Robert Ede

Objectivist, Capitalist, Business Owner 🚫🥾🐍

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

There is a strong body of economic research showing that transaction taxes do a lot of economic harm because they discourage people from buying, selling and investing. That’s why the Mirrlees Review recommended abolishing Stamp Duty.

On CGT, the IFS has argued that the current system discourages investment, encourages people to hold onto assets for tax reasons (“lock in”), and influences how people structure their income.

So I’d turn the question around. What evidence is there that abolishing National Insurance would produce larger efficiency gains than removing taxes economists have been criticising for years?

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

@GayTory I have, and her ARC speech. I don't trust her, and would never vote for her. I've heard it all before from her and Tories just like her. Except when it comes to being in government, like Labour they never actually do what they say they're going to.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

I'm sure writing about it professionally gives you a great deal of knowledge, but it doesn't settle the philosophical question. Plenty of intelligent people write professionally from Marxist, socialist, classical liberal, libertarian, conservative and Objectivist perspectives.

The question isn't who writes about capitalism for a living. It's which conception of capitalism better identifies its nature and better explains reality. That's the question I've been addressing.

I understand why that distinction is useful for your work, but my point isn't about usefulness. It's about what capitalism fundamentally is.

I don't think ownership by capitalists is the defining characteristic. I think the defining characteristic is the legal and ethical framework of individual rights, private property and voluntary exchange, from which different ownership structures arise.

Definitions are rarely neutral. They usually reflect the underlying philosophical framework from which they're derived. That's why we're reaching different conclusions.

At this point it becomes like groundhog day, because I'd ask this.. How can ownership by capitalists be the defining characteristic of capitalism when ownership itself depends on a prior legal and ethical framework recognising property rights and voluntary exchange?

Without those prerequisites, there is no secure private ownership to speak of.

I suspect you'd reply that those institutions are features of capitalism, but the defining feature is who owns the means of production.

Which brings us back to the real question. What is the essential characteristic of capitalism?

I say it's the institutional framework that makes voluntary ownership possible.

You say it's the ownership relationship itself.

That's a philosophical disagreement, which it appears, is irreconcilable.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

I wouldn't vote for Kemi.

She was part of the government that now wants to pretend 14 years of Conservative failure never happened.

Record tax burdens. Covid lockdowns and sweeping emergency powers. Protest restrictions. The Online Safety Act. An ever expanding state and a steady erosion of free speech and civil liberties.

And on gender law, no, the Conservatives didn't pass the Gender Recognition Act. Labour did. But they then spent 14 years in government without repealing it or fundamentally reforming it.

Now Badenoch wants to present herself as the solution to problems her own party either created or failed to fix.

A fresh coat of paint doesn't fix rotten foundations. I'm not a Reform member, but as far as reducing the size of the state, it's the only game in town. Kemi is full of crap and I don't believe her.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

That's because you're defining capitalism as a purely economic concept. I don't.

This disagreement is largely semantic because we're using different concepts of "capitalism".

In the classical liberal, libertarian and Objectivist traditions, capitalism is understood as an ethical, political and economic system founded on individual rights, private property and voluntary exchange. The ownership structure of any particular business follows from those principles. I'm pretty sure if we asked @DanielJHannan he'd share my definition or one close to it.

That's why capitalism accommodates sole traders, partnerships, PLCs, employee owned businesses and co operatives. It doesn't prescribe a particular ownership model. It protects the freedom of individuals to choose one.

Your definition reduces capitalism to one common ownership structure. This definition describes the social system that makes all those voluntary arrangements possible.

So, I've explained why I reject the Marxist definition. I can't force you to accept that, any more than you can force me to accept yours. The only way to judge that is to ask, which definition better explains reality? and that's a whole other debate.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

You’re collapsing two different questions into one.

Who owns a particular business is one question. What the legal system permits across the whole economy is another.

A worker owned business doesn’t make an economy socialist any more than a sole trader makes it capitalist. Capitalism is a political and economic system built on private property, voluntary exchange and individual rights. That means people are free to choose different ownership models, including co operatives and employee owned businesses.

Socialism isn’t simply “workers own a firm”. It’s a system where the means of production are socially or collectively owned as the general rule, with private capital ownership abolished or subordinated.

Market socialism is theoretically possible because markets and ownership are separate concepts. But Waitrose existing in a capitalist economy doesn’t make the UK socialist. It demonstrates that capitalism allows voluntary employee ownership alongside other forms of ownership.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

Councils in the U.K. are now blocking people from installing AC. It’s insane. My dad got a portable unit as he’s old and has cancer. The council can bugger off if they think I’m going to leave him to be roasted alive in his own home.

My own house is like a hot box, because of insane regulations on insulation. Great in the winter, as it traps the heat. Sucks in the summer as it traps the heat.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

Couldn’t have said this better myself.

[Stephen R. C. Hicks @SRCHicks]

Socialism is not a moral ideal that unfortunately doesn't work.
Socialists either think of themselves as being in power and controlling others — or they think of themselves as being looked after by others. Neither of those is moral but rather creepy and/or pathetic.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

You’re conflating who owns a business with the economic system it operates in.

A worker-owned co-op still owns property, trades voluntarily, competes in markets, sets its own prices, and can fail if customers don’t buy from it. That’s capitalism.

Socialism isn’t “workers own one business”. It’s an economy where the means of production are owned or controlled collectively as the organising principle. Under capitalism, you’re free to start a co-op. Under socialism, you’re not free to start a conventional capitalist firm. That’s the asymmetry.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

I don’t think Waitrose is an example of socialism replacing capitalism. It’s an example of capitalism allowing people to voluntarily organise a business however they choose.

Capitalism is simply a system of voluntary exchange and property rights. It doesn’t prevent co operatives, partnerships, employee ownership or sole traders. They all exist within it.

Socialism, by contrast, isn’t just people choosing to share ownership. It’s a political system that subordinates private property to collective control. That’s why coercion isn’t an accident of socialism. It’s built into the system.

So a workers’ co op is perfectly compatible with capitalism. The reverse isn’t true. Socialism, as a system, doesn’t permit capitalism in the same way.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

@GBNEWS @Jacob_Rees_Mogg Sadly he’s delusional. Kemi has no new ideas and advocates for digital id by the back door. I don’t trust her and would never vote for her. She’s a high tax, big state Tory pretending she isn’t.

I don’t believe anything she says and that is based on her record in government.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

Watching Helen Webberley on TalkTV was revealing. Julia asked straightforward epistemological questions: How do you distinguish a genuine transgender identity from any other self belief? What objective criteria are used? What about differential diagnosis? Autism? ADHD? Trauma?

None of those questions were answered.

Instead, Julia was labelled hateful and accused of causing psychological harm simply by asking them.

That is exactly why I oppose Labour’s proposed conversion therapy legislation. If asking legitimate clinical questions is redefined as harm, then exploratory therapy, differential diagnosis and evidence based medicine become politically dangerous.

Science advances by questioning, not by affirmation. Reality is objective. Medical decisions affecting children should be grounded in evidence, not ideology.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

@elonmusk @WallStreetMav And men

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

@GBNEWS @WillKingston This is why I keep saying it’s time for a codified constitution to limit government power.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

Considering they’re just two cheeks of the same arse that’s not really a choice. Both are big state high tax parties. I’m not clear what the difference is. And Kemi is helping Labour push digital ID via the back door. In fact they introduced the online safety act. Along with many other authoritarian bits of legislation. So no thanks.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

@prestonjbyrne Meta has already said they’re just passing the DST straight to the consumer. Which is me, the small business advertiser. Just like Tarrifs it’s the end customer that is being taxed not the seller.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

The problem isn’t simply poor scrutiny. It’s incentives.

Governments aren’t spending their own money. They don’t face profit and loss. If a project overruns, taxpayers are forced to pick up the bill.

We’ve been told for decades that the next procurement process, the next parliamentary committee or the next spending review will solve it. Yet the debt keeps growing.

The issue isn’t just incompetent politicians. It’s expecting the public sector and civil servants to allocate capital as efficiently as markets. They can’t. Government is a monopoly. Without competition, prices, profit and loss, and the discipline of failure, there is no effective mechanism to correct bad decisions.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

This feels to me like ESG repackaged into a broader economic “philosophy”.

The language may have changed from “ESG” to “post-growth”, “wellbeing” and “planetary boundaries”, but the underlying premise is remarkably similar. Economic growth is viewed with contempt, businesses are expected to serve wider social objectives, and markets are to be steered towards politically defined outcomes.

The irony is that every advance in living standards, healthcare, technology and environmental protection has depended on sustained economic growth and human innovation.

We can’t make society richer by deciding it should stop creating wealth or you simply end up arguing over how to divide a shrinking pie. It’s pure insanity.

[Robert Ede @silentrob73]

So I think this is interesting, but my take is far more simple. Because the question isn’t which tax Labour can raise next.

The question is why politicians assume they have an unlimited claim on the wealth that productive people create.

Britain doesn’t suffer from too little taxation. It suffers from too much bloody government.

Every single debate on tax starts with the premise that spending is fixed and working public exist to fund it. That’s utterly backwards.

A government dedicated to protecting individual rights wouldn’t be searching for new ways to confiscate wealth. It would be asking which programmes it has no moral business running in the first place. Let’s start with the welfare state and healthcare, the two biggest line items in the budget.

Because solution isn’t clever tweaks to the tax system.

It’s a lot less bloody government.

Labour’s biggest issue is that they don’t choose the economically optimal tax. They just choose the tax they believe is politically survivable. And god for it that they look at cutting public spending.