1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8093/does-money-taint-everything/

Does Money Taint Everything?

May 8, 2008 by

Let’s pull this sentence out of the civic pieties of our time and see what’s wrong with it: “We should all volunteer our time in charitable causes and give back to the community in a labor of love.”

We can’t argue with the instruction here, or the sentiment behind it. There is nothing wrong with giving and sacrifice. My argument is with the choice of language. It contains a word and three phrases the common usage of which can be highly misleading. FULL ARTICLE

{ 205 comments }

newson May 21, 2008 at 1:29 am

tom says:
“Monopolies get fat, dumb and happy and sooner or later go belly-up, even if they have some special leverage. Yet that is not justice because it leaves many victims when it happens, none of which were those responsible, those who profited greatly for many years.

repeated studies have shown that beautiful women get significant advantages in life over their less-comely cousins. this is unfair. we should disfigure them and even the playing field!

the toyota/chevy comparison is similar to the sandstone/slate argument. if my mate squeezes his standstone buyers too much, they’ll substitute for other materials. likewise, the japanese lacked all the resource advantages of the americans, and yet still prevailed, thanks to the higher quality control, more desired models etc etc.

CallMeBlu May 26, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Owen:

“The state is a group of people. It is those people who both decide and enforce the rights. They can also give them or take them away.”

Individuals either have rights or they do not(according to how I define the term). The state recognizes and infringes on a persons rights; they are not something to be given or taken away.

“You are living in la la land.”

Strange words coming from a kid who thinks the free market is some malevolent entity that literally snatches food from the hands of the poor and places it in the ownership of the rich(and therefore greedy, evil, etc.)

Nemo March 2, 2009 at 8:04 am

No, no, and NO!

Property is not a basic fundamental right!

Nor is it the measure of man or of his work.

Think about this example…

There is an industry. It’s propiertary is a man who inherited it from his father. He hasn’t worked to get it. Yet, he doesn’t has to do anything to keep it and get more money from it contantly. All he has to do is pay minimum salary to his workers. They do all the job. He just pays and sits.

Of course, they could decide not to work for him… or can they? If the choice is to work or starve, there hardly is any choice at all. So their choice is live as slaves with barely enoght money to subsist (while a rich person gets richer with their work, by him doing nothing) or to die of hunger.

Or they could seize control of the factory? No… the state would prevent it. The capitalist free-market state would intervene in favor of the rich guy in order to “preserve his property”!

And one will keep to live as a king by doing nothing, while the ones that do something and build his wealth continue to be poor.

¡Hurray for “free market” economy! -ironic- (case one of 19389207832784)

Enjoy Every Sandwich March 2, 2009 at 10:19 am

Without the fundamental right of property, there would be no factories to fight over.

Think on it; how would you even get one built? The building materials would be taken as soon as they arrive at the site. After all, nobody owns them so they’re fair game.

Nemo March 6, 2009 at 6:04 pm

There would be factories with colective or social right to property; workers could organize autonomoulsly to build and operate a factory and distribute the economic profit from it. So, why is this not the dominant form of production? Peharps is less competitive because of its democratic and equalitary nature; but the predominant reason is that the system allows and avals some individuals to take advantage and exploit the “less fortunate” situation of others and make profit of it (many poor working for the richness of few), instead of advocating and faciliitating ways of work that distribute the income (for example, there are a lot of facilities from the government and banks to give credits and money to corporate conglomerades, but none, -and its even discouraged- to give credits to worker’s associations, or community projects, who may have lots of stagnated proyects because they lack the initial capital neccesary and the system wont provide it).

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: