Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martell Spy

Workable Socialism

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Oh I’m deadly serious. And your mentality is what is allow this rot to become worse.  

If you're deadly serious about this:

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Funny, my dad is a lazy ex coke and heroin addict, and yet he’s rich AF. I just got a $10,000 check from him I need to deposit. I get one every few months.....I was born into three country clubs, and trust me, they’re all laughing at you.

Then why complain? Just enjoy what you have, it's not rot to you. Your (I presume) quarterly allowance was given to you as a voluntary gift, so its your money, and that's all that matters. You can't revoke someone's property rights just because of bad attitude.

If you are indeed wealthy but feel bad, just give 10% of each allowance to a charity of your choice.

Edited by Br16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

I realize that Metis is not commonly a commonly recognized group outside of Canada, and as such I'm not going to swear at you for this incredibly insulting accusation.

And that's about all I can write in regards to this at the moment, as I am actually shaking with rage. I will take this up tomorrow when I don't feel like putting my fist through the screen of my computer.

Why are you furious with what I posted, when what I posted recognizes and says so, the claims of First Peoples and animals, fish, fowl and trees to the places they inhabit?  How did I insult you? I stated there are claims to locations and places that are valid that don't depend on filing  deed of property in a European legally-derived court, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

the claims of First Peoples and animals, fish, fowl and trees to the places they inhabit?  How did I insult you?

I have no idea exactly why @TrueMetis was offended, but I'm thinking continually grouping in any peoples with "animals, fish, fowl, and trees" would be pretty insulting to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, DMC said:

I have no idea exactly why @TrueMetis was offended, but I'm thinking continually grouping in any peoples with "animals, fish, fowl, and trees" would be pretty insulting to me.

Not to speak for TM but there was also this post from @Zorral :

Quote

So ... you say that native americans and animals losing their habitats and territories is their own fault, because they didn't file deeds of property?

You missed the point entirely, which is it's not merely deeds that makes for ownership.  Or how essential to sheer existence having even a hole in the ground is.

which is insulting whether it was intentional or not.  It completely misunderstands the point being made and then lectures TM on the topic, being wrong and preachy at the same time.  And then there's the context... Why is TM's reaction even remotely surprising?  Ffs

Edited by larrytheimp
Add quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Why are you furious with what I posted, when what I posted recognizes and says so, the claims of First Peoples and animals, fish, fowl and trees to the places they inhabit?  How did I insult you? I stated there are claims to locations and places that are valid that don't depend on filing  deed of property in a European legally-derived court, etc.

He has Native American ancestry, you offended him because you offered a (pretty mild) opinion in broad generality.

Taking no sides on this one, just observing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, more on property rights changing over time, there have been plenty of instances from a variety of times in human history some recent and contemporary, where owning people as property was considered lawful and fine.  

So maybe before exclaiming "oh mer gerds, there coming fer me property" consider that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

There need be no profit at all for those who make the given thing to get paid well. Indeed eliminating profit may see the workers actually make more, as instead of going to someone else the worker keeps the full value of what they produce.

But if we eliminate profit, then the capital and management will pull out, and when that happens, the workers might not have enough money to pay for machinery, fertilizers, land, raw materials etc. 

9 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Even assuming that's true (it largely isn't) who cares if their ancestors took risks? They don't actually have the right to pass on their wealth. Nowhere is that a stated to be a right. Besides, the fucking guy picking the Tomatoes is taking more of a risk now, so we don't we reward him?

The right to pass on wealth is what motivates people to risk what they have now to innovate and build, to reinvest and develop things long term. Without it, anyone with a bit of money now would just squander it on wild living, because the more he/she leaves behind, the more others take away.  

The guy picking tomatoes has a hard life, but the problem is that their labor is priced accordingly, determined by supply and demand. He has no distinct vision to set himself apart, no capital to risk, and no sense to pioneer new markets. He is one in a million, and that is why he is paid so little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Br16 said:

But if we eliminate profit, then the capital and management will pull out, and when that happens, the workers might not have enough money to pay for machinery, fertilizers, land, raw materials etc. 

The right to pass on wealth is what motivates people to risk what they have now to innovate and build, to reinvest and develop things long term. Without it, anyone with a bit of money now would just squander it on wild living, because the more he/she leaves behind, the more others take away.  

The guy picking tomatoes has a hard life, but the problem is that their labor is priced accordingly, determined by supply and demand. He has no distinct vision to set himself apart, no capital to risk, and no sense to pioneer new markets. He is one in a million, and that is why he is paid so little.

Goddamn right! He's barely even a person! I say that the moment 'tomato pickers' are too old to meet quota we just grind them up and feed them to the rest of the labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Br16 said:

But if we eliminate profit, then the capital and management will pull out, and when that happens, the workers might not have enough money to pay for machinery, fertilizers, land, raw materials etc. 

The right to pass on wealth is what motivates people to risk what they have now to innovate and build, to reinvest and develop things long term. Without it, anyone with a bit of money now would just squander it on wild living, because the more he/she leaves behind, the more others take away.  

The guy picking tomatoes has a hard life, but the problem is that their labor is priced accordingly, determined by supply and demand. He has no distinct vision to set himself apart, no capital to risk, and no sense to pioneer new markets. He is one in a million, and that is why he is paid so little.

Lol Ayn Rand's corpse just got wet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Lol Ayn Rand's corpse just got wet.

That's outrageous!  Ayn Rand was dry and rigid long before her death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's outrageous!  Ayn Rand was dry and rigid long before her death.

Sounds like you have personal experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Br16 said:

If you're deadly serious about this:

Then why complain? Just enjoy what you have, it's not rot to you. Your (I presume) quarterly allowance was given to you as a voluntary gift, so its your money, and that's all that matters. You can't revoke someone's property rights just because of bad attitude.

If you are indeed wealthy but feel bad, just give 10% of each allowance to a charity of your choice.

The point is, your "pull yourself up by the boot straps" argument, and "if you take risks, you deserve to rule over the poor" argument...are ridiculous. I think it's great Zorral has that safety net, and I wouldn't ask that to be taken away. But this idea that the rich are somehow more worthy of their wealth for some shit they did (honorably or most likely dishonorably) is flat out dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Sounds like you have personal experience.

Only with reading her work.  I don't like to talk about it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

The point is, your "pull yourself up by the boot straps" argument, and "if you take risks, you deserve to rule over the poor" argument...are ridiculous. I think it's great Zorral has that safety net, and I wouldn't ask that to be taken away. But this idea that the rich are somehow more worthy of their wealth for some shit they did (honorably or most likely dishonorably) is flat out dumb.

"You're just lazy! I've taken a half a semester of sociology at Groth Community College and I know that all societies require a lower class! It's just science!!! Listen to my GALAXY BRAIN!!!!!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, a good and nice guy said:

actually it was effort of the workers that made it successsful

Only partially,  the capital investment and market vision is what led to the success. Without capital,raw materials, networks, equipment and a coherent business plan, simply having workers create nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire concept of trade doesn't work without the idea of ownership and we have archeological evidence of trade that goes back to the stone age.

The concept of personal ownership of land is also much older than Locke. The Romans had very rich land-owners (not unlike in the big slave farmers in the US), in the middle-ages, entire villages were personally owned, traded, gifted to monasteries and bequeathed to heirs. In fact, those villages or cities here, that are 800 years and older usually have their first written mention in a written contract that transfers ownership (of course many of the places are much older settlements).

The idea, that "the state" should own all land is not that new either. Ask the Egyptians, or Louis XIV, they would all agree that "the state" should own and control all. They just might have a differen opinion on what or who the state is to whom they are accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

The entire concept of trade doesn't work without the idea of ownership and we have archeological evidence of trade that goes back to the stone age.

The concept of personal ownership of land is also much older than Locke. The Romans had very rich land-owners (not unlike in the big slave farmers in the US), in the middle-ages, entire villages were personally owned, traded, gifted to monasteries and bequeathed to heirs. In fact, those villages or cities here, that are 800 years and older usually have their first written mention in a written contract that transfers ownership (of course many of the places are much older settlements).

The idea, that "the state" should own all land is not that new either. Ask the Egyptians, or Louis XIV, they would all agree that "the state" should own and control all. They just might have a differen opinion on what or who the state is to whom they are accountable.

Good point. Another thing is that even those historical principles where state is ultimate landowner, in practice they still subcontract the land to tenants whose terms and purpose more or less fulfills the function of private ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Goddamn right! He's barely even a person! I say that the moment 'tomato pickers' are too old to meet quota we just grind them up and feed them to the rest of the labor.

Who knows, things may turn his way one day. In a labor shortage, he can command a higher wage, or even demand shares. However, to offer a pay unsupported by demand would just reduce incentive to hire and cause unemployment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Looks like we need a "Workable Neoliberalism" thread.

 

Then again, that concept only has to work out for a few people, so I guess it's already working just fine.

Edited by Mindwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Looks like we need a "Workable Neoliberalism" thread.

 

Then again, that concept only has to work out for a few people, so I guess it's already working just fine.

Would you like to join the fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×