|
|
|
|
|
|
by kmm
3438 days ago
|
|
|
When enforcing the access to scarce natural resources or paying someone only part of what their labor is worth, you're enjoying more than just the value of your own efforts. It is way less natural that owning a toothbrush or a laptop. I can image a society where the first is considered ridiculous. The second, not so much |
|
|
We could require all owners of property to pay rent for their use of natural resources, at a rate commensurate with the value of said natural resources, and there would still be trillions of dollars worth of private property, and socialists claiming a right to an equal share of it based on some contrived justification.
>or paying someone only part of what their labor is worth, you're enjoying more than just the value of your own efforts.
If someone voluntarily gives you more labour than what you pay them for, that's still a voluntary transaction, and anything you earn from that labour is legitimately yours. If you build me a shed in exchange for $1, because you're such a generous guy, I still have full rights to that shed. Of course in most cases people do not accept a job that pays them below market rates.
I assume you're implying that profits are the surplus value of labour that is unfairly provided to employers, which is simple Marxist ignorance.
Profits are the compensation the employer earns for the organisation and capital they provide. Labour is worth whatever its market price is, not whatever revenues are generated in enterprises where it's employed.
It's sad that I have to debunk 150 year old Marxist fairy tales on hackernews.