol. Alternate energy fields would also face massive share drops since there products would become less viable now. Sure, more cars would be sold (as cars became massively cheaper to run) but I doubt this would outweight the depression the oil industry would face. Similarly, the treasury would need to raise taxes everywhere else to make up for the billions lost.

So how much value has this gentlemans additive "created"? To me it'd be brilliant (although it'd probably feck our atmosphere indefinitely) and certainly has massively increased the longterm productive power of humanity, but the financial effects aren't so clear.

My point is that financial effects (value created destroyed or created) aren't easy to equate to economic value.

This shows an utter and fundamental lack of understanding of any economics, I'm sorry to say. If Sweden have cheap coal, but a lack of fish, and Norway have cheap fish, but a lack of coal, then me running a transport service between Norway and Sweden, basically just importing and exporting goods, then I am creating huge amounts of value. If someone invents a superduper dvd2 player that earns him/her 100 billion units of money, then he's created 100 billion units of value. Where exactly in this system this surplus value ends up (or does not end up; despite massive superconsumerism, most value just cycles) can vary, but my bets would be on raw materials producers, the workers in the dvd2 factories, the distributors and transporters, and of course on the end consumer, who after all gets a dvd2 player, something he values more than the money it cost.

The fact that money isn't created out of thin air, doesn't mean that value isn't created. Money is just the SYMBOL for value, and most governments try to make sure the amount of money in the economy, and the amount of value in the same economy, matches pretty evenly. You might have noticed that banks are actually willing to give you money for being allowed to hold your money, and similarilly charges you money for lending you money. This is because value is constantly being created.

Now, in a true capitalism, the values created and enjoyed would not be mere material goods, but rather anything that any individual value. For any trade, the sum value, the sum Hedons, to use a term a philosophy prof once used, increases. We are both better off. The objective sum of subjective goodness increases. The fact that money were involved (if they were involved) just means that at some point in the transfer, one party owed the other something. That's all that money is. A bookkeeping system for debts. Anyway, assuming our perfect capitalism has no delay on trades, then it will reach an equilibrium where no further trade is possible, where value in the system is maximized. Then it will be easy to see what really creates value in a system. Cause what is it people will keep trading? Work! Each unit of time that comes to us, we can do work, animals can do work, plants can do work, the sun can do work, and any other tool can do work. In a free perfect capitalism, the type of work that is done is always determined by what work will maximize net subjective value created for the owner of the tool (whether the tool is the brains an body of the individual in question, or factories around the world owned by him/her) after trading has reached it's new equilibrium. In a communistic perfect capitalism, the type of work that is done is determined by what work would create the most objectively summed subjective value.

I think I've been typing as I think again, I must have lost the plot pages ago. What are we debating again? Oh, public responsibility of government. Well, people are responsible for what their government do, since the governed is the government. I believe the pacifist creed, there is no coercion. You can't be told what to do, you have no choice but to choose freely from the alternatives. If a nation does something, it's the individuals of the nation that does something. The people that tell themself they are making decisions, and the people telling themselfs they are just doing as they're told, are all just part of a massive selfrationalization and selfjustification project, emergent from the sum denial of the individuals involved. You're responsible for what you do. End of debate.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tactitus
And scarcity depends on what? It's not just random chance that Doctors are scarcer than truckers.

I don't count scarcity or pricetags whatsoever in my definition of value. My value speaks of the intrinsic value of something. To me, the most valuable thing would be air, then water, then food, then clothing, then shelter, then probably either medical care or information.

Intrinsic properties of things very rarely affect price tags. Normally, it is extrinsic properties that are more important for price tags, like scarcity and expense of production.

Originally posted by Tactitus
But someone else would be available--that's the whole point. Docters are too valuable as doctors; so people from other professions would be converted to truckers.

This is in a trucker/doctor society.

Originally posted by Tactitus
Well, no, there is no filling order (except maybe in some kind of a state-controlled society). People pick their own professions, for the most part, based on salaries and their own abilities, interests and opportunities.

visual:
society as a giant human pyramid.
The higher it reaches, the better off that entire society is. The society will always naturally fill out the base (farmers etc.) before it puts people up off the ground (doctors). It is those at the top that most visibly make things in society better, but it is those they stand on that allow them to do so.

In our society, the base etc. have been completely filled to overflowing for so long we don't even give it a second thought. But that doesn't mean they aren't important, it just means that that very valuable need has already been completely covered.

In an absolutely perfect counterpoint to what you said, the only society that will not follow this model is the state-controlled one. E.g., in north korea they have no food, yet they have a thriving nuclear weapons industry. This is not 'natural.'

Originally posted by queball
...

See, this is all economics. I am definitely talking about a different value than any type of economist, because I'm not touching economic value at all. My 'value' would remain unchanged even if there was no one else left on earth, but there would be no economics.

As soon as you make the basic economic assumption that you can exchange something for something else, then something which has no intrinsic value whatsoever (money) suddenly is just as extrinsically valuable as somthing you do value (food).

I was discussing the sociology of how a society always obtains what it intrinsically values before anything else, and tactitus was discussing how economically society pays more for things that have a higher extrinsic value. These two things are very rarely related.

So, farmers are more intrinsically valuable because what they produce is more directly needed,

Doctors are more extrinsically valuable because
A) They are rarer
B) Not everyone can be a doctor
C) They are expensive to train
D) They have huge insurance payments to make
so they get more money, because economics (which is what writes out paychecks) is a purely extrinsic subject (as it should be).

But I see all people on the pyramid as being of equal moral value.

[queball]

"Value" is economics jargon, so it's bound to confuse people. Utility is a good word for what you might mean, but then you get those damned utilitarian overtones. You might be confusing the profession with the worker - while farmers in general are important, each farmer is much less important that each doctor, imo. It's important there are people who choose each of these careers, but it would be much more useful if more people trained to be doctors. The thing is, we already have a system with lots of farmers and lots of doctors, and all our value judgements do is hopefully optimise the markets for each. But if you want to say that every section of society is valuable to you, that's cool.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by queball
"Value" is economics jargon, so it's bound to confuse people. Utility is a good word for what you might mean, but then you get those damned utilitarian overtones.

yeah. that's why i switched to the whole 'intrinsic' 'extrinsic' deal. it's frustrating because even when there are the correct words available, they usually have associations that you really don't want (i.e., value is always associated with economics).

Originally posted by queball
You might be confusing the profession with the worker - while farmers in general are important, each farmer is much less important that each doctor, imo. It's important there are people who choose each of these careers, but it would be much more useful if more people trained to be doctors. The thing is, we already have a system with lots of farmers and lots of doctors, and all our value judgements do is hopefully optimise the markets for each.

all true, but caused by extrinsic circumstances.

extrinsically, we have more food than we need, so losing a farmer wouldn't hurt. extrinsically, the ratio of farmers to others is about 50-1, doctors to others is (making up) 500-1, so one less doctor effects 500 where one less farmer effects 50.

but in my intrinsics, you can choose to forego food from now on or forego medical care from now on. unless you are suicidal, you will always take the food.

Originally posted by queball
"But if you want to say that every section of society is valuable to you, that's cool.

I wouldn't say that. Criminals and those lawyers who just start lawsuits for every reason etc. are all less valuable.

But what I actually want to say I have barely hinted at so far.
It's this:
Sometimes someone who is way at the top of this society (perhaps the inventor or the scientist) is able to reach something that nobody else ever could before.

And when they look at all those beneath, sometimes they say "I created this. What right do any of you have to take some of it away from me?"

And then all those other people, who went to all that work to put him up there, have every reason and right to teach the ungrateful son of a bitch a lesson.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by acropolis
But what I actually want to say I have barely hinted at so far.
It's this:
Sometimes someone who is way at the top of this society (perhaps the inventor or the scientist) is able to reach something that nobody else ever could before.

And when they look at all those beneath, sometimes they say "I created this. What right do any of you have to take some of it away from me?"

And then all those other people, who went to all that work to put him up there, have every reason and right to teach the ungrateful son of a bitch a lesson.

What "work" did do they do to put him "up" there? Sell him food and clothing?

If I sell you a pencil and you use it write a popular novel, am I entitled to some of your royalties? Get real.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tactitus
What "work" did do they do to put him "up" there? Sell him food and clothing?

If I sell you a pencil and you use it write a popular novel, am I entitled to some of your royalties? Get real.

if they didn't sell you food and clothing, then you would have spent your time making your own, and probably never would have had time to write.

but more specifically in this case, i would guess that being taught to read and write was very helpful to you in the pursuit of writing.

so then i would say that the society gets a couple % of what you earn (call it a 'tax') so that they can teach the next generation to read and write.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by acropolis
if they didn't sell you food and clothing, then you would have spent your time making your own, and probably never would have had time to write.

I don't understand. They were paid for the food and clothing. What kind of racket is this that they can come back later and shake me down for more?

but more specifically in this case, i would guess that being taught to read and write was very helpful to you in the pursuit of writing.

so then i would say that the society gets a couple % of what you earn (call it a 'tax') so that they can teach the next generation to read and write.

Another argument for private education.

[Vanilla]

This thread is a great read.

good work!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tactitus
If I sell you a pencil and you use it write a popular novel, am I entitled to some of your royalties? Get real.

"Entitled" is the kind of word I'd personally like to get away from when discussing economics. I'm certainly not going to "demand" that I have any of your royalties (not that I support royalties, etc, etc) but at the same time, I'm going to read a free copy that I download off the internet. You can shout about this being an evil theft of your property, but unless you start envoking the authoratarian power of the state (rather anti-libertarian) to monitor, capture and punish me, you're screwed.

The very arguments you've outlined are the reasons why I don't support a redistributive tax system under capitalism. It does leave itself open to claims that we are effectively "extorting" money from people who rightfully had it in the first place. To me, I find your money (not your money personally of course, you being the general producer) to be a product of various networks of production, pretty much all of which rely on either ownership of land (illegitimate imho) or some sort of intellectual property (which I certainly wouldn't want the state to be defending).

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tactitus
I don't understand. They were paid for the food and clothing. What kind of racket is this that they can come back later and shake me down for more?

If the society was smart, then upon joining you would have had to agree that in exchange for all the benefits being a part of the society has, you would upon creating something give a portion back.

If you never made such a promise, then twas quite the dumb society, and you are right.

Originally posted by Tactitus
Another argument for private education.

Because so many great countries only offer private education.

Really, the (bottom line, point, main thing etc., I've used them all already this thread. Maybe that should tell me something.) is that you and society were both necessary in the writing of this book. I'm not going to try to put percentiles down, but without either one of you, it never would have been written.