Because he was paid to do mowing on property other than his own, the tractor and mower were no longer considered to be tax-exempt farm equipment, and were subject to a 25% property tax. That’s 25% of the ORIGINAL COST, not the current, depreciated value. County tax officials never did to understand that if the farmer pays 25% of the priginal cost every 4 years, he has just re-purchased all of his own equipment at the new equipment cost, no matter the current condition the equipment. And because the tractor and mower are now considered commercial property, all of his OTHER farm equipment lost it’s tax exempt status and was also subjected to 25% property tax.

Eventually, the farmer turned 62 and filed for social security. He closed his bushhogging business, thereby eliminating all the commercial property taxes on the vehicles he still owned, but that were now considered tax-exempt farm equipment. He closed his commercial fence building business and all of that equipment also became tax-exempt farm equipment. His wife, several years younger than he, started a lawn mowing business using all of her husband’s equipment from his former lawn mowing business, keeping all of his former clients and hiring younger men at a lower rate than her husband would have worked for, but still charged the same price for mowing. The customers never noticed a difference, as the farmer’s wife hired her husband to supervise the work if he felt the need, the farmer saved thousands of dollars per year by not re-buying used, worn out farm equipment, and the younger men made a good wage working for a fair boss who made them all cookies every Christmas.

And the farmer’s wife? She and her husband seldom leave their farm, preferring instead to spend their time playing with their grandchildren, feeding the hens and goats and tossing sticks to their dogs.

The End.

Why should I invent or work or take risks for profits I am to be allowed–”allowed,” mind you!–to keep only until coercive force can be applied by governments or individuals to wrest them from me? No. I won’t play under those conditions, and I will not be swayed by those who claim a right to my labor for any reason whatsoever.

I am under no obligation to be a beast of burden for others. If they choose not to pay me for my labor, whether of my mind or my muscles, I choose not to work to produce more than is necessary to supply my most basic needs.

There is nothing at all “selfish” in your stand, Tony. The selfishness and greed come from those who rob us for their own benefit (or perceived benefit, such as power)and the moral position is to refuse to cooperate.

Let us put this on a chickens and eggs basis. At present my chickens lay about five dozen eggs a day, far more than we and the hands can eat. I could kill the chickens to reduce the egg supply, but that would be pretty stupid. In theory I can sell eggs or give eggs away. However, the government has regulated our lives to the point that between the rigmarole and transportation and having to find someone to purvey my delicious range-free eggs (thereby benefiting himself and his customers) commerce on that scale is more trouble than it is worth. The excess eggs are worth, at fair market price, some $3/dozen. I would have expenses of time and money, and the store needs to make a profit, too. If I cleared ten dollars a day it would not be worth my time to fuss with. I don’t need $300/month enough to sacrifice my time and freedom to order my days as I wish. The local store misses out on superior merchandise that will draw customers, individuals do not have superior nutrition, and the government doesn’t get a dime. I don’t complicate my taxes, and the customers can purchase inferior eggs that have the government seal of approval.

Consequently, we feed eggs to the hogs and I give them away most generously to those whom I, myself, feel are worthy of either a treat or a little assistance when times are so hard. That is not my duty to “society,” it is my CHOICE. Those are MY eggs, produced by MY chickens, cared for with MY labor, and fed at MY expense (other than the bugs they delight in), and I don’t owe even one of them to anyone. Sorry, Tony, I’m not the fable-teller you are. I just know that I own the little red, white, and black hens and take care of them, and their fruit is the payment they give me for safety, food, water, and very nice lives. If the chickens do not like it they are free to run away. The appear to think that an egg every 26 hours from the hens and nothing except jumping the females from the males is a fair wage for what they produce. Those hens who wish to hatch their eggs and raise their chicks are allowed to do so. This is a nice, closed system of mutual benefit to both parties and the government and robbers have no place in it. Let ‘em go purchase their own chickens, build shelter, dispense grain, grit, and oyster shell, and worry about offensive government entitites that deny citizens the right to raise chickens if they want to. (Tacoma, Washington, actually passed an ordinance stating that chickens are not allowed in apartment buildings! Because one person complained about ONE pet chicken.) Where others get their eggs is of no concern to me, nor should it be. I solved my problem without hurting anyone else or taking what was theirs. It is high time people began solving their own problems and being responsible for their own behavior. If it is “moral” to demand that I support others, why is it not moral to demand that others support ME? Simply because I do not WANT anything that is mine? Annoyed sputter…no, because I have something worth taking. Therein consists their grasp of “morality,” that they should have what they want without effort, investment, or thought, relying upon brute force. It does not matter whether that force is the IRS, a state sales tax, or a burglar. Why should I fake reality for those who lack moral value, in this sense, at my cost? I should not; I damage them when I allow them to think that eggs grow on trees. If the world holds it has a right to what is mine, let the world figure out how to force me to produce an excess. Let the world figure out how to keep me from destroying that excess before I will be treated as a milk cow. Sigh…I have lived a long life of community service and generosity and I grow weary of being told that I am immoral. I quit. Throwing eggs is a great deal of fun and I have plenty of land so I won’t have to smell the result. For all I know Bass and Catfish like to eat eggs and would appreciate it if I threw some in our lakes. Perhaps there are dysfunctional fish who are not able to find their own food. Is it, then, my responsibility to feed them, as well? No, it wouldn’t be. Survival of the fittest, and I refuse to cater to those who think that means paying off those who throw the most fits. If I don’t want to pay for Tony’s hypothetical cure I should order my life to stay healthy, or study until I am able to invent my own cure, or just ask him nicely because he might be willing to swap for a lifetime supply of fresh eggs every week. Tony owes me NOTHING. The products of his mind, his money, and his efforts belong to HIM, not to ME. I think that is a fine state of affairs. I am not a child and I refuse to be a chattel, and those who think they can demand that I produce “according to my ability” so that they can take “according to someone else’s need” (supporting themselves lavishly in the process) can guess again. No, I cannot fight city hall, certainly not all by myself, but I can definately sit down and read a good book instead of working to produce for others. They’ll find someone else to steal from, spouting the fradulent morality that masks their greed and inability to think clearly. Yes, I am very much in accord with Ayn Rand. I’m a trader. I trade my values and my ability and my work product for things of equal value. I do not accept unearned guilt. For every thing I have I gave up or did not purchase some other object I would have enjoyed. Let others show the same dedication to earning what they want that I do. Charity is the purview of families, individuals, and churches. It is NOT a proper pursuit for governments. It may be legal to take what is mine for the benefit of strangers, but it is not moral.

Let us take a far more stark case.

Someone has a terminal disease for which there is no cure.

I find a cure which I am willing to sell to anyone for $10,000. The cure “costs” $1.00 to make. I have the only cure available (a monopoly).

The person with the disease doesn’t have $10,000.

You will note that if I had NOT developed the cure, the person is in a certain position. Without the $10,000 he is in exactly the same position.

Does his position (need) allow him to lay claim to my property? May he go to the government, court, etc. and demand that I sell my property to him at a price he can afford?

If he can, then who REALLY owns the cure?

Clearly, I am being selfish, greedy, etc in not giving him the cure. The question is, “Do I have the right to be selfish, greedy, etc and not give him the cure.”

These are very serious philosophical questions which in our haste to “do good”, we ignore. Our philosophers have deserted us, as have our institutions (government, church, press, civic groups) in their desire to please the masses and be popular and get re-elected.

If you look at the implications of taking my property forcibly for someone else’s need and extrapolate them, you get a most unpleasant situation. For one thing, you get things like the Kelo decision.

p.s. As an aside, suppose I do sell the cure to him for $10. Have I not set the price of the cure? How do I charge the NEXT PERSON enough to get my development costs, etc.

1. Yes there are economies of scale, and if the savings are passed to the consumer, that is all to the good. There may be (economic) “barriers to entry”, but if the profits are there, others will join in. The “barriers to entry” of most concern are those imposed by the political order, often at the request of the monopoly.

As long as the feed back loops are left intact, there is little concern (on my part) about capitalism “working”. As the costs go UP, people stop buying and profits suffer. If the costs and profits go up sufficiently, others are drawn into the industry and competition insures that the price will go down. When the feedback loops experience interference, no telling what will happen.

2. At this time, we don’t know if “unfettered capitalism” works or not. Much like “true” communism, it hasn’t been tried. The closest we have come is the late 1800s and early 1900s where this country saw the greatest rise in the standard of living ever achieved.

3. You state that the purpose of government is to reduce “excess profits”. I question this. For one thing, government does not have the expertise to do it. To WHOM would these “excess profits” accrue? I have yet to see a definition of “excess” profits. Much like the left’s rather common expression “obscene profits”, I am at a loss to know just what it means.

One man takes $10,000 and puts it into a CD. Another takes $10k and opens a business.

Case #1. The man that opened the business goes broke; the other one makes an “obscene profit” of $200.
Case #2. The man who opened the business does well and sells the business for $100k. He makes an “obscene profit” of $90k.

Where is the consideration for risk, work, expertise, hours worked, ROI, etc. taken into account? HOW would the government take this into account?

4. Let us consider a true monopoly for a moment. Let us assume that the monopoly produces “shoes” and presently the population either has no shoes or makes their own shoes. The monopoly produces the shoes and the citizens have a choice–they can buy the shoes or not buy the shoes. If they choose not to buy the shoes, they are no worse off than before. If they choose to buy the shoes, they may. It is THEIR money and THEIR choice. On what basis does anyone or any organization (including the government) determine that the price is too high or (in the case of fair trade laws) too low?

I don’t think you will like the answer, but I will tell you–they will decide on the basis of political pull, bribes, extortion, “muscle”, who you know, how many votes you can deliver, campaign contributions, etc. Isn’t that how it is done today? Can you give me ANY rational basis for the “corn for methanol” program?

5. For the most part, I don’t agree that monopolies are inherently evil–if the feedback loops (controls) are in place. A monopoly is a “thing”. Much like a car, a gun, sulphuric acid, or anything else, it is totally amoral.

The obvious exception is one of the biggest monopolies of all–the federal government. We have “diddled” with the checks and balances (feedback loops) so much that we now have essentially an unregulated monopoly. By gerrymandering the districts, we lost the power to throw the bums out, and by “packing” the supreme court, we lost the restrictions imposed on them by the Constitution.

The obvious question is: Why do you believe it is proper and desirable for an “evil” monopoly to regulate businesses which are monopolies? or CLAIMED to be monopolies? (e.g. Exxon) Why do you believe that an “evil monopoly” is even CAPABLE of setting fair rates, and will not be subject to all the foibles of a business monopoly?

Matter of fact, Oliver, just look around at the actions of the past year or so. Are THESE the folks you want regulating business? Are these not the actions of a group of people who have gone a bit crazy with unregulated power? Is this not what you would expect from an unregulated monopoly.

How do we make phosphorus matches?

I’m such a rebel! If the government doesn’t want me to have it, I want it. WHAT, pray tell, was the justification for a 100% tax on phosphorus matches? Other than who in Congress had business interests there or were amenable to bribes? Was it, perchance, a business that thrived in the South? What was the year?

Talk about the Sullivan Act, please, which was pushed through to favor one faction of the dock wars in NYC!

And don’t forget to tell me how to make my own matches, just in case I ever need to know, please. LBT

No quarrel. I totally agree. The question is, “Are economic dislocations undesireable?”

Let us make the assumption that the over-riding consideration is the best interests of the consumer. (Not necessarily what the consumer “desires”.)

Theoretically, if a monopoly developes, it will result in great efficiency and lower prices. This is good for the consumer.

If the monopoly abuses the situation and begins to charge excessive prices, then some other entity when observing the great profits, will enter the field, resulting in competition and reduced prices. This also is good for the consumer.

In general, it is when you introduce government to curtail competition that the consumer “gets hurt”.

In any system with negative feedback (e.g. the economy), there is no “long run” problem as the feedback system will work to resolve the problems if the system is allowd to work without intervention.

In the above parable/fable/wotever the shoemaker was operating in a monopoly, charging $20 for a pair of shoes. It never occurred to the shoemaker to try to operate more efficiently, hire more people, mass produce, etc. Competition arrived in the form of Tom, which reduced the price of shoes. In a “free society”, the shoemaker would have gone broke, gone to work for Tom, made more money, and supplied the population with shoes.

If profits were excessive, someone else would have come along and invented a better (or as good) machine. As it was, the power of government was brought to bear to stifle competition (some would call it regulation).

Eventually, business cannot defend itself from government. As Ross Perot said, “That giant sucking sound is all the jobs leaving the United States.” Tom went to another city; much of our industry is going overseas.

(It goes back quite a ways. The makers of sulfur matches got Congress to place a 2 cent per hundred tax on phosphorus matches. Since matches cost 2 cents/hundred, it destroyed the phosphorus match industry. Government was used to free the sulphur match industry from competition. AND, THERE IS THE RUB. Under the guise of “fairness”, or “regulation”, or some other pretext, government is used to curtail and regulate the COMPETITION.