On August 30 2010 15:52 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment.
Okay, and you think that's bad, because the entrepreneur is exploiting the unemployed by not letting them work with its capital?
I don't believe it's bad however I believe there is a price to pay for holding such power over people's heads.
Then there's no issue.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:A few questions arise:
Why do you find it fair for the employee to be able to use whatever capital he wishes; to work wherever he wants, when he has not helped build the factory, he has not helped design the business model which bridges the business' customer to himself, and allows him to be paid?
Never said that a worker should be able to work wherever he wants. What I was trying to say is people who are in control and who are in power should be monitored and guided to prevent unfair business practices.
Tell me how can there be an unfair business practice that is not coercive.
And by coercive, I mean that it crosses the bounds of another's private property without their authorization.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:Why do you find it fair for the entrepreneur to be forced into allowing in whoever wanted to work in his facility, that facility which he paid to be built, he organized, he made the contacts and established it as a financially viable enterprise? He has worked already.
Where are you getting this idea that I think workers should be able to work wherever they want? I was simply stating that corporations have power over you, not the other way around. When you stated that a worker should not feel obligated to work at any one job and he can leave at any time, the point of my rebuttal was; you are free to leave but that does not give you any leverage whatsoever over a companies actions. Exploitation comes from a lack of leverage. You are forced to find work to live but a job does not feel obligated to hire you. I don't have a problem with this, my concern is for people that think companies should have their power monitored. When you are in control of so much power, you must be monitored. A police officer has power over you, do you not agree that there should be someone making sure they aren't abusing their power? Our whole entire democratic system is based on checks and balances. It's not perfect (there will always be corruption in all levels of "power") but in utilitarian terms, it's creating the greatest amount of good.
Exploitation as you defined it is irrelevant. Nature is exploiting me because food doesn't fall from the sky. Physics is exploiting me because I can't fly. There are no violations in your inability to do anything, it's just your current economical state of being, your current choices. You're not forced to work, you can choose to die too, yo. Seriously, death is always a choice, usually the last choice, but still a choice. Coercion is exactly threatening to inflict upon you death, or another very low-priority choice, if you don't choose to do what the coercer wants.
But the current state of choices you have, and how deplorable they are, is no one's fault but yours. If you are going to die of hunger, your fault. If you are going to die of hunger, and another human being is in front of you yet chooses not to give you food, it's still your own damn fault. No one is obliged to give you anything.
It's a complete misnomer to call the inaction of others as POWER over you. God. Bill Gates has power over you by choosing not to give you a billion dollars? That's not what power means, what the fuck. Power means control. Bill Gates has no control over you. For him to do anything against you, you have to interact with him first. And if he does do something to you, then it's coercion, duh. And at that point he does have power over you, because he's exerting control over you - but it's called coercion, because it's considered overstepping your rights.
Please use definitions more closely to their popular meaning. (lol who am I to say that lol)
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:Why is it not fair for the entrepreneur that already worked to collect a return from his investment?
How do you think any more factories, facilities, buildings will be erected, if the people who build them aren't allowed to gain anything from it, besides using them themselves? What would be the incentive for engineers, architects, miners, construction workers, if they're not going to use the building? A pat in the back?
Because a group of people consolidating their efforts to create a businesses or corporation hold power. Yes,
anyone can be an entrepreneur, however
everyone cannot become one. For every one business owner there needs to be multiple managers and bosses and for every boss there needs to be multiple entry level guys doing to dirty work. When you create a chain of command, there needs to be checks and balances. The government serves as the middle man between the entry level guy and the CEO business owner to make sure that everyone's voices are heard equally. Is it perfect? No, there will still be corruption at all levels of the chain. From the store clerk who is pocketing people's money or stealing product, to the corporate CEOs or shareholders who embezzle money, or the politicians in Washington siding with lobbyists instead of their own ethical beliefs. Just because it's imperfect does not mean it isn't the most efficient way to make sure no one is getting screwed.
You hold power my friend. You hold power aka control over your possessions. Should you be kept in check so that you don't EXPLOIT A BUM IN THE STREET for not letting him sleep over? Jesus. Your checks and balances are completely arbitrary. There's always going to be a hierarchy somewhere. Again, an example that I gave, is, when I talk, you shut up. That happens naturally. And then I give you voluntarily the command by letting you talk when I finish. SHOULD THAT TREACHEROUS CHAIN OF COMMAND BE REGULATED BECAUSE YOU CANT TRUST THAT I WILL LET YOU TALK? And then what? You have a hierarchy over a hierarchy. And then a hierarchy is needed to be on top of the second one. And on, and on, and on.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes?The question is a long one, and can't be answered completely, it can only be approximated to the optimal structure. And the optimal structure may be any series of complicated hierarchies and separations of powers. But the best way to approach it is by going for the least common denominator. Let each and every individual voluntarily assemble, and they will figure out what works best for everyone to the degree that everyone cares. Any other coercive solution, will twist the structure further away from the optimal structure, because you're denying people the ability to chose, because you as a central planner can't know what's up better than the sum of everyone else. Because you lack the market incentives, price mechanisms... oh fuck it.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
Can a group of construction workers and engineers collectively sell or trade a building as if it were a "personal possession" that they've made? Probably not, right? Can they agree with someone to barter goods with in advance? Then use those goods as money? But then it would be capitalism all over again, so guess not. Welp. I guess no buildings will be erected that require an extensive chain of exchange, since they can barely buy food with it unless it's a barter deal with someone who needs a shack or small house?
Can a construction work and engineer collectively sell or trade a building? As long as they are abiding by lawful businesses practice every step of the way, absolutely.
WHAT THE FUCK? ARE YOU A CAPITALIST? YOU GO THROUGH ALL THIS COMMUNIST BULLSHIT AND THEN AGREES WITH ME? WHAT?
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
Why should people who have obtained property and product before I did, or with means in which I was unable to, hold those things which I need to live over my head without someone making sure they are doing it the most ethical and efficient way possible?
They most likely won't, but they'll ask that you give something back. If not money, labor. Something. at which point, THEYRE USING THE PROPERTY AS CAPITAL AND THEYRE BEING GREEDY CAPITALISTS FUCK THE BOURGEOIS PROLETARIATS OF THE WORLD UNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITE
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
Let me ask you a question. If you went to the doctor for advice on a medical issue, or a mechanic for an auto tune up, would you not hope that the person in charge of hiring these people were making sure they were the most qualified and honest people for the job?
Yes, most cost-efficient tbh.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Maybe their bosses are making their lives "more stressful" because they are breathing down their necks to make sure everything is nice and "by the books". Should upper management just let the guys down below do whatever they want, in hopes of; if the guys down below us are left alone, they will work better under stressed?
That's their choice, not mine. If the best business turn out to be those that do what you say, then they'll be more popular, and will profit more, and others will soon copy them.
Voluntarily, you see how it works now?
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
So how about when you continue all the way up the ladder of power to the top tier? Who watches those guys to make sure all business practices are nice and ethical?
Investors, stock holders.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Should we just assume that if they made it this far, that they are obviously extremely moral characters, capable of operating a business without exploiting anyone or cutting any corners?
To the degree that capital is invested in them, we can assume that the aggregation of every stockholders and investors watching the business closely are very prudent, yeah.
Much more than any single central planner can wave a pen and put some jackals of some agency on them yeah. Most most most definitely. And as soon as you understand that, the sooner will my fingers stop hurting.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Anyone is capable of becoming corrupt but as you said in your OP, those who hold the most power are the ones or more often than not abuse their power for their own benefit (police officers were you example).
Not the same type of power, and then, even if they do become corrupt over the power that they exert OVER THEIR OWN PROPERTY, they're going to fuck up their own business.
Government has total power OVER EVERYONES PROPERTY. That my friend, is absolute power.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
So the government takes role of being a watch dog over the corporate state.
More like RABID DOG AMIRITE
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: What is created becomes a large scale checks and balances system which may not be perfect, but is the most efficient way of handling ethical question and scenarios from a utilitarian stand point.
No, it's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculation_problemShow nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
The results are as such:
1. People need a means for survive.
You don't know which means. You cannot know, unless people are free to choose what they want or need. Everything else is second best. Last best. Worst best. Worst. Everything else is the woooorst. Central planning fails, at the very first premise...
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
2. People are divided between the the entrepreneurs and the average working class. This division happens naturally based on several factors
You can't make such distinction. Tell me, is a worker who retains stock share of the company he works in a worker or an entrepreneur? OH MY GOD HES BOTH
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
A) Skill set of any given person
B) Luck of environment and surroundings (born into well off or not so well off family, living within a region with varying degrees of available work and resources).
C) People doing whatever makes them the most happy and allows themselves and their loved ones to survive (dreams, goals etc).
This is kind of irrelevant.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
3. Businesses need workers and workers need employers to hire them. It's a give-take situation.
You don't know that all of them need workers. There is such a thing as one-man-businesses. And he can use contractors, third party employees, nothing quite fixed as their own. But okay.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
4. The regular working class person earns a means to survive. On the backs of the working class the entrepreneurs become successful and climb up a few notches on the "ladder of power"
I don't mind such illustration, only noting that the workers VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED the entrepreneurs to ride on their backs, because it was THE BEST CHOICE FOR THEMSELVES. If it wasn't...
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
5. The give-take situation ratio grows in favor of the companies due to the inevitable massing of profits and expanding. Companies gain leverage allowing them to weed out the unfit workers from the ones with skill sets better fitting for the position.
Uh.. companies work to become more efficient? Okay.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
A) Those who decide they are too lazy to work receive a justifiable response by not earning a means to survive. They learn to adapt or become unhappy.
The worker has to earn his pay. So?
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
B) The corporations in power do what they want. They have the greater leverage and can decide business practices on whatever motive they see fit (greed, efficiency etc)
They're in power to do what they want with the capital that is properly theirs. I thought you conceded that already. What is wrong with exerting power over your own property, your own house, your own body? Jesus.
And LoL@greed.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
6. People elect officials in a democratic society to make sure the people whom they have no leverage over(corporations) are acting ethical. We have reached the top of the ladder.
Not really, people choose to elect officials for a variety of dumb reasons. But I assume you just want to focus on that oversight aspect. Welp, I think you forgot to consider the constitutional republic of the US at least specifically doesn't oversees just for overseeing, the purpose of it was to withhold individual rights, property, etc. etc. Not overseeing people to make sure they're angels. It's to make sure they don't overstep other people's boundaries. (and they do so by taxing everyone but yeah)
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
A) To prevent political corruption, the bottom of the ladder elects officials that they see fit for the position.
B) Lobbyists and shareholder get to put their foot in the political door to allow for leverage from their corporation tier
C) Elected officals watch over each other within an "inner tier checks and balances system" at the highest level.
This is competely wrong as I said above. The scope outside of government, besides the separation of powers stuff, is to protect both individual liberty and private property, mainly by the part of the judiciary. Not to impose your flavor of ethics, which is arbitrary as hell.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
7. Although the government state may control the most power, the corporate tier has control over the most amount of power. So technically from a quantitative standpoint, corporations are the more powerful entity. The actions of the corporate state have a more direct affect on us(working class) than the actions that the government state has on the lower working class tier. For example; It's easier for the government to check on the book keeping of a corporation than for the FBI to find some random serial killer.
That's ridiculous. No single corporation even comes close to 1% of the power the state has. The state has control over ALL LAND, corporations own their buildings, production facilities, research camps, whatever else they have, but that is nothing, NOTHING, compared to what the government has. Actually, even if you added every corporate property and pretended they were all under a secret cabal of capitalist interest (LOL I BELIEVE THAT TOO), it STILL doesn't come close to the power of the state. Probably not even 1% still.
You don't seem to understand. Corporations come and go. As quickly as they've been raised, they can fall as fast. Sure there are hundreds of notable corporations today, but think how much time it's needed to amount what they have? It's a matter of less than a century on average. Governments last more than a century, and they own much much more. In one century, many corporations may have solved, merged, remade. But most states will still be there. Because they're like the plague, these fuckers.
Also, why do you give a fuck about a corporation's finance? And why do you think it's a good thing that the government can knock down any door, read any book? I think that's awful. If they can do it to the corporation, they can do it to you to, duh. How's that good? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? The extent that one will go, to justify the state... it's scary. Scarier than Christians saying that God watches me masturbate and will send me to hell. Okay no one actually told me that. I'm getting sleepy already.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:I think anarcho-communism is lacking a market structure for higher order capital to be built. People can't build that which they aren't recognized as the exclusive owners of. Well, I mean, they can, but it's going to be built way less frequently.
I prefer the term libertarian-socialist because a corporation should be the businesses owners private property, as long as they choose to remain lawful and ethical in practice.
What the fuck.
Libertarian Socialist?
They're polar opposites. You both respect private property but doesn't respect private property?
Arbitrary and inconsistent much?
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.
Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.
They don't dictate your life, you should just learn to respect that people are entitled to exclusively control that which they built, or paid to be built. It's not an unfair concept at all. You build a house, it's yours. And by "it's yours", I mean people respect your claim to it. They respect the decisions you have about it's use. Because if it wasn't for you, it wouldn't exist.
You and your house is analogous to the corporation and it's investors and stockholders. They paid it to be built. They put their time, money, labor in a sense, on the line. They have the best claim over the corporation, because if it weren't for them, the corporation wouldn't exist, and the facilities wouldn't exist, the products which it sells wouldn't exist, it's employers would be working somewhere else, and their salaries and jobs would probably be sub-par as to what they are; because if there were better jobs, they wouldn't be this corporations employees in the first place. So yeah. The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
The type of power the state exercises is different, because it goes beyond what they built. They claim they own the entire land, they own a piece of your labor, they own your house if they deem it necessary (to build a highway on top for example). They own your retirement funds, they own your education, they own your streets. They own your pipes, poles, lights and electric lines (though leased, yeah). And by 'your', I mean the taxpayer - because it's the taxpayer afterall that paid it all to be build (when it wasn't taken over at least). The government played the middleman, and got their checks on the deal. Not bad, if it wasn't for the fact that the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place. Because it is no deal, they just took it. They take it, and say it's for your own good. Completely different types of power.
You have power over yourself and what you create. That is fair. You can trade all you want and can, voluntarily. Corporations are not any different. Political power however, is the power over other's creations and labor. That, is true power.
Learn to recognize entrepreneurship as work, because it is hard work. The hardest mental work there is, I would argue. Harder than being a chess player, harder than a scientist, a mathematician. Perhaps not as complex from day-to-day activity, but at least as tough. It's constant competition over other brilliant minds, and it's the type of game with the most people playing in the world. Like starcraft, with millions of people. Entrepreneurship is life! Oh yeah. Ok enough rhetoric.
I bolded (don't think bolded is a word) two points in your last few paragraphs, which are point's I'd like to criticize if I may.
The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place. Which came first, the need for a service or the desire to create the service for profit. You are born hungry, you are born in need of shelter and a means to survive. The human race could not survive without some sort of barter or trade system. I'm not talking about buying a computer or purchasing some sort of entertainment product, I'm talking about paying the bills, buying groceries etc. The need for these things came prior to the "desire" to produce something for capital. Therefore it is exploitation.
Are you implying that because I have the demand to eat, the bakery across the street only exists because OF ME? WHAT? AND THEREFORE, THEYRE EXPLOITING ME? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
I have the desire to fly, therefore planes were made, therefore I am entitled to those planes?
I have the desire to x, x is made, therefore x is mine?
Stop. Please. Seriously. Stop and think what you're saying, and what are the implications of your moral theory. Making shit up is fine and all, but this is garbage. If I come up with a theory that comes to the conclusion it's fine to rape-murder-genocide, I know there's got to be something wrong with it.
You don't own, nor are entitled, in any shape way or form, to stuff that other people made themselves. It doesn't matter if you asked them to. It doesn't even matter if you gave them the idea (keyword, gave). They're not obligated to give you shit, if you didn't help make it, or if they're not contractually bound to.
To say that you can claim that you deserve to use shit just because you have, had, or will have a demand for it, is completely inane. Anyone could claim entitlement for anything. What will that do? It doesn't settle any disputes, it doesn't stop conflicts over resources, nor capital. What the fuck? I'm still puzzled how the fuck could you even type that out. Sorry. But I am.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
You do not have power over yourself like you said in the 2nd bold statement. Do you have power over things like food and shelter? So you are trying to tell me you are not slave to your hunger? You are telling me we aren't all slaves to desires and material things that bring us happiness? Maybe if we were monks living in a hut in the mountains of Tibet I could see some validity in your point but no one on this forum could possibly admit they could live without spending money.
Oh, so I don't have power over myself, because I don't have power over a jacuzzi, a BMW, and the playboy mansion with all the chicks included? OH, these aren't necessary for life you say? SAYS WHO? I NEED THOSE THINGS TO LIVE. If you go past food, it's already arbitrary bro. It's your own value judgments on what you think people should be entitled to rob others for.
I Am a slave to HUNGER, as I am a slave to physics, nature, biology... again, meaningless distinctions and definitions. Perverting the word power? Check. Perverting the word slavery? check. Perverting the world exploitation? check. What's next, property? "Property is whatever the fuck you can grab" LOL. I'm sorry, I need to laugh a bit.
Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
You're the kind of person that would tell me, if I had a cure to a disease that you were the only one infected with, and I was the sole possessor of the vaccine, and I charged you 3 million dollars for the vaccine, that would not be exploitation. That charging that much would be morally and ethically just because I'm the one who put forth the hard work and effort into creating the vaccine. If you honestly tell me that that isn't exploitation than I'm leaving this thread and never coming back.
Certainly would not be. You may feel like you're entitled to other people's products, but you're not. And once you feel it's justified to steal one single thing from someone else - you're a hypocrite, plain and simple. You're a hypocrite because you, yourself, feels that you're entitled to what you produce and buy, yet others, are only entitled to theirs as long as you let them. That's bullshit.
If you stole that cure and used it, you'd be required to restitute the doctor or face consequences. I really wouldn't give a shit to defend you. If it wasn't for the doctor, you'd be dead anyways. You own him your life. I personally would be very glad to pay him whatever he wanted, to the extent I could pay it. Finance it, ask help from charities, open a fund yourself, make loans, there are SO MANY DAMN THINGS you can do before you say "I deserve to live and I will step over anyone to do so". Be a man, quit playing the victim game. Thanks.
EPT
