[QUOTE=lifehole;39798628]Seed Eater, you're leaving out artificial labor. And intellectual labor.
[/QUOTE]
for the purpose of a broader argument artificial and intellectual labor function in a similar manner.
the idea is people are entitled to control what they produce or control what services they provide. whether you are making computers or giving haircuts, you should have decision-making power at your workplace regarding distribution of this good or service.
i mean the ultimate, long-term goal as far as libertarianism, minarchism, and anarchism goes is to minimize coercive control in society. people are supposed to have control over their life, work included.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39798681]I never really got the idea of redistributing wealth. I'm all for programs to help poverty and higher taxes for the rich, but saying rich people don't deserve their cash because they have a lot is really stupid.
The economy, like life, isn't fair. Some people are naturally just gonna make more. You can't say they don't deserve it because you think they made to much. It doesn't really matter how hard they worked for it. It's their cash and you can't just take it away from them because you feel it's unfair.[/QUOTE]
i look at it like a thief. is a thief entitled to your stuff as soon as they walk out the door with it? if not, why is a ceo entitled to steal the wealth of his company for his own personal usage?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39798695]i look at it like a thief. is a thief entitled to your stuff as soon as they walk out the door with it? if not, why is a ceo entitled to steal the wealth of his company for his own personal usage?[/QUOTE]
because it is in a legally binding contract with the company, if a thief was in a legally binding contract which was created with the consent of all the connected parties (you) and the contract including him being paid 'your stuff' then yes he would be entitled to it if he fulfilled his side of the contract (burgling you/running the company)
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39798695]i look at it like a thief. is a thief entitled to your stuff as soon as they walk out the door with it? if not, why is a ceo entitled to steal the wealth of his company for his own personal usage?[/QUOTE]
Because he pays you for it and you in return [i]willingly[/i] give back your labor.
The thief analogy is really poor.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39798743]because it is in a legally binding contract with the company, if a theif was in a legally binding contract which was created with the consent of all the connected parties (you) and the contract including him being paid 'your stuff' then yes he would be entitled to it if he fulfilled his side of the contract (theifing/running the company)[/QUOTE]
the problem is that the legally binding contract is immoral. it is coercive by nature because if you do not own capital, you HAVE to sell your labor to survive. it creates a system where the laborers are powerless to decide the terms of the contract and so they are perpetually exploited.
the capitalist is no different than a thief or a dictator except for the fact that he exploits and steals through legal means instead of illegal means.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39798681]I never really got the idea of redistributing wealth. I'm all for programs to help poverty and higher taxes for the rich, but saying rich people don't deserve their cash because they have a lot is really stupid.
The economy, like life, isn't fair. Some people are naturally just gonna make more. You can't say they don't deserve it because you think they made to much. It doesn't really matter how hard they worked for it. It's their cash and you can't just take it away from them because you feel it's unfair.[/QUOTE]
See: Soviet Russia
(This is just saying that people can and will freak the fuck out if stuff is too imbalanced. I am not a supporter of anything that went on there.)
[editline]4th March 2013[/editline]
Everyone should have a limit on how much wealth can be made by them, because at a certain point you'll have enough money for all you'll ever need. Sure you could want more, but there is always more to want, and people don't realize the point where what they want is actually hurting others because they already have so much.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39798695]i look at it like a thief. is a thief entitled to your stuff as soon as they walk out the door with it? if not, why is a ceo entitled to steal the wealth of his company for his own personal usage?[/QUOTE]
Why do you assume every rich man is rich because he is corrupt. It's really shallow to assume everyone in the upper class are thieves without morals. I've met plenty of upper class families and the good majority are honest, hardworking people. Some people just make a higher salary, that doesn't make them thieves. Are you saying they should lose that cash they earned just because you feel they don't deserve it? I'm sure you'd be pretty upset If I took your savings away because I feel you don't deserve it.
did anybody arguing about socialism actually watch the video, or did you just rage out and post because you think it's about some kind of socialist plan to rummage through your bank account
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39798824]Why do you assume every rich man is rich because he is corrupt. It's really shallow to assume everyone in the upper class are thieves without morals. I've met plenty of upper class families and the good majority are honest, hardworking people. Some people just make a higher salary, that doesn't make them thieves. Are you saying they should lose that cash they earned just because you feel they don't deserve it? I'm sure you'd be pretty upset If I took your savings away because I feel you don't deserve it.[/QUOTE]
Upper class =/= the superrich. There should be healthy competition because some people DO do better than others and deserve slightly more in comparison. BUT there is a limit on how high a human being being should be on the economic ladder. If we let them go higher, we have to make sure they spend the money responsibly, because they own such a large percent of the economy, that they are not only entitled to wealth, but to responsibility to spend it in positive ways. Which they haven't been.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39798824]Why do you assume every rich man is rich because he is corrupt. It's really shallow to assume everyone in the upper class are thieves without morals. I've met plenty of upper class families and the good majority are honest, hardworking people. Some people just make a higher salary, that doesn't make them thieves. Are you saying they should lose that cash they earned just because you feel they don't deserve it? I'm sure you'd be pretty upset If I took your savings away because I feel you don't deserve it.[/QUOTE]
i'm not saying the individual is or isn't immoral. i'm saying the system itself is immoral. these people are thieves by their nature whether they know it or believe in it. they might be great guys, but they play ball for a system that encourages the exploitation of the lower classes.
and i'm speaking specifically about the bourgeoisie, those who own capital and labor. someone can be in a relatively high position in life while still being "proletariat", selling their labor for money.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;39798863]did anybody arguing about socialism actually watch the video[/QUOTE]
im not gonna watch some commie pinko youtube video
[QUOTE=daijitsu;39798863]did anybody arguing about socialism actually watch the video[/QUOTE]
The guy in the video was obviously relatively right-wing or only slightly left wing, because socialism is not what he described. That is idealistic communism. Which is not going to happen, anytime soon, anyways.
[QUOTE=lifehole;39798875]Upper class =/= the superrich. There should be healthy competition because some people DO do better than others and deserve slightly more in comparison. BUT there is a limit on how high a human being being should be on the economic ladder. If we let them go higher, we have to make sure they spend the money responsibly, because they own such a large percent of the economy, that they are not only entitled to wealth, but to responsibility to spend it in positive ways. Which they haven't been.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, let's just start restricting freedom of the rich because some people don't think they deserve a lot. In the USA, no less.
Who are you, or any other person, to say he shouldn't have that wealth. It's his cash and he has every right to do with it as he pleases.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39798954]Oh yeah, let's just start restricting freedom of the rich because some people don't think they deserve a lot. In the USA, no less.
Who are you, or any other person, to say he shouldn't have that wealth. It's his cash and he has every right to do with it as he pleases.[/QUOTE]
"the people he exploited to get there" is probably whats going to be said next.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39798981]actually it's not his cash, it is my cash and the cash of every worker in the united states. we are the ones who should decide how it is distributed, not him.[/QUOTE]
Haaaa I win.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39798954]Oh yeah, let's just start restricting freedom of the rich because some people don't think they deserve a lot. In the USA, no less.
Who are you, or any other person, to say he shouldn't have that wealth. It's his cash and he has every right to do with it as he pleases.[/QUOTE]
actually it's not his cash, it is my cash and the cash of every worker in the united states. we are the ones who should decide how it is distributed, not him.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39798981]actually it's not his cash, it is my cash and the cash of every worker in the united states. we are the ones who should decide how it is distributed, not him.[/QUOTE]
he provided the means for you to be able to make that cash
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39798981]actually it's not his cash, it is my cash and the cash of every worker in the united states. we are the ones who should decide how it is distributed, not him.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should try moving to the USSR. I heard life is great there.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;39798980]"the people he exploited to get there" is probably whats going to be said next.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, let's just take away his rights because he's prolly a prick.
You can't take away someone's rights just because you feel it's unfair. Rights are rights, regardless of fairness.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;39799023]Maybe you should try moving to the USSR. I heard life is great there.[/QUOTE]
yea let's move from a capitalist society to a state capitalist society that will make everything a lot better.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39799033]Oh yeah, let's just take away his rights because he's prolly a prick.
You can't take away someone's rights just because you feel it's unfair. Rights are rights, regardless of fairness.[/QUOTE]
well then we all have the right to steal and exploit then? or is it just the rich who are given that right?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39799061]yea let's move from a capitalist society to a state capitalist society that will make everything a lot better.
well then we all have the right to steal and exploit then? or is it just the rich who are given that right?[/QUOTE]
yes you have the right to steal and exploit as long as it is within the law
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39798954]Oh yeah, let's just start restricting freedom of the rich because some people don't think they deserve a lot. In the USA, no less.
Who are you, or any other person, to say he shouldn't have that wealth. It's his cash and he has every right to do with it as he pleases.[/QUOTE]
"a lot" is a blatant understatement. Do you really think 1% of people deserve 50% of wealth? "It's his cash and he has every right to do as he pleases." For fucks sake. The system in which he got that cash in is broken. I don't think 40-50% of the combined country economic capital should rest with him just because "it's his cash" We already know people cannot be trusted to do what they wish with money, why do you think we have laws against this kindof stuff?
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39799115]yes you have the right to steal and exploit as long as it is within the law[/QUOTE]
but then what happens when the rich are the ones writing the laws?
[editline]4th March 2013[/editline]
like it is now
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39799020]he provided the means for you to be able to make that cash[/QUOTE]
and we provide him employment. This is a cooperative agreement.
You think just because he knows business he deserves huge amounts of wealth and money? Just because he employed us doesn't mean we're his slaves. Employment is a cooperative agreement, not a one sided argument. It is a fundamental part of the economy to be employed, and it is capital itself to find a job/worker. But that doesn't mean he owns us just because we are his capital. We are still human beings, not numbers in the computer.
Mind you, to a top ranking CEO of a huge company, that's all we are. And that's all we'll ever be.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39799033]Oh yeah, let's just take away his rights because he's prolly a prick.
You can't take away someone's rights just because you feel it's unfair. Rights are rights, regardless of fairness.[/QUOTE]
Hold up there, Jethro. That ain't my opinion, I was guessing what was going to be said next.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;39799023]Maybe you should try moving to the USSR. I heard life is great there.[/QUOTE]
This. Jesus christ if you provide an essential service to society, you get paid more. Like it or not a CEO is more skilled, valuable, and generally important than some cashier. Equal distribution of wealth is not only a dumb idea, it's downright inhuman. If I take the time to learn and get a job that is important and pays me more, I'm using my money how I goddamn want it. If we functioned in a society where everyone cares for you and takes care of you no matter how much or how little you contribute, we wouldn't be where we are. There will always be poor and rich people as long as there is humanity, no matter how much the poor resent or revolt or rate you Dumb (Hi Deep!), and living in the US there is plenty of opportunity to move up on the social ladder, it just depends on how willing you are to work towards it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39799130]but then what happens when the rich are the ones writing the laws?
[editline]4th March 2013[/editline]
like it is now[/QUOTE]
if only we had a system where the public could affect the majority of state decisions by choosing the people they think would be best suited to make them (like for example not the rich)
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39799220]if only we had a system where the public could affect the majority of state decisions by choosing the people they think would be best suited to make them (like for example not the rich)[/QUOTE]
it's too bad we genuinely do not have a system like that.
[QUOTE=lifehole;39799198]and we provide him employment. This is a cooperative agreement.
You think just because he knows business he deserves huge amounts of wealth and money? Just because he employed us doesn't mean we're his slaves. Employment is a cooperative agreement, not a one sided argument. It is a fundamental part of the economy to be employed, and it is capital itself to find a job/worker. But that doesn't mean he owns us just because we are his capital. We are still human beings, not numbers in the computer.
Mind you, to a top ranking CEO of a huge company, that's all we are. And that's all we'll ever be.[/QUOTE]
are you a top ranking CEO of a huge company? or some sort of telepath who can read rich people's minds? you're definitely not a slave as you're paid for your work
[QUOTE=lifehole;39799198]and we provide him employment. This is a cooperative agreement.
You think just because he knows business he deserves huge amounts of wealth and money? Just because he employed us doesn't mean we're his slaves. Employment is a cooperative agreement, not a one sided argument. It is a fundamental part of the economy to be employed, and it is capital itself to find a job/worker. But that doesn't mean he owns us just because we are his capital. We are still human beings, not numbers in the computer.
Mind you, to a top ranking CEO of a huge company, that's all we are. And that's all we'll ever be.[/QUOTE]
A cooperative agreement, yes. Absolutely. you agree to do a task for a wage. However, if [I]you[/I] don't like the agreement, 9 times out of 10 he'll say "whatever" and go find someone else, because there's one of him and a shitton of people who can do the task he wants done. He'll find someone who will agree to those terms eventually.
-OR-
for more difficult tasks where the pool to choose from is smaller, you might be JUST the guy he needs, with the skills he needs, with the pull and worth to be able to negotiate the terms with him.
It all depends on how much you as an individual are worth to him and how much and how well he wants that one job done.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;39799206]This. Jesus christ if you provide an essential service to society, you get paid more. Like it or not a CEO is more skilled, valuable, and generally important than some cashier. Equal distribution of wealth is not only a dumb idea, it's downright inhuman. If I take the time to learn and get a job that is important and pays me more, I'm using my money how I goddamn want it. If we functioned in a society where everyone cares for you and takes care of you no matter how much or how little you contribute, we wouldn't be where we are. There will always be poor and rich people as long as there is humanity, no matter how much the poor resent or revolt or rate you Dumb (Hi Deep!), and living in the US there is plenty of opportunity to move up on the social ladder, it just depends on how willing you are to work towards it.[/QUOTE]
You guys really do think people have no value as human beings and simply have rights and wealth based on how successful they are.
Also, if you had even a rudimentary understanding of sociology/psychology you'd understand that life isn't about work => X = success, it's about being human (which is a vague subject obviously, but it's certainly not about your business ethics.) Not about climbing the economic ladder.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.