News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:An Analysis of Motivations for Income Redistribution [pdf] by sokoloff on Friday September 09, 2016 @07:52PM (#12466868)
> No, the choice to produce cars is not nothing. It's an act; owning land ( as opposed to buying it ) is not an act.

The choice to produce cars seems analogous to the choice to buy land.

Once that choice is implemented, owning a factory (or share of a factory) seems no more and no less active nor noble than owning a piece of land.

Re:An Analysis of Motivations for Income Redistribution [pdf] by ArkyBeagle on Friday September 09, 2016 @08:18PM (#12466986)
Yes - those acts in themselves are indeed acts. But!

One can then own land without actually doing anything with it - you can let it out at rates for others to use. You can't just let a car factory sit. And if you just own the building and land, and do nothing else, then yes- you're just charging rents. But generally owners have to work to own a factory, if at nothing else than making operation policy decisions.

Perhaps a trip thru "Poverty and Progress" is in order? George is better at this than I am.

Re:An Analysis of Motivations for Income Redistribution [pdf] by sokoloff on Friday September 09, 2016 @08:44PM (#12467079)
I own 0.000012584948% of all the factories that Ford owns (500 shares of F) and I've never done a lick of work nor made a single decision for them. I own a similar tiny slice of many other factories. All perfectly passive for me.