The Official, State-mandated FAQ by LibSocs for "An"Caps

[Noor]

What's my incentive to maintain a variety of specialized tools in good working order if I'm not going to make a profit from them?

If you 'maintain' them by doing labor, sell them off for a little more than what you bought them for, instead of sitting around extracting a continuous flow of money and still having ownership over them at the end.

If you don't want to sell them off, keep them or lend them to a friend for free or a one-time gift.

[Brad Reddekopp]

What's your incentive to do anything if you don't stand to make a profit from it?

Personal satisfaction. However, one also needs to make a living.

[Brad Reddekopp]

If you hate equality and freedom, sure.

It might be nice if everyone was equal and the world was fair. It might also be nice if hornets gave you chocolate kisses instead of injecting you with venom.

[Hierophant]

What's your incentive to do anything if you don't stand to make a profit from it?

Personal satisfaction. However, one also needs to make a living.

Which is entirely different from the concept of profit, unless you're using the wonky "profit=any and all benefit" definition...

[Hierophant]

It might be nice if everyone was equal and the world was fair. It might also be nice if hornets gave you chocolate kisses instead of injecting you with venom.

An naked accusation of lack of realism only has strength if one already believes that the concept is not realistic.

[Brad Reddekopp]

All one has to do to understand that people are not equal is to look at people. It utterly baffles me that you would think otherwise.

[Hierophant]

Ah, the old inequality of abilities argument? Inequality of abilities coupled with inequality of appointments (jobs) equals equality between workers. There's always work available to roughly match a person's abilities. I've already argued that on my blog.

[Brad Reddekopp]

Ah, the old inequality of abilities argument? Inequality of abilities coupled with inequality of appointments (jobs) equals equality between workers. There's always work available to roughly match a person's abilities. I've already argued that on my blog.

That makes some sense if all jobs are equally valuable. I don't see that they are.

[Hierophant]

"valuable"? To who?

[MustangGT]

The fixed payment refers SOLELY to payment for work done. NOT for any usurious purpose. You can't charge just any fixed amount to someone.

And how is that payment amount determined?

As far as I can tell, your moral analysis consists solely of mumbling "time preference." It's embarrassing.

As far as I can tell, your moral analysis consists solely of mumbling "full value of labor." It's embarrassing.

Seriously though, can you give a more substantive answer? Why not explain to me why my time preference claim is invalid and embarrassing?

[MustangGT]

Are you sure there is NO other incentive to share resources?

No, but that doesnt necessarily invalidate my claim. Im open to other incentives. Can you come up with any more incentives?

Time preference is often expressed as a function of one's bank account balance.

Let's say you are fucking starving right now. Would you rather eat immediately, or starve 7 more days for a 1000 times more food delivered to you then?

I would choose the former.

[MustangGT]

If you don't want to sell them off, keep them or lend them to a friend for free or a one-time gift.

That leads to favoritism of the well-connected socially. Friends using connections to get resources is also known as corruption. It takes form in things like nepotism, cronyism, and secret cabals of elites.

Free loaning of resources based on friendships leads to a centralization of wealth, which on page 4 you implied was a bad thing.

The truth is that centralization of wealth is not, in itself, bad or good.

Ownership, gifting, usury, and renting are all viable and moral means of trade and social interaction.

[MustangGT]

Ah, the old inequality of abilities argument? Inequality of abilities coupled with inequality of appointments (jobs) equals equality between workers. There's always work available to roughly match a person's abilities. I've already argued that on my blog.

Why have you abandoned completely the distinction between positive and negative rights since turning socialist?

[Hierophant]

How is that relevant to the issue at hand?

[Brad Reddekopp]

"valuable"? To who?

To those who are willing to pay. In a free society, if my hypothetical tool rental business is valuable to enough people, it will prosper and I will make some money. I don't see that any other justification is needed.