Maybe there’s another way of looking at the ancap vs ancom debate.

  • Ancaps live in the world of classical economics, where the big question is how to allocate scarce resources in the face of unlimited wants.
  • Ancoms live in the world of welfare economics, where the big question is how to achieve and sustain abundance.

Each has an ethical grounding which is inseparable from the question their economic thinking addresses.

  • Ancoms are worried about people being cut out of prosperity and opportunity in a world which can be made to provide for all.

The dividing line which determines which offers the more just and practical ideas depends on whether we think of ourselves as primarily facing scarcity or abundance.

I don’t think so! Ancoms believe that what a person makes is not the maker’s property and can rightfully be taken.

Maybe. The moment someone develops a 3D Star Trek replicator, I’ll switch sides. Until then, Capitalism and property rights will have to do.

Austrian economics denies the idea of limited resources, Review it. So what you say about ancaps and the reason of stealing is wrong. I am just saying that you conclude things from false principles, the argument of having or not limited resources is not what i am talking about.

The owner of capital can earn without working. The essential human function of exchange of effort for income can become the abstracted manipulation of money for more money. This is most obvious in the case of the absentee owner of an industrial enterprise. It does not make any difference whether he owns the whole enterprise, or only a share of it. In each case he makes a profit from his capital and from the work of others without having to make any effort himself. There have been many pious justifications for this state of affairs. It has been said that the profits were a payment for the risk he takes in his investment, or for his self-depriving effort to save, which enabled him to accumulate the capital he can invest.

But it is hardly necessary to prove that these marginal factors do not alter the elementary fact that Capitalism permits the making of profits without personal effort and productive function.

But even as far as those who do work and perform services, their income is not in any reasonable correlation to the effort they make.

A schoolteacher’s earnings are but a fraction of those of a physician, in spite of the fact that her social function is of equal importance and her personal effort hardly less. The miner earns a fraction of the income of the manager of the mine, though his personal effort is greater if we consider the dangers and discomforts connected with his work

The worker, or rather his labor, was a commodity to be bought by the owner of capital, not essentially different from any other commodity on the market, and it was used to its fullest capacity by the buyer.

Since it had been bought for its proper price on the labor market, there was no sense of reciprocity, or of any obligation on the part of the owner of capital, beyond that of paying the wages.

If hundreds of thousands of workers were without work and on the point of starvation, that was their bad luck, the result of their inferior talents, or simply a social and natural law, which could not be changed. Exploitation was not personal any more, but it had become anonymous, as it were. It was the law of the market that condemned a man to work for starvation wages, rather than the intention or greed of any one individual. Nobody was responsible or guilty, nobody could change conditions either. One was dealing with the iron laws of society, or so it seemed

If a worker of a factory, that’s on a verge of a collapse gets evacuated, and sees what’s going on (every day), and they ask them to get back to work the next day, or they won’t pay, if he does go to work – isn’t he simply valuing his money more than his life? I mean, in such a case, you can’t just say someone pushed them to risk their life. It’s like if I go run across a highway and die hit by a car, the car and the driver are to blame? I’m sorry but the whole idea of capitalism and freedom is that you get to choose but also you get to pay for your choices. Those workers decided to risk their lives for… money. Apparently those money were worth more than a life without them. And that’s obviously sad, but isn’t the problem rather the fact that their country doesn’t have laws and capitalism and freedom? Because in such, they could sue their employer? As for big companies and shareholders – they always choke to death on that business model. It never ever works. So, in the end capitalism solves its own problems.

A libertarian world would not function the way libertarians fantasize it would, I doubt it would function much at all. Libertarians are nearly as delusional as theists. And saying the internet was useless before the image tag just makes you look pathetic. All those caps, your getting shriller and shriller, probably sputtering and spewing cheeto crumbs all over the keyboard, mom’s gonna be pissed. Get back with me in a couple of decades when maybe you won’t be such a howling immature, ignorant prick. Me, i’m gonna go dig lint out of my navel, a far more intellectually stimulating activity than typing at the mewling anencephalics.

I don’t think of myself as a liberal, I’m more of a realist, which is why I’m not a libertarian, though that is closer to my leanings than liberal. Libertarian ideas are so incoherent and delusional it’s amazing so many intelligent folk fall into that cesspool. I’m terrible at math and statistics, that’s why I kept getting all those A’s and a few B’s in the numerous engineering and economics courses I took at university.

It isn’t business that creates wealth, it is technological advancement. If trading created wealth, why didnt it do so until we invented steam engines? They traded in the middle ages, they traded in china. Hell, we had the first multinational made in the Netherlands in the 1700’s, decades before the industrial revolution. Why didn’t that cause a massive increase in wealth? Simple, because your productivity per person depends on two things, resources and technological assistance.

Remember, leftist who actually have a grasp of economics and politics don’t oppose corporations and industry, they oppose the exploitation of workers by the “owners of the means of production”. Hence, they support socialism, which is the theory that the workers should own the means of production. Simply put, at the end of the month, you get an equal share of the profits, regardless of it you are the engineer, the mechanic or the janitor. This is similar to employee-owned stores.

I also don’t think resource equality is the answer, because individuals are driven by competition, and competition drives ingenuity, thus incentivation for ability and performance would have to exist.

A basic living allowance would be required that was not negatively subtracted as you found ways to produce more. In general people enjoy working and being part of a community of people if their basic needs have been met.

The US welfare system is a negative gain system, where assistance starts off too low to survive, and is then adjusted downward for every income step upwards that a person takes.

This deicentivizes them from personal ingenuity and work. So It can’t be a negative gain system, it must be a stable pay model, that allows for a person to maintain the same standard living wage while obtaining other sources of monetary gain.

There is a theoretical model (Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs) that conceptualizes the basic needs a human requires before higher level functions can take place. For example: If someone is starving they will try to eat their clothing such as leather shoes and belts (this has been found in multiple historical accounts, e.g. Pizaro, Peru expedition), thus food is the most basic need, with clothing and shelter comming next. After these, comes social contacts, friendships, intimacy.

The final step is self realization: Once higher level social bonding has developed, and physical needs are consistently maintained, a person is able to expand into self realization, which ultimately leads to the natural desire to contribute and be a part of the community – this is where raw skills and abilities are identified and honed in order to make marketable and desired things by the community. This is where the expression of genius can best take place. This is also one reason why crime and poverty walk hand in hand.

Such as the socioeconomic status (SES) that a person is born into. Currently, those with a higher SES are much more likely to get a better education and have the base social contacts necessary for upward mobility. It will most likely be these people who will be making the robots and AI chips that will lead to the dismantling of current job markets and the permanent loss of the sum total jobs contained in those markets.

Those born to lower SES families will be more likely to be displaced in these events. The proportion of people that will move up from the SES they were born into (upward mobility) is currently lower than it has ever been in the US. Which means that with out a change in the status quo, we can already predict largely who these people will be. Even wolves share their food.

The tougher will take more, but they will only take what they need and allow the others to have the rest. Our current state of affairs with technological evolution and proprietary ownership of the technological advancements is akin to a wolf having the ability to kill all the deer in a given forest without help, and then not allowing any of the other wolves to share in the spoils.

All of the forests have hundreds of wolves, but now there are only one or two who can kill in this way. Either we learn to share in days of plenty, or we let all of the other wolves in the forest die.

The ability to create the device that can take away jobs from thousands of workers is not due to divine providence or genetic superiority, and the inheritance of these assets certainly isn’t. So do we remain conservative and maintain the status quo or do we question ourselves and our current paradigm of resource distribution in order to find a better way to progress into this new century.

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:


You are commenting using your account. Logout / Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s