workers
well: those earning income through commerce, and also government employees …
no wait, thats not what i think, thats someone elses answer.
Paying taxes, and tax-consumption are two different things that must not, for the sanity of economics, equivocated because by doing so you are left with only paying taxes, yet that leaves out the fact that all who pay taxes are tax-consumers, but they are tax-consumers of different magnitude. While every single, American citizen (for simplicity’s sake) is a tax-payer, American citizens differ as to their tax-consumption. The world is not a manichaen conflict between government-employees, and private citizens, tax-consumption is something that every single citizen does, and ergo the model, and depth of tax-consumption must be able to be applied to every single citizen. Your abuse of Occam’s razor leads to the fallacious conclusion that it is only those who are paid directly by the government are tax-consumers while, in reality, tax-consumption is far more ubiquitous: every singe time a citizen drives down a government-owned road, he is a tax-consumer.
In the modern state, everybody is a tax-consumer.
Wealth of nations advances all sort of ‘political’ and by the way anti-freedom agendas such as public education, some monopolies, nationalism, etc. It also criticizes mercantilism.
Really, you can deny that political economy is about politics all you want, but it’s like denying the blueness of the sky.
not everyone is a NET tax-consumer. why the fetish for petty accounting?
Politics can be understood in two general senses: either the running of society, or the judgments of value related to the running of society; politics need not be an action, it can be an idea alone (for instance, when speaking of that person’s politics).
Because I demand a very robust analysis of a situation that takes into consideration every small factor possible.
ok, well lets just make sure that we are only quibbling and not radically disagreeing.
are government employees without private means NET tax consumer , or not, can you not say?
Under most circumstances, government-employees are net tax-consumers.
oh look. peace has broken out again.
Peace has ‘broke’ out [:O]
So my comment about the economical class structure of tax-providers and tax consumers still stands.
Why not?
Its fallacious because everyone, in the modern state, is a tax-consumer.
You just admitted that there are net tax consumers. Also please explain how everyone is a tax consumer.
You know I peed a little laughing…
The proletariat workers…
the whole paradigm of proletariat has been discredited by marxists themselves (frankfurt school). the immeseration theory is BS. as you can see the reason pizzaboys are immeserated and unix sysadmins are not is because of supply and demand. sure there’s state-capitalist shananigans- but dentists are never gonna be bayoneted by troopers while asking for a living wage- NOT because they have access to means of production- but because they have leverage in terms of their skills.
so essentially there is no such a thing as all workers compromising a class of the proletariat. and frankly proletariat can never run the show- many of them are narrow-minded petty idiots ( i worked with many and most of them are very ignorant of economics). sure they physicly build bridges and tunnels, but without finance and capital investment all that manpower is useless.
Without manpower, all your investments are useless.
I think that yes, a libertarian revolution could be called a worker’s revolution. Libertarians believe we have a right to exclusive ownership of our earnings. The labor theory of property is an important part of libertarian ideas.
See also my post called “I am a socialist”
in a libertarian sense, all producers are workers. capitalists are workers too. in a marxist sense only workers are the producers and capitalists are appropriators. confusing the two is dangerious.