Marxism as Sophism: A Critical Examination of Labor as a Commodity
One of the central tenets of Marxism is the labor theory of value, which states that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially-necessary labor time required to produce it. In this framework, labor itself becomes a commodity—something that can be bought and sold in the marketplace. Marx argues that, under capitalism, workers are forced to sell their labor power to capitalists, who exploit them by paying wages that are less than the full value their labor produces. This difference—or “surplus value”—is appropriated by the capitalist as profit. However, this analogy between labor and commodities reveals deep flaws when examined critically.
The idea that labor is a commodity has been criticized in the works of many prominent economists, both from the Austrian school of economics and from others. Friedrich Hayek, in his work The Road to Serfdom (1944), offers a broader critique of socialist economic planning, which includes the Marxist treatment of labor as a commodity. Hayek’s critique of Marxism is that it leads to the centralization of power, where the state controls labor and other aspects of the economy. He argues that treating labor as a controlled commodity within a planned economy undermines individual freedom and leads to a form of “serfdom.”
According to Hayek, economic freedom, including the freedom to choose one’s work and negotiate wages, is essential for political freedom. His critique implies that the Marxist approach to labor, which treats it as a commodity to be controlled by the state, is fundamentally flawed and dangerous to individual liberty.
Karl Polanyi, in his influential work The Great Transformation (1944), introduces the concept of “fictitious commodities” to describe things like labor, land, and money that are treated as commodities in a market economy but are not truly commodities in the traditional sense. Polanyi argues that labor is a “fictitious commodity” because it is not produced for sale but is an inherent aspect of human life.
Polanyi criticizes the commodification of labor because it reduces human beings to mere inputs in the production process, ignoring their social and moral significance. He argues that treating labor as a commodity is unnatural and harmful, leading to social disintegration and exploitation.
Ludwig von Mises, in his work Human Action (1949), critiques the Marxist concept of labor as a commodity from the perspective of the Austrian school of economics. Mises argues that labor cannot be treated as a commodity in the same way as goods and services because it is intrinsically linked to human choice and action. Mises contends that labor is an expression of individual preferences and values, which cannot be reduced to a market price alone. He criticizes Marxist economics for failing to recognize the subjective nature of value in labor, arguing that labor is not a homogeneous commodity and varies in quality and value depending on the individual and the context.
This critique challenges the Marxist framework by asserting that labor cannot be commodified in the same way as physical goods. Mises’s emphasis on individual choice and the subjective theory of value suggests that Marx’s treatment of labor as a commodity is an oversimplification that ignores the complexity of human behavior and economic relationships.
The Strange Case of Labor as a Commodity
According to Marx, labor power is treated as a commodity that workers sell in exchange for wages. But this commodity is unlike any other. Marx himself acknowledges that labor power is unique because it is tied directly to human beings; it cannot be separated from the person who provides it. This intrinsic link between labor and the worker creates several contradictions in Marxist theory.
First, if labor power is a commodity, it is a very strange one indeed. According to Marx, this commodity is always sold below its value. In other words, workers are constantly selling their ability to work for less than it is worth, generating surplus value for the capitalist. But this raises a fundamental question: if labor is a commodity, why is it the only commodity that is consistently sold below its cost? In any other market, selling a commodity below its value would be considered an unsustainable business practice, leading to bankruptcy. Yet, in Marx’s theory, this is not only common but necessary for the functioning of capitalism.
This notion implies that workers are essentially “stupid businessmen” who sell their commodity—labor—at a loss, every working day. This characterization is not only demeaning but also illogical. It is difficult to conceive of any rational actor, let alone an entire class of people, who would consistently engage in such a self-defeating economic practice.
In other words, if we accept the premise that labor power is a commodity, then we must also accept that workers are engaged in a very peculiar form of business—one where they consistently accept less than the market value for their product. This runs counter to basic economic principles, where sellers seek to maximize the price they receive for their goods or services. The idea that an entire class of people would willingly and consistently sell their labor below its value defies logic and undermines the credibility of Marxist theory.
To illustrate the absurdity of treating labor as a commodity, consider the example of a self-employed plumber. A plumber who owns their tools and operates independently does not sell their labor power to a capitalist. Instead, they provide a service directly to customers and charge a fee for their work. In this scenario, the plumber is both the owner of the means of production (their tools and skills) and the provider of the service. They control the price of their labor and the conditions under which they work.
According to Marxist theory, however, this self-employed plumber would somehow be selling their labor power below its value, even though they set their own rates and work conditions. This makes little sense. The plumber, acting as their own “capitalist,” would naturally aim to charge a price that covers their costs and provides a profit margin. There is no inherent reason why their labor power should be sold below its value, and the concept of surplus value becomes irrelevant in this context. The self-employed plumber is not a “stupid businessman” but a rational economic actor who sets prices based on the value of their work.
The Socialist Experience: Selling Labor Below Cost
Marxists argue that the exploitation of labor is inherent to capitalism and that socialism would rectify this by abolishing private ownership of the means of production. However, the experience of socialist regimes, such as the Soviet Union, China under Mao, and Cuba, tell a different story.
Even in these ostensibly Marxist societies, workers continued to sell their labor power in exchange for wages. The state, rather than private capitalists, controlled the means of production and determined the distribution of surplus value. However, this did not eliminate the fundamental Marxist critique that labor was being sold below its value. In fact, Marxists would argue that this exploitation continued, with the state acting as the new capitalist, appropriating surplus value from the workers.
If workers under socialism continued to sell their labor below its value, then Marxism fails not only as a critique of capitalism but also as a guide for building a classless society. The persistence of this dynamic under socialism suggests that Marxism is deeply flawed, both in theory and in practice.
Marxism as Sophism
The entire Marxist framework rests on the premise that labor is a commodity. If labor is not a commodity, the logical consistency of Marxism collapses because its key concepts—surplus value, exploitation, contradictions in capitalism, and the inevitability of socialist revolution—lose their foundation.
If labor is not a commodity, then:
- Surplus value cannot be calculated in the way Marx described, undermining the concept of capitalist exploitation.
- Exploitation of workers, as Marx defined it, cannot occur if there is no surplus value being extracted from labor.
- The contradiction between productive forces and production relations may not exist in the form Marx theorized, removing the driving force behind the predicted collapse of capitalism.
- The justification for a socialist revolution is weakened, as the proletariat may not experience the chronic exploitation that Marx believed would lead to revolutionary change.
Marxism’s reliance on the flawed premise of labor as a commodity renders it fundamentally unsound. Given the theoretical and practical flaws in Marxism, it is reasonable to conclude that Marxism functions as a form of sophism in socio-economic theory. Sophism refers to an argument that appears plausible on the surface but is fundamentally misleading and ultimately unworkable. Marxism fits this definition well.
Originally Posted at https://mises.org/
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Is the Skyscraper Curse Dead?
- There is good evidence that the Skyscraper Curse is dead.
- But what does that mean?
- Mark Thornton digs down to the foundations to see what the ramifications are.
- It could mean historical changes are in the works!
Download The Skyscraper Curse at Mises.org/Curse.
Order a free paperback copy of Per Bylund’s How to Think About the Economy at Mises.org/IssuesFree.
Follow Minor Issues at Mises.org/MinorIssues.
What is the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.
Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.
Originally Posted at https://mises.org/
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Sharing The Gospel With Boldness And Compassion
The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 28, verse 19, and it is part of the Great Commission. Here is the full passage from the ESV Bible:
“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'” (Matthew 28:18-20).
Our YouTube Channel
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Grooming gang who sexually abused 2 girls for 5 years in UK sentenced to total of 106 years in jail
Seven men from a grooming gang in the UK who sexually abused two girls over a span of five years were sentenced to a combined 106 in jail on Friday.
Mohammed Amar, 42, Mohammed Siyab, 44, Yasser Ajaibe, 39, Mohammed Zameer Sadiq, 49, Abid Saddiq, 43, Tahir Yassin, 38, and Ramin Bari, 37, were prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service following an investigation by the National Crime Agency, the CPS website reports.
A larger investigation, dubbed “Operation Stovewood,” uncovered the sexual abuse and exploitation of two young girls aged 11 and 15 between 2003 and 2008. The entire operation uncovered abuse, trafficking and grooming of over 1,400 girls in Rotherham, South Yorkshire between 1997 and 2013, perpetrated by several gangs of men. Both victims in this case had spent time in the care system while the grooming occurred. During that time, the perpetrators would pick them up in cars and give them alcohol, drugs, and money before raping them or forcing them into sexual acts.
The seven defendants were found guilty of child sex abuse offenses committed between April 2003 and April 2008 and were sentenced to 106 years imprisonment combined.
CPS spokeswoman Zoe Becker said: “These seven men deliberately preyed on two young girls they knew were vulnerable and, using drugs and alcohol, exploited them for their own sexual gratification.
“The cruelty and abuse the victims suffered at the hands of these defendants was horrific and has continued to have a lasting impact on their lives today. I would like to take this opportunity to thank both the victims for coming forward and giving evidence. This has been a complex and challenging case, and it is because of their courage and fortitude that we have been able to bring these offenders to justice.
“I hope these convictions send a clear message that the CPS, working closely alongside law enforcement, will relentlessly pursue justice and prosecute those who sexually exploit children, whenever that abuse took place. All children have the right to feel safe and protected. I encourage anyone who has been in a similar position to come forward to report these incidents to the police. It is never too late to seek justice – you are not alone and there is help available.”
NCA Senior Investigating Officer Stuart Cobb said: “These men were cruel and manipulative, grooming their victims and then exploiting them by subjecting them to the most harrowing abuse possible. They were responsible for some of the worst offending we have investigated under Operation Stovewood.
“I can only once again pay tribute to the victims who were brave enough to come forward, tell their stories and confront their abusers. What happened to them can never be undone, but I hope the sentences handed down here will at least give them a sense that their abusers have been held to account and justice has been done.
“We and our partners will continue to do all we can to support them going forward.”
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Biden-Harris admin gives Egypt $1.3 billion in military aid despite human rights concerns
The Biden administration has granted Egypt $1.3 billion in military aid, overriding conditions set in place over ongoing concerns about human rights in the country, according to a State Department spokesperson, a decision that was made in hopes of persuading Cairo to intensify its mediation efforts between Israel and Hamas.
“This decision is important to advancing regional peace and Egypt’s specific and ongoing contributions to US national security priorities, particularly to finalize a ceasefire agreement for Gaza, bring the hostages home, surge humanitarian assistance for Palestinians in need, and help bring an enduring end to the Israel-Hamas conflict,” the spokesperson said.
Of the $1.3 billion allocated to the US ally, $320 million “is subject to conditions that have meant at least some of that sum has been withheld in recent years,” per Reuters. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s government has been plagued with human rights violation accusations including torture and enforced disappearances. Sisi had denied that Egypt is holding political prisoners and said his government takes security, stability, and basic needs for his citizens seriously.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Congress he would override a human rights certification requirement for $225 million aid for Egypt citing “the US national security interest,” the spokesperson stated via email.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
Junk food ads to be BANNED on UK TV
Kier Starmer’s Labour party is set to ban junk food ads on social media and television before 9 pm in the UK starting next year after the Prime Minister said worsening health in the country would cost public finances £100 billion and the government had to “be more ambitious” to make Brits healthy.
The idea was first proposed by Boris Johnson back in 2021 but was met with repeated delays. Ministers confirmed it will now move forward in October of next year, per The Times. Ads promoting foods high in fat, salt and sugar will be banned before 9 pm on television and at all times online. Starmer also indicated he will be banning smoking in certain outdoor spaces spurring backlash from those fearful of Britain becoming a “nanny state.”
“I know some prevention measures will be controversial, but I’m prepared to be bold, even in the face of loud opposition,” Starmer said, adding that he’s “absolutely convinced” the government needed to get involved in the health crisis. “Of course, there’s diet, there’s healthy lifestyle, etc — we are going to have to get into that space,” he said.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting, however, said he would be “reluctant” to go as far as imposing sugar and salt taxes. “We’ve got to have a debate about how we deal with sickness in our society,” he said on Thursday.
The head of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) Richard Hughes, stated that health and wellness in the UK is “the single biggest driver of the long-term sustainability of UK’s public finances.”
The Times reports that “A ban on children buying energy drinks and supervised toothbrushing in schools have been promised, and further measures will be drawn up over the coming months.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
MONICA CROWLEY: Leftist elites ‘despise you and everything you stand for’
Monica Crowley, the former Secretary of the Treasury under the Trump administration, hosted War Room on Friday during which she delivered a scathing opening after showcasing a montage of clips of left-wing media spewing vile anti-Trump rhetoric.
She called it “infuriating” to “listen to these communists spew their propaganda as they deliberately destroy the country. Crowley pinpointed one clip in particular of Joy Reid and Elie Mystal in which they say Trump supporters lack compassion and empathy and put themselves above anyone else. She summarized that all of the clips played generally described those in the America First movement as “despicable.”
“And while it is infuriating and incredibly insulting, it’s also very, very clarifying,” she said, adding that the left, including Kamala Harris’ campaign, have resorted to these types of smears which are “nothing new” to conservatives. She reminded viewers of when Barack Obama said conservatives “cling to our guns and our religion” and when Hillary Clinton called them “a basket of deplorables.”
“It’s clarifying to hear them actually say it, and it’s also really politically stupid for them to say it, but they can’t help themselves, because they are the system,” Crowley stated. “They are elitist snobs, but there’s something else going on here. They have a contempt for you and me, but more importantly, for the country, for the declaration, for the Constitution, for free market capitalism, they have a deep contempt for all of those foundational principles, foundational documents, foundational principles.”
She continued: “And those of us who stand up and fight for those things every single day, most of the time they can hide their contempt, but as we get closer to this most important election of our lifetimes, they can no longer hide their contempt. Their contempt pours out of every pore of their body. They spit their contempt.
“This is what they really think of you. You know, the ruling class versus the rest of us. That’s the actual split in this country. It’s less left, right, Republican, Democrat. It is more ruling class versus everybody else.”
She stated that she’s fine being called “despicable” and a “deplorable” so long as it meant she is fighting for the America First movement with Donald Trump at the helm. Especially as the United States steps into the final days before the election, she said it’s important for the right to remember, “They despise you and everything you stand for” and called this election their “endgame” for the “final chapter of their conquering of the United States of America.”
“They thought Donald Trump would be imprisoned by now or dead, which is what the assassination attempt was all about. They thought he would be long gone by now. They cannot believe that the man is not only still standing and drawing breath, but they cannot believe that he is thriving, leading in the polls,” she said.
Crowley concluded by encouraging viewers to do the work to register Republican voters, chase ballots, and advocate for fair elections while spreading the true values of conservatism as Harris’ campaign proves to be “desperate” at this time.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
LIBBY EMMONS: We all had a bully like Kamala Harris
There’s nothing worse than a bunch of mean girls. In middle school, in high school, in the workplace, they all team up to belittle, insult and demean. And while brat may be the fashion of the season, no one really likes a mean girl, and mean girl is what Kamala Harris and her euphoric vibe campaign give most.
Out on the debate stage on Tuesday night, what came across most was her smirk, her attitude, and her refusal to answer questions with any substance. Her supporters speak about her policies, which essentially all amount to “she’s not Trump.” Harris supporting MSNBC pundits say that not only is Trump “despicable,” but so are all his supporters. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has even said that Trump supporters are, in the main, so sexist and racist that they can’t even be considered to be a relevant part of the voting public. The Democrats hate Trump supporters, think the Republican Party should entirely do away with MAGA and now RFK Jrs’ MAHA, and because they are just so mean, they have absolutely no problem saying it, whether on stages or on live TV.
Harris doesn’t have original thoughts, she repeats herself while her supporters say she doesn’t. She contradicts herself and demands everyone believe the brand new thing that spilled from her mouth 5 seconds ago instead of comments she made when she first sought the office she’s vying for now, in the 2020 Democratic primary. Holding up her policy positions today on guns, fracking, socialized health care, border security against her views on those issues just five years ago is enough to give a voter whiplash. Will the real Kamala Harris please stand up? Is there a real Kamala Harris? Or is she like those evil girls in Heathers or the Plastics of Mean Girls?
If Kamala’s campaign is running on vibes, if they don’t want to be judged on policy proposals or her recent record in the White House or in the Senate, if they don’t want her to be held accountable to comments she said back when she first embarked on a presidential run in 2019 and actually took interviews and answered questions, then perhaps vibe is that on which she should be judged. Let’s give it a try.
When Kamala hopped to the top of the ticket, it was at the expense of her boss Joe Biden. He departed the presidential race with a post on X, shortly after he endorsed her—again in a post on X—and how has she treated him since? She’s let him take the fall for any bad decisions made and otherwise entirely ignored him, his legacy, or her complicity in those bad decisions. Problems with the border? Joe’s fault. Service men and women killed in Afghanistan? Joe’s fault. When she was asked on the debate stage directly about the man who chose her to be his running mate, who got her into that White House she coveted so much, she deflected, blamed Trump, pretended he didn’t exist.
I think we all know what it feels like when mean girls pretend you don’t exist. When their eyes scan past you in the hallways at school, when they cut in front of you at the lunch line like you’re not even there. I can’t be the only one among us who was a middle school reject and gets those same popular girl vibes from Ms. Harris. Speaking of which, on multiple occasions, Kamala has chosen to speak at private events for her sorority sisters rather than do the job of the people. She goes out there claiming that she has only ever had one client, the American people, yet, when it comes right down to it and she has to choose between doing the work for the people and chilling with her sisters, she chose her sisters.
She skipped a meeting with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu to give a speech to her girls instead. As she received the accolades, Netanyahu was making the case for the very existence of his nation to Congress. Kamala couldn’t be bothered, she had more important things to do. Good vibes for her pals, not so much for the rest of us. And what was the media response when Trump called her out for attending a “sorority party” instead of doing her job? Ahem, we were told by the press, that wasn’t a party, it was a “speaking engagement.”
Kamala’s given one interview and it was to her pal Dana Bash on CNN where she didn’t even have to talk for the whole time because she was allowed to bring along her running mate date Tim Walz. Mean girls never show up to a party alone. She hasn’t held a single press conference because she just doesn’t think she has to be accountable to the press, the fourth estate, for her views or positions or anything other than her vibe. As for the one and only debate the candidates will have before the rapidly approaching November contest, she refused to have it on any network than ABC, headed by her best friend, with one of her own sorority sisters for a moderator.
While she was up there, under the specially positioned cameras and lights designed to aid her appearance as a powerful woman replete with vibe chic, she lied about her opponent. She indulged in the spreading of rumors and falsehoods, she made claims about things he’s said that were not true, she misrepresented his positions and his affiliations at length, and at no point did her sorority sister or the simping toady who accompanied her in the job of moderation fact check or call out those lies. That was left to her opposing candidate, who had not only to answer the questions posed to him in his allotted two minutes, but to speak up for himself against the orgy of gossip and rumor levied by Ms. Harris.
This is the ultimate in mean girl behavior: spreading lies and rumors about someone else, someone you think you’re better than, for the sole purpose of making them appear to be lesser and untouchable. Maybe you never experienced it in your youth, but the mean girl impulse to lie, belittle, demean and humiliate the rejects definitely has its own vibe, and it’s not in the least pretty. This is the vibe Kamala gives off to me, that of a mean girl with a steely glint in her eye, lips coated in lies, and a laugh meant to put each of us in our place, somewhere well below the sole of her unsullied Converse All-Stars.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
AUSTIN PETERSEN: Kamala Harris’ capital gains tax proposal is coming for you, not only the billionaires
Vice President Kamala Harris has thrown her support behind a Biden administration plan to tax unrealized gains—stock holdings that have increased in value but have not yet been sold. They claim that they only plan to target the wealthiest Americans. If history is any indication however, the tax will eventually be aimed at the middle class. And if recent history is any indication, Harris could turn on this policy on a dime if she thinks it won’t help her get elected.
Last week, Harris’ team sent flunkie Bharat Rama on CNBC to make the case for the tax, and got laughed at by host Joe Kernen for his lame-brained comparison of unrealized capital gains taxes to property taxes. The hosts took turns taking Rama to the woodshed, explaining the difference between a use tax, where someone actually gets to make use of their property, vs. an unrealized gains tax where no value has been created for the taxpayer yet. And to add insult to injury, the CNBC hosts finished him off by reminding him that property taxes actually go to things like schools and firefighters. You know, things people actually use? Added to Rama’s humiliation during the live segment was the terse reminder from the panelists that stock values can shift much faster than home values.
Under our current system, capital gains are only taxed when an asset is sold. This makes sense—taxes are paid on realized income, not on hypothetical, fluctuating values. But Harris and her progressive allies want to change this, imposing a levy on assets as their value increases, even if they are never cashed in. But imagine investors who bought $100,000 worth of stock on Jan. 1. And say the stock’s value hit $125,000 on Dec. 31. They’d be subject to a tax on the $25,000 gain even if the stock was never sold. Harris’ team is claiming that this would affect a narrow slice of the population for now, specifically those with a net worth of at least $100 million.
Of course anyone who wasn’t a D student in history will note that once the government establishes a new form of taxation, it rarely stays confined to its original target.
When the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, income tax rates were low, and only a tiny fraction of Americans were affected. Initially, the tax rate was just 1% on incomes above $3,000 (about $82,000 in today’s dollars), with a top rate of 7% on incomes over $500,000 (about $13.7 million today). The tax was only supposed to hit the wealthy, but it quickly expanded to cover more and more Americans. By the 1940s, millions of middle-class families were subject to income taxes at much higher rates. What started as a tax on the rich became a burden on everyone. The middle class is still suffering from the income tax today.
The Harris-backed proposal is just the latest example of this trend. Proponents argue that taxing unrealized gains would close a “loophole” that allows the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. But this rhetoric is misleading. The so-called “buy, borrow, die” strategy—where wealthy individuals borrow against their assets without selling them—has been legal and widely used for decades. Changing the rules now would not only be unfair but also economically destabilizing.
Imagine being taxed on the value of your home as it fluctuates with the housing market, regardless of whether you sell it. If the market tanks, you’re stuck paying taxes on a value that no longer exists. This is precisely what could happen with Harris’ proposal. While the administration claims the tax would be assessed over five years to account for market volatility, this doesn’t eliminate the risk. It’s a risky gamble that could hurt more Americans than it helps.
Conservatives rightly argue that this proposal undermines the fundamental principles of property rights and financial privacy. The idea that the government could tax you on value you haven’t realized is not only absurd but also dangerous. It opens the door to even more invasive forms of taxation in the future.
Moreover, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Moore v. United States raises new legal questions about the government’s power to tax in this way. While the ruling did not explicitly block a wealth tax, it suggested that future challenges could succeed. Harris’ plan would likely face significant legal and legislative hurdles, but the mere fact that it’s being seriously considered should alarm every American who values their financial freedom.
The Biden administration has framed this proposal as a “billionaire minimum income tax,” but let’s not be fooled. What starts with billionaires often ends with the rest of us. The administration’s own Treasury Department admits that “preferential treatment for unrealized gains disproportionately benefits high-wealth taxpayers.” History proves that once this door is opened, it won’t just be the wealthy who are affected.
We should reject this proposal for what it is: a dangerous overreach that could set a precedent for taxing everything from your retirement savings to the value of your home. If we don’t draw the line here, where will it end? Today, it’s the billionaires; tomorrow, it’s you.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers:
The Bolognese Jurists behind the Proto-Austrian Theories of the Salamanca School
Bologna, a city in northern Italy, is considered by many scholars to be the oldest university city in the Western world. Its university—the Alma Mater Studiorum—dates back to the year 1088. From the very beginning, the University of Bologna specialized in the analysis of law, especially in the study of canon law (the set of laws and decrees concerning the clergy and religious matters). Bologna became the home of famous jurists who studied and analyzed the laws issued in Rome by the Pope.
Later, during the Spanish Golden Age, the Catholic university city of Salamanca specialized in the study of economic sciences by developing innovative theories that are considered by many, such as Marjorie-Grice Hutchinson, as the first historical examples of liberal-libertarian economic theory. The purpose of this article is to show the importance that the work of the Bolognese jurists had in the development of the “proto-libertarianism” of the Salamantine theologians.
One of the great medieval battles of the Catholic Church was the one against usury and against various commercial practices considered illegitimate (interest on loans, insurance on trade, exchange of bills of exchange, etc.). The popes of the time issued several bulls that were the subject of study for jurists from all over Europe, including those from Bologna. The main Bolognese canonical jurists were Giovanni d’Anagni, Baldo degli Ubaldi, Giovanni Calderini, and Gaspare Calderini.
Two or three centuries earlier, the jurists of Bologna began to analyze and consider the economy in a different way from the traditional one which, in turn, would influence the School of Salamanca. This included thinkers such as Francisco de Vitoria, Martín de Azpilcueta, Juan de Mariana, and many others. They articulated, because of the development of global trade due to the discovery of the Americas, economic thought that might be characterized as proto-Austrian.
The main theoretician of what also might be called this “proto-libertarianism” is Martín de Azpilcueta. Azpilcueta, in his Comentario resolutorio de cambios, dealt with trade and argues that many economic practices condemned by ecclesiastical leaders are actually licit and legitimate. He also went a step further—he studied the nature of money and enunciates a primordial Austrian monetary theory.
The “libertarian revolution” of economic thought brought about by Martín de Azpilcueta has its roots precisely in the studies of the previous Bolognese canonical jurists, who in the Comentario resolutorio de cambios are collectively cited under the name of Bononienses. This demonstrates that, in Bologna, there was a particular legal school to which the Salamantine theologians referred for their theories. But he does not simply cite the Bolognese jurists in general, he precisely cites some of them, for example, the aforementioned Giovanni and Gaspare Calderini, Baldo degli Ubaldi, and Giovanni d’Anagni (reported as Johannes Annanias), in order to justify his theses from a legal point of view. This was because these scholars were the first in their works to point out the legitimacy of some practices commonly considered immoral.
Of particular importance to Azpilcueta are the Calderini, who are mentioned more often in his work than the others for various reasons. As can be read in the Comentario resolutorio de cambios, their work, Consilia, siue responsa, is cited to legitimize the trade of bills of exchange, forms of interest, and—most important of all—Azpilcueta, explicitly writes that the fact that the abundance of money decreases its value had already been declared by the Calderini. It should therefore be noted that Azpilcueta’s intellectual work in constructing a primordial proto-Austrian economic science has its roots in the studies of Bolognese jurists, especially Giovanni and Gaspare Calderini.
In conclusion, we should not claim that what Azpilcueta and others of the Salamanca School developed was “taken away” from the Bolognese jurists, but rather that the jurists of the university of Bologna had a very important role in building the legal and intellectual terrain suitable for allowing their Spanish colleagues to understand and expound a primordial, proto-Austrian economic theory.
Originally Posted at https://mises.org/
Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter
Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.
Current subscribers: