| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2006 08:36:21 AM |
| Object: |
Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
The last time that minimum wage legislation came before Congress,
Repugs turned it into open class warfare by tying raises in the minimum
wage to an estate tax give-away for billionaires.
Since the rich are always at war with the poor and middle class, I
think the time has come to remind the rich that they do not, in fact, own
the rest of us and that their atrociously piggish behavior in these last
couple of decades had better mellow out.
So at the next opportunity, I propose that congress should pass a
federal maximum wage of 50 to 100 times the present minimum wage on all
corporations, LLC, LLP and partnerships. I know that some of the top
executives will scream about it since CEOs presently make well over 600
times the median wage (far above 600 times the minimum wage). They will
probably pledge to buy enough congressmen to overturn the law.
But, you know what, I don't believe they'll find they have as much
support as they think. Even brainwashed repug trailer trash, who have
been carrying the water for the wealthy all these many years, would
probably say to themselves, "Gee, if I can survive on $7.50/hr why can't
CEOs survive on $750/hr?" See, the dirty little secret about corporate
compensation is that it has long been a parasitic drain on resources,
doled out like graft to an aristocratic elite. Many boards don't even
want some of these gold-diggers there, but they can't get rid of the good
ole boy network at the top. Even if we argue that some CEOs have special
expertise and leadership qualities, it has long been apparent, that these
sorts of talents could be purchased for far less than corporations are
forced to pay today. So actually, I think that many corporate boards
might secretly be very happy, despite their own salary capping, that they
could claim the decision was out of their hands and they were forced to
pay a more reasonable rate to their top executives. After all, they
would still get the full time equivalent of 1.5 million per year. But I
would recommend that congress also cap stock option and other
compensation packages, commissions and expense accounts that might
attempt to make an end run around this legislation. But there would
still be plenty of benefits to being a CEO, trust me and the lives of 99%
of the rest of the country would be utterly unaffected by the wage cap,
except in the positive sense that many corporations would instantly have
far more disposable income and thus would be more profitable and could
pay higher dividends or make more prudent investments.
I will no consider sane commentary on this proposal that does not
involve hysterical charges of atheistic, homosexual, america-hating,
communist collectivism.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
04 Oct 2006 10:23:34 PM |
|
|
An Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:25:05 -0700, Tuco Ramirez schreibt:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
If you don't want to incorporate because CEO is a dirty word, remain a
sole proprietorship, and you can be "The Boss".
Tuco is a little confused. CEOs don't own companies, shareholders do.
CEOs are employees just like everyone else except they usually, but not
always make more money than everyone else and they tell everyone except
the board of directors, who are elected representatives of the owners.
Share holders don't do anything except siphoning off profits. I know
because I've been both a share holder and an employee. As an employee I
work for wages and as a share holder I siphon off profits.
And again, I don't want to be 'the boss' because I like doing
actual, useful work. Bosses are useless.
And again, since you would be the boss, you can assign yourself any
assignment you want, including "useful work".
Then how would that make me the boss? If I'm not doing any 'managing',
then I'm not the boss.
Nonsense, you are the boss means you do whatever you want including
managing anywhere from 0% to 100% of the time.
If I am doing some 'managing', then I'm wasting time which could be
used doing actual work,
Then don't manage!
plus I'm making decisions
for the entire enterprise which I don't have a right to take,
Ahhh, listen here Beavis,
1) YOU own the company
and
2) The owner of the company has the right to make decisions means YOU
have the right to make decisions.
This isn't true, Butthead. As an owner, I have very little power
whatsoever. It is all given to some elected people who sit on the board of
directors. That body is so incestuous that you can hear Dueling Banjos as
you walk by the boardroom.
considering I do as much work as all of my fellow workers. But of
course, you think I have a right to impose my will because of the form
of statist coercion known as 'property rights'.
So nobody should own anything?
I suppose if you get robbed tonight you won't report it to the police
since the money wasn't rightfully yours to begin with?
I'm not sure that I'm willing to go that far, but I am willing to question
the limitations of property rights. It is certain in my mind that
property rights are subordinate to the rights to life and liberty.
If I am getting this straight, you ***** about "The Man", CEO's, and
bosses, but are unwilling to go your own way.
Going your own way is stupid. People work better in groups, because
when they collaborate instead of competing they produce more than the
sum of their individual work.
Incompentents like "to work in groups" so that their incompetence can be
camouflaged with "team work".
The only purpose of a corporation is to encourage investors to invest in
groups. In exchange for the public good that aggregating their capital
can provide, the state grants the investors privileges like tax dodges and
limitation of liability. The existence of corporations at all is a
testament to the fact that there are some jobs that are too big or too
risky for individuals to undertake on their own. In my opinion, the most
interesting problems to work on are problems of this scale.
In a corporation, anyone who can't work in a team is incompetent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
04 Oct 2006 10:41:27 PM |
|
|
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:25:05 -0700, Tuco Ramirez schreibt:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
If you don't want to incorporate because CEO is a dirty word, remain a
sole proprietorship, and you can be "The Boss".
Tuco is a little confused. CEOs don't own companies, shareholders do.
CEOs are employees just like everyone else except they usually, but not
always make more money than everyone else and they tell everyone except
the board of directors, who are elected representatives of the owners.
Share holders don't do anything except siphoning off profits. I know
because I've been both a share holder and an employee. As an employee I
work for wages and as a share holder I siphon off profits.
You seem to have "forgotten" that the shareholders put up the money
needed for the enterprise to operate.
Emmanual Kunt is a little confused. I didn't tell her to get
investors. She would be the ONLY shareholder and if she wants she can
be the CEO, and the Secretary and the Chairman of the Board, etc. I
have done it, so can she.
And again, I don't want to be 'the boss' because I like doing
actual, useful work. Bosses are useless.
And again, since you would be the boss, you can assign yourself any
assignment you want, including "useful work".
Then how would that make me the boss? If I'm not doing any 'managing',
then I'm not the boss.
Nonsense, you are the boss means you do whatever you want including
managing anywhere from 0% to 100% of the time.
If I am doing some 'managing', then I'm wasting time which could be
used doing actual work,
Then don't manage!
plus I'm making decisions
for the entire enterprise which I don't have a right to take,
Ahhh, listen here Beavis,
1) YOU own the company
and
2) The owner of the company has the right to make decisions means YOU
have the right to make decisions.
This isn't true, Butthead. As an owner, I have very little power
whatsoever.
That would be because you are a butthead.
It is all given to some elected people who sit on the board of
directors. That body is so incestuous that you can hear Dueling Banjos as
you walk by the boardroom.
If you own the company you can elect yourself, understand?
Let's try it one more time, she is the ONLY shareholder. I can see how
you "jumped" at the conclussion that she wouldn't be the only one, but
your preconceptions are not my problem. Open your mind a little bit,
and close your legs, nobody want to see your hairy *****.
considering I do as much work as all of my fellow workers. But of
course, you think I have a right to impose my will because of the form
of statist coercion known as 'property rights'.
So nobody should own anything?
I suppose if you get robbed tonight you won't report it to the police
since the money wasn't rightfully yours to begin with?
I'm not sure that I'm willing to go that far, but I am willing to question
the limitations of property rights. It is certain in my mind that
property rights are subordinate to the rights to life and liberty.
Shouldn't people have the liberty to own property?
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
If I am getting this straight, you ***** about "The Man", CEO's, and
bosses, but are unwilling to go your own way.
Going your own way is stupid. People work better in groups, because
when they collaborate instead of competing they produce more than the
sum of their individual work.
Incompentents like "to work in groups" so that their incompetence can be
camouflaged with "team work".
The only purpose of a corporation is to encourage investors to invest in
groups. In exchange for the public good that aggregating their capital
can provide, the state grants the investors privileges like tax dodges and
limitation of liability. The existence of corporations at all is a
testament to the fact that there are some jobs that are too big or too
risky for individuals to undertake on their own. In my opinion, the most
interesting problems to work on are problems of this scale.
In a corporation, anyone who can't work in a team is incompetent.
99.9% of the useful work is done by 0.1% of the population. I'll take
10 of the 0.1% guys (who usually like to work alone, and then join the
"parts"), over 1,000 of your "team players" any time, and to return to
the original poster's "ideas", I would gladly pay these kind of guys
more than $750/hour, depending on the project.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
05 Oct 2006 02:11:02 AM |
|
|
An Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:41:27 -0700, Tuco Ramirez schreibt:
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:25:05 -0700, Tuco Ramirez schreibt:
You seem to have "forgotten" that the shareholders put up the money
needed for the enterprise to operate.
Not really. All the shareholders do is create liquidity for trading
capital stock in the company. The capital accumulated through retaining
the fruits of the laborers at the company.
Ahhh, listen here Beavis,
1) YOU own the company
and
2) The owner of the company has the right to make decisions means YOU
have the right to make decisions.
This isn't true, Butthead. As an owner, I have very little power
whatsoever.
That would be because you are a butthead.
***** you if you can't take your own joke.
It is all given to some elected people who sit on the board of
directors. That body is so incestuous that you can hear Dueling Banjos as
you walk by the boardroom.
If you own the company you can elect yourself, understand?
Let's try it one more time, she is the ONLY shareholder. I can see how
you "jumped" at the conclussion that she wouldn't be the only one, but
your preconceptions are not my problem. Open your mind a little bit,
and close your legs, nobody want to see your hairy *****.
Wrong again. I have a Telly Savalis.
If I limited the corporation to my own capital, it wouldn't be big
enough to have the kinds of problems I find interesting to solve. Get it?
There are very few people in the world with enough assets to own a
corporation large enough to have the problems I like to solve. The vast
majority of them are so large that they are publicly traded. They are
mostly owned by the masses through faceless institutional investors who
have driven out the founders replacing them with professional management.
So nobody should own anything?
I suppose if you get robbed tonight you won't report it to the police
since the money wasn't rightfully yours to begin with?
I'm not sure that I'm willing to go that far, but I am willing to question
the limitations of property rights. It is certain in my mind that
property rights are subordinate to the rights to life and liberty.
Shouldn't people have the liberty to own property?
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
It requires both capital and labor to make a profit. What I object to is
the unfair distribution of the fruits so that labor doesn't get it's share.
I also think that there are things that shouldn't be owned.
The only purpose of a corporation is to encourage investors to invest
in groups. In exchange for the public good that aggregating their
capital can provide, the state grants the investors privileges like tax
dodges and limitation of liability. The existence of corporations at
all is a testament to the fact that there are some jobs that are too
big or too risky for individuals to undertake on their own. In my
opinion, the most interesting problems to work on are problems of this
scale.
In a corporation, anyone who can't work in a team is incompetent.
99.9% of the useful work is done by 0.1% of the population. I'll take
10 of the 0.1% guys (who usually like to work alone, and then join the
"parts"), over 1,000 of your "team players" any time, and to return to
the original poster's "ideas", I would gladly pay these kind of guys
more than $750/hour, depending on the project.
Then you have mistaken property ownership with productivity. In today's
economy 99.9% of the useful work is done by 16-24 year old girls in China.
I know because I've helped set up some of the factories there. You'll
never be able to crank out a couple million widgets a month with only 11
people working for you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
05 Oct 2006 08:00:25 AM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
08 Oct 2006 11:11:55 PM |
|
|
An Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:00:25 -0700, DarkAngel schreibt:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
Doh!
I thought socialism was where we socialize the costs of doing business by
taxing labor and through government grants of tax immunity, limitation of
liability, and bailouts for the financiers of such institutions when they
fail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
10 Oct 2006 07:17:04 AM |
|
|
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:00:25 -0700, DarkAngel schreibt:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
Doh!
I thought socialism was where we socialize the costs of doing business by
taxing labor and through government grants of tax immunity, limitation of
liability, and bailouts for the financiers of such institutions when they
fail.
Social democracy is not socialism for the same reason that homeopathy
is not medicine...
You know, too much watering down.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
10 Oct 2006 01:10:57 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:00:25 -0700, DarkAngel schreibt:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
Doh!
I thought socialism was where we socialize the costs of doing business by
taxing labor and through government grants of tax immunity, limitation of
liability, and bailouts for the financiers of such institutions when they
fail.
Social democracy is not socialism for the same reason that homeopathy
is not medicine...
You know, too much watering down.
No enough punishment of those who get off their asses, produce
something, and get paid for it, eh, Comrade Angelowski?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
10 Oct 2006 01:21:22 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:00:25 -0700, DarkAngel schreibt:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
Doh!
I thought socialism was where we socialize the costs of doing business by
taxing labor and through government grants of tax immunity, limitation of
liability, and bailouts for the financiers of such institutions when they
fail.
Social democracy is not socialism for the same reason that homeopathy
is not medicine...
You know, too much watering down.
No enough punishment of those who get off their asses, produce
something, and get paid for it, eh, Comrade Angelowski?
Not enough workers self-management. Too much state bureaucracy (as in,
any state is too much state bureaucracy).
Further, we praise those who get off their asses and produce something.
They're called workers, or proletariat. As for the parasitic
bourgeoisie, their unproductive asses can be reeducated, and if not
they can just get out freely from our self-managed communities when we
take back what's ours, and go live in their caves like the rugged
individualists they claim to be. Punishment is the tool of the
right-wing authoritarians.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
10 Oct 2006 02:47:16 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:00:25 -0700, DarkAngel schreibt:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
Doh!
I thought socialism was where we socialize the costs of doing business by
taxing labor and through government grants of tax immunity, limitation of
liability, and bailouts for the financiers of such institutions when they
fail.
Social democracy is not socialism for the same reason that homeopathy
is not medicine...
You know, too much watering down.
No enough punishment of those who get off their asses, produce
something, and get paid for it, eh, Comrade Angelowski?
Not enough workers self-management. Too much state bureaucracy (as in,
any state is too much state bureaucracy).
Further, we praise those who get off their asses and produce something.
They're called workers, or proletariat. As for the parasitic
bourgeoisie, their unproductive asses can be reeducated, and if not
they can just get out freely from our self-managed communities when we
take back what's ours,
Is ANYTHING not "ours"?
and go live in their caves like the rugged
individualists they claim to be. Punishment is the tool of the
right-wing authoritarians.
But "The Workers" will also own the caves!
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
10 Oct 2006 03:08:13 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Further, we praise those who get off their asses and produce something.
They're called workers, or proletariat. As for the parasitic
bourgeoisie, their unproductive asses can be reeducated, and if not
they can just get out freely from our self-managed communities when we
take back what's ours,
Is ANYTHING not "ours"?
Sure. Their own labor. Better start working.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
10 Oct 2006 03:45:17 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Further, we praise those who get off their asses and produce something.
They're called workers, or proletariat. As for the parasitic
bourgeoisie, their unproductive asses can be reeducated, and if not
they can just get out freely from our self-managed communities when we
take back what's ours,
Is ANYTHING not "ours"?
Sure. Their own labor. Better start working.
This coming from a lazy frustated would-be parasite!
Who decides who is a bourgeoisie? Yes, I know, "The Workers" decide!
What will be the mechanism to implement this noble goal?
If you are such a strong believer in freedom, then why do you propose
that they should be "reeducated"?
Why is it that those community are "yours" and not "theirs"? I know it
would be because you would steal it and murder many, but the question
refers to rights, not the ability to get away with crimes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
10 Oct 2006 04:02:49 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Further, we praise those who get off their asses and produce something.
They're called workers, or proletariat. As for the parasitic
bourgeoisie, their unproductive asses can be reeducated, and if not
they can just get out freely from our self-managed communities when we
take back what's ours,
Is ANYTHING not "ours"?
Sure. Their own labor. Better start working.
This coming from a lazy frustated would-be parasite!
Tsk tsk. Look in the mirror. I have a job.
Who decides who is a bourgeoisie?
Bourgeois. Bourgeoisie is the collective term.
It is quite simple. Who owns the land? Who owns the factories? Who owns
the companies?
What will be the mechanism to implement this noble goal?
Revolution.
If you are such a strong believer in freedom, then why do you propose
that they should be "reeducated"?
In a free society, domineering personalities won't be able to fit in.
If the ex- slave masters are sincere in their desire to be part of our
society, then they will voluntarily relearn how to work with others
without giving them orders. If they don't, then why should we tolerate
them, anymore than we tolerate other anti-social individuals like
murderers or pedophiles? If they are so dead set on their ways, they
can voluntarily remove themselves from our society and, like I said,
live in their caves in a hunter-gatherer way of life, since that's all
they'll be able to accomplish without a community they can parasite
from.
Why is it that those community are "yours" and not "theirs"?
Because we built them.
I know it
would be because you would steal it and murder many, but the question
refers to rights, not the ability to get away with crimes.
What are rights? Can you point me to the physical laws that is
responsible for their existence?
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
10 Oct 2006 06:04:45 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Further, we praise those who get off their asses and produce something.
They're called workers, or proletariat. As for the parasitic
bourgeoisie, their unproductive asses can be reeducated, and if not
they can just get out freely from our self-managed communities when we
take back what's ours,
Is ANYTHING not "ours"?
Sure. Their own labor. Better start working.
This coming from a lazy frustated would-be parasite!
Tsk tsk. Look in the mirror. I have a job.
I thought you didn't like to be "exploited"!
And you brag about it!
I exploit myself.
Who decides who is a bourgeoisie?
Bourgeois. Bourgeoisie is the collective term.
You see, when I write english, I write english, not french (or fancy
latin terms to impress the easily impressionable).
It is quite simple. Who owns the land? Who owns the factories? Who owns
the companies?
And they ALL stole what they have!
What will be the mechanism to implement this noble goal?
Revolution.
We are already at the stage after The Revolution triumphed (read what
you wrote).
"As for the parasitic bourgeoisie, their unproductive asses can be
reeducated, and if not
they can just get out freely from our self-managed communities when we
take back what's ours,"
The question remains.
If you are such a strong believer in freedom, then why do you propose
that they should be "reeducated"?
In a free society, domineering personalities won't be able to fit in.
And who will make that ruling?
If the ex- slave masters are sincere in their desire to be part of our
society, then they will voluntarily relearn how to work with others
without giving them orders. If they don't, then why should we tolerate
them, anymore than we tolerate other anti-social individuals like
murderers or pedophiles? If they are so dead set on their ways, they
can voluntarily remove themselves from our society and, like I said,
live in their caves in a hunter-gatherer way of life, since that's all
they'll be able to accomplish without a community they can parasite
from.
Why is it that those community are "yours" and not "theirs"?
Because we built them.
Who built the land?
I know it
would be because you would steal it and murder many, but the question
refers to rights, not the ability to get away with crimes.
What are rights? Can you point me to the physical laws that is
responsible for their existence?
Can YOU point me to the physical laws that gives you the right to the
communities mentioned above, because according to you "we built them"?
Tuco can play that game too, comrade!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
05 Oct 2006 11:01:37 AM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
You get paid, don't you?
That's the fruit of your labor, and it's fairly established in
negotiations between you and your employer. We already had a little
discussion about this very subject a month or two ago.
In your socialist paradise, there is no negotiation; you are told what
to do, where to go, and if you don't like it, well, you are sent away
to be "re-educated".
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
05 Oct 2006 11:44:43 AM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
You get paid, don't you?
That's the fruit of your labor,
No. That's my wages. No economist, even the pro-capitalists, could make
that mistake.
Under capitalism, the employer buys your labor force in exchange for
wages. The products of that labor (the fruits) are owned by the
company, not the worker (anyone who works in IP related businesses
would know that). It is not the products of your labour that the
company pays. It is for the labour force itself it pays. Most companies
pay you by the hour, not by the piece or by the widget or by the line
of code. Whether you produce 10 or 20 widgets in that time slice, your
wages don't change.
In your socialist paradise, there is no negotiation;
True. Because the workers would own the full value of their own
production (socialism meaning worker ownership of their own
production).
The very existence of negotiation demonstrates that there is a
distinction made by the employer between the value of the products of
my labour and the received wages. The value of what I produce is a
FACT. It can't be negotiated. If I, alone, made 10 widgets, and they
are valued at X more than the costs of materials on the market, then
the value of my labour is 10 * X. Fact. The workers can't receive more
than 10 * X because the production unit couldn't pay up with fantom
moneys. They can certainly receive less than that, when *someone* is
taking a cut. Hence the need for negotiation under capitalism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
05 Oct 2006 05:26:56 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 5 Oct 2006 09:44:43 -0700, "DarkAngel"
<drkangel666@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
In your socialist paradise, there is no negotiation;
True. Because the workers would own the full value of their own
production (socialism meaning worker ownership of their own
production).
Meaning: low-output autarky.
Hint: valuation is not objective. Stop buying into the myth
that it is.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
05 Oct 2006 07:18:04 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 5 Oct 2006 09:44:43 -0700, "DarkAngel"
<drkangel666@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
In your socialist paradise, there is no negotiation;
True. Because the workers would own the full value of their own
production (socialism meaning worker ownership of their own
production).
Meaning: low-output autarky.
Multinational corporations are inefficient. The proof is simple: the
vast majority of employees in Western corporations are white collar
workers, and there is barely any industrial production left, most of it
having been outsourced to other countries. This means that the vast
majority of American workers are *bureaucrats*. Their entire work is
managing the unwieldy and inefficient corporate beasts, while only a
couple of employees in the Third World do all the useful work.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
05 Oct 2006 07:52:11 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 5 Oct 2006 17:18:04 -0700, "DarkAngel"
<drkangel666@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 5 Oct 2006 09:44:43 -0700, "DarkAngel"
<drkangel666@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
In your socialist paradise, there is no negotiation;
True. Because the workers would own the full value of their own
production (socialism meaning worker ownership of their own
production).
Meaning: low-output autarky.
Multinational corporations are inefficient.
Prove it.
The proof is simple: the
vast majority of employees in Western corporations are white collar
workers, and there is barely any industrial production left, most of it
having been outsourced to other countries.
That's not proving it.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
05 Oct 2006 08:00:45 AM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
10 Oct 2006 07:29:49 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
Idiot.
The terms of employment are 100% voluntary. Therefore, the fruits of
your labor is whatever you can successfully contract.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
No idiots either, hopefully.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
11 Oct 2006 07:53:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
Idiot.
The terms of employment are 100% voluntary.
No they're not. The market isn't free. Any libertarian knows that.
There is state coercion affecting it. It is turning the labor market
into a buyer's market through state policies that, for instance, has
given a subsidies to agrobusiness leading to the bankruptcy of family
farms. Subsidies favoring large firms to the detriment of small firms
thus raising the bar of entry into the market so that it is a corporate
oligopoly. So no, it is NOT 100% voluntary.
Therefore, the fruits of your labor is whatever you can successfully contract.
The fruits of my labor is the full value of my production, not what
wages some employer pays to employ my labor. Socialism, full ownership
of my production, would be the inevitable result of a free market, as
without state subsidies corporate capitalism could not sustain itself
in the face of the efficiency of small, local enterprises who are more
in touch with their customers thus more able to innovate.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
11 Oct 2006 03:09:53 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
StarbladeEnkai@Excite.com wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Don't they have the right to the fruits of their labor?
Yes. But that's called socialism. In capitalism, it's the owner of the
firm who owns the fruits of our labour.
Idiot.
The terms of employment are 100% voluntary.
No they're not. The market isn't free. Any libertarian knows that.
There is state coercion affecting it. It is turning the labor market
into a buyer's market through state policies that, for instance, has
given a subsidies to agrobusiness leading to the bankruptcy of family
farms. Subsidies favoring large firms to the detriment of small firms
thus raising the bar of entry into the market so that it is a corporate
oligopoly. So no, it is NOT 100% voluntary.
Well then the solution is to get rid of the subsidies, isn't it?
Therefore, the fruits of your labor is whatever you can successfully contract.
The fruits of my labor is the full value of my production, not what
wages some employer pays to employ my labor.
You have no understanding of the meaning of the word value. Value is
agent relative. This is because value has to do with how much of a
benefit something is, and only an individual can receive benefit. You
are paid MORE than what your labor is valuable to you. Otherwise, if
you valued your labor more than what you were paid by some business,
you would simply not work for that business.
Socialism, full ownership
of my production, would be the inevitable result of a free market,
You DO own your production under capitalism. You own the right not to
sell it to anyone if that should so please you.
as
without state subsidies corporate capitalism could not sustain itself
There are no subsidies in true capitalism.
in the face of the efficiency of small, local enterprises who are more
in touch with their customers thus more able to innovate.
Certain enterprises actually work at a small scale, certain enterprises
don't.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
12 Oct 2006 10:38:01 AM |
|
|
wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
wrote:
The terms of employment are 100% voluntary.
No they're not. The market isn't free. Any libertarian knows that.
There is state coercion affecting it. It is turning the labor market
into a buyer's market through state policies that, for instance, has
given a subsidies to agrobusiness leading to the bankruptcy of family
farms. Subsidies favoring large firms to the detriment of small firms
thus raising the bar of entry into the market so that it is a corporate
oligopoly. So no, it is NOT 100% voluntary.
Well then the solution is to get rid of the subsidies, isn't it?
Yes. Which is why I'm an anarchist.
You are paid MORE than what your labor is valuable to you. Otherwise, if
you valued your labor more than what you were paid by some business,
you would simply not work for that business.
This is only true in a free market. We have already established that
this market isn't free. You have agreed with me on this previously.
Market value is objective. It is the aggregate function of the market,
of the individual subjective valuations. My boss sells my production at
the price he can get out of the market. The entirety of this value
should be mine, and would be mine in a free market because in a free
market wage slavery would be unattractive. Instead, corporate-state
planning has artificially made labor a buyer's market, corporate-state
planning creates barriers of entry so that only capital-intensive firms
can compete, thus creating corporate oligopolies which defacto
eliminates alternatives to wage slavery.
Socialism, full ownership
of my production, would be the inevitable result of a free market,
You DO own your production under capitalism.
Capitalism is not a synonym of free market. Capitalism means "a social
organisation where some individuals hold power through a monopoly on
capital". Socialism is "a social organisation under which capital is
owned by the workers of a firm", communism is "a social organisation
under which capital is owned in common". My contention is that a free
market leads inevitably to socialism. That is because in a free market
no one would work for a firm that doesn't pay them the full value of
their labor. And this is why the libertarian position and the socialist
position are one and the same.
as
without state subsidies corporate capitalism could not sustain itself
There are no subsidies in true capitalism.
There are no subsidies in a free market. A free market would not be
capitalist.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
13 Oct 2006 02:19:16 AM |
|
|
Market value is objective.
There is no such thing as market value. There is market PRICE, not
market value.
It is the aggregate function of the market,
of the individual subjective valuations.
Individual valuations aren't subjective. They are value judgements
based on either good premises or bad premises. Those who posess good
premises thrive, while those who posess bad premises suffer.
My boss sells my production at
the price he can get out of the market. The entirety of this value
should be mine, and would be mine in a free market because in a free
market wage slavery would be unattractive.
It does sound very attractive to people who are students living with
their parents. How else are they going to learn work ethics?
Instead, corporate-state
planning has artificially made labor a buyer's market, corporate-state
planning creates barriers of entry so that only capital-intensive firms
can compete, thus creating corporate oligopolies which defacto
eliminates alternatives to wage slavery.
And I suppose your solution for this would be... more regulation?
Socialism, full ownership
of my production, would be the inevitable result of a free market,
You DO own your production under capitalism.
Capitalism is not a synonym of free market. Capitalism means "a social
organisation where some individuals hold power through a monopoly on
capital". Socialism is "a social organisation under which capital is
owned by the workers of a firm", communism is "a social organisation
under which capital is owned in common". My contention is that a free
market leads inevitably to socialism. That is because in a free market
no one would work for a firm that doesn't pay them the full value of
their labor. And this is why the libertarian position and the socialist
position are one and the same.
I would call the first one aristocracy. Capitalism is where everybody
owns however much capital they can acquire and maintain, governed only
by a set of laws that makes this possible, IE ones which protect rights
to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, and ONLY
those.
as
without state subsidies corporate capitalism could not sustain itself
There are no subsidies in true capitalism.
There are no subsidies in a free market. A free market would not be
capitalist.
Under my definition of capitalism they would be one and the same.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
13 Oct 2006 09:29:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Market value is objective.
There is no such thing as market value. There is market PRICE, not
market value.
In a perfect market (like some online economies) the distinction is
nil. You can always move your goods at market price, so the defacto
value of the good is the market price even if you value it less than
that. You can always find goods at the market price, so even if you
value it more than that you can always get it at a 'discount' from your
subjective valuation. Someone who wants to sell at higher, or buy at
lower, than market value will wait indefinitly, because even if someone
values it at the same price as you he can get a better deal any time.
My example for that is the Magic: The Gathering Online single cards
market. Someone can say a card is only worth 1$ to him, and it can be
worth only 1$ to you, if it sells at 4$ on the market there's no way
he'll sell it to you for 1$ because there is *always* someone willing
to buy it at 4$ available.
This is the only thing close to a 'free market' I've ever seen in my
life, as it is devoid of government interference.
My boss sells my production at
the price he can get out of the market. The entirety of this value
should be mine, and would be mine in a free market because in a free
market wage slavery would be unattractive.
It does sound very attractive to people who are students living with
their parents. How else are they going to learn work ethics?
How is work ethics, as any Christian ethics, anything else than a
method at creating compliant slaves? It's a premodern set of ethics. It
has no use in a technological society in which machines could already
produce enough to keep the entire planet in relative luxury if it
wasn't for capitalist mismanagement.
Instead, corporate-state
planning has artificially made labor a buyer's market, corporate-state
planning creates barriers of entry so that only capital-intensive firms
can compete, thus creating corporate oligopolies which defacto
eliminates alternatives to wage slavery.
And I suppose your solution for this would be... more regulation?
I see you seem to have missed the part where I'm an anarchist. The
solution is abolition of state and capitalism.
Capitalism is not a synonym of free market. Capitalism means "a social
organisation where some individuals hold power through a monopoly on
capital". Socialism is "a social organisation under which capital is
owned by the workers of a firm", communism is "a social organisation
under which capital is owned in common". My contention is that a free
market leads inevitably to socialism. That is because in a free market
no one would work for a firm that doesn't pay them the full value of
their labor. And this is why the libertarian position and the socialist
position are one and the same.
I would call the first one aristocracy.
Ahistorical. The aristocracy did not own much capital, only land. The
tension between the landed aristocracy and the capital-owning
bourgeoisie was the whole reason for the capitalist revolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
13 Oct 2006 01:59:24 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
StarbladeEnkai@Excite.com wrote:
Market value is objective.
There is no such thing as market value. There is market PRICE, not
market value.
In a perfect market (like some online economies) the distinction is
nil.
WRONG. The market PRICE is the amount of money that a consumer must pay
and the amount of money that a producer may charge. The VALUE of
something is a measure of utility to the individual in question.
You can always move your goods at market price, so the defacto
value of the good is the market price even if you value it less than
that. You can always find goods at the market price, so even if you
value it more than that you can always get it at a 'discount' from your
subjective valuation. Someone who wants to sell at higher, or buy at
lower, than market value will wait indefinitly, because even if someone
values it at the same price as you he can get a better deal any time.
Your usage of the word value to refer both to market price and
individual value is bound to create the fallacy of equivocation in your
arguments.
My example for that is the Magic: The Gathering Online single cards
market. Someone can say a card is only worth 1$ to him, and it can be
worth only 1$ to you, if it sells at 4$ on the market there's no way
he'll sell it to you for 1$ because there is *always* someone willing
to buy it at 4$ available.
This is the only thing close to a 'free market' I've ever seen in my
life, as it is devoid of government interference.
Yes, good example, except it doesn't explain which words ought to be
used when and where. You are demonstrating something of which I already
know.
My boss sells my production at
the price he can get out of the market. The entirety of this value
should be mine, and would be mine in a free market because in a free
market wage slavery would be unattractive.
It does sound very attractive to people who are students living with
their parents. How else are they going to learn work ethics?
How is work ethics, as any Christian ethics, anything else than a
method at creating compliant slaves?
Work ethics is about self interest. Christian ethics is about self
sacrifice.
If you cannot tell the difference between a hero and a martyr, then
perhaps you should read some Ayn Rand.
It's a premodern set of ethics. It
has no use in a technological society in which machines could already
produce enough to keep the entire planet in relative luxury if it
wasn't for capitalist mismanagement.
People would still have to work. By stating that capitalists mismanage
things, you are implying some form of ethics.
Instead, corporate-state
planning has artificially made labor a buyer's market, corporate-state
planning creates barriers of entry so that only capital-intensive firms
can compete, thus creating corporate oligopolies which defacto
eliminates alternatives to wage slavery.
And I suppose your solution for this would be... more regulation?
I see you seem to have missed the part where I'm an anarchist. The
solution is abolition of state and capitalism.
The state is still necessary for providing protections to the rights of
life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.
Capitalism is not a synonym of free market. Capitalism means "a social
organisation where some individuals hold power through a monopoly on
capital". Socialism is "a social organisation under which capital is
owned by the workers of a firm", communism is "a social organisation
under which capital is owned in common". My contention is that a free
market leads inevitably to socialism. That is because in a free market
no one would work for a firm that doesn't pay them the full value of
their labor. And this is why the libertarian position and the socialist
position are one and the same.
I would call the first one aristocracy.
Ahistorical. The aristocracy did not own much capital, only land.
Newsflash: Land IS capital.
The
tension between the landed aristocracy and the capital-owning
bourgeoisie was the whole reason for the capitalist revolution.
And I suppose you believe the workers would be able to operate
independantly of capitalists? Actually, if you found some way this
would work, I would support it whole heartedly. However, the key isn't
the elimination of rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of
happiness.
The key is working within those rights to creating a social and
economic order in which the self-owned laborers could work for
eachother AND produce more effectively than if they were to work for
someone else. The very first thing we would need would be a set of
ethics which put an end to the grade school mentality that most social
economic systems would be bound to produce.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
12 Oct 2006 02:01:01 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 12 Oct 2006 08:38:01 -0700, "DarkAngel"
<drkangel666@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
StarbladeEnkai@Excite.com wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
StarbladeEnkai@Excite.com wrote:
The terms of employment are 100% voluntary.
No they're not. The market isn't free. Any libertarian knows that.
There is state coercion affecting it. It is turning the labor market
into a buyer's market through state policies that, for instance, has
given a subsidies to agrobusiness leading to the bankruptcy of family
farms. Subsidies favoring large firms to the detriment of small firms
thus raising the bar of entry into the market so that it is a corporate
oligopoly. So no, it is NOT 100% voluntary.
Well then the solution is to get rid of the subsidies, isn't it?
Yes. Which is why I'm an anarchist.
You are paid MORE than what your labor is valuable to you. Otherwise, if
you valued your labor more than what you were paid by some business,
you would simply not work for that business.
This is only true in a free market. We have already established that
this market isn't free. You have agreed with me on this previously.
Market value is objective. It is the aggregate function of the market,
of the individual subjective valuations. My boss sells my production at
the price he can get out of the market. The entirety of this value
should be mine, and would be mine in a free market because in a free
market wage slavery would be unattractive.
You were going so well until you used the refuted-to-death
labor theory of value.
Socialism, full ownership
of my production, would be the inevitable result of a free market,
You DO own your production under capitalism.
Capitalism is not a synonym of free market. Capitalism means "a social
organisation where some individuals hold power through a monopoly on
capital".
No, that's only what it means to marxist idiots.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
12 Oct 2006 05:00:51 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 12 Oct 2006 08:38:01 -0700, "DarkAngel"
<drkangel666@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
StarbladeEnkai@Excite.com wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
StarbladeEnkai@Excite.com wrote:
The terms of employment are 100% voluntary.
No they're not. The market isn't free. Any libertarian knows that.
There is state coercion affecting it. It is turning the labor market
into a buyer's market through state policies that, for instance, has
given a subsidies to agrobusiness leading to the bankruptcy of family
farms. Subsidies favoring large firms to the detriment of small firms
thus raising the bar of entry into the market so that it is a corporate
oligopoly. So no, it is NOT 100% voluntary.
Well then the solution is to get rid of the subsidies, isn't it?
Yes. Which is why I'm an anarchist.
You are paid MORE than what your labor is valuable to you. Otherwise, if
you valued your labor more than what you were paid by some business,
you would simply not work for that business.
This is only true in a free market. We have already established that
this market isn't free. You have agreed with me on this previously.
Market value is objective. It is the aggregate function of the market,
of the individual subjective valuations. My boss sells my production at
the price he can get out of the market. The entirety of this value
should be mine, and would be mine in a free market because in a free
market wage slavery would be unattractive.
You were going so well until you used the refuted-to-death
labor theory of value.
For the education of lurkers and other posters, what is the labor
theory of value and how have I used it?
Socialism, full ownership
of my production, would be the inevitable result of a free market,
You DO own your production under capitalism.
Capitalism is not a synonym of free market. Capitalism means "a social
organisation where some individuals hold power through a monopoly on
capital".
No, that's only what it means to marxist idiots.
We could enter a fruitless argument about etymology and who coined the
term first having some limited form of ownership over the definition.
We could discuss drift of meaning, how equivocating between free market
and capitalism is a convenient way to blur the distinction between many
superficially similar forms of social organisation that are really very
different at the core.
But suffice it to say that I am putting forward this definition as the
definition of capitalism, and that it is under that definition that I
attack it. I do not equivocate and I always use this definition when I
make an argument about capitalism, so if it bothers you just use
'plutocracy' or 'social organisation form A' whenever I use the term
'capitalism'. Then we can start discussing ideas rather than dismissing
them out of hand because of ideological blinders.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
12 Oct 2006 09:04:02 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 12 Oct 2006 15:00:51 -0700, "DarkAngel"
<drkangel666@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 12 Oct 2006 08:38:01 -0700, "DarkAngel"
<drkangel666@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
StarbladeEnkai@Excite.com wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
StarbladeEnkai@Excite.com wrote:
The terms of employment are 100% voluntary.
No they're not. The market isn't free. Any libertarian knows that.
There is state coercion affecting it. It is turning the labor market
into a buyer's market through state policies that, for instance, has
given a subsidies to agrobusiness leading to the bankruptcy of family
farms. Subsidies favoring large firms to the detriment of small firms
thus raising the bar of entry into the market so that it is a corporate
oligopoly. So no, it is NOT 100% voluntary.
Well then the solution is to get rid of the subsidies, isn't it?
Yes. Which is why I'm an anarchist.
You are paid MORE than what your labor is valuable to you. Otherwise, if
you valued your labor more than what you were paid by some business,
you would simply not work for that business.
This is only true in a free market. We have already established that
this market isn't free. You have agreed with me on this previously.
Market value is objective. It is the aggregate function of the market,
of the individual subjective valuations. My boss sells my production at
the price he can get out of the market. The entirety of this value
should be mine, and would be mine in a free market because in a free
market wage slavery would be unattractive.
You were going so well until you used the refuted-to-death
labor theory of value.
For the education of lurkers and other posters, what is the labor
theory of value and how have I used it?
That the value of something is entirely dependent upon the
amount of labor put into something, and that if the entirety of the
value that the boss sells something at on the market should actually
be yours, then you are basing the value of something on the amount of
labor that you put into it. What you stated is Marxian exploitation
theory in different words.
Socialism, full ownership
of my production, would be the inevitable result of a free market,
You DO own your production under capitalism.
Capitalism is not a synonym of free market. Capitalism means "a social
organisation where some individuals hold power through a monopoly on
capital".
No, that's only what it means to marxist idiots.
We could enter a fruitless argument about etymology and who coined the
term first having some limited form of ownership over the definition.
Or we could not lie about what the definition of capitalism is
in the same way that fundies lie about the definition of atheism.
We could discuss drift of meaning, how equivocating between free market
and capitalism is a convenient way to blur the distinction between many
superficially similar forms of social organisation that are really very
different at the core.
Actually, there is no equivocation, since only in capitalism
can you have a free market. It's utterly impossible otherwise.
At any rate, if you wish to use your "definition", then an
anarchist is someone who wholeheartedly supports the idea that there
should be a government. That is how utterly fucking wrong your
definition is.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Maximum Wage as well as Minimum Wage |
13 Oct 2006 09:15:35 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 12 Oct 2006 15:00:51 -0700, "DarkAngel"
<drkangel666@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
For the education of lurkers and other posters, what is the labor
theory of value and how have I used it?
That the value of something is entirely dependent upon the
amount of labor put into something,
That's your error. It is dependent on the amount of *useful* work put
into something. This is the crux of the argument regarding whether the
bosses, who I would think nobody is arguing don't put in a lot of
hours, have a right to a share of the production...
For instance, vikings put a lot of labor into their raids, but nobody
would claim they were the producers of value... Similarly, I will
gladly admit that plundering capitalists work very hard to find new
ways to plunder the economy each day.
We could enter a fruitless argument about etymology and who coined the
term first having some limited form of ownership over the definition.
Or we could not lie about what the definition of capitalism is
in the same way that fundies lie about the definition of atheism.
First of all, the idea that words have some sort of immutable and
unchanging definition is so ridiculous on its own face that I'm not
even going to bother answering it.
The fundies don't lie about the definition of atheism. They define the
term in a certain way (atheism-1). Atheists define it in a certain way
as a self-describing characteristic (atheism-2). The lie is when they
come in here and implicitly claim that atheism-1 and atheism-2 is the
same, by attacking people who self-describe as atheists under atheism-2
under their atheism-1 definition.
At any rate, if you wish to use your "definition", then an
anarchist is someone who wholeheartedly supports the idea that there
should be a government.
Non sequitur.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
