• The stay home and not wor

    From Tom Barnes@VERT/THREEBL to All on Mon Jan 17 06:00:00 2022
    What is it with the stay home and not work generation?

    It's happening on both sides of the big pond. You Americans want $15 an hour to do nothing jobs in the name of "a living wage"

    Here in the UK we do have medical care (and not very good care) but it's free.

    Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and get back to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.

    Tom

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Three Blind Mice - threeblindmice.synchronetbbs.org - London England
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Tom Barnes on Mon Jan 17 18:32:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not work generation
    By: Tom Barnes to All on Mon Jan 17 2022 11:00 am

    What is it with the stay home and not work generation?


    They want free shit and don't want to work.


    Here in the UK we do have medical care (and not very good care) but it's free.

    It's not free, you pay for it in really high taxes, you help pay for everyones "FREE" healthcare that's not free.

    Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and get back to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.

    How do you know it's not as bad there?
    have you ever jumped the pond and came here to the USA?

    ... Those who live by the sword... kill those who don't.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Mon Jan 17 20:31:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not work generation
    By: Denn to Tom Barnes on Mon Jan 17 2022 11:32 pm

    Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and get back to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.

    How do you know it's not as bad there?
    have you ever jumped the pond and came here to the USA?

    yeah you pretty much have to work or fuck someone who has a job in the usa. it's not like EVERYONE has a free ride.

    if they go on ssi or something they barely have enough to survive. it's no way to live.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Tue Jan 18 07:30:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not work generation
    By: MRO to Denn on Tue Jan 18 2022 01:31 am

    Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses
    and get back to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad
    here.

    How do you know it's not as bad there?
    have you ever jumped the pond and came here to the USA?

    yeah you pretty much have to work or fuck someone who has a job in the usa. it's not like EVERYONE has a free ride.

    if they go on ssi or something they barely have enough to survive. it's no way to live.

    Some people just want to lay around drinking beer watching TV and getting fat at the expense of all of us that work our asses off to pay for their lazy fat asses.
    I know some are disabled and can't work but for the ones who can work but wont, those are the people that need to get a job.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to TOM BARNES on Tue Jan 18 12:22:00 2022
    Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and get bac
    to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.

    Many Americans agree. It is not all of "you Americans" that do such
    things. Our current government seems happy with allowing it to continue, though.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Tue Jan 18 19:26:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not work generation
    By: Denn to MRO on Tue Jan 18 2022 12:30 pm


    Some people just want to lay around drinking beer watching TV and getting fat at the expense of all of us that work our asses off to pay for their lazy fat asses.
    I know some are disabled and can't work but for the ones who can work but wont, those are the people that need to get a job.

    i think disability is the only way to do that but still, that's a shitty way to live. i like having money.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Tom Barnes on Tue Jan 18 05:33:00 2022
    Tom Barnes wrote to All <=-

    @MSGID: <61E54C43.1244.dove-general@threeblindmice.synchronetbbs.org>
    What is it with the stay home and not work generation?

    It's happening on both sides of the big pond. You Americans want $15 an hour to do nothing jobs in the name of "a living wage"

    Here in the UK we do have medical care (and not very good care) but
    it's free.

    Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and
    get back to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

    In Australia, cheap homes are well over half a million. Median is a million.

    I get why people give up.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Sys 64738@VERT/TXNET1 to Boraxman on Wed Jan 19 05:46:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Tom Barnes on Tue Jan 18 2022 10:33:00

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

    The problem with raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is one of perception. Most people who support the idea see it as a way to lift up the poor. However, the reality is that instead of the current minimum wage level representing what it means to be poverty level, when you raise the minimum wage that new higher wage becomes the new poverty level. When commerce sees that people have more money, and they have to pay more for their employees, they will reciprocate by raising the prices of their goods and services to compensate.

    In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so desirable if everyone was a millionaire.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ TxNet1
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed Jan 19 08:04:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Tom Barnes on Tue Jan 18 2022 10:33 am

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

    In Australia, cheap homes are well over half a million. Median is a million.

    I get why people give up.

    in america an adult shouldnt be making minimum wage, no matter what it is.
    i've been in the workfoce 26 years and only made min when i was starting out. then i found a better job right away.

    it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Wed Jan 19 06:23:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not work generation
    By: MRO to Denn on Wed Jan 19 2022 12:26 am

    Some people just want to lay around drinking beer watching TV and
    getting fat at the expense of all of us that work our asses off to pay
    for their lazy fat asses.
    I know some are disabled and can't work but for the ones who can work
    but wont, those are the people that need to get a job.

    i think disability is the only way to do that but still, that's a shitty way to live. i like having money.

    I forgot to add retired people, I'm at the age I can retire but don't want to.
    I still have good enough health to get up and work every day.
    Right now I have to work 7 day's a week but we get a total of $3 per hour raise by march.
    that will put me in the 70 to 75k per year range.




    ... If not for the last minute, nothing would get done.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Wed Jan 19 18:36:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not work generation
    By: Denn to MRO on Wed Jan 19 2022 11:23 am

    I still have good enough health to get up and work every day.
    Right now I have to work 7 day's a week but we get a total of $3 per hour raise by march.
    that will put me in the 70 to 75k per year range.


    7 days a week is a bit much. i've been doing 50-60 hr weeks since last june and i had no life.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Wed Jan 19 19:04:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Wed Jan 19 2022 01:04 pm

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

    In Australia, cheap homes are well over half a million. Median is a
    million.

    I get why people give up.

    in america an adult shouldnt be making minimum wage, no matter what it is. i've been in the workfoce 26 years and only made min when i was starting out. then i found a better job right away.

    Minimum wage is for kids and College students.
    If someone thinks flipping burgers is a good carrer move they should re evaluate their poor life choices.

    ... Don't let it fool you. It's written in BASIC.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Wed Jan 19 19:11:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not work generation
    By: MRO to Denn on Wed Jan 19 2022 11:36 pm

    I still have good enough health to get up and work every day.
    Right now I have to work 7 day's a week but we get a total of $3 per
    hour raise by march.
    that will put me in the 70 to 75k per year range.


    7 days a week is a bit much. i've been doing 50-60 hr weeks since last june and i had no life.

    Because of the Bidenomics (INFLATION) a lot of people quit or were lured away for better pay, So my company is responding by increasing the wages by $3 per hour.
    But until we hire and train enough people were all stuck working 7 days a week.
    I tried to listen to his speech today, the fucker talks through his nose and is hard to understand.
    they should get him into a rest home ASAP.

    ... BBSing: a method to triple your phone bill.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Sys 64738 on Thu Jan 20 17:49:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Sys 64738 to Boraxman on Wed Jan 19 2022 10:46 am

    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Tom Barnes on Tue Jan 18 2022 10:33:00

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

    The problem with raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is one of perceptio Most people who support the idea see it as a way to lift up the poor. Howev the reality is that instead of the current minimum wage level representing w it means to be poverty level, when you raise the minimum wage that new highe wage becomes the new poverty level. When commerce sees that people have mor money, and they have to pay more for their employees, they will reciprocate raising the prices of their goods and services to compensate.

    In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so desirable if everyone was a millionaire.


    That is the problem with Capitalism, and why it isn't a long term solution. Essentially, a "Wage" is the rental cost of a human being. The renter would reasonably be expected to pay a rental which allows for the upkeep of that person. That is true with anything. Property, cars, no one is entitled to rent a car or a house at below cost. If you cannot get the value of a rent-a-car, that is your problem, not the owner. Same with labour. If you as an employer cannot get enough value out of a human being to cover their upkeep, then that is YOUR problem, not the human you are renting.

    As living standards increase, or to put it more accurately, the material requirements to partake in society increase, the cost is going to go up. This shouldn't be the issue it is, because technology has made labour more productive now than it ever way. You pay more now than you did a century ago (actually, this is disputable!), but you get more.

    The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient use of human labour.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Thu Jan 20 17:53:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Wed Jan 19 2022 01:04 pm

    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Tom Barnes on Tue Jan 18 2022 10:33 am

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

    In Australia, cheap homes are well over half a million. Median is a million.

    I get why people give up.

    in america an adult shouldnt be making minimum wage, no matter what it is. i've been in the workfoce 26 years and only made min when i was starting out then i found a better job right away.

    it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.

    So you are saying that people who work on production floors, should be earning above minimum wage? People who hold the "Stop" sign at roadworks, cleaners, all the other unskilled jobs, they should be earning above minimum wage?

    I'm OK with that, but that is what you are insinuating here. That anyone above 18 or so, no matter what they do, deserves to earn more than minimum wage.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Thu Jan 20 07:19:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not work generation
    By: Denn to MRO on Thu Jan 20 2022 12:11 am

    Because of the Bidenomics (INFLATION) a lot of people quit or were lured away for better pay, So my company is responding by increasing the wages by $3 per hour.
    But until we hire and train enough people were all stuck working 7 days a week.

    that's a good way to lose even more people. these are tough times and people need personal time. your company probably needed to raise wages anyways.

    i'm still looking for a job to stick at after leaving my employer of 17 years. i'm not hurting though. i have been making decent money where i've worked. some places have no fucking clue. one place had a person who didnt even understand english train me and then they sent me to a 64 year old man who was going to retire and ghosted me the whole time.

    he gave me busy work and then tossed it. so i went to amazon for a month and i was making 40 bucks an hour some days. they had double overtime and on some
    days you could get an extra 2-3 per hour on top of the extra money there were giving for peak

    they had us working 50-60hr weeks. it was hard but the money was good. and i got a 1k bonus. plus there's some hot ass women there.

    right now i'm working on getting a tech job. i've already interviewed with them 3 fucking times over a month period. 'they wan't the right person' . i don't know who would wait that long when the job market is so hot.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Jan 20 07:24:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jan 20 2022 10:53 pm

    So you are saying that people who work on production floors, should be

    what do you mean by production floors? you mean factories?
    manufacturing is hard work. i've been in mfg for 26 years. i have made good money.

    earning above minimum wage? People who hold the "Stop" sign at roadworks,

    holding a stopsign is obviously not 40 hrs a week and it's an unskilled job and should be a side job. i dont think it should pay well


    cleaners, all the other unskilled jobs, they should be earning above minimum wage?

    cleaning is NOT an unskilled job. you have to have good time managment skills and and eye for detail. also doing floors takes a skill that you have to learn. i've seen some dudes that are amazing at it. most people who turn their noses up at cleaning people couldn't hack it. i used to run a cleaning crew and i did floors for side money.

    I'm OK with that, but that is what you are insinuating here. That anyone above 18 or so, no matter what they do, deserves to earn more than minimum wage.

    i'm saying people above 18 should have better jobs. in the usa minimum wage jobs are starter jobs. they require no skill, little brainpower, or if they do, the employer is just a cheap ass.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Thu Jan 20 08:06:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to MRO <=-

    it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.

    So you are saying that people who work on production floors,
    should be earning above minimum wage? People who hold the "Stop"
    sign at roadworks, cleaners, all the other unskilled jobs, they
    should be earning above minimum wage?

    I'm OK with that, but that is what you are insinuating here.
    That anyone above 18 or so, no matter what they do, deserves to
    earn more than minimum wage.

    I thought you commies believed everyone should make the exact same
    thing, no matter how much they contribute to society, and that the
    almighty government would be the sole decider on how much that would be.

    Right?


    ... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Thu Jan 20 06:50:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Wed Jan 19 2022 01:04 pm

    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Tom Barnes on Tue Jan 18 2022 10:33 am

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

    In Australia, cheap homes are well over half a million. Median is a million.

    I get why people give up.

    in america an adult shouldnt be making minimum wage, no matter what it is. i've been in the workfoce 26 years and only made min when i was starting out

    it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.

    Minimum wage's name used to have meaning. Cost of living used to be tied
    with it, but instead, cost of living has leapt well above it.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Fri Jan 21 06:54:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61E9A8ED.7974.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61E94D39.54599.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jan 20 2022 10:53 pm

    So you are saying that people who work on production floors, should be

    what do you mean by production floors? you mean factories?
    manufacturing is hard work. i've been in mfg for 26 years. i have made good money.

    The site I work at (in a skilled capacity) pays minimum wage. I've worked at others that do the same. The type of jobs performed may be loading materials into hoppers, running machines, inspections, lifting, checking stock, etc

    earning above minimum wage? People who hold the "Stop" sign at roadworks,


    holding a stopsign is obviously not 40 hrs a week and it's an unskilled job and should be a side job. i dont think it should pay well

    You'd be surprised how much people doing that exact job can potentially earn in Australia. More than cleaners I bet.

    cleaners, all the other unskilled jobs, they should be earning above minimum wage?

    cleaning is NOT an unskilled job. you have to have good time managment skills and and eye for detail. also doing floors takes a skill that
    you have to learn. i've seen some dudes that are amazing at it. most people who turn their noses up at cleaning people couldn't hack it. i used to run a cleaning crew and i did floors for side money.

    Well, neither then is "burger flipping". You need to learn how to operate the machinery, work the standard procedures, handle food. You're responsible for safe delivery of food, which if screwed up could poison people. McDonalds have strict protocols which is why they don't give people food poisoning. To work there, you need to know them and adhere to them.

    I'm OK with that, but that is what you are insinuating here. That anyone above 18 or so, no matter what they do, deserves to earn more than minimum wage.

    i'm saying people above 18 should have better jobs. in the usa minimum wage jobs are starter jobs. they require no skill, little brainpower,
    or if they do, the employer is just a cheap ass. ---

    This is I think an American cultural thing, that certain jobs are for under 18s. I would agree that a lemonade stand, dog walking for pocket money, washing cars for pocket money is kids jobs. But when you bring multinational corporations into it, then kids MAY do it, but is it a problem if someone 25 years old is working at a burger joint? No. There are many older people who make burgers. I lived next door to a fish and chip shop, and people over 18 were making burgers there. They are still there, a family runs it. Many other places have older people cooking.

    I think major corporations have created this cultural trope so they can get cheap labour.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Gamgee on Fri Jan 21 06:55:00 2022
    Gamgee wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61E9B5C5.26755.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61E94D39.54599.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Boraxman wrote to MRO <=-

    it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.

    So you are saying that people who work on production floors,
    should be earning above minimum wage? People who hold the "Stop"
    sign at roadworks, cleaners, all the other unskilled jobs, they
    should be earning above minimum wage?

    I'm OK with that, but that is what you are insinuating here.
    That anyone above 18 or so, no matter what they do, deserves to
    earn more than minimum wage.

    I thought you commies believed everyone should make the exact same
    thing, no matter how much they contribute to society, and that the almighty government would be the sole decider on how much that would
    be.

    Right?

    1: I'm not a Commie.
    2: Most Commies don't believe that.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Moondog on Thu Jan 20 18:56:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Moondog to MRO on Thu Jan 20 2022 11:50 am


    it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.

    Minimum wage's name used to have meaning. Cost of living used to be tied with it, but instead, cost of living has leapt well above it.

    well i'm OLD, and it never meant that you get a minimum wage job and you lived off of it as an adult. I never heard anything about that from my mother or grandmother.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Boraxman on Thu Jan 20 17:50:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Sys 64738 on Thu Jan 20 2022 10:49 pm

    The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient use of human labour.

    Capitalism is a much sounder solution than socialism.
    1st off min wage is not meant to be a career wage, it's more for the youth entering into the working world and college kids people like that.
    I started out at min wage living at home and going to high school, in less than a year I was making above that and I steadily moved onto better paying jobs.


    ... I am Bart of Borg. Prepare to eat my shorts, man.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Thu Jan 20 17:58:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not work generation
    By: MRO to Denn on Thu Jan 20 2022 12:19 pm

    Because of the Bidenomics (INFLATION) a lot of people quit or were
    lured away for better pay, So my company is responding by increasing
    the wages by $3 per hour.
    But until we hire and train enough people were all stuck working 7
    days a week.

    that's a good way to lose even more people. these are tough times and people need personal time. your company probably needed to raise wages anyways.

    They actually paid pretty decent, But now with oil prices going up and up everything is costing more.
    We're hiring and training people now, I might actually get saturday and sunday off this week.

    right now i'm working on getting a tech job. i've already interviewed with them 3 fucking times over a month period. 'they wan't the right person' . i don't know who would wait that long when the job market is so hot.

    Good luck, hope you get it.

    ... Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Denn on Sat Jan 22 05:22:00 2022
    Denn wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61EA4989.26041.dove-general@outwestbbs.com>
    @REPLY: <61E94C43.54598.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Sys 64738 on
    Thu Jan 20 2022 10:49 pm

    The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient use of human labour.

    Capitalism is a much sounder solution than socialism.
    1st off min wage is not meant to be a career wage, it's more for the
    youth entering into the working world and college kids people like
    that.
    I started out at min wage living at home and going to high school, in less than a year I was making above that and I steadily moved onto
    better paying jobs.

    Why do you think there are only two systems? Capitalism or Communism? This beleif that there is one economic continuum between this two is false.

    Both systems are similar in many ways, in particular, they both subscribe to some degree to this idea that there is an objective value of labour.

    Marx was explicit about an objective labour theory of value, but Capitalism tries to deny this, while simultaneously trying to find the value of labour. Both systems in this respect is wrong, both are muddle headed about wage labour.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Boraxman on Fri Jan 21 20:00:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Denn on Sat Jan 22 2022 10:22 am

    The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient
    use of human labour.

    Capitalism is a much sounder solution than socialism.
    1st off min wage is not meant to be a career wage, it's more for the
    youth entering into the working world and college kids people like
    that.
    I started out at min wage living at home and going to high school,
    in less than a year I was making above that and I steadily moved
    onto better paying jobs.

    Why do you think there are only two systems? Capitalism or Communism? This beleif that there is one economic continuum between this two is false.


    Capitalism = poeple have to work to survive.
    Socialism = People depend on government to provide their survival, and is funded by taxes.
    In reality those are the two economic systems that usually emerge.

    Both systems are similar in many ways, in particular, they both subscribe to some degree to this idea that there is an objective value of labour.

    Try selling that pile of crap to the people of Cuba and other socialist countries.

    Marx was explicit about an objective labour theory of value, but Capitalism tries to deny this, while simultaneously trying to find the value of labour. Both systems in this respect is wrong, both are muddle headed about wage labour.

    There is NO perfect economic system, but Capitalism sure beats the hell out of Socialism.

    ... Socialist w/knife & fork seeks capitalist w/food.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sat Jan 22 04:05:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Denn on Sat Jan 22 2022 10:22 am

    Both systems are similar in many ways, in particular, they both subscribe to some degree to this idea that there is an objective value of labour.


    In Capitalism there is not an objective value for anything. Everybody appraises the worth of a given good of service regarding their own subjective metrics, which is the reason why stuff is more vauable to Jack than it is to Frank.

    The whole point is that if Frank thinks something is important and Jack thinks it is not, Frank will outprice Jack and the person who has a better use for whatever is being bought will be the one getting it.

    It is interventive governments which try to guess what the value of things are in order to manipulate or outright set prices of things to their acceptable objective value. There are two varians: they set a price low enough that Jack considers it worthwhile (which usually means scarcity ensues, since nobody wants to produce the thing anymore for the low price); the other variant is when they give a bonus to consumers of the good (which means its price automatically increases, and if the bonus is offered to only a set of customers, scarcity ensues, because customers with no boon won't be served the good).

    This is the reason why business models which offer dynamic prices are so groundbreaking. Prime example is entertainment services which allow customers to spend as much on the platform as they like (see F2P videogames). People who values the service lowly will spend low. People who values the service high¤y will spend high. So much win for everybody without having to resort to a standard target price for the service.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Denn on Sun Jan 23 06:16:00 2022
    Denn wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61EBB997.26048.dove-general@outwestbbs.com>
    @REPLY: <61EB42B5.54614.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Denn on
    Sat Jan 22 2022 10:22 am

    The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient
    use of human labour.

    Capitalism is a much sounder solution than socialism.
    1st off min wage is not meant to be a career wage, it's more for the
    youth entering into the working world and college kids people like
    that.
    I started out at min wage living at home and going to high school,
    in less than a year I was making above that and I steadily moved
    onto better paying jobs.

    Why do you think there are only two systems? Capitalism or Communism? This beleif that there is one economic continuum between this two is false.


    Capitalism = poeple have to work to survive.
    Socialism = People depend on government to provide their survival, and
    is funded by taxes.
    In reality those are the two economic systems that usually emerge.

    That is not the difference. The difference is that Capitalism rents people under a model of private ownership, Communism rents people under a model of public ownership.


    This view I think is rather simplistic and grossly inaccurate. People in Socialist countries still have to work.

    Also, it is not reality that these are the "two systems". This reality exists because both Communism and Capitalism share certain fundamental structures to maintain a power structure. One, for example, their shared theory of labour.

    I would bet that your view on labour and property rights is closer to Communist than mine is. I'm certain of that.

    Both systems are similar in many ways, in particular, they both subscribe to some degree to this idea that there is an objective value of labour.

    Try selling that pile of crap to the people of Cuba and other socialist countries.

    Marx was explicit about an objective labour theory of value, but Capitalism tries to deny this, while simultaneously trying to find the value of labour. Both systems in this respect is wrong, both are muddle headed about wage labour.

    There is NO perfect economic system, but Capitalism sure beats the hell out of Socialism.

    The problem is this idea that we implement as "system". That is a matter of ideology. That is the poison of the 20th century, and of major conflicts, competing ideologies.

    Capitalism WAS good, but it stinks now. It absoultely must be reformed.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Sun Jan 23 06:23:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61EC1D1F.26769.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61EB42B5.54614.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Denn on
    Sat Jan 22 2022 10:22 am

    Both systems are similar in many ways, in particular, they both subscribe to some degree to this idea that there is an objective value of labour.


    In Capitalism there is not an objective value for anything. Everybody appraises the worth of a given good of service regarding their own subjective metrics, which is the reason why stuff is more vauable to
    Jack than it is to Frank.

    The whole point is that if Frank thinks something is important and Jack thinks it is not, Frank will outprice Jack and the person who has a
    better use for whatever is being bought will be the one getting it.

    It is interventive governments which try to guess what the value of
    things are in order to manipulate or outright set prices of things to their acceptable objective value. There are two varians: they set a
    price low enough that Jack considers it worthwhile (which usually means scarcity ensues, since nobody wants to produce the thing anymore for
    the low price); the other variant is when they give a bonus to
    consumers of the good (which means its price automatically increases,
    and if the bonus is offered to only a set of customers, scarcity
    ensues, because customers with no boon won't be served the good).

    This is the reason why business models which offer dynamic prices are
    so groundbreaking. Prime example is entertainment services which allow customers to spend as much on the platform as they like (see F2P videogames). People who values the service lowly will spend low. People who values the service high­y will spend high. So much win for
    everybody without having to resort to a standard target price for the service.

    I don't disagree, but I think your argument is tangental to mine. I was talking about the price of labour, not of the product. I understand that the price of a product is based on what the purchaser believes it is worth.

    My argument was specifically about labour, the "jobs" we do. Both Capitalism and Communism try to determine the "value" of that labour, because both systems share the fundamental belief that labour has an objective value. The reason these two system share that belief is because they share, to some degree, a similar philosophy on property rights and the individual.

    My position is actually that we are not Capitalist enough! Almost EVERY Capitalist, who identifies themselves as one, is desperate to maintain some of Socialism's ideas, because they want the power structure that collectivism affords them.

    Capitalism and Communism share this flaw. Marx tried to work out an objective value of labour, Capitalism was blind to this, and just reframed this argument as marginal utility, which is, in practice, complete horse manure when it comes to labour.

    Modern Capitalists want to hold on to the horse manure, not because of freedom, or individual rights, or dignitiy, or any of these ideals which make Capitalism good, but becuase they DON'T want people to have the true individual property rights and freedom that logically extend from the ideals of democracy and self-ownership.

    I've spoken to enough "Free Market Libertarians" to know that deep down, many, many just support that system because they feel under that system they'll be owning the coolies.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Sat Jan 22 19:39:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Denn on Sun Jan 23 2022 11:16 am

    The problem is this idea that we implement as "system". That is a matter of ideology. That is the poison of the 20th century, and of major conflicts, competing ideologies.

    Capitalism WAS good, but it stinks now. It absoultely must be reformed.

    even though we have a pants shitting, braindead half corpse as a president, i'm happy with the usa and capitalism. i wouldnt want to go to a country with communism or socialism.

    these systems, implimented at their best, would not work in the usa.

    you also can't take norway or switzerland's entire way of doing things and impliment them in the usa. they wouldn't work.

    not only THAT, but we have masters. there is no way things will change no matter what we want.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to MRO on Sat Jan 22 19:10:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Sun Jan 23 2022 12:39 am

    president, i'm happy with the usa and capitalism. i wouldnt want to go to a country with communism or socialism.

    these systems, implimented at their best, would not work in the usa.

    you also can't take norway or switzerland's entire way of doing things and impliment them in the usa. they wouldn't work.

    From what I've heard, Switzerland is actually a capitalist country. And I've heard some say Switzerland is even more capitalist than the US.

    not only THAT, but we have masters. there is no way things will change no matter what we want.

    What do you mean by "masters"?

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Sat Jan 22 22:22:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Sun Jan 23 2022 12:10 am

    you also can't take norway or switzerland's entire way of doing things and impliment them in the usa. they wouldn't work.

    From what I've heard, Switzerland is actually a capitalist country. And I've heard some say Switzerland is even more capitalist than the US.

    they sure have a lot of socialist policies. they have low corporate taxes but income taxes and shit like that are not low.
    they also have extra taxes.

    they might be less socialist than other nearby countries but they have money they pay for each child they have and it all comes out of taxes.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From HusTler@VERT/PHARCYDE to Boraxman on Sun Jan 23 01:52:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Sys 64738 on Thu Jan 20 2022 10:49 pm


    The problem with raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is one of perceptio Most people who support the idea see it as a way to lift up
    the poor. Howev the reality is that instead of the current minimum wage
    Ok so what's your solution?

    |07 HusTler


    ... Extremely happy and extremely unhappy men are alike prone to grow hard-hea

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sun Jan 23 02:19:00 2022
    Capitalism WAS good, but it stinks now. It absoultely must be reformed.

    You see this sentiment a lot in recent years, but it just isn't true. Capitalism has lifted a billion people out of poverty in the last 25 years.

    Sure crony capitalism is bad. Everyone would agree with that (except the cronies). And unregulated capitalism that exploits workers (like in China) is bad. Regulated working conditions (to a point) is good.

    But in a broad statement, capitalism IS good. It is a also the natural state of humanity. Human nature leans heavily towards capitalism.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sun Jan 23 02:21:00 2022
    My argument was specifically about labour, the "jobs" we do. Both Capital and Communism try to determine the "value" of that labour, because both sy share the fundamental belief that labour has an objective value. The reas these two system share that belief is because they share, to some degree, similar philosophy on property rights and the individual.

    That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time. It goes against human nature.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to MRO on Sun Jan 23 02:24:00 2022
    these systems, implimented at their best, would not work in the usa.

    you also can't take norway or switzerland's entire way of doing things
    and impliment them in the usa. they wouldn't work.

    Socialism etc don't work anywhere. Never have.

    Norway and Switzerland aren't socialist. They are high-tax welfare states. The US is a low-tax (relatively) welfare state. The Scandinavian countries are free market capitalist nations. But they have large social programs (which is not socialism) paid for by high taxes.
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Boraxman on Sun Jan 23 18:58:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Denn on Sun Jan 23 2022 11:16 am

    The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient
    use of human labour.

    Capitalism is a much sounder solution than socialism.
    1st off min wage is not meant to be a career wage, it's more for
    the youth entering into the working world and college kids people
    like that.
    I started out at min wage living at home and going to high school,
    in less than a year I was making above that and I steadily moved
    onto better paying jobs.

    Why do you think there are only two systems? Capitalism or
    Communism? This beleif that there is one economic continuum between
    this two is false.

    There are more but most are either capitalist and Socialism.

    Capitalism = poeple have to work to survive.
    Socialism = People depend on government to provide their survival,
    and is funded by taxes.
    In reality those are the two economic systems that usually emerge.

    That is not the difference. The difference is that Capitalism rents people under a model of private ownership, Communism rents people under a model of public ownership.

    No, Even in let's say Cuba for example, yes there are people that work but the government pays a wage to it's people and keeps them in ecconomic chains.
    Here in the USA people can work hard and create a better life.

    ... 9 out of 10 men who try camels prefer women.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Mon Jan 24 00:50:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sun Jan 23 2022 11:23 am

    Modern Capitalists want to hold on to the horse manure, not because of freed or individual rights, or dignitiy, or any of these ideals which make Capital good, but becuase they DON'T want people to have the true individual propert rights and freedom that logically extend from the ideals of democracy and self-ownership.

    Well, that kind of happens when you mix Capitalism with ideas which are not purely related to economic principles. This is very often the case, because modern conservative parties are not pure Capitalists. They are, well, conservative parties with ideas about religion, national identity etc. They only endorse capitalist ideas up to the point they interfere with the rest of their program.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Mon Jan 24 01:03:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Sun Jan 23 2022 12:10 am

    From what I've heard, Switzerland is actually a capitalist country. And I'v heard some say Switzerland is even more capitalist than the US.

    Pretty much.

    Actually, what Swotzerland and some Northern EU countries have is a combination of very, very, VERY cut-throat competitive market Capitalism with a very invasive socialized network of services.

    I am not familiar with the internals, but this would be opposite to Spanish styled socialization. In Spain you pay a pretty high "right to work" tax as son as you start any business, regardless of your ability to make a profit from it. Then you are expected to buy a lot of papers and certifications which tell you what you can do and what you can sell. It is very hard to introduce a new product in the market, because you cannot really sell anything out of an established legal framework, and if the legal framework does not exist for a given product you cannot commercialize it.*

    This all translates in an inability to get anything new done (ie compete with a good idea) and the inability to get a business started unless you are rich from the get go (because any business plan which takes a couple of years to generate a profit will be paying taxes as if it was generating big profits from day zero, meaning average Francisco cannot open a fruit store because he won t be able to cope with taxes alone).

    If Francisco was allowed to open a store for something new and didn t have to pay taxes until he was generating a profit, then the government could wait for him to get his business to work and tax the crap out of him once he could afford the taxes, which afaik is what Swedes and friends are doing.

    * But well, Spain is that country in which it is easier for you to report to the administration that your horses are dead than to keep them legal, because if you keep them legal you have to give a reason for justifying that you have them, and the officer in charge may agree or disagree with the justification. Spain should sit on a sausage and spin. Fuck this place.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 24 01:11:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Sun Jan 23 2022 07:19 am

    Sure crony capitalism is bad. Everyone would agree with that (except the cronies). And unregulated capitalism that exploits workers (like in China) i bad. Regulated working conditions (to a point) is good.


    Actually China is a weird monster.

    It is Capitalist towards outsiders but it is Communist towards insiders.

    THeir stock market is so heavily regulated that if the authorities don t like how things are going they just close the market for the rest of the day. There are days in which the market does not stay open for more than half an hour until somebody hits the red button.

    What a given subject there may accomplish in life is dependant of how much of a good commie he is. That is what social credit systems are for. If you are a good trustworthy dog they will allow you to conduct international deals. If not you are going to clean letrines for the rest of your life.

    What they are doing is herding their own population and then using the workforce in order to compete in the international market.

    Our response should be the same we reserve to any org which uses slave labor.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Ogg@VERT/CAPCITY2 to Arelor on Mon Jan 24 08:20:00 2022
    Hello Arelor!

    ** On Monday 24.01.22 - 06:03, Arelor wrote to Nightfox:

    [...] Spain should sit on a sausage and spin. Fuck this
    place.

    I may have asked you this before (or I may have always wanted
    to but never did) ..but if you had the means and opportinity to
    live somewhere else, where would that be?


    --- OpenXP 5.0.51
    * Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Ogg@VERT/CAPCITY2 to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 24 08:43:00 2022
    Hello Otto Reverse!

    ** On Sunday 23.01.22 - 07:21, Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman:

    That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be
    further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that
    regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time.
    It goes against human nature.

    That might just be white-man's human nature. The indigenous
    peoples, of say North America, did not have that "nature"
    towards property, and they were around a long time before
    white-man learned how to exploit them.

    --- OpenXP 5.0.51
    * Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Ogg@VERT/CAPCITY2 to MRO on Mon Jan 24 08:48:00 2022
    Hello MRO!

    ** On Thursday 20.01.22 - 23:56, MRO wrote to Moondog:

    it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.

    Minimum wage's name used to have meaning. Cost of living
    used to be tied with it, but instead, cost of living has
    leapt well above it.

    well i'm OLD, and it never meant that you get a minimum
    wage job and you lived off of it as an adult. I never
    heard anything about that from my mother or grandmother.


    Sadly, many large companies take advantage of the minimum they
    need to comply for a legal wage no matter how old their
    employee might be.

    Not everyone has the option to pack up and move someplace where
    the promise of higher wages exist.


    --- OpenXP 5.0.51
    * Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Arelor on Mon Jan 24 11:45:00 2022
    Actually China is a weird monster.


    I won't quote the whole post, but just wanted to say what an excellent post it was.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Ogg on Mon Jan 24 11:49:00 2022
    That might just be white-man's human nature. The indigenous
    peoples, of say North America, did not have that "nature"
    towards property, and they were around a long time before
    white-man learned how to exploit them.

    One can't make broad statements about North American indians as the various nations differed from region to region. But they indeed had property, often people as property too. But they were also mostly (not all) hunter gatherers in the era you are implying. When a civilization evolves from hunter gatherer to agricultural (and of course industrial), capitalism is very much natural.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Ogg on Mon Jan 24 18:36:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not
    By: Ogg to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 24 2022 01:43 pm

    further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that
    regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time.
    It goes against human nature.

    That might just be white-man's human nature. The indigenous
    peoples, of say North America, did not have that "nature"
    towards property, and they were around a long time before
    white-man learned how to exploit them.

    that's just bullshit they taught in schools.

    american indians did have property and sold and traded items.
    they also had roads and cities.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Ogg on Mon Jan 24 18:37:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not work
    By: Ogg to MRO on Mon Jan 24 2022 01:48 pm

    Sadly, many large companies take advantage of the minimum they
    need to comply for a legal wage no matter how old their
    employee might be.

    Not everyone has the option to pack up and move someplace where
    the promise of higher wages exist.

    i dont know of any large company that pays minimum wage, unless you mean walmart and they pay above that. amazon was paying over 20 bucks n hour during peak with double overtime pay. so that's 41 dollars an hour for some people.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Tue Jan 25 14:59:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61ECF838.7991.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61ECA075.54620.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Denn on Sun Jan 23 2022 11:16 am

    The problem is this idea that we implement as "system". That is a matter of ideology. That is the poison of the 20th century, and of major conflicts, competing ideologies.

    Capitalism WAS good, but it stinks now. It absoultely must be reformed.

    even though we have a pants shitting, braindead half corpse as a president, i'm happy with the usa and capitalism. i wouldnt want to go
    to a country with communism or socialism.

    these systems, implimented at their best, would not work in the usa.

    you also can't take norway or switzerland's entire way of doing things
    and impliment them in the usa. they wouldn't work.

    not only THAT, but we have masters. there is no way things will change
    no matter what we want. ---

    I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am also looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?

    I think not, and it is because of our ideologies. We used to keep excess in check.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to HusTler on Tue Jan 25 15:00:00 2022
    HusTler wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61ED4F82.31193.dove-gen@pharcyde.org>
    @REPLY: <61E94C43.54598.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Sys 64738 on Thu Jan 20 2022 10:49 pm


    The problem with raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is one of perceptio Most people who support the idea see it as a way to lift up
    the poor. Howev the reality is that instead of the current minimum wage
    Ok so what's your solution?

    |07 HusTler

    I think you left off the part of my message you wanted to quote.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Tue Jan 25 15:11:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61ED7390.122872.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
    Capitalism WAS good, but it stinks now. It absoultely must be reformed.

    You see this sentiment a lot in recent years, but it just isn't true. Capitalism has lifted a billion people out of poverty in the last 25 years.

    Sure crony capitalism is bad. Everyone would agree with that (except
    the cronies). And unregulated capitalism that exploits workers (like in China) is bad. Regulated working conditions (to a point) is good.

    But in a broad statement, capitalism IS good. It is a also the natural state of humanity. Human nature leans heavily towards capitalism.

    We need to be more precise with our terminology. Here is the problem, people attribute something like "Capitalism" to our progress, but it is far more complex than that.

    We have seen the rise of democracy, the industrial revolution, revolutions in science, in medicine, increased freedom, private property, if you want to go further back, the move away from serfdom. Capitalism isn't one thing, it is markets, private property, employment, a set of values, a specific recognition of property, patents, copyrights, etc, etc

    Just saying "Capitalism" obfuscates the issue. This is the problem, we think its either "Capitalism" or "communism", but it is entirely possible to have a free market economy with prices set by markets, private property rights but have a system of universal self employment. Is such a system still "Capitalist"? I would argue it is.

    Lets say we adjusted laws regarding intellectual property, or changed our tax system so we tax based more so on holdings and speculative gain, than income. Is that still "Capitalist"?

    I would argue it is. One can argue for a completely different way of determining tax liability, for universal self-employment, and still be Capitalist in the sense that they still believe that allocation of resources and prices should be set by the market.

    I don't think it is "Capitalism" which did good. What did good was freeing up people so they could be creative, so that instead of digging potatoes for their fuedal lords, people were free to be entrepreneurs. What did good was funding of science, medicine, freedom, and believe it or not, equality. Socities with a strong middle class are better. Period. Not up for debate. Money allocated towards productive and useful enterprise instead of speculation.

    We are losing that because of "Capitalism", or more specifically, propaganda by those with power and money who want to dissude people from any reform.

    My positoin is that "Capitalism" is still not finished. We are NOT yet Capitalist in the sense of individual self-ownership. The pre-capitalist Feudal Lords still want to lord it over us, and they have convinced us that our bastardised "Capitalism" is true Capitalist Freedom, all while pushing us further and further back to Feudalism.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Tue Jan 25 15:15:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61ED7390.122873.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
    My argument was specifically about labour, the "jobs" we do. Both Capital and Communism try to determine the "value" of that labour, because both sy share the fundamental belief that labour has an objective value. The reas these two system share that belief is because they share, to some degree, similar philosophy on property rights and the individual.

    That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time. It goes against human nature.

    I think you don't understand Marxism. Marx tried to determine the objective labour of value. Marxists believe that when labour is put into a product, there is an objective value that is added to the product. The price of the product has to contain the labour component that was added.

    Our Capitalist system also prices labour, but it considers labour a cost which much be recouped. Capitalism ALSO determines the cost of labour per product. If you've ever done financial work in a company, you'll see their calculations of labour per widget.

    Both presume that labour has a value, and that there is a purchase. That is the assumption that is wrong.

    Our system also goes against human nature, which is why it too, is failing. China will overtake you, they aren't stupid enough to let the financiers dominate.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Tue Jan 25 15:22:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61EE9278.26786.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61ECA077.54621.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on
    Sun Jan 23 2022 11:23 am

    Modern Capitalists want to hold on to the horse manure, not because of freed or individual rights, or dignitiy, or any of these ideals which make Capital good, but becuase they DON'T want people to have the true individual propert rights and freedom that logically extend from the ideals of democracy and self-ownership.

    Well, that kind of happens when you mix Capitalism with ideas which are not purely related to economic principles. This is very often the case, because modern conservative parties are not pure Capitalists. They are, well, conservative parties with ideas about religion, national identity etc. They only endorse capitalist ideas up to the point they interfere with the rest of their program.

    Pure Capitalism isn't well defined. I think it is pointless as defining someone as a "Pure White" or "Pure Black". There is no way to find a benchmark to say that it is the standard. Capitalism is a post-hoc identity. We changed from a feudal system to what we have today though a long serious of separate and distinct social, legal and cultural changes. No one ever wrote a book which detailed a new Capitalist system. Marxism on the other hand DOES have a book, so it is defined.

    My ideals are not about capitalism, but about the principles which it supposedly represents, freedom, property rights, self-ownership, the labour theory of property, market based price discovery, etc. If you take these ideals, you see we still have room for improvement. We still have fuedal ideas hanging around, and these feudal ideas are passed off as "capitalism" in order to go under the radar. Socialism acts as the boogey man, to divert attention so that we don't look under the surface and see that feudalism still is there (and is coming back).

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Ogg on Tue Jan 25 03:02:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not work..
    By: Ogg to Arelor on Mon Jan 24 2022 01:20 pm

    Hello Arelor!

    ** On Monday 24.01.22 - 06:03, Arelor wrote to Nightfox:

    [...] Spain should sit on a sausage and spin. Fuck this
    place.

    I may have asked you this before (or I may have always wanted
    to but never did) ..but if you had the means and opportinity to
    live somewhere else, where would that be?

    Good question.

    They keep telling me I would be very successful with Kentucky farmgirls so maybe I
    should try my luck there :-)

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Jan 25 06:44:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 07:59 pm

    I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am also looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?

    I think not, and it is because of our ideologies. We used to keep excess in

    you mean china invaded the usa and we will all be speaking chinese and live in communism? that will never happen.

    deep down, americans are not spineless. if we have to, we will supply all 258 million american adults with firearms to defend our land. and most of them will.

    china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Tue Jan 25 08:17:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Tue Jan 25 2022 11:44 am

    you mean china invaded the usa and we will all be speaking chinese and live in
    communism? that will never happen.

    deep down, americans are not spineless. if we have to, we will supply all 258 milli
    american adults with firearms to defend our land. and most of them will.

    china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.

    I don't think China's plan is sending an army against the US, but making the US so
    dependant of Chinese manufactures and buying so much American debt that the country
    will be in their hands anyway.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Ogg on Tue Jan 25 06:45:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not
    By: Ogg to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 24 2022 01:43 pm

    Hello Otto Reverse!

    ** On Sunday 23.01.22 - 07:21, Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman:

    That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be
    further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that
    regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time.
    It goes against human nature.

    That might just be white-man's human nature. The indigenous
    peoples, of say North America, did not have that "nature"
    towards property, and they were around a long time before
    white-man learned how to exploit them.

    Native Americans had lots of space, but they also had the concept of territories. Once territories were set by creeks and other features, and
    rival tribes would stay on their sides of the line unless they wanted war or out hunted their land. People who could live in one spot all year did so. others were migratory, and travelled back and forth over hundreds of miles.

    The main difference between pre-Columbian Americas and most of the world was there were no pack animals or beasts of burden domesticated in the Americas. the wheel along with oxen and horses helped work over the land to produce
    food, and the wheel allowed for heavy loads to be moved long distances. This allowed the people to settle in, build houses and communities, and conduct commerce with other communities. The native Americans did not need or have this sort of infrastructure to maintain, which means the any parcel of land would be coveted by any single person.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Boraxman on Tue Jan 25 07:18:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 07:59 pm

    I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am also looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?

    I think China is halfway there, they flood the market with chinese goods like Pork, Electronics etc..

    ... If you want your spouse to listen and pay strict attention to every word you say, talk in your sleep.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Tue Jan 25 08:03:00 2022
    We need to be more precise with our terminology. Here is the problem, people attribute something like "Capitalism" to our progress, but it is far more complex than that.

    No, not really. I mean yeah sure, if you want to go back hundreds of years (and you seem to want to). But otherwise progress equals democracy. Democracy isn't synonymous with capitalism but show me a democracy that isn't capitalist.

    Just saying "Capitalism" obfuscates the issue. This is the problem, we think its either "Capitalism" or "communism", but it is entirely

    No. I don't hear many people conflate the two. It is democracy vs communism. I hear people on the far left conflating the two, but not the average person.

    possible to have a free market economy with prices set by markets,
    private property rights but have a system of universal self employment. Is such a system still "Capitalist"? I would argue it is.

    Okay. I don't know what "universal self employment" means. Sounds like (no offence) pie in the sky psuedo-marxism. It just isn't going to be achieved due to human nature. Not everybody is smart. Not everybody is driven. Some people (millions) need a company to exist to employ them. That will always be.

    Lets say we adjusted laws regarding intellectual property, or changed
    our tax system so we tax based more so on holdings and speculative gain, than income. Is that still "Capitalist"?

    Yes (though it would be horrible) as taxation has nothing to do with capitalism. Scandinavian countries come to mind. Heavy tax/social program nations that are most definitely capitalists.

    I don't think it is "Capitalism" which did good. What did good was freeing up people so they could be creative, so that instead of digging potatoes for their fuedal lords, people were free to be entrepreneurs.

    In the context of the past 20 years where 1 billion were lifted out of poverty it most definitely was capitalism. "Freeing up people" is another utopia notion that doesn't and will never exist (except in a far distant Star Trek type future). But freeing people to be entrepreneurs is part and parcel with capitalism. I know you want to separate that from capitalism but you can't.

    What did good was funding of science, medicine, freedom, and believe it
    or not, equality. Socities with a strong middle class are better.

    Yes and yes. But where does that money come from? Capitalism. Government can't create wealth. Only capitalism creates wealth. Science, medicine etc, the bulk of that comes from democratic and capitalist nations.

    We are losing that because of "Capitalism", or more specifically, propaganda by those with power and money who want to dissude people from any reform.

    No we are not. The propaganda machine running is the one that has been teaching our younger generations that "capitalism is bad". The average citizen (at least in my country and the US from what I can see) has no clue about where government spending comes from and what it means for government to go into debt. But they sure want more and more free stuff.

    My positoin is that "Capitalism" is still not finished. We are NOT yet Capitalist in the sense of individual self-ownership. The pre-capitalist Feudal Lords still want to lord it over us, and they have convinced us that our bastardised "Capitalism" is true Capitalist Freedom, all while pushing us further and further back to Feudalism.

    I'm just not seeing it. "Individual self-ownership". It's called entrepreneurship. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur. As for being pushed back to feudalism, only place I see that is the new app-based gig-economy like Uber/Lift/Door Dash (food delivery) etc. You paint a dystopian future that we just aren't headed for. Only real decline in Western democracies is the middle class are getting taxed to death due to their respective government's over spending/borrowing.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Tue Jan 25 08:07:00 2022
    My argument was specifically about labour, the "jobs" we do. Both Ca and Communism try to determine the "value" of that labour, because bo share the fundamental belief that labour has an objective value. The these two system share that belief is because they share, to some deg similar philosophy on property rights and the individual.

    That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be further from th truth. They are polar opposites in that regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time. It goes against human nature.

    I think you don't understand Marxism. Marx tried to determine the objective labour of value. Marxists believe that when labour is put

    I understand Marxism perfectly well. I addressed property rights and the individual, not labour.
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to OGG on Tue Jan 25 11:23:00 2022
    That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be
    further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that
    regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time.
    It goes against human nature.

    That might just be white-man's human nature. The indigenous
    peoples, of say North America, did not have that "nature"
    towards property, and they were around a long time before
    white-man learned how to exploit them.

    I would go as far as to say civilized man's human nature.

    The more advanced even the native civilizations were, you start seeing more stratification. Instead of Chiefs, whose living standards were similar to
    the rest, you had what were more like Kings.


    * SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....pie pants."

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to ARELOR on Tue Jan 25 11:58:00 2022
    Good question.

    They keep telling me I would be very successful with Kentucky farmgirls so may
    I
    should try my luck there :-)

    Probably because you like horses. Horse farm girls would probably like
    that.


    * SLMR 2.1a * It is not who votes, but who counts them.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Tue Jan 25 20:11:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 07:59 pm

    I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am also looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?

    I think not, and it is because of our ideologies. We used to keep excess in check.

    China have been handed the baton by the banking elite who arranged to have all manufacturing and industry moved to the Far East to make way for the West's new consumer service economy. The UK used to be an industrial powerhouse -- now we only produce alcoholic drinks, biscuits along with some minor high-tech engineering. Our caricature of a government have destroyed our collective futures for short-term gain.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Denn on Tue Jan 25 20:18:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Denn to Boraxman on Tue Jan 25 2022 12:18 pm

    I think China is halfway there, they flood the market with chinese goods like Pork, Electronics etc..

    Almost every single high-tech good, or parts thereof, is manufactured in China.

    They are in an excellent position to cripple the Western world should they be so inclined.

    I do not see them ending or reducing trade with the West until we completely debase our own currencies, however.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Wed Jan 26 04:35:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F036FD.8018.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61EFC334.54641.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 07:59 pm

    I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am also looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?

    I think not, and it is because of our ideologies. We used to keep excess in

    you mean china invaded the usa and we will all be speaking chinese and live in communism? that will never happen.

    deep down, americans are not spineless. if we have to, we will supply
    all 258 million american adults with firearms to defend our land. and
    most of them will.

    china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.

    China won't invade USA. Could they beat you in armed conflict in their region?
    Well within the realms of possibility. A military defeat, even in the South China Sea for a limited war, would set the USA back further.

    I've noted that the USA has been unable to recover from crisis, which is a sign of decline. In the early 20th century, the USA emerged from the depression and a World War a much strong power. You also had a pandemic too.

    But in decline, 9/11, the GFC, then Pandemic, each has eroded. The nation hasn't come back stronger, but is weaker. The US failed in Afghanistan, the GFC is still biting (emergency low interest rates are needed, wealth inequality increased and didn't recover). You may even win the war, but the additional debt, cost, will just be another nail in the coffin.

    Not to mention the gradual demographic replacement. China doesn't have these problems, and China will still be almost all Chinese in a generation. They are not allowing their country to be treated as a carcass for plutocrats to pull apart.

    Empires take a while to die, it doesn't happen in a sudden apocaplytic collapse. The slow shift in power is happening. To be honest, even I didn't believe it till recently, but I think your countries done. I do wish that wasn't the case.



    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Denn on Wed Jan 26 04:42:00 2022
    Denn wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F04D1C.26083.dove-general@outwestbbs.com>
    @REPLY: <61EFC334.54641.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue
    Jan 25 2022 07:59 pm

    I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am also looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?

    I think China is halfway there, they flood the market with chinese
    goods like Pork, Electronics etc..

    ... If you want your spouse to listen and pay strict attention to every word you say, talk in your sleep.

    It's very simple. China is working towards buiding a future for Chinese. Xi is actually trying to ensure that his countries power system and institutions are structured to ensure the advancement of the Chinese people. In controversial ways yes, but this just doesn't exist in our countries. Politicians are beholden and in fear of other interests who want to exploit.

    From there is a simple "wait and see". Its like watching two adolescents, one is determined to build up a better future, the other is just wanting to spend what they've got now and succumbing always to peer pressure from peers who don't care about him.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Wed Jan 26 05:24:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F06AF3.122900.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>

    No, not really. I mean yeah sure, if you want to go back hundreds of
    years (and you seem to want to). But otherwise progress equals
    democracy. Democracy isn't synonymous with capitalism but show me a democracy that isn't capitalist.

    The reason I want to go back that far, is because social systems from centures ago have shaped our system today. In Feudalism, the land the lord owned, included the serfs on it. England did not always have the system of private land ownership that we equate with Capitalism today. It came about as an attempt to raise money to fight wars. Being able to trade land on the market was another development, for pragmatic, not idealistic purposes.

    Having nobles own land was just a solution to a problem specific to that time. Allowing them to buy it was more about making money than idealism. Back then, wheny owned land, you also owned the serfs on it. Similarly, when you buy a company today, you buy the people in it.

    This is important because people think that our systems of land ownership, of buying the "employees" is something that came from democratic thinking, it didn't. We still have these legacy systems, but are confused about their origin.

    No. I don't hear many people conflate the two. It is democracy vs communism. I hear people on the far left conflating the two, but not
    the average person.

    Okay. I don't know what "universal self employment" means. Sounds like
    (no offence) pie in the sky psuedo-marxism. It just isn't going to be achieved due to human nature. Not everybody is smart. Not everybody
    is driven. Some people (millions) need a company to exist to employ
    them. That will always be.

    Universal self-employment means that people work for themselves, or in democratically run firms. It does not mean that there aren't corporations, or that they don't have managers. What it means is that labour hires capital, instead of the other way around. If we decide to start a business, and get a third person, we own what we produce, and are responsibile for any liabilities/expenses. Widgets that are produced are owned by the us, and we then sell them. Our current system allows someone else to claim they laboured, and that the inital ownership of the widget produced is theres, and not the people who laboured to bring it into existence.

    It is NOTHING like Marxism. Marxism still has system where you hire labour.

    I find this system far more in tune with human nature. I struggle to believe how people can believe our current system is in tune with human nature, considering the majority of people are disengaged at work, feel disempowered, etc, etc. Our system goes against human nature as it is now.

    Yes (though it would be horrible) as taxation has nothing to do with capitalism. Scandinavian countries come to mind. Heavy tax/social
    program nations that are most definitely capitalists.

    In the context of the past 20 years where 1 billion were lifted out of poverty it most definitely was capitalism. "Freeing up people" is
    another utopia notion that doesn't and will never exist (except in a
    far distant Star Trek type future). But freeing people to be entrepreneurs is part and parcel with capitalism. I know you want to separate that from capitalism but you can't.

    I would credit a lot of that to the green revolution, social change, technological advancements, advancements in human rights. People being lifted out of poverty has been a constant throughout history. There was a time when we ALL lived as hunter gathers, subsistence living. Ancient Greece and Rome came about before Capitalism.

    Also, I would not credit Capitalism with lifting China out of poverty. China was put INTO poverty. Removing the pathological political and social systems did it. China is what it is because they accepted some market basics, not because they allowed the Bezo's and their equivalent of Wall St to run wild.


    Yes and yes. But where does that money come from? Capitalism.
    Government can't create wealth. Only capitalism creates wealth.
    Science, medicine etc, the bulk of that comes from democratic and capitalist nations.

    People create wealth, as does knowledge. I don't believe that Capitalism did this. What did it was allowing people freedom, and having a good system of property rights. You were free to spend money to develop a product, free to sell it and profit. By the way, some expenditure must be done by government, as some solutions we need have no profit incentive. I would also argue that it is Western nations which are more capable of development, and this is part demographics and culture. Culture is critical.

    No we are not. The propaganda machine running is the one that has been teaching our younger generations that "capitalism is bad". The average citizen (at least in my country and the US from what I can see) has no clue about where government spending comes from and what it means for government to go into debt. But they sure want more and more free
    stuff.

    I think the current system IS bad. Housing is unaffordable here. People are monopolising housing, creating a demographic crisis. It is not in Capitals interest to fix this. It is not in the systems interest to fix wealth inequality. Or not to ship jobs offshore to China, and support a hostile foreign power. Big Tech is now working against us, against freedom.

    I'm just not seeing it. "Individual self-ownership". It's called entrepreneurship. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur. As for being pushed back to feudalism, only place I see that is the new app-based gig-economy like Uber/Lift/Door Dash (food delivery) etc. You paint a dystopian future that we just aren't headed for. Only real decline in Western democracies is the middle class are getting taxed to death due
    to their respective government's over spending/borrowing.

    Individual self-ownership is about property rights, in particular, property rights of anything created through labour. Most people are denied their rightful claim to own their own labour by means of the "employment contract", which is a fraudulent contract which claims that labour and agency is transferrable.

    Self-ownership means that when you go to work for "Widgets Inc", you and the others that work there (including managers), own what you make, and are responsible for liabilities you incur (including the cost of hiring capital, buildings, payment for use of intellectual property, etc). No one rents you.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Wed Jan 26 05:32:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F06AF3.122901.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
    My argument was specifically about labour, the "jobs" we do. Both Ca and Communism try to determine the "value" of that labour, because bo share the fundamental belief that labour has an objective value. The these two system share that belief is because they share, to some deg similar philosophy on property rights and the individual.

    That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be further from th truth. They are polar opposites in that regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time. It goes against human nature.

    I think you don't understand Marxism. Marx tried to determine the objective labour of value. Marxists believe that when labour is put

    I understand Marxism perfectly well. I addressed property rights and
    the individual, not labour.

    Marxism failed for these reasons
    1) Intellectuals cannot plan an economy. The idea is that intellectuals would sit and think and determine what needs to be produced, where resources should go, etc. This is far to complex an untertaking for them to be able to do, requires too much information. A market system breaks this single problem down into many pieces, and each person worries about their own piece. It is STILL damn difficult in Capitalism. Companies all the time still are trying to figure out where resources should go, what to produce, and getting it wrong. But they don't get it as wrong as intellectuals. Individuals still fail, businesses die, but it doesn't take the whole system down.

    2) Disallowed private entrepreneurship. It was not permitted to run your own business. No profit motive is one reason, but even if you didn't care bout profit, you couldn't go off on your own to make money your way.

    3) Profit motive. Self explanatory.

    4) Political and social repression, and inequality.

    5) The high cost of maintaining an empire and politically repressive regime.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Tue Jan 25 18:35:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 01:17 pm


    china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.

    I don't think China's plan is sending an army against the US, but making the US so dependant of Chinese manufactures and buying so much American debt that the country will be in their hands anyway.


    china buys our debt because it makes their exports cheaper. china is all about the exports. they wont 'call' like in a poker game and have us pay up or get out.

    it's not real money. it's just part of the game of power.

    usa can still manufacture most things, aside from electronics stuff.

    the whole world has to trade with china. if they didnt, the world economy would fall apart. everyone let them take control during their decades long industrial revolution.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Jan 25 18:41:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed Jan 26 2022 09:35 am


    China won't invade USA. Could they beat you in armed conflict in their region?

    in their region. probably. unless we went full in with a good strategy. we'd have to go ALL in.

    or drop some nukes.

    I've noted that the USA has been unable to recover from crisis, which is a sign of decline. In the early 20th century, the USA emerged from the depression and a World War a much strong power. You also had a pandemic too.


    the usa has been taken over by weak liberals and pedophiles and evil jews.
    look at that maxwell trial. they wouldnt even release the names of the clients. it's everyone in power now.

    regardless, even a worm will turn. americans have something in their heart that any other country does not have. when pressed, we fight and do whats right. look at that vaccine mandate. shot down. we arent putting our people in concentration camps.

    Not to mention the gradual demographic replacement. China doesn't have these problems, and China will still be almost all Chinese in a generation. They are not allowing their country to be treated as a carcass for


    the bottom line is everyone snoozed while china took over.
    everyone needs china.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Jan 25 18:41:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Denn on Wed Jan 26 2022 09:42 am


    ... If you want your spouse to listen and pay strict attention to every word you say, talk in your sleep.

    It's very simple. China is working towards buiding a future for Chinese.
    Xi is actually trying to ensure that his countries power system and

    wouldnt it be great if our country's leaders did the same thing?
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Tue Jan 25 20:46:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Tue Jan 25 2022 11:44 am

    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 07:59 pm

    I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am als looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?

    I think not, and it is because of our ideologies. We used to keep excess

    you mean china invaded the usa and we will all be speaking chinese and live

    deep down, americans are not spineless. if we have to, we will supply all 25

    china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.

    China doesn't have much of a navy. Sinking their cargo ships and troop transports would stop them in their tracks. They couldn't send
    enough paratroopers or cargo planes over to establish a stronghold, either. Their greatest weapon is government supported hackers. they can shut down ban ks and force commerce to a grinding halt.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Dumas Walker on Wed Jan 26 13:40:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to OGG on Tue Jan 25 2022 04:23 pm

    That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be
    further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that
    regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time.
    It goes against human nature.

    That might just be white-man's human nature. The indigenous
    peoples, of say North America, did not have that "nature"
    towards property, and they were around a long time before
    white-man learned how to exploit them.

    I would go as far as to say civilized man's human nature.

    The more advanced even the native civilizations were, you start seeing more stratification. Instead of Chiefs, whose living standards were similar to the rest, you had what were more like Kings.


    * SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....pie pants."


    That could be because the more advanced a civilisation, the more distant the owners are from the people they feed off. In a smaller society, you can easily get to and kill the opressors. This happens often in the animal kingdom where an Alpha male which is disliked is removed by others. In tight knit human societies, psychpaths and parasites are ejected.

    But we have the parasites distant and protected, so those natural social forces which would otherwise destroy them, aren't able to do their job. A highly stratified society, a mass society with few people controlling it is a pathological state.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 13:42:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Wed Jan 26 2022 01:11 am

    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 07:59 pm

    I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am als looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?

    I think not, and it is because of our ideologies. We used to keep excess check.

    China have been handed the baton by the banking elite who arranged to have a manufacturing and industry moved to the Far East to make way for the West's consumer service economy. The UK used to be an industrial powerhouse -- now only produce alcoholic drinks, biscuits along with some minor high-tech engineering. Our caricature of a government have destroyed our collective futures for short-term gain.

    so it is true, if you hand Capitalists enough rope, they WILL hang themselves...

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.

    That was a collosal error in judgement.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Arelor on Wed Jan 26 04:20:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 01:17 pm

    I don't think China's plan is sending an army against the US, but making the US so dependant of Chinese manufactures and buying so much American debt that the country will be in their hands anyway.

    If China's economy does surpass the US economy, perhaps China will see an increase in standard of living, and perhaps cost of labor will increase, thus driving up cost of goods from China. If that happens, companies might not be able to financially justify the cost of sending manufacturing jobs to China anymore. Perhaps that would be a motivation for companies to bring manufacturing back to the home country.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Moondog on Wed Jan 26 08:23:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Moondog to MRO on Wed Jan 26 2022 01:46 am

    China doesn't have much of a navy. Sinking their cargo ships and troop transports would stop them in their tracks. They couldn't send
    enough paratroopers or cargo planes over to establish a stronghold, either. Their greatest weapon is government supported hackers. they can shut down ban ks and force commerce to a grinding halt.

    china has the largest military in the world.
    they only have north korea as an ally.

    i dont think cyber attacks are their greatest strength.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed Jan 26 08:24:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.


    who thought that?
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dumas Walker on Wed Jan 26 08:04:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Tue Jan 25 2022 04:58 pm

    Good question.

    They keep telling me I would be very successful with Kentucky farmgirls so may
    I
    should try my luck there :-)

    Probably because you like horses. Horse farm girls would probably like that.


    * SLMR 2.1a * It is not who votes, but who counts them.


    My friends say that, and that my Spanish accent is charming.

    I think my Spanish accent makes my ENnglish sound like an Australian with the mouth full of sausages trying to order more from the bar tender :-(

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Wed Jan 26 08:15:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Wed Jan 26 2022 10:24 am

    It is NOTHING like Marxism. Marxism still has system where you hire labour.


    What you describe would be Spanish style anarcho-syndicalism (if you don't believe in such a thing as a nation) or Spanish style Riveralistic Phalanxism (if you think a thing such as a nation is a legitimate unit).

    The first is not exactly Marxist, but anarcho-syndicalists seem to be best pals with Marxist partisans. The second is not Marxist either but is is widely regarded as a socialist proposition, most strongly by the Phalanx itself.

    So yeah, not surprising if somebody reads your proposal and starts finding Marxist or Socialist connections :-)

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Wed Jan 26 08:33:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Dumas Walker on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:40 pm

    That could be because the more advanced a civilisation, the more distant the owners are from the people they feed off. In a smaller society, you can eas get to and kill the opressors. This happens often in the animal kingdom whe an Alpha male which is disliked is removed by others. In tight knit human societies, psychpaths and parasites are ejected.

    But we have the parasites distant and protected, so those natural social for which would otherwise destroy them, aren't able to do their job. A highly stratified society, a mass society with few people controlling it is a pathological state.


    The anarcho-primitivists have their own explanation.

    Their hipothesis is that in advanced societies, individuals are trained to perform increasingly specialized tasks which set them appart from the rest.

    When men were little more than primates standing on two legs and chanting "ungha-ungha" there was not much of a divide because nobody was so ireplaceable that the tribe could not do without him. If your culture is a gatherer's one, the fact you can pick bananas from the tree faster than the rest does not make you tremendously more valuable than the next ape and there fore it does not make you gain a disproportionate amount of power over the tribe.

    Fastforward 10 000 years. There are two clinics in my province doing proper Pain Management. Training good doctors people and insurance companies are willing to trust takes decades. If a single doctor takes 15 days for holiday, the waiting queues get completely clogged because there is nobody for replacing him. A small number of people therefore has a lot of control over the sector because they can do things nobody else can.

    In short, the anarcho-primitivist gripe is that people who can do more specialized stuff ends up owning the people with less training or abilities.

    THe anarcho-primitivist solution is for everybody to become hunter-gatherers again and have nobody trained in anything, ever :-P

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Wed Jan 26 08:37:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Nightfox to Arelor on Wed Jan 26 2022 09:20 am

    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 01:17 pm

    I don't think China's plan is sending an army against the US, but makin the US so dependant of Chinese manufactures and buying so much American debt that the country will be in their hands anyway.

    If China's economy does surpass the US economy, perhaps China will see an increase in standard of living, and perhaps cost of labor will increase, thu driving up cost of goods from China. If that happens, companies might not b able to financially justify the cost of sending manufacturing jobs to China anymore. Perhaps that would be a motivation for companies to bring manufacturing back to the home country.

    Nightfox


    What I see instead is people shipping manufacturing to other cheapo countries.

    From an European point of view, the cost of making a soccer ball in CHina and have it shipped to Spain is not much different than the cost of making a soccer ball in Morocco and having it shipped to Spain. If China got a bit more expensive we would be outsourcing our ball making to Morocco instead of China, for example, but certainly not bringing jobs home.

    China is already bleeding jobs to other Asian countries such as Thailand and Vietnam.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Wed Jan 26 08:39:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Wed Jan 26 2022 01:24 pm

    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or somethin similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.


    who thought that?

    I keep hearing the idea so I guess a whole lot of people did.

    The Arabian Spring would turn the Middle East into a paradise full of democracies.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Wed Jan 26 10:32:00 2022
    The reason I want to go back that far, is because social systems from centures ago have shaped our system today. In Feudalism, the land the

    idealism. Back then, wheny owned land, you also owned the serfs on it. Similarly, when you buy a company today, you buy the people in it.

    Sorry but that is a pant load. Sometimes a corporation buys another corporation or business for its "talent" (i.e. the employees), sometimes not. In either case the employees are not beholden to the new owner nor the new owner to the employees.

    This is important because people think that our systems of land
    ownership, of buying the "employees" is something that came from democratic thinking, it didn't. We still have these legacy systems, but are confused about their origin.

    Nobody thinks of our system as one of buying employees except Marxists and students easily influenced by their college professors.

    Universal self-employment means that people work for themselves, or in democratically run firms. It does not mean that there aren't corporations, or that they don't have managers. What it means is that labour hires capital, instead of the other way around. If we decide to start a business, and get a third person, we own what we produce, and
    are responsibile for any liabilities/expenses. Widgets that are
    produced are owned by the us, and we then sell them. Our current system allows someone else to claim they laboured, and that the inital
    ownership of the widget produced is theres, and not the people who laboured to bring it into existence.

    That's called a co-op and venture capital. Nothing new nor radical. Anything beyond that hasn't happened because it again goes against human nature. You can't stand around and yell to the world "I'm labour, I want to hire some capital" without having a sound business plan that the "capital" will want to invest in. Don't have capital and no one will give it to you? Work and save like everyone else.

    It is NOTHING like Marxism. Marxism still has system where you hire labour.

    Oh its Marxism with lipstick. Marxism is supposed to be the workers owning the factory together.

    I find this system far more in tune with human nature. I struggle to

    That's your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. But history has proven you wrong. Capitalism is dominant because capitalism is human nature. People (generally speaking) don't want to work hard for "stuff" and then share it with others. But they will trade the "stuff" they worked for for other "stuff" someone else has. People don't naturally lean towards communes and co-ops.

    I would credit a lot of that to the green revolution, social change, technological advancements, advancements in human rights. People being lifted out of poverty has been a constant throughout history. There was
    a time when we ALL lived as hunter gathers, subsistence living. Ancient Greece and Rome came about before Capitalism.

    That may be (Greece/Rome, not the green nonsense, that's all gov subsidies), but the billion people lifted out of poverty in the past quarter century was because of capitalism. This isn't my saying so, it has been observed and reported.

    Also, I would not credit Capitalism with lifting China out of poverty. China was put INTO poverty. Removing the pathological political and social systems did it. China is what it is because they accepted some market basics, not because they allowed the Bezo's and their equivalent
    of Wall St to run wild.

    China was rural, agricultural and poor long before the communists took over. The communist certainly made it worse though. But they didn't remove political and social systems. Those are still in place and Xi is tightening them, not loosening them. They did allow "capitalist economic zones" though and through the success of a million (pulled that number out of my ass) small, medium and now large businesses (capitalism) have created a growing middle class.

    Here (and elsewhere) you seem to also equate capitalism to just the Bezo's and other "lords". But it isn't. It is actually primarily the mum and pop stores etc.

    People create wealth, as does knowledge. I don't believe that
    Capitalism did this. What did it was allowing people freedom, and
    having a good system of property rights. You were free to spend money
    to develop a product, free to sell it and profit. By the way, some

    Freed to spend money, to develop a product, free to sell it and profit. Boraxman, you just gave the dictionary definition of Capitalism!

    I think the current system IS bad. Housing is unaffordable here.
    People are monopolising housing, creating a demographic crisis. It is
    not in Capitals interest to fix this. It is not in the systems interest to fix wealth inequality. Or not to ship jobs offshore to China, and support a hostile foreign power. Big Tech is now working against us, against freedom.

    Where is "here" again, I can't remember if you're in NZ or Oz? Housing affordability issues in Canada are largely due to two things. The first being a lack of regulation preventing foreigners buy housing and keeping it empty for years (speculative real-estate). This is mostly a Vancouver region problem and it is Chinese investors. Both BC (I think) and the federal government are finally starting to pay attention and have proposed some mild resolutions (essentially a vacancy tax). The second is Canada is every increasingly becoming an urban country with most living in a handful of big cities. There is no housing/affordability crisis in small town (or even small city) Canada. Oh and we also have a third major issue which is immigration. The government has dramatically increased annual immigration over the past 5 years, almost tripling it. And immigrants tend to move to one of three cities where there already is a lack of housing, further compounding it.

    Individual self-ownership is about property rights, in particular, property rights of anything created through labour. Most people are denied their rightful claim to own their own labour by means of the "employment contract", which is a fraudulent contract which claims that labour and agency is transferrable.

    Self-ownership means that when you go to work for "Widgets Inc", you and the others that work there (including managers), own what you make, and are responsible for liabilities you incur (including the cost of hiring capital, buildings, payment for use of intellectual property, etc). No one rents you.

    That's just more Marxist re-branding. People are hired for labour, not owned or rented. But what you describe does exist. It is called the gig economy (Uber, Lyft, Door-Dash, Uber Eats etc). Trouble is, the market dictates what people are willing to pay for those services and turns out it isn't much. Some are making a go of it but many are struggling and of course the companies behind Uber etc are being accused of, wait for it...exploiting the self-ownership non-employees.

    If someone has capital to start their own business (or can get a loan, funding etc) then go for it. If they don't have the means (not just financially, but intellectually) they are NOT owed it and being an employee of someone else is not a bad thing. Living in democracies we have labour laws to protect employees from exploitation and abuse. Ironically it is the new self-ownership/gig-economy where workers DON'T have protection from exploitation precisely because they are not employees but self-owned.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Wed Jan 26 10:35:00 2022
    Marxism failed for these reasons

    1 through 5. Can't say I disagree with any of that.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to MRO on Wed Jan 26 10:37:00 2022
    China won't invade USA. Could they beat you in armed conflict in their region?

    in their region. probably. unless we went full in with a good strategy. we'd have to go ALL in.

    I don't think we will see any Western democracy go "all in" ever again. Not in any of our lifetimes anyway. We are so far from WWII (last time we went all in) and society is so comfortable that we (the collective we) simply are not capable of going all in.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Moondog on Wed Jan 26 10:39:00 2022
    China doesn't have much of a navy. Sinking their cargo ships and troop transports would stop them in their tracks. They couldn't send
    enough paratroopers or cargo planes over to establish a stronghold, either. Their greatest weapon is government supported hackers. they
    can shut down ban ks and force commerce to a grinding halt.

    China's navy is now actually larger than the US's. Not as capable (yet) largely due to the numerous carrier battle groups the US still has (don't let your gov downsize those, they are your "super power").
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Wed Jan 26 10:42:00 2022
    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or
    something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be
    more like us.

    That was a collosal error in judgement.

    100% agree. Was talking about this on a Canadian forum and someone was pointing fingers at the past Conservative government circa 2008-ish. This was brought up, the idea they would be encouraged to make the transition out of communism. But Xi had other plans...
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Otto Reverse on Wed Jan 26 14:32:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    Marxism failed for these reasons

    1 through 5. Can't say I disagree with any of that.

    Can't quote anything for context, either, eh?

    Tell your sysop his tear/origin line is (still) missing.

    Are you posting from a BBS that you run, or someone else's?



    ... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Wed Jan 26 16:17:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Dumas Walker on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:40 pm

    That could be because the more advanced a civilisation, the more distant the owners are from the people they feed off. In a smaller society, you can easily get to and kill the opressors. This happens often in the animal kingdom where an Alpha male which is disliked is removed by others. In tight knit human societies, psychpaths and parasites are ejected.

    But we have the parasites distant and protected, so those natural social forces which would otherwise destroy them, aren't able to do their job. A highly stratified society, a mass society with few people controlling it is a pathological state.

    Interesting. I never thought of society in that way. It is absolutely true also as the majority of people have no idea who are making the decisions in the big steering committees that are being filtered down to government level.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Wed Jan 26 16:27:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm

    so it is true, if you hand Capitalists enough rope, they WILL hang themselves...

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.

    That was a collosal error in judgement.

    Capitalism works if there is no concerted effort in the background to override the function of the free-market economy. Corporations, banks, NGOs, supra-national organisations and governments collude with one another to create outcomes that are not in the interest of the people.

    It is man's own greed and intellect that corrupted our system known as "capitalism".

    The Chinese elite are beholden to the same people we are. The West did not build China up over the last thirty years only to see them conquer the World.

    They are not in control of their own destiny.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Thu Jan 27 14:15:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F0DF18.8036.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F088CC.54657.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Denn on Wed Jan 26 2022 09:42 am


    ... If you want your spouse to listen and pay strict attention to every word you say, talk in your sleep.

    It's very simple. China is working towards buiding a future for Chinese.
    Xi is actually trying to ensure that his countries power system and

    wouldnt it be great if our country's leaders did the same thing?

    Indeed it would! Same the system is designed to keep candidates who would seriously contemplate this out.

    We live in a Kakistocracy, rule of the worst. There are no consequences for betraying your nation now. You can utterly decimate the middle class, support people who have undermined the ability of people to get good stable jobs and afford a home, and have no repurcussions. We've been indoctrinated to think this behaviour is OK. We've been indoctrinated to believe that politicians who don't go to war against the parasites within are still "OK".


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Thu Jan 27 14:18:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F1A005.8043.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.


    who thought that?

    It was the general opinion of the time, perhaps it was motivated reasoning. By opening trade with China, breaking the barriers between the West and the East, there was a common belief that China adopt our values and system and become more like us. Similar to how we believed that Afghanistan and Iraq would just become like the West if we intervened.

    China played along, until they got powerful. Now they have revelaed themselves to be essentially a Nationalist Socialist state. There won't be Democracy, there won't be peace or respect of neighbours.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Thu Jan 27 14:20:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F19DDB.26827.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F088D0.54658.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Wed Jan 26 2022 10:24 am

    It is NOTHING like Marxism. Marxism still has system where you hire labour.


    What you describe would be Spanish style anarcho-syndicalism (if you
    don't believe in such a thing as a nation) or Spanish style
    Riveralistic Phalanxism (if you think a thing such as a nation is a legitimate unit).

    The first is not exactly Marxist, but anarcho-syndicalists seem to be
    best pals with Marxist partisans. The second is not Marxist either but
    is is widely regarded as a socialist proposition, most strongly by the Phalanx itself.

    So yeah, not surprising if somebody reads your proposal and starts
    finding Marxist or Socialist connections :-)

    I do believe in nations. Some Marxists do support this system, Richard D Wolff being one. But when you hear him describe his ideology, he supports a variant of it which is communism writ small.

    Anarcho-syndicalism will utterly fail if it comes from a Marxist direction. I advocate a "Capitalist" version, ie, not collectivism.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Thu Jan 27 14:25:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F1A225.26830.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F0FAD6.54665.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Dumas Walker on
    Wed Jan 26 2022 06:40 pm

    That could be because the more advanced a civilisation, the more distant the owners are from the people they feed off. In a smaller society, you can eas get to and kill the opressors. This happens often in the animal kingdom whe an Alpha male which is disliked is removed by others. In tight knit human societies, psychpaths and parasites are ejected.

    But we have the parasites distant and protected, so those natural social for which would otherwise destroy them, aren't able to do their job. A highly stratified society, a mass society with few people controlling it is a pathological state.


    The anarcho-primitivists have their own explanation.

    Their hipothesis is that in advanced societies, individuals are trained
    to perform increasingly specialized tasks which set them appart from
    the rest.

    When men were little more than primates standing on two legs and
    chanting "ungha-ungha" there was not much of a divide because nobody
    was so ireplaceable that the tribe could not do without him. If your culture is a gatherer's one, the fact you can pick bananas from the
    tree faster than the rest does not make you tremendously more valuable than the next ape and there fore it does not make you gain a disproportionate amount of power over the tribe.

    Fastforward 10 000 years. There are two clinics in my province doing proper Pain Management. Training good doctors people and insurance companies are willing to trust takes decades. If a single doctor takes
    15 days for holiday, the waiting queues get completely clogged because there is nobody for replacing him. A small number of people therefore
    has a lot of control over the sector because they can do things nobody else can.

    In short, the anarcho-primitivist gripe is that people who can do more specialized stuff ends up owning the people with less training or abilities.

    THe anarcho-primitivist solution is for everybody to become hunter-gatherers again and have nobody trained in anything, ever :-P

    I don't think this really explains anything. My dentist may make decent money, but he provides a service. There is no real incentive to push useful people out of society, even if they are very useful and therefore make more.

    Primitive socieities were not perfectly egalitarian. There were still cheifs, classes, but this was more a matter of responsibility.

    In modern society, you can bypass this. You can, by being able to game the financial system, gain money and power. There are mechanisms which allow you to leverage a small advantage into a large one. There are people who have the power to evict families en masse from homes they own, but the only thing they did different to those dads in those families is perhaps take advantage of a government tax break, or speculate with other peoples money they loaned. The state them protects them, protects people who offshore jobs and turn against the tribe.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Thu Jan 27 14:53:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F1E6A3.122926.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>

    Sorry but that is a pant load. Sometimes a corporation buys another corporation or business for its "talent" (i.e. the employees),
    sometimes not. In either case the employees are not beholden to the new owner nor the new owner to the employees.

    They are purchased by the company. I've been through this. Sure, you can leave, but the fact remains that when one company purchased another company (and its assets), the employees came as part of the assets.

    Human beings are not tradeable objects. That is perverse.

    Nobody thinks of our system as one of buying employees except Marxists
    and students easily influenced by their college professors.

    When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.

    The employment contract grants the holder rights over you. That employment contract can be transferred from one entity to another. Seems much, much more similar to a system where humans are classed as property than one where they are free, self-employed people.

    That's called a co-op and venture capital. Nothing new nor radical. Anything beyond that hasn't happened because it again goes against
    human nature. You can't stand around and yell to the world "I'm labour,
    I want to hire some capital" without having a sound business plan that
    the "capital" will want to invest in. Don't have capital and no one
    will give it to you? Work and save like everyone else.

    But people do that all the time! When you start a business, working for yourself, and you want capital. You go get a loan. You may rent equipment.

    That *IS* labour saying "I want to hire some capital!"

    You aren't really employed because you are not transferring your labour to anyone else. Self employment is just this writ-large. If you have others who want to join your venture, they take the same role you do. Labouring to produce product, and being responsible for cost of capital and assets. But instead of you hiring them, the firm operates the same way as if it were just you, but instead ownership of output and liabilities is now shared according to agreed contracts.

    Oh its Marxism with lipstick. Marxism is supposed to be the workers
    owning the factory together.

    No, Marxism was never that. Under Marxism the state owned everything, and the state represented "the workers". Don't believe the Marxist lie. I've met Communists, they've explained it to me. To them, because the state is "democratic" then state ownership they say, is the same as people-ownership.

    That is not true.

    That's your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. But history
    has proven you wrong. Capitalism is dominant because capitalism is
    human nature. People (generally speaking) don't want to work hard for "stuff" and then share it with others. But they will trade the "stuff" they worked for for other "stuff" someone else has. People don't
    naturally lean towards communes and co-ops.

    Capitalism is dominant because it produced more. Period.

    But that boon was in the past. Human history does not allow stagnation. You can't just say "This system is good, lets never change it". Systems create new conditions, and those conditions change how the system behaves. The system changes and produced different conditions, etc, etc.

    This is why the west is stagnating, and why I think China is on the rise. China is willing to adapt. You aren't.

    Adapt or die.

    That may be (Greece/Rome, not the green nonsense, that's all gov subsidies), but the billion people lifted out of poverty in the past quarter century was because of capitalism. This isn't my saying so, it
    has been observed and reported.

    China was rural, agricultural and poor long before the communists took over. The communist certainly made it worse though. But they didn't remove political and social systems. Those are still in place and Xi
    is tightening them, not loosening them. They did allow "capitalist economic zones" though and through the success of a million (pulled
    that number out of my ass) small, medium and now large businesses (capitalism) have created a growing middle class.

    Here (and elsewhere) you seem to also equate capitalism to just the
    Bezo's and other "lords". But it isn't. It is actually primarily the
    mum and pop stores etc.

    The mom and pop stores are dying because of Walmart, Amazon, etc. I see small businesses dying around where I live, having their economic nice taken over by larger duopolies.

    China is still in an earlier stage of development, and they have seen the issues the plague the USA and are taking measure to make sure they don't take root.

    But you can't pick and choose what is Capitalism. The economic system is Capitalism. That includes hyperfinancialisation, big Tech Monopolies, consolidation of markets into smaller players, cowboy Wall Street money junkies, Blackrock hoovering up residential real estate. Its all part of your system.

    Freed to spend money, to develop a product, free to sell it and profit.
    Boraxman, you just gave the dictionary definition of Capitalism!

    And being able to rent human beings, and the idea that labour has marginal value and that humans can be alienated from their right to property they produce with their labour. That is part of it.


    Where is "here" again, I can't remember if you're in NZ or Oz? Housing affordability issues in Canada are largely due to two things. The first being a lack of regulation preventing foreigners buy housing and
    keeping it empty for years (speculative real-estate). This is mostly a Vancouver region problem and it is Chinese investors. Both BC (I
    think) and the federal government are finally starting to pay attention and have proposed some mild resolutions (essentially a vacancy tax).
    The second is Canada is every increasingly becoming an urban country
    with most living in a handful of big cities. There is no housing/affordability crisis in small town (or even small city) Canada.
    Oh and we also have a third major issue which is immigration. The government has dramatically increased annual immigration over the past
    5 years, almost tripling it. And immigrants tend to move to one of
    three cities where there already is a lack of housing, further
    compounding it.

    Australia. Australia stopped immigration during the pandemic, but prices kept escalating. I believed immigration was a huge factor, but this is emperical evidence that it is not the inflationary factor people thought it was.

    If you look at the data more closely, you see a trend towards investors being a larger and larger part of the market, and home owners being smaller and smaller, including first home owners. We have low interest rates, and a lot of money pumped into the market.

    I don't really believe the supply/demand argument anymore. The numbers don't really stack up, because housing is going up faster now than I've ever seen.


    That's just more Marxist re-branding. People are hired for labour, not owned or rented. But what you describe does exist. It is called the gig economy (Uber, Lyft, Door-Dash, Uber Eats etc). Trouble is, the market dictates what people are willing to pay for those services and turns
    out it isn't much. Some are making a go of it but many are struggling
    and of course the companies behind Uber etc are being accused of, wait
    for it...exploiting the self-ownership non-employees.

    If someone has capital to start their own business (or can get a loan, funding etc) then go for it. If they don't have the means (not just financially, but intellectually) they are NOT owed it and being an employee of someone else is not a bad thing. Living in democracies we
    have labour laws to protect employees from exploitation and abuse. Ironically it is the new self-ownership/gig-economy where workers DON'T have protection from exploitation precisely because they are not
    employees but self-owned.


    Hiring = renting. They mean the same thing.

    The gig economy is closer, but not quite because the "employees" are not fully autonomous. If you paid Uber for the right to use the app, the services, but otherwise used the Uber services as you see fit, then it would be closer to this.

    But I agree the gig-economy sucks. But it isn't an indictment on self-employment, because in a GOOD economy you'll have lots of people running their own business instead of for mega-corps.

    Remember, for much of the history of Capitalism, a lot of people were actually working for themselves!!! It's not like in 1820 everyone was working in offices, many, many people were living off their own labour, not employed.

    The gig-economy is more a result of deindustrialisation and a poorly formed labour market. It is the result of decades of de-industrialisation. I would be happy to bet my left testicle that the creators of Uber/DoorDash, etc, were NOT planning a system of universal self employment as described by David Ellerman in "Property and Contract".


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Thu Jan 27 14:57:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F1BA51.29786.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F0FAD6.54665.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Dumas Walker on
    Wed Jan 26 2022 06:40 pm

    That could be because the more advanced a civilisation, the more distant the owners are from the people they feed off. In a smaller society, you can easily get to and kill the opressors. This happens often in the animal kingdom where an Alpha male which is disliked is removed by others. In tight knit human societies, psychpaths and parasites are ejected.

    But we have the parasites distant and protected, so those natural social forces which would otherwise destroy them, aren't able to do their job. A highly stratified society, a mass society with few people controlling it is a pathological state.

    Interesting. I never thought of society in that way. It is absolutely
    true also as the majority of people have no idea who are making the decisions in the big steering committees that are being filtered down
    to government level.
    ---


    We never speak to the cheifs. They never have to answer to us. The "democratic" system keeps that degree of seperation. Psychopathy (literal psychopaths) wouldn't have fared so well in a social structure where they could be knifed in their sleep, or simply sent out of the tribe by force to die alone.

    As harsh as it seems, we had these systems to expel this extreme behaviour. The word "ostracism" comes from a practice in Ancient Greece were citizens and public figures considered dangerous were banished.

    We are made to constantly focus on the lady on the train who did a "racist rant", in order to direct our nature impulse to ostracise towards harmless plebs instead.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Thu Jan 27 14:59:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F1BCAA.29787.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm

    so it is true, if you hand Capitalists enough rope, they WILL hang themselves...

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.

    That was a collosal error in judgement.

    Capitalism works if there is no concerted effort in the background to override the function of the free-market economy. Corporations, banks, NGOs, supra-national organisations and governments collude with one another to create outcomes that are not in the interest of the people.

    It is man's own greed and intellect that corrupted our system known as "capitalism".

    The Chinese elite are beholden to the same people we are. The West did
    not build China up over the last thirty years only to see them conquer
    the World.

    They are not in control of their own destiny.

    I think by and large, the ECONOMIC system of Capitalism work. Where it falls apart is property rights. The system of property rights under capitalism exacerbate monopolies, and give greater social power to Capital instelf.

    Under Capitalism, Capital (the people representing it), keep a system of property rights in which they maintain societal control. The fact that it can send jobs offshore is clear evidence of this. No worker cooperative would vote to send their own jobs offshore.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Nightfox on Thu Jan 27 15:03:00 2022
    Nightfox wrote to Arelor <=-

    @MSGID: <61F182DD.63994.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
    @REPLY: <61F04CE1.26803.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to MRO on Tue
    Jan 25 2022 01:17 pm

    I don't think China's plan is sending an army against the US, but making the US so dependant of Chinese manufactures and buying so much American debt that the country will be in their hands anyway.

    If China's economy does surpass the US economy, perhaps China will see
    an increase in standard of living, and perhaps cost of labor will increase, thus driving up cost of goods from China. If that happens, companies might not be able to financially justify the cost of sending manufacturing jobs to China anymore. Perhaps that would be a
    motivation for companies to bring manufacturing back to the home
    country.

    I think China will struggle once it reaches that state, which doesn't bode well as it makes war as a solution more likely. They may still win such a war, but China I think is likely to end up stagnating. China will be the Byzantium of a dark age. Wealthy, but not interesting.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Thu Jan 27 01:43:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:53 pm

    Oh its Marxism with lipstick. Marxism is supposed to be the workers owning the factory together.

    No, Marxism was never that. Under Marxism the state owned everything, and t state represented "the workers". Don't believe the Marxist lie. I've met Communists, they've explained it to me. To them, because the state is "democratic" then state ownership they say, is the same as people-ownership.

    The Communist endgame is for the State to disappear.

    The idea is to have a revolution which results in a dictatorship of the proletariat, which would eventually lead to the disintegration of the State. Then all the workers would own the factory.

    Lots of modern Communists have never heard what Das Kapital is so they campaign for the State owning everything in the name of the workers. A lot of modern day communists would be beaten to a pulp by the communists of the 40s XD

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Boraxman on Thu Jan 27 03:41:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:53 pm

    When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 01:57:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Denn <=-

    They are in an excellent position to cripple the Western world should
    they be so inclined.

    Let's hope they continue to be reliant on exports for their products...




    ... THE SEVEN JOURNEYS TO ITSELFNESS
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Thu Jan 27 09:20:00 2022
    Sorry but that is a pant load. Sometimes a corporation buys another corporation or business for its "talent" (i.e. the employees), sometimes not. In either case the employees are not beholden to the n owner nor the new owner to the employees.

    They are purchased by the company. I've been through this. Sure, you
    can leave, but the fact remains that when one company purchased another company (and its assets), the employees came as part of the assets.

    Well I think we're just arguing semantics then. Originally sounded like you were talking about quasi-slave trade.

    When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.

    Disagree. When you are hired you are trading your labour for income. It is a mutually beneficial trade.

    The employment contract grants the holder rights over you. That employment contract can be transferred from one entity to another.
    Seems much, much more similar to a system where humans are classed as property than one where they are free, self-employed people.

    Nope it doesn't grant "rights over you". Rights and conditions of employment are completely different things. Only if the employee were prohibited by the employer from quitting and was forced in some way would you be correct in that assertion.

    That's called a co-op and venture capital. Nothing new nor radical. Anything beyond that hasn't happened because it again goes against human nature. You can't stand around and yell to the world "I'm labou I want to hire some capital" without having a sound business plan tha the "capital" will want to invest in. Don't have capital and no one will give it to you? Work and save like everyone else.


    But people do that all the time! When you start a business, working for yourself, and you want capital. You go get a loan. You may rent equipment.

    As I said, they do it with a business plan. Without one or without one or any capital of their own then they don't.

    No, Marxism was never that. Under Marxism the state owned everything,
    and the state represented "the workers". Don't believe the Marxist lie. I've met Communists, they've explained it to me. To them, because the state is "democratic" then state ownership they say, is the same as people-ownership.


    Right. You are correct, yours is a co-op and the commies are state owned.

    Capitalism is dominant because it produced more. Period.

    Because it is human nature.

    But that boon was in the past. Human history does not allow stagnation. You can't just say "This system is good, lets never change it". Systems create new conditions, and those conditions change how the system
    behaves. The system changes and produced different conditions, etc, etc.

    Crony capitalism is the problem. Good regulation (not an overabundance or "bad" regulation) can solve that. It has at times in the past and easily can again but requires "good government" which is not something as common as it should be. But capitalism doesn't need to be replaced or radically altered. There is no wheel needing reinvention.

    This is why the west is stagnating, and why I think China is on the
    rise. China is willing to adapt. You aren't.

    China is on the rise because we (the West) were fools to send all our manufacturing there to the point that practically everything one buys comes from China. The minute the West breaks from the folly (it will be painful) China will feel the impact. Their population is actually shrinking. There will probably be a war as a result.

    The mom and pop stores are dying because of Walmart, Amazon, etc. I see small businesses dying around where I live, having their economic nice taken over by larger duopolies.

    Yup. Consumerism of the West. We are our own worst enemies. But this has nothing to do with capitalism being "bad" or "broken".


    But you can't pick and choose what is Capitalism. The economic system is Capitalism. That includes hyperfinancialisation, big Tech Monopolies, consolidation of markets into smaller players, cowboy Wall Street money junkies, Blackrock hoovering up residential real estate. Its all part
    of your system.


    I'm not saying pick and choose. I'm saying capitalism doesn't have to be unfettered, no laws, no regs etc. It can be and that is were corruption and crony capitalism takes root. But "we the people" can fix that through elections if we wanted to make it an issue. Replacing/changing capitalism isn't necessary and will no doubt lead to great suffering. As it always does.

    And being able to rent human beings, and the idea that labour has
    marginal value and that humans can be alienated from their right to property they produce with their labour. That is part of it.

    Nope. That's commie clap trap (I know, you're not a marxist). When you are hired for your labour the employer owns the product of that labour. Don't like it? Become your own boss or join a co-op. You (the employee) accepted the contract of being paid for the labour you in turn give to the personn/company paying you.

    If you look at the data more closely, you see a trend towards investors being a larger and larger part of the market, and home owners being smaller and smaller, including first home owners. We have low interest rates, and a lot of money pumped into the market.

    Yes we have the investor problem, but low interest rates is the biggest driver of prices. That and of course supply/demand. Supply/demand is the most basics of economics and indeed still is, even in Australia. The investors bit can be solved by government, if it wants to.
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to ARELOR on Thu Jan 27 11:04:00 2022
    Probably because you like horses. Horse farm girls would probably like that.

    My friends say that, and that my Spanish accent is charming.

    I think my Spanish accent makes my ENnglish sound like an Australian with the mouth full of sausages trying to order more from the bar tender :-(

    I am sure your friend is right, the Kentucky horse farm girls would
    probably like it. :)


    * SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....bacon..."

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to GAMGEE on Thu Jan 27 11:50:00 2022
    Can't quote anything for context, either, eh?

    Tell your sysop his tear/origin line is (still) missing.

    Are you posting from a BBS that you run, or someone else's?


    He is posting from Paulee's 20 For Beers BBS. The origin lines show up in
    FTN echos, but not in these QWK echos.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Isn't this where....

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Thu Jan 27 09:38:00 2022
    I think by and large, the ECONOMIC system of Capitalism work. Where it fa apart is property rights. The system of property rights under capitalism exacerbate monopolies, and give greater social power to Capital instelf.

    Property rights are the domain of the political system not the economic system.

    Under Capitalism, Capital (the people representing it), keep a system of property rights in which they maintain societal control. The fact that it send jobs offshore is clear evidence of this. No worker cooperative would to send their own jobs offshore.

    No it isn't as a job is not property. Neither is the product of labour that has been contracted.
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Thu Jan 27 20:44:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:57 pm

    We never speak to the cheifs. They never have to answer to us. The "democratic" system keeps that degree of seperation. Psychopathy (literal psychopaths) wouldn't have fared so well in a social structure where they could be knifed in their sleep, or simply sent out of the tribe by force to die alone.

    As harsh as it seems, we had these systems to expel this extreme behaviour. The word "ostracism" comes from a practice in Ancient Greece were citizens and public figures considered dangerous were banished.

    We are made to constantly focus on the lady on the train who did a "racist rant", in order to direct our nature impulse to ostracise towards harmless plebs instead.

    Our owners will never take account of us. And you are right -- they are so far from paying any attention to our opinions or wishes that they may as well be another species.

    They are psychopaths though, such as you described, which is why they are drawn to irresistible power.

    I believe the politicans, minus those who have been initiated, are mostly plebeian themselves. They will be the focus of our ire, and will be thrown to the bloodthirsty mob when the time arrives.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Thu Jan 27 20:52:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:59 pm

    I think by and large, the ECONOMIC system of Capitalism work. Where it falls apart is property rights. The system of property rights under capitalism exacerbate monopolies, and give greater social power to Capital instelf.

    Under Capitalism, Capital (the people representing it), keep a system of property rights in which they maintain societal control. The fact that it can send jobs offshore is clear evidence of this. No worker cooperative would vote to send their own jobs offshore.

    I can agree. Capitalism as a theory works. It also works in practice too until monolithic mega corporations, the banks and the government work hand in glove to take everything away from the worker class in an attempt to own it all.

    Like Communism, Capitalism works in theory. In the real world, however, where there is incredible and diabolical levels of corruption, the system cannot sustain itself and is doomed to fail. We will likely see another economic system in the next several decades when this one fails. It will be a synergy of the above two.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to poindexter FORTRAN on Thu Jan 27 20:59:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:57 am

    They are in an excellent position to cripple the Western world should they be so inclined.

    Let's hope they continue to be reliant on exports for their products...

    That's the problem. They won't be for much longer. As the USA continually prints more and more USD, devaluing their own currency into the ground, the Chinese will become more and more reluctant to exchange paper currency for actual goods. There is a reason why the Chinese are purchasing North American real estate with the currency made from their exports. We are presently in an economic war... it's just that most people aren't awake enough to realise it.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Andeddu on Thu Jan 27 14:22:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 2022 01:52 am

    I can agree. Capitalism as a theory works. It also works in practice too until monolithic mega corporations, the banks and the government work hand in glove to take everything away from the worker class in an attempt to own it all.

    Like Communism, Capitalism works in theory. In the real world, however, where there is incredible and diabolical levels of corruption, the system cannot sustain itself and is doomed to fail. We will likely see another economic system in the next several decades when this one fails. It will be a synergy of the above two.

    I don't think any country uses pure capitalism, and perhaps not pure communism either. I think we already have synergies of both. I don't think the system in the US could even be considered pure capitalism. Much of the system in the US is capitalist, but there are some elements which I don't think are really communist, but socialist: Programs such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance for those who lose their jobs, etc..

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Otto Reverse on Thu Jan 27 18:26:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to MRO on Wed Jan 26 2022 03:37 pm

    I don't think we will see any Western democracy go "all in" ever again. Not in any of our lifetimes anyway. We are so far from WWII (last time we went all in) and society is so comfortable that we (the collective we) simply are not capable of going all in.

    you just need trump with his finger on the button.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Jan 27 18:28:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:18 pm

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F1A005.8043.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.


    who thought that?

    It was the general opinion of the time, perhaps it was motivated reasoning.


    what time was this?

    you know china runs their own people over with tanks, right.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Nightfox on Thu Jan 27 20:55:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Thu Jan 27 2022 08:41 am

    When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you
    think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is
    synonymous with renting.

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    I look at it more like we are selling a service to a company so we can both make money, the better we are at what we do the more our services cost the company.

    ... To hell with the Prime Directive! Let's KILL SOMETHING!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Fri Jan 28 14:37:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F29362.26852.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F26018.54693.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Thu Jan 27 2022 07:53 pm

    Oh its Marxism with lipstick. Marxism is supposed to be the workers owning the factory together.

    No, Marxism was never that. Under Marxism the state owned everything, and t state represented "the workers". Don't believe the Marxist lie. I've met Communists, they've explained it to me. To them, because the state is "democratic" then state ownership they say, is the same as people-ownership.

    The Communist endgame is for the State to disappear.

    The idea is to have a revolution which results in a dictatorship of the proletariat, which would eventually lead to the disintegration of the State. Then all the workers would own the factory.

    Lots of modern Communists have never heard what Das Kapital is so they campaign for the State owning everything in the name of the workers. A
    lot of modern day communists would be beaten to a pulp by the
    communists of the 40s XD

    It's been a while since I've read the Communist manifesto, and other Marxist texts, but I couldn't see how a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would work. It is like the unions running everything.

    But that is different to what I'm talking about. A worker run firm is ONLY run by the people who have contractually agreed to work in that firm. In the Marxist vision, all workers control everything. That is a different proposition. Marxism considers "workers" as one collective whole, which I object to.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 14:38:00 2022
    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F2CB39.64022.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
    @REPLY: <61F26018.54693.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Thu Jan 27 2022 07:53 pm

    When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Fri Jan 28 15:05:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F31C06.122950.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>

    Well I think we're just arguing semantics then. Originally sounded like you were talking about quasi-slave trade.

    When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.

    Disagree. When you are hired you are trading your labour for income. It
    is a mutually beneficial trade.

    This is what is claimed is occuring. But it is not possible for you trade your labour. You can labour according to anothers instruction, but you cannot trade it. It is not possible for you to transfer your labour or agency to another person.

    The financial transaction that is called "buying labour" is a fraud. The employment contract is a fraud.


    What happens when you "buy labour". Someone else actually does work, using their own labour, which they control, to produce something. You never, ever, were in posession or control of the labour.

    Nope it doesn't grant "rights over you". Rights and conditions of employment are completely different things. Only if the employee were prohibited by the employer from quitting and was forced in some way
    would you be correct in that assertion.

    The employees are part of the purchase. They are buying the right to use your labour.

    The fact you are free to decide otherwise doesn't matter. The company has transferred you to them. That is a fact.

    As I said, they do it with a business plan. Without one or without one
    or any capital of their own then they don't.

    If you work with your own capital, your self-employed.

    Right. You are correct, yours is a co-op and the commies are state
    owned.

    Correct. The state (or workers as a collective) should never be running individual workers. That is a violation of our democratic rights to self rule, and our freedom.

    The MOST economically free system, is one where you own yourself.

    This is what I struggle with. Capitalists argue black and blue about freedom, but when you propose that human beings should work for themselves, have full, unalienable property rights over their own actions, and should never be allows to be purchated outright or rented, but remain self-employed, they change their mind.

    They DON'T wan't freedom for all.

    Because it is human nature.

    There are many things about Capitalism which are modern constructs and not human nature.

    Crony capitalism is the problem. Good regulation (not an overabundance
    or "bad" regulation) can solve that. It has at times in the past and easily can again but requires "good government" which is not something
    as common as it should be. But capitalism doesn't need to be replaced
    or radically altered. There is no wheel needing reinvention.

    This is just the "No True Scotsman" fallace. People take what they think is wrong with Capitalism, and ascribe it to a different system "That is actually socialism", "that is actually crony capitalism" thereby distilling the term Capitalism to all that is left, the 'good stuff'.

    This is not a good line of reasoning. The Marxists do the same thing, by saying that everything that failed about previous Socialist system was not really socialism.

    Same reasoning.

    China is on the rise because we (the West) were fools to send all our manufacturing there to the point that practically everything one buys comes from China. The minute the West breaks from the folly (it will
    be painful) China will feel the impact. Their population is actually shrinking. There will probably be a war as a result.

    It's not "we", its business, in particular those who owned the means of production, who had control over it who were given economic freedom to do so.

    If companies were run by workers, they would likely not send their jobs offshore. The power dynamic in Western countries is what made it happen. China doesn't have this power dynamic because they won't go as "Capitalist" as us.

    They learned.

    Yup. Consumerism of the West. We are our own worst enemies. But this
    has nothing to do with capitalism being "bad" or "broken".

    Consumerism is a product of our economic system, and the power structures. Who gets to decide what is made? Who allocates resources? Who has say? Who does the board report to?

    I think the consumerism was an inevitable result. Capital is seeking a return, and capital makes decisions. Property rights over what is produces generally go to capital, because capital generally hires labour, than the other way around.

    If it were the other way around, businesses would make different decisions.

    I'm not saying pick and choose. I'm saying capitalism doesn't have to
    be unfettered, no laws, no regs etc. It can be and that is were corruption and crony capitalism takes root. But "we the people" can
    fix that through elections if we wanted to make it an issue. Replacing/changing capitalism isn't necessary and will no doubt lead to great suffering. As it always does.

    Isn't unfettered capitalism true capitalism though? If it needs to be fettered, regulated, why? Why does the system not have the capability to be long-term self-sustaining by its own ideology and workings?

    I actually think a lot of the problems of Capitalism are not because of "free markets" or "consumerism", but property rights.

    Nope. That's commie clap trap (I know, you're not a marxist). When you
    are hired for your labour the employer owns the product of that labour. Don't like it? Become your own boss or join a co-op. You (the
    employee) accepted the contract of being paid for the labour you in
    turn give to the personn/company paying you.

    As I mentioned before, the idea that you can purchase labour is a fraud. It is outdated, and it should be considered philosophically invalid, like how being able to "own" a slave is invalid.

    No one can explain how labour is transferred from one person to another. If a contract claims that labour is transferred, and it is not, that contract is fraudulent. I have never, ever seen an employment contract which states how this occurs. Every other business contract I've seen, been involved in, is very explicit about what is transferred, and how.

    If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the murder) is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and state that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.

    But no court would buy this argument. Because all humans know deep down you can't transfer agency. We just pretend at the office because that is our culture.

    I repeat, there is no physical way possible for you to transfer your agency, your labour to another. YOU make the product. Not your 'employer'.

    The employment contract should be, rightfully, considered legally invalid because it supposes that an individuals right to property from their own labour is alienable. In a FREE society, of free individuals, that shouldn't be accepted.

    Yes we have the investor problem, but low interest rates is the biggest driver of prices. That and of course supply/demand. Supply/demand is
    the most basics of economics and indeed still is, even in Australia.
    The investors bit can be solved by government, if it wants to.

    It is supply/demand of money, not property. There is a high supply of money. The second problem is more fundamental. The state grants property rights over land. Your land doesn't exist without a state, so ownership of land is not a fundamental right, its a society granted privilege.

    But because property investors have politicians intheir hip pockets here in Australia, our government runs the country for their benefit.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Fri Jan 28 15:09:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F32A0E.122953.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>

    Property rights are the domain of the political system not the economic system.

    If property rights are the domain of the political system, then if the state abolished the rental of human beings, we would still be Capitalist, yes? The economic system is not changed, only property rights as recognised by the state and courts...


    Under Capitalism, Capital (the people representing it), keep a system of property rights in which they maintain societal control. The fact that it send jobs offshore is clear evidence of this. No worker cooperative would to send their own jobs offshore.

    No it isn't as a job is not property. Neither is the product of labour that has been contracted.

    My argument was more to the fact that jobs ARE going offshore. People wouldn't send their jobs offshore, so the decision is made not by producers, but by capital.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Fri Jan 28 15:12:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F34A61.29809.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F2601A.54694.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Thu Jan 27 2022 07:57 pm

    We never speak to the cheifs. They never have to answer to us. The "democratic" system keeps that degree of seperation. Psychopathy (literal psychopaths) wouldn't have fared so well in a social structure where they could be knifed in their sleep, or simply sent out of the tribe by force to die alone.

    As harsh as it seems, we had these systems to expel this extreme behaviour. The word "ostracism" comes from a practice in Ancient Greece were citizens and public figures considered dangerous were banished.

    We are made to constantly focus on the lady on the train who did a "racist rant", in order to direct our nature impulse to ostracise towards harmless plebs instead.

    Our owners will never take account of us. And you are right -- they are
    so far from paying any attention to our opinions or wishes that they
    may as well be another species.

    They are psychopaths though, such as you described, which is why they
    are drawn to irresistible power.

    I believe the politicans, minus those who have been initiated, are
    mostly plebeian themselves. They will be the focus of our ire, and will
    be thrown to the bloodthirsty mob when the time arrives.

    We need to rediscover that Western spirit of freedom, self-ownership and individual rights.

    I fear we are losing this, and in the other thread I believe that "Capitalism" has changed from being a force for human liberation, to a justification for our current social structure to entrench current power structures.

    It is sad that so many people who talk about "freedom" will do an about face, once the power of those who lord it over them is threatened.

    I'd be more satisfied if people say "I know people control me, but I'm happy being controlled. I deserve to be controlled and told what to do by my betters".


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Fri Jan 28 15:22:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F34C73.29810.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F2601C.54695.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Thu Jan 27 2022 07:59 pm

    I think by and large, the ECONOMIC system of Capitalism work. Where it falls apart is property rights. The system of property rights under capitalism exacerbate monopolies, and give greater social power to Capital instelf.

    Under Capitalism, Capital (the people representing it), keep a system of property rights in which they maintain societal control. The fact that it can send jobs offshore is clear evidence of this. No worker cooperative would vote to send their own jobs offshore.

    I can agree. Capitalism as a theory works. It also works in practice
    too until monolithic mega corporations, the banks and the government
    work hand in glove to take everything away from the worker class in an attempt to own it all.

    Like Communism, Capitalism works in theory. In the real world, however, where there is incredible and diabolical levels of corruption, the
    system cannot sustain itself and is doomed to fail. We will likely see another economic system in the next several decades when this one
    fails. It will be a synergy of the above two.

    There isn't really a "Capitalist" system as such. Capitalism describes a system which has a few particular characteristics, but there are many variations within. You can be Capitalist and have worker coops for example, or Capitalism with no taxes, or high taxes, or Capitalist, but purchase of residential property is highly regulated.

    All systems will be corrupted by people, become something else. Is there an instituion or idea which HASN'T eventually transformed into something else? No.

    I think the enlightenment has shown us that individual autonomy and freedom are the way to go. I believe that our system of "renting humans" denies people their God given property rights and selfhood. The problem is pretty much every Capitalist has been indoctrinated to fear true freedom.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Fri Jan 28 15:23:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

    @MSGID: <61F34DE6.29811.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F2AF89.50360.dove.dove-gen@realitycheckbbs.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu
    on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:57 am

    They are in an excellent position to cripple the Western world should they be so inclined.

    Let's hope they continue to be reliant on exports for their products...

    That's the problem. They won't be for much longer. As the USA
    continually prints more and more USD, devaluing their own currency into the ground, the Chinese will become more and more reluctant to exchange paper currency for actual goods. There is a reason why the Chinese are purchasing North American real estate with the currency made from their exports. We are presently in an economic war... it's just that most
    people aren't awake enough to realise it.

    Amazing. The US is LITERALLY selling their land to a country they expect to go to war with (Australia is doing the same), and people STILL don't see a problem with a system which allows this.

    Reason #143 why the US is toast.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 04:07:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 07:38 pm

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting
    people) before..

    Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.

    To double-check, I looked up the definition of "hire". At least according to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in (and grew up in) the US.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Fri Jan 28 07:49:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 01:55 am

    By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Thu Jan 27 2022 08:41 am

    When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you
    think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is
    synonymous with renting.

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    I look at it more like we are selling a service to a company so we can both make money, the better we are at what we do the more our services cost the company.


    i agree, but only with the first part. they pay what they pay. we either take it or dont, or try to negotiate for more pay.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 07:53:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 07:38 pm

    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F2CB39.64022.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
    @REPLY: <61F26018.54693.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Thu Jan 27 2022 07:53 pm

    When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    i dont know what your point is, comparing renting and hiring and saying they are the same words.

    let this soak in:

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 07:59:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Fri Jan 28 2022 08:23 pm


    Amazing. The US is LITERALLY selling their land to a country they expect to go to war with (Australia is doing the same), and people STILL don't see a problem with a system which allows this.



    renting!

    the usa still can take it back.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 08:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 2022 09:07 am

    to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in (and grew up in) the US.


    renting is for objects.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to MRO on Fri Jan 28 07:14:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 2022 12:53 pm

    i dont know what your point is, comparing renting and hiring and saying they are the same words.

    let this soak in:

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits.

    Definitions and usages of words can be slightly different depending on the country. Apparently, renting is an acceptable use in the UK for hiring an employee (whereas in the US we wouldn't say that).

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to MRO on Fri Jan 28 11:17:00 2022
    you just need trump with his finger on the button.

    You mean the only President in what, the past 6 not to bring the US into any new conflict? I think if the US were attacked in a major way he would be "all in", but barring that I don't see it.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to MRO on Fri Jan 28 11:18:00 2022
    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will b more like us.

    who thought that?

    It was the common thought of the West. Maybe it wasn't communicated well by US media to US citizens, but it definitely was what the West was collectively thinking at the time.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 11:58:00 2022
    Disagree. When you are hired you are trading your labour for income. is a mutually beneficial trade.

    This is what is claimed is occuring. But it is not possible for you
    trade your labour. You can labour according to anothers instruction,
    but you cannot trade it. It is not possible for you to transfer your labour or agency to another person.

    It is not what I am claiming is occurring. It is literally what is occurring. It is very possible and quite easy. It is in essence a contract. Easy. Simple. Ancient. Free (as in freedom).

    What happens when you "buy labour". Someone else actually does work, using their own labour, which they control, to produce something. You never, ever, were in posession or control of the labour.

    More nonsense I'm afraid Boraxman. I don't mean to be rude, honestly, but I think you are in a distopian funk or something. The person labouring is not a slave. They are not being robbed of "their" product. They simply agree to an exchange. It is really that simple.

    The employees are part of the purchase. They are buying the right to
    use your labour.

    The fact you are free to decide otherwise doesn't matter. The company
    has transferred you to them. That is a fact.

    It can and often is. But not in the manner you imply. The fact that they are free to decide does matter. In fact it is critical. Otherwise it would be slavery.

    If you work with your own capital, your self-employed.

    Of course. If you work with borrowed capital you are also self-employed, but you owe (so it's of to work you go, hi ho hi ho [just a little levity]).

    This is what I struggle with. Capitalists argue black and blue about freedom, but when you propose that human beings should work for themselves, have full, unalienable property rights over their own
    actions, and should never be allows to be purchated outright or rented, but remain self-employed, they change their mind.

    Well no. People don't argue that at all. They argue that capitalism shouldn't be replaced with what you propose. There is no reason whatsoever that what you propose can't co-exist with capitalism and in fact it does. We already talked about it. Co-ops. Why to do want to take away people's freedom to exchange labour for money or money for labour? If you don't mean that then your paragraph above is incorrect. If you do mean that then you aren't talking about freedom, you are talking about a forced system.

    Because it is human nature.
    There are many things about Capitalism which are modern constructs and
    not human nature.

    Sure. But you knew I was talking about the core of capitalism of course. One works/labours and can exchange that with others for goods/services/money. As opposed to we all work collectively or are forced etc.

    This is just the "No True Scotsman" fallace. People take what they
    think is wrong with Capitalism, and ascribe it to a different system
    "That is actually socialism", "that is actually crony capitalism"
    thereby distilling the term Capitalism to all that is left, the 'good stuff'.

    No it's not. You're taking the throw the baby out with the bath water (or cut off your nose to spite your face) stance on capitalism. I and others are saying no, it isn't black and white, it can be shaped and tweaked to be anything from bad to okay, good and even excellent. And further capitalism has far more good examples than bad. Socialism only has bad examples.

    It's not "we", its business, in particular those who owned the means of production, who had control over it who were given economic freedom to
    do so.

    No it is definitely we. We are democracies. We elect our government and if so inclined can hold them to account. But we chose to ignore what was happening as we became more and more consumer societies. Growing up there wasn't Walmart in Canada at all, no big box stores etc. We had 1 TV in the house and 1 phone. As I sit here typing this we have 3 TV's 4 land lines (one number) and a few cell phones. Countless other gadgets, computers etc. We live in excess because we as societies evolved that way over the past 40/50 years as life got easier. Still, we demanded more and most importantly we demanded cheaper. As the jobs left for overseas the unemployed protested, but the rest of us we at the mall or Walmart or whatever. We could have demanded our governments made efforts to stop this. Hell, Trump managed to do a bit of that in his short time mostly with just loud rhetoric that got some companies to jump. Imagine if most of the Western democracies demanded the same?

    happen. China doesn't have this power dynamic because they won't go as "Capitalist" as us.

    They learned.

    No. They didn't learn. They're just a dictatorship holding on to said dictatorship.

    Consumerism is a product of our economic system, and the power
    structures. Who gets to decide what is made? Who allocates resources? Who has say? Who does the board report to?

    It is a result of a free and productive society yes. The USSR wasn't known for consumerism because they were too busy standing in bread lines.

    I think the consumerism was an inevitable result. Capital is seeking a return, and capital makes decisions. Property rights over what is produces generally go to capital, because capital generally hires
    labour, than the other way around.

    Yes capital seeks a return. That is the beauty of capitalism. But no, I wholly reject your premise that labour and property rights over what is produced is any sort of issue whatsoever. First it isn't property. Labour is not property. Second, if you want domain over the product of your labour then be self-employed or run your own company. In a democratic capitalist society you have the freedom to do just that. And many do.

    Isn't unfettered capitalism true capitalism though? If it needs to be fettered, regulated, why? Why does the system not have the capability
    to be long-term self-sustaining by its own ideology and workings?

    Because there isn't an ideology. It isn't this thing born of a manifesto, complete with doctrine and ideology. It is simply the freedom to trade. How that is implemented differs widely from region to region. Sometimes the differences are small, sometimes they are big. There is no "true capitalism", never has been.

    Now there is what we generally refer to as the "free market" and more often than not people do not literally mean 100% free of regulation/laws. But when they do they say terms like "true free market". But again that isn't an ideology.

    I actually think a lot of the problems of Capitalism are not because of "free markets" or "consumerism", but property rights.

    So you've said. But you also have some unconventional notions about what property rights are. But capitalism doesn't have a lot of problems. It isn't perfect of course (nothing is). And from time to time certain aspects (crony/monopolies etc) need to be reigned in. But that is what democracy is for. The people just need to pay more attention, get off their iPhones etc and also actually read news, not just headlines scrolling past in a curated fashion. That's the real downfall there, how uninformed most people are.

    As I mentioned before, the idea that you can purchase labour is a fraud. It is outdated, and it should be considered philosophically invalid,
    like how being able to "own" a slave is invalid.

    Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as I think most people accept that it is just a mutually agreed upon exchange.

    No one can explain how labour is transferred from one person to another. If a contract claims that labour is transferred, and it is not, that contract is fraudulent. I have never, ever seen an employment contract which states how this occurs. Every other business contract I've seen, been involved in, is very explicit about what is transferred, and how.

    Labour isn't transferred. If you are talking employer/employee then it is a mutually agreed upon exchange. If it is corporation buying another corporation it is still a mutually agreed upon exchange (the labour being done for the new boss).

    If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the murder) is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment
    contract, and state that they sold their labour, and was hired. The
    hirer is responsible.

    Both are responsible and both go to jail.

    I repeat, there is no physical way possible for you to transfer your agency, your labour to another. YOU make the product. Not your 'employer'.

    No need to transfer. YOU agree to make the product for money. Your employerr agrees to pay you money for making the product. This is not complicated nor sinister.

    It is supply/demand of money, not property. There is a high supply of

    It's both. At least in Canada. The high cost of housing is in large urban areas where there are property investors, low interest rates and scarce housing itself. May be different in Aus, but definitely not enough physical housing in our major urban cities.

    But because property investors have politicians intheir hip pockets here in Australia, our government runs the country for their benefit.

    I don't know if it is quite the same in Canada, but I do know politicians haven't done much about it. That might be because the politicians are in their pockets, but more likely it is laziness and ineptitude (something I generally attribute to Canadian politicians).
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 12:01:00 2022
    Property rights are the domain of the political system not the econom system.

    If property rights are the domain of the political system, then if the state abolished the rental of human beings, we would still be
    Capitalist, yes? The economic system is not changed, only property
    rights as recognised by the state and courts...

    Problem with that premise is the notion that humans are being rented and that the product of their labour as exchanged for money has anything to do with property rights. They aren't, and it doesn't.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 20:25:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Fri Jan 28 2022 12:14 pm


    let this soak in:

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits.

    Definitions and usages of words can be slightly different depending on the country. Apparently, renting is an acceptable use in the UK for hiring an employee (whereas in the US we wouldn't say that).

    Nightfox

    none of us who are discussing this is in the uk and that other dude is in australia.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Otto Reverse on Fri Jan 28 20:25:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to MRO on Fri Jan 28 2022 04:17 pm

    you just need trump with his finger on the button.

    You mean the only President in what, the past 6 not to bring the US into any new conflict? I think if the US were attacked in a major way he would be "all in", but barring that I don't see it.

    I didnt say he would press it. i said his finger would be on the button.

    nobody would fuck with trump.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Otto Reverse on Fri Jan 28 20:26:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to MRO on Fri Jan 28 2022 04:18 pm

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will b more like us.

    who thought that?

    It was the common thought of the West. Maybe it wasn't communicated well by US media to US citizens, but it definitely was what the West was collectively thinking at the time.


    hi, i'm in the west. and i'm old.

    never heard that shit.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Nightfox on Sat Jan 29 07:10:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:22 pm

    I don't think any country uses pure capitalism, and perhaps not pure communism either. I think we already have synergies of both. I don't think the system in the US could even be considered pure capitalism. Much of the system in the US is capitalist, but there are some elements which I don't think are really communist, but socialist: Programs such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance for those who lose their jobs, etc..

    Pure capitalism did exist but we have to go back to the 1800s and early 1900s if we are talking about the USA. I agree that since WW1 we have seen more and more socialist policies make it into Western systems creating a kind of synergy between the two. The synergy I was suggesting for the 21st century, however, is something more akin to the Chinese top-down social credit system. We are already seeing big American banks talk about ranking customers with ESG (Enviromental, Social and Governance) scores. Governments in the West are also big on the idea of resource allocation which falls in line with the Chinese system. We spoke before about CBDCs (central bank digital currencies) which are a pillar of the new system, as all transactions are to become visible to the goverment.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 07:35:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Fri Jan 28 2022 08:12 pm

    We need to rediscover that Western spirit of freedom, self-ownership and individual rights.

    I fear we are losing this, and in the other thread I believe that "Capitalism" has changed from being a force for human liberation, to a justification for our current social structure to entrench current power structures.

    It is sad that so many people who talk about "freedom" will do an about face, once the power of those who lord it over them is threatened.

    I'd be more satisfied if people say "I know people control me, but I'm happy being controlled. I deserve to be controlled and told what to do by my betters".

    Capitalism and Communism are economic ideals that arrived around the same time. You need an antithesis to a thesis, serving as an opposition. Both appear to have served their purpose. Lenin said that the West would eventually collapse into the new system with an over abundance of laws. Mikhail Gorbachev also said, during the collapse of the Soviet Union, that "slowly you will hear that Communism is dead and finished -- don't believe it, we are simply moving onto the next phase of merging with the West."

    Both systems are required to achieve the aim of standardising the world into one economic and legal system.

    Freedom is the right to that which the law allows. To the vast majority of people, THAT is the definition of "freedom".

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 07:51:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Fri Jan 28 2022 08:22 pm

    There isn't really a "Capitalist" system as such. Capitalism describes a system which has a few particular characteristics, but there are many variations within. You can be Capitalist and have worker coops for example, or Capitalism with no taxes, or high taxes, or Capitalist, but purchase of residential property is highly regulated.

    All systems will be corrupted by people, become something else. Is there an instituion or idea which HASN'T eventually transformed into something else? No.

    I think the enlightenment has shown us that individual autonomy and freedom are the way to go. I believe that our system of "renting humans" denies people their God given property rights and selfhood. The problem is pretty much every Capitalist has been indoctrinated to fear true freedom.

    George Carlin said it perfectly -- "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there is no such thing as rights. They are imaginary."

    Rights are man-made.

    "They are nothing more than privileges. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. Temporary privileges."

    I think a lot of people have experienced in the last couple of years that freedom is the right to do that which the law allows, nothing more.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Sat Jan 29 17:46:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F37EE7.8080.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F26014.54690.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:18 pm

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F1A005.8043.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.


    who thought that?

    It was the general opinion of the time, perhaps it was motivated reasoning.


    what time was this?

    The 70s, during the time Nixon opened up diplomatic relations.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Nightfox on Sat Jan 29 17:48:00 2022
    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F422DC.64046.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
    @REPLY: <61F3B650.54713.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Nightfox on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 07:38 pm

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting
    people) before..

    Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.

    To double-check, I looked up the definition of "hire". At least
    according to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of
    something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a
    British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in
    (and grew up in) the US.

    Fair enough, in Australia, when you obtain temporary use, you rent or hire it. We generally "rent" cars and houses, but occasionally people will refer to "hiring" a car, or "hiring" a suit, or "renting" a suit.

    Oddly, hiring is never used in context of a house, and renting is never used in context of employing people, but for cars, equipment, both terms are often used.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Sat Jan 29 17:49:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F43B8E.8093.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F3B650.54713.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 07:38 pm

    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F2CB39.64022.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
    @REPLY: <61F26018.54693.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Thu Jan 27 2022 07:53 pm

    When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    i dont know what your point is, comparing renting and hiring and saying they are the same words.

    let this soak in:

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits. ---

    See my response to Nightfox. The terms are synonymous. Typically hiring is used in some context, and renting in others, but there are cases when both are used interchangeably. You have hire cars and rental cars, they are the same thing.

    Look up the definitions.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Sat Jan 29 18:59:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F497B3.122978.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>

    It is not what I am claiming is occurring. It is literally what is occurring. It is very possible and quite easy. It is in essence a contract. Easy. Simple. Ancient. Free (as in freedom).

    More nonsense I'm afraid Boraxman. I don't mean to be rude, honestly,
    but I think you are in a distopian funk or something. The person
    labouring is not a slave. They are not being robbed of "their" product. They simply agree to an exchange. It is really that simple.

    Then you would be able to explain how I can transfer my labour and agency to another person.

    Argue how this is actually done, and how this is different to me working on the product myself using my own will and body. Otherwise, you will need to justify philosophically how a contract can suspend your right to the fruits of your own labour.

    Maybe you do believe that, but then would put you into the awkward position of supporting a WEAKER concept of individual property rights than I do.


    It can and often is. But not in the manner you imply. The fact that
    they are free to decide does matter. In fact it is critical. Otherwise
    it would be slavery.

    A contract isn't valid simply because it is voluntary. Slavery ended because a contract of slavery was no longer legally valid. You cannot consent to becoming a slave, even if you chose to. You and I could sign a contract, wher e I am your slave, but it would be legally invalid.

    Voluntariness isn't the issue, it is validity of what is being volunteered. You cannot volunteer to do something you cannot actually do.

    Of course. If you work with borrowed capital you are also
    self-employed, but you owe (so it's of to work you go, hi ho hi ho
    [just a little levity]).

    Well no. People don't argue that at all. They argue that capitalism shouldn't be replaced with what you propose. There is no reason
    whatsoever that what you propose can't co-exist with capitalism and in fact it does. We already talked about it. Co-ops. Why to do want to
    take away people's freedom to exchange labour for money or money for labour? If you don't mean that then your paragraph above is incorrect.
    If you do mean that then you aren't talking about freedom, you are
    talking about a forced system.

    I kind of agree. My argument isn't that we should remove Capitalism completely, but that universal self employment co-existing with Capitalism (which is what I support), would not be considered Capitalism by most people.

    In essense, I'm arguing that the evolution to true "Capitalism" hasn't finished, and it is a fear of economic freedom and recognition of the rights that come with the labour theory of property is stopping it. This is to maintain the power the capital has in our society.

    I'm saying that there is still a "Marxist" element to Capitalism, the labour theory of value, and this needs to be removed. Labour has NO value, only the product of labour does. People buy what is produced, not labour. Humans exchange the product of their labour, not each other. We used to, long ago, have slaves, trade people as commodities. Capitalism freed us by allowing us to be free, and sell what we product as free agents. The system of employment is an old hold over, and our laws need to change to allow firms to exist legally structures so that even there, we are selling what we produce, not rights over ourselves.

    Follow that to its logical conclusion. A system whereby all economic activity between people is people exchanging what they produce, not ownership of each other. The same holds for services. You pay someone to fix a fence, but what you are buying is the end result, you are not renting the person.

    Because it is human nature.
    There are many things about Capitalism which are modern constructs and
    not human nature.

    Sure. But you knew I was talking about the core of capitalism of
    course. One works/labours and can exchange that with others for goods/services/money. As opposed to we all work collectively or are
    forced etc.

    Agree. Which is why I advocate that this should be the norm. Yet, when you go to work, you don't exchange anything you produce for money. Most of the economic activity that people engage in their whole life does not fit the description of Capitalism. They rent/hire themselves out at a fee, and never get to exchange what they produce at work because they never, ever had property rights over their product in the first place.


    No it's not. You're taking the throw the baby out with the bath water
    (or cut off your nose to spite your face) stance on capitalism. I and others are saying no, it isn't black and white, it can be shaped and tweaked to be anything from bad to okay, good and even excellent. And further capitalism has far more good examples than bad. Socialism only
    has bad examples.

    No it is definitely we. We are democracies. We elect our government and
    if so inclined can hold them to account. But we chose to ignore what
    was happening as we became more and more consumer societies. Growing up there wasn't Walmart in Canada at all, no big box stores etc. We had 1
    TV in the house and 1 phone. As I sit here typing this we have 3 TV's 4 land lines (one number) and a few cell phones. Countless other gadgets, computers etc. We live in excess because we as societies evolved that
    way over the past 40/50 years as life got easier. Still, we demanded
    more and most importantly we demanded cheaper. As the jobs left for overseas the unemployed protested, but the rest of us we at the mall or Walmart or whatever. We could have demanded our governments made
    efforts to stop this. Hell, Trump managed to do a bit of that in his
    short time mostly with just loud rhetoric that got some companies to
    jump. Imagine if most of the Western democracies demanded the same?

    That is true, but consider the decision making process behind all this. We as consumers, demand a lot of things, but we are also producers.

    Do you realise that you get to exercise your freedom of choice as a consumer, but not as a producer? Even though you ARE a producer?

    I produce more than I consume, but I only have autonomy in the consumption aspect.

    Does this begin to give you a clue as to why "we demanded" consumption leading jobs to go offshore? There is an imbalance here which leads to that.

    If we had the same rights of self governance in both our consumptive AND productive economic activity, I would argue the economic outcome writ-large would be different. We should, as a nation, be making decision more as producers, than consumers.


    No. They didn't learn. They're just a dictatorship holding on to said dictatorship.

    It is a result of a free and productive society yes. The USSR wasn't
    known for consumerism because they were too busy standing in bread
    lines.

    They couldn't create products worth buying and the incentive structure was all wrong. I've known people who lived under Eastern European Communism. You went to work, but did little because they wanted everyone employed.

    Yes capital seeks a return. That is the beauty of capitalism. But no, I wholly reject your premise that labour and property rights over what is produced is any sort of issue whatsoever. First it isn't property.
    Labour is not property. Second, if you want domain over the product of your labour then be self-employed or run your own company. In a
    democratic capitalist society you have the freedom to do just that. And many do.

    If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money from your employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.

    How did you sign an employment contract to sell something that is not your property? Is this not fraud?

    Because there isn't an ideology. It isn't this thing born of a
    manifesto, complete with doctrine and ideology. It is simply the
    freedom to trade. How that is implemented differs widely from region to region. Sometimes the differences are small, sometimes they are big.
    There is no "true capitalism", never has been.

    Now there is what we generally refer to as the "free market" and more often than not people do not literally mean 100% free of
    regulation/laws. But when they do they say terms like "true free
    market". But again that isn't an ideology.

    Right. It was based on a confluence of Western ideals. The right of man to self-govern. The right of man to own his product. The inalienable right to freedom. The recogntion that we trade the fruits of our labour. I support all this. But the difference is, I don't think we need to have "exceptions" to these ideals, nor do I support the "right" of others to destroy them.

    So you've said. But you also have some unconventional notions about
    what property rights are. But capitalism doesn't have a lot of
    problems. It isn't perfect of course (nothing is). And from time to
    time certain aspects (crony/monopolies etc) need to be reigned in. But that is what democracy is for. The people just need to pay more
    attention, get off their iPhones etc and also actually read news, not
    just headlines scrolling past in a curated fashion. That's the real downfall there, how uninformed most people are.

    I would argue, it is you which has the unconvential view of property rights. My view is simple. You, as a self-governing human being, when you bring anything into existence through your labour, that object begins its life as your property. The labour theory of property, the rightful owner is the creator.

    How is that unconventional??

    If you do that in conjunction with 10 others (including managers, entrepreneurs), you collectively own it, and this would be done by being part of a firm. The firm is a legal entity which is the 10 people. Because the firm is democratically run (ie, the people govern themselves), effectively they maintain personal property rights legally. The firm would be responsible for paying the landlord, owner of equipment, capital, any factor suppliers. The firm is legally responsible for liabilities incurred and is the residual claimant of the product. It then sells the product, which may even be a sale to an entrepreneur.

    So when you go to work, you actually LEGALLY do sell the product of your labour in an exchange, instead of pretending you do as you do now.

    Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as I think most people accept that it is just a mutually agreed upon exchange.

    Most people accept the contract. Not a single one has been able to explain it.
    In fact, most people are confused as all hell what they are actually selling at work to their employer.

    Some say they sell what the produce, their time, their labour. All these different answers indicate they don't actually understand it. We just do it because, well, thats just how things are.

    Once, we just accepted you could buy and sell people too.

    Labour isn't transferred. If you are talking employer/employee then it
    is a mutually agreed upon exchange. If it is corporation buying another corporation it is still a mutually agreed upon exchange (the labour
    being done for the new boss).

    What are you exchanging? If you aren't selling your labour, why should they pay you?

    You NEVER legally own the product you produce at work. What you produce at work begins its life as the property of your employer, not yours. What are you exchanging? You are accepting money, but what are you giving in return?

    From what you've told me, nothing. Sounds like fraud.

    You've just been rocking up to work, doing what you are told, but never actually exchanging anything. Does your contract spell it out?

    Both are responsible and both go to jail.

    Why should the courts disregard the contract. They agreed to it, and signed it.

    No need to transfer. YOU agree to make the product for money. Your employerr agrees to pay you money for making the product. This is not complicated nor sinister.

    That would be true, if at some point, the product was legally yours. But it never was. It begins as your employers property.

    Otherwise, you would be entitled to cancel the employment contract, and keep what you made at work. Try that and tell me how your court case goes.

    It's both. At least in Canada. The high cost of housing is in large
    urban areas where there are property investors, low interest rates and scarce housing itself. May be different in Aus, but definitely not
    enough physical housing in our major urban cities.

    I don't know if it is quite the same in Canada, but I do know
    politicians haven't done much about it. That might be because the politicians are in their pockets, but more likely it is laziness and ineptitude (something I generally attribute to Canadian politicians).

    In Australia, housing is expensive pretty much everywhere, except for the most undesirable small towns where there are no opportunities at all. We are quite urbanised (like Canada), but there has been a boom of apartment and unit building. The problem is largely cheap money, investors (which we tax payers support), and tax concessions which favour hoarders. Australia is a sheltered workshop for property specuvestors.

    In Australia, you can overpay for a property, as an investor, and if as a result your rental yield doesn't cover your payments, the tax payer will be fleeced to make up the difference. You can deliberately overprice an asset and be rewarded with tax breaks! Then you get tax concessions on profits, interest only loans. Parasites...

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dumas Walker on Sat Jan 29 06:38:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Thu Jan 27 2022 04:04 pm

    Probably because you like horses. Horse farm girls would probably like that.

    My friends say that, and that my Spanish accent is charming.

    I think my Spanish accent makes my ENnglish sound like an Australian with mouth full of sausages trying to order more from the bar tender :-(

    I am sure your friend is right, the Kentucky horse farm girls would
    probably like it. :)


    * SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....bacon..."


    Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got invited. I usually have a whole lot of trouble understanding Australians, but this guy had a brittish gentleman touch which made me reconsider my views on the accent.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 06:50:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Fri Jan 28 2022 08:05 pm

    If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the murder is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and state that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.


    Actually the guy doing the paying would get hit with murder conspiracy charges or similar.

    It also works the other way around. If somebody purchases a product from you in order to facilitate a crime you may be held accountable (ie. if you sell a brick to somebody, knowing that brick is going to be used for cracking somebody s skull, you may be regarded a crime facilitator).

    The point is you are held accountable both if you are selling labour and if you are selling products.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 07:09:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Sat Jan 29 2022 11:59 pm

    If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money from yo employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.

    How did you sign an employment contract to sell something that is not your property? Is this not fraud?

    Thought experiment here:

    If I am a self-employed comediant and do stand-up comedy, I am commiting fraud against the guy who hired me to lighten a birthday party up? Because I am not selling a product. I am selling pure work.

    If I am a plastic surgeon and do reconstructive work for somebody who had his face splashed by acid, I am comitting fraud? Because I am not sellig a product. I am selling pure work.

    The surgeon does not own the face he is fixing. The face belongs to the patient all throughout the deal.

    The main problem I have with your stance is that if is product oriented but it eventually leads to the idea that services have no place in a legit economic system.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 10:27:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Sat Jan 29 2022 10:46 pm

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F37EE7.8080.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F26014.54690.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:18 pm

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F1A005.8043.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.


    who thought that?

    It was the general opinion of the time, perhaps it was motivated reasoning.


    what time was this?

    The 70s, during the time Nixon opened up diplomatic relations.


    okay now that we played 20 questions, you say that in the 70s 'the general opinion' was that china would become another liberal democracy.

    if you say so, it's your story, tell it how you want to tell it.

    china's history says different.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 10:28:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Nightfox on Sat Jan 29 2022 10:48 pm

    Fair enough, in Australia, when you obtain temporary use, you rent or hire it. We generally "rent" cars and houses, but occasionally people will refer to "hiring" a car, or "hiring" a suit, or "renting" a suit.

    Oddly, hiring is never used in context of a house, and renting is never used

    maybe australia needs to stop being fucking weird.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 10:29:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Sat Jan 29 2022 10:49 pm

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits. ---

    See my response to Nightfox. The terms are synonymous. Typically hiring is used in some context, and renting in others, but there are cases when both are used interchangeably. You have hire cars and rental cars, they are the


    if you say so. australia isnt the center of the world.

    i dont call my bbq grill the 'barbee' either.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to MRO on Sat Jan 29 09:19:00 2022
    I didnt say he would press it. i said his finger would be on the button.

    nobody would fuck with trump.

    Agreed.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Andeddu on Sat Jan 29 09:23:00 2022
    Freedom is the right to that which the law allows. To the vast majority
    of people, THAT is the definition of "freedom".

    Which is quite sad because government doesn't grant rights. They only infringe upon them (or not).
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 09:26:00 2022
    Fair enough, in Australia, when you obtain temporary use, you rent or hire We generally "rent" cars and houses, but occasionally people will refer to "hiring" a car, or "hiring" a suit, or "renting" a suit.

    Oddly, hiring is never used in context of a house, and renting is never us context of employing people, but for cars, equipment, both terms are often used.

    Here (Canada) no one ever says "rent" in reference to a person, but we may occasionally say "hire" as in "I hired a driver..." or "I hired a plumber...".

    But equipment is always rented, never hired.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 10:06:00 2022
    More nonsense I'm afraid Boraxman. I don't mean to be rude, honestly, but I think you are in a distopian funk or something. The person labouring is not a slave. They are not being robbed of "their" produc They simply agree to an exchange. It is really that simple.

    Then you would be able to explain how I can transfer my labour and
    agency to another person.

    You don't "transfer" anything. You agree to do work for money. Sometimes that work is piling dirt from the back of a truck into a hole. Sometimes it is producing a physical or intellectual "thing". Regardless you agree to do work for money.

    Argue how this is actually done, and how this is different to me working on the product myself using my own will and body. Otherwise, you will need to justify philosophically how a contract can suspend your right to the fruits of your own labour.

    No I don't need to justify it. You are the one with a theory and that theory is simply and obviously wrong. Proven by "a person agrees to..." and that's the end of it. When you produce something, on your own, with your capital on your time then the fruits of your labour are your own. When you agree to do it for pay then you have agreed to do it for pay. You didn't "suspend your right..."

    Maybe you do believe that, but then would put you into the awkward position of supporting a WEAKER concept of individual property rights
    than I do.

    Not at all. Your concept is simply whackadoodle lol.

    It can and often is. But not in the manner you imply. The fact that they are free to decide does matter. In fact it is critical. Otherwis it would be slavery.

    A contract isn't valid simply because it is voluntary. Slavery ended because a contract of slavery was no longer legally valid. You cannot consent to becoming a slave, even if you chose to. You and I could sign
    a contract, wher e I am your slave, but it would be legally invalid.

    Now you're just being obtuse. I never implied one could contractually agree to be a slave. I said one isn't being "robbed" of the fruits of their labour when they agree to work for pay.

    Voluntariness isn't the issue, it is validity of what is being volunteered. You cannot volunteer to do something you cannot actually
    do.

    Never implied any such thing.

    I kind of agree. My argument isn't that we should remove Capitalism completely, but that universal self employment co-existing with
    Capitalism (which is what I support), would not be considered Capitalism by most people.


    Sure it would. Absolutely. A co-op is capitalism. It is essentially partners in a business. Just may be that every "worker" is also a partner. But it would very much be capitalism. The product/service of the co-op is sold to consumers. This would take place in a free market (remember what I said abou the term "free market" lol, I don't mean 100% free of regulation).

    In essense, I'm arguing that the evolution to true "Capitalism" hasn't finished, and it is a fear of economic freedom and recognition of the rights that come with the labour theory of property is stopping it.
    This is to maintain the power the capital has in our society.

    Yes, that is your argument indeed, but it seems a deeply flawed one on the single premise of your labour property rights theory that is simply not recognized by many. First I've heard of the theory and I wholly reject it. If you agree to "labour" for pay then the product of that labour is not your property. I agree to sell an old phone on a local classified website to some dude for $30. He comes over gives me $30 and I hand over HIS PHONE. Labour is exactly the same.

    That is true, but consider the decision making process behind all this. We as consumers, demand a lot of things, but we are also producers.

    Do you realise that you get to exercise your freedom of choice as a consumer, but not as a producer? Even though you ARE a producer?

    Disagree. I produce code for my employer. I have agreed to produce it for a salary. I freely chose to do that.

    Does this begin to give you a clue as to why "we demanded" consumption leading jobs to go offshore? There is an imbalance here which leads to that.

    No. Consumers like cheap and cheap snowballed until there was a Walmart on every corner.

    It is a result of a free and productive society yes. The USSR wasn't known for consumerism because they were too busy standing in bread lines.

    They couldn't create products worth buying and the incentive structure
    was all wrong. I've known people who lived under Eastern European Communism. You went to work, but did little because they wanted
    everyone employed.

    Right. There was no incentive to be productive. Fred (not a very Russian name I know) could be a little slack and make the same wage as Ivan even if Ivan worked really hard.

    If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money
    from your employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.

    It is property in the sense that you can labour on your own or sell labour to an employer. But that's it. You can't agree to exchance your labour for money and then complain that your employer has no right to your property.

    Right. It was based on a confluence of Western ideals. The right of
    man to self-govern. The right of man to own his product. The
    inalienable right to freedom. The recogntion that we trade the fruits
    of our labour. I support all this. But the difference is, I don't
    think we need to have "exceptions" to these ideals, nor do I support the "right" of others to destroy them.

    Well not everyone wants to be in a co-op and you have no right to force them into one. If Bob wants to exchange his labour for a wage that is his right. Who are you to tell Bob that is wrong and that he should belong to a co-op instead.

    I would argue, it is you which has the unconvential view of property rights. My view is simple. You, as a self-governing human being, when you bring anything into existence through your labour, that object
    begins its life as your property. The labour theory of property, the rightful owner is the creator.

    Well you can argue it, but you are simply wrong. If someone agrees, ahead of time, to exchange their labour for money then whatever they product during that exchange belongs to the employer. The employee agreed ahead of time to do that. Your theory of everything I produce is mine, how can it now be, is weak. Exchanging the fruits of our labour for other "fruits" of someone else's labour is human nature and the root of capitalism.

    Most people accept the contract. Not a single one has been able to explain it. In fact, most people are confused as all hell what they are actually selling at work to their employer.

    No, nobody is confused and pretty much everyone can explain it. You just aren't listening. It is very simple. Extremely simple. Person A agrees to exchange the product of their labour to person B for money. That's it. There is no "how can that happen". It happens every day by the millions (probably billions) and is the simplest thing.

    Some say they sell what the produce, their time, their labour. All these different answers indicate they don't actually understand it. We just
    do it because, well, thats just how things are.

    No. They understand it perfectly well.

    You NEVER legally own the product you produce at work. What you produce at work begins its life as the property of your employer, not yours.
    What are you exchanging? You are accepting money, but what are you
    giving in return?

    Effort. You are exchanging effort for pay. Simple concept that doesn't need a degree in philosophy to understand. In fact philosophy is probably why you are so confused by it. Over-thinking.

    Both are responsible and both go to jail.

    Why should the courts disregard the contract. They agreed to it, and signed it.

    It is illegal in most countries, certainly all Western democracies, to kill and to get someone else to kill. Courts aren't disregarding the contract. It is illegal to contract someone to kill someone else. This isn't philosophy. It is law.

    No need to transfer. YOU agree to make the product for money. Your employerr agrees to pay you money for making the product. This is not complicated nor sinister.

    That would be true, if at some point, the product was legally yours.
    But it never was. It begins as your employers property.

    Otherwise, you would be entitled to cancel the employment contract, and keep what you made at work. Try that and tell me how your court case goes.

    You know you flip flop a lot. Often in the same message.

    Yes exactly, you agreed ahead of time to labour to produce something for a wage or salary or one-time payment. As this agreement takes place before you labour then the product of the labour is never yours.

    In Australia, housing is expensive pretty much everywhere, except for
    the most undesirable small towns where there are no opportunities at
    all. We are quite urbanised (like Canada), but there has been a boom of apartment and unit building. The problem is largely cheap money, investors (which we tax payers support), and tax concessions which
    favour hoarders. Australia is a sheltered workshop for property specuvestors.

    Ah, not here. Rural and small town housing ranges from cheap to well under the national average. Not a lot of new apartment buildings in the big cities as there is no room. The smaller ones, yes, as they tend to have much more land to expand into. Cheap money and investors yes, tax concessions no. But no penalties for "specuvestors" (like that term) yet. Some promised on the way but I don't think any have come into force yet.

    In Australia, you can overpay for a property, as an investor, and if as a result your rental yield doesn't cover your payments, the tax payer will be fleeced to make up the difference. You can deliberately overprice an asset and be rewarded with tax breaks! Then you get tax concessions on profits, interest only loans. Parasites...

    Wow! Well, if I were an Australian tax payer I would be quite upset. Any of the main political parties (with a chance of forming government) against this, promised reform?
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Otto Reverse on Sat Jan 29 12:42:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to MRO on Sat Jan 29 2022 02:19 pm

    I didnt say he would press it. i said his finger would be on the button.

    nobody would fuck with trump.

    Agreed.

    remember, he dropped the largest non-nuke bomb in afghanistan
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 07:13:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F57E76.26899.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F3B652.54714.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 08:05 pm

    If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the murder is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and state that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.


    Actually the guy doing the paying would get hit with murder conspiracy charges or similar.

    It also works the other way around. If somebody purchases a product
    from you in order to facilitate a crime you may be held accountable
    (ie. if you sell a brick to somebody, knowing that brick is going to be used for cracking somebody s skull, you may be regarded a crime facilitator).

    The point is you are held accountable both if you are selling labour
    and if you are selling products.

    If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the owner.

    Labour is financially treated the same way, so in theory, it should be the same. But it isn't.

    This simple though experience is designed to show that intuitively, we understand that labour isn't transferred, but is conducted by the person owning it.

    Therefore, hiring a person and car is not the same, yet financially, it is considered to be the same.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 07:27:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F582C2.26900.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F53A34.54741.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Sat Jan 29 2022 11:59 pm

    If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money from yo employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.

    How did you sign an employment contract to sell something that is not your property? Is this not fraud?

    Thought experiment here:

    If I am a self-employed comediant and do stand-up comedy, I am
    commiting fraud against the guy who hired me to lighten a birthday
    party up? Because I am not selling a product. I am selling pure work.

    If I am a plastic surgeon and do reconstructive work for somebody who
    had his face splashed by acid, I am comitting fraud? Because I am not sellig a product. I am selling pure work.

    The surgeon does not own the face he is fixing. The face belongs to the patient all throughout the deal.

    The main problem I have with your stance is that if is product oriented but it eventually leads to the idea that services have no place in a
    legit economic system.

    By product, I mean services as well. A service is really just creating a product, in a sense.

    The examples you mentioned are examples where someone is self employed, and providing a product/service.

    You end up with the reconstructed face. You get the entertainment from the comedian. When they did the work, you weren't hiring them per se. You didn't get them to sign an employment contract. They were self-employed. They never became your asset. You cannot transfer them like an asset.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Sun Jan 30 07:33:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F5348D.29844.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F3B656.54716.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 08:12 pm

    Capitalism and Communism are economic ideals that arrived around the
    same time. You need an antithesis to a thesis, serving as an
    opposition. Both appear to have served their purpose. Lenin said that
    the West would eventually collapse into the new system with an over abundance of laws. Mikhail Gorbachev also said, during the collapse of
    the Soviet Union, that "slowly you will hear that Communism is dead and finished -- don't believe it, we are simply moving onto the next phase
    of merging with the West."

    This should actually be a clue. Both originated with similar fundamental assumptions.

    Both systems are required to achieve the aim of standardising the world into one economic and legal system.

    "Both systems" is incorrect. There is a greater range of possible economic arrangements than Capitalism and Communism.

    To borrow an example from David Ellerman, consider slavery in Ancient Greece. There were two models, the Athenian model of public ownership of slaves, and the Spartan model of private ownership of slaves. There was debate about which was better.

    We can say these are "THE two systems", any maybe the Athenian model wins out. But that doesn't settle the matter. There aren't "the two" systems, because we have to consider maybe not owning slaves at all.

    Communism and Capitalism share some assumptions, but becaues we consider these two as being the only two options, we never challenge the shared assumptions.

    Or consider if religious debate was solely about Catholocism vs Protestantism, and we never questioned it outside this scope. Or with climate change we only discuss "Carbon Tax set by state" vs "Carbon Credits determined by market"

    You miss the bigger picture. We've been missing the bigger picture economically.

    Freedom is the right to that which the law allows. To the vast majority
    of people, THAT is the definition of "freedom".

    There is "freedom from" and "freedom to". "Freedom from" is probably more important.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Sun Jan 30 07:37:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F53843.29845.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F3B658.54717.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 08:22 pm

    George Carlin said it perfectly -- "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there is no such thing as rights. They are imaginary."

    Rights are man-made.

    Yes, they are. But they are also what makes our civilisation, what makes life in modern Western Civilisation bearable. Man made they may be, but we are doing ourselves a disservice, and potentially subjecting our future generations to horrors we thought were just in history, by treating them less than God-given rights.

    "They are nothing more than privileges. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. Temporary privileges."

    I think a lot of people have experienced in the last couple of years
    that freedom is the right to do that which the law allows, nothing
    more.

    We have to fight for strong rights. I feel Western Civilisation is in decline, and we are heading towards barbarism, because we don't really believe in our founding ideals, don't care they are dying.

    We have to restore the idea of "rights", becaues if we relegate them to privileges, we invite fascism.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Sun Jan 30 07:39:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F5B1C8.8119.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F53A34.54740.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Sat Jan 29 2022 10:49 pm

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits. ---

    See my response to Nightfox. The terms are synonymous. Typically hiring is used in some context, and renting in others, but there are cases when both are used interchangeably. You have hire cars and rental cars, they are the


    if you say so. australia isnt the center of the world.

    i dont call my bbq grill the 'barbee' either.

    And you don't put shrimp on them? (We don't really do that much here either, we do BBQ prawns)



    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 17:34:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:39 pm


    And you don't put shrimp on them? (We don't really do that much here either, we do BBQ prawns)


    no, i would imagine that would overcook the shrimp.
    i use my air fryer
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 23:51:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:13 pm

    If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own


    Well, if you are hired to shoot somebody, you do know what the deal is about, so the example is not comparable at all.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 23:58:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:27 pm

    By product, I mean services as well. A service is really just creating a product, in a sense.

    The examples you mentioned are examples where someone is self employed, and providing a product/service.

    You end up with the reconstructed face. You get the entertainment from the comedian. When they did the work, you weren't hiring them per se. You didn get them to sign an employment contract. They were self-employed. They nev became your asset. You cannot transfer them like an asset.


    Thing is, I don't understand the difference here.

    If they hire you for doing stand-up comedy for 30 minutes, then they are basically buying 30 minutes of your time. It does not look much different than a corporation buying X hours per week from your time.

    The only real difference would be that corporations can be sold and bought (and, therefore, if you are a per-contract employee, your contract is transfered) but that also happens a lot with self-employed people. In the case of the plastic surgeon, he could be self-employed and take money from a non-profit in order to perform charity reconstructions. This sort of arrangement is usually regulated by what in Spain is known as a merchantile contract. If the non-profit has its board replaced by new people, the contract transfers to the new board indirectly.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Sun Jan 30 18:16:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    You don't "transfer" anything. You agree to do work for money.

    When you produce something, on your own, with
    your capital on your time then the fruits of your labour are your own. When you agree to do it for pay then you have agreed to do it for pay.
    You didn't "suspend your right..."

    Yes, that is your argument indeed, but it seems a deeply flawed one on
    the single premise of your labour property rights theory that is simply not recognized by many. First I've heard of the theory and I wholly
    reject it. If you agree to "labour" for pay then the product of that labour is not your property. I agree to sell an old phone on a local classified website to some dude for $30. He comes over gives me $30
    and I hand over HIS PHONE. Labour is exactly the same.

    Disagree. I produce code for my employer. I have agreed to produce it
    for a salary. I freely chose to do that.

    If you don't transfer anything, what is the economic exchange?

    "doing work for money" is not a transaction. It does not describe anything about the property rights. That statement is just as true for slavery, as it is for employment, as it is for a coop, as it is for someone producing piecework for royalties, as it is for someone making a product, then selling the product. it is also true if I just give you money for you to work on your own house and clean your own yard for yourself, you know, just because I really think you should do it for your own good.

    Therefore it doesn't explain anything.

    Your theory is that there is an economic exchange taking place, but you are simultaneously arguing that none is occuring.

    I have explained, and can explain, how property rights work in a system of universal self employement, which is coherent.

    You cannot. You have been unable to state exactly what it is the "employer" is buying, other than to state the obvious, that someone is paying someone to get work done. But that doesn't detail a contract.

    Remember, you're supposedly a free person, so if you are being employed, you are in an economic contract. I believe in Western society, no one has any claim over you. Your obligaton to others is through voluntary contract, right?

    Western Civilisation is based on rights, on clear understanding of the philosophical underpinnings which shape those rights. This is what we base our laws on.

    My positoin is that voluntary contracts should be in line with our fundamental rights, notions of property, and be economically coherent. Also, they MUST be fulfillable. A contract you cannot possibly fulfil is invalid.

    Right. There was no incentive to be productive. Fred (not a very
    Russian name I know) could be a little slack and make the same wage as Ivan even if Ivan worked really hard.

    It is property in the sense that you can labour on your own or sell
    labour to an employer. But that's it. You can't agree to exchance your labour for money and then complain that your employer has no right to
    your property.

    You said just before you don't transfer anything. Do you, or do you not sell your labour?

    You can't sell what you don't transfer.

    Well not everyone wants to be in a co-op and you have no right to force them into one. If Bob wants to exchange his labour for a wage that is
    his right. Who are you to tell Bob that is wrong and that he should
    belong to a co-op instead.

    No one has the right to expect society to uphold a contract which is flawed or can't be fulfilled.

    Bob doesn't have the right to sell himself into slavery, or sell all his future labour to another person. Who the hell are we to stop Bob? Why can't Bob do it? Because we not only recognise that slavery is wrong, but Bob CAN'T be a slave, even if he wants to be. It is not possible for Bob to transfer ownership of himself to someone else.

    Bob can enter any contract he likes, BUT, we do not have to consider the contract valid. Bobs contractual slavery will not be enforced.

    Well you can argue it, but you are simply wrong. If someone agrees,
    ahead of time, to exchange their labour for money then whatever they product during that exchange belongs to the employer. The employee
    agreed ahead of time to do that. Your theory of everything I produce
    is mine, how can it now be, is weak. Exchanging the fruits of our
    labour for other "fruits" of someone else's labour is human nature and
    the root of capitalism.

    Either you are exchanging your labour or not. You've said both.

    Either you are exchanging the fruits of your labour, or your labour itself. You've said both.

    You have argued, simultaneously, that the employer is taking your labour, but labour isn't transferred, that you are selling the fruits of your labour, but you never actually have the fruits of your labour to begin with.

    Please try to put forward, in one simple statement, what it is exactly that the economic transaction actually is. This is Capitalism, we trade. So a contract of trade should describe the trade.

    Your confusion comes about because you are trying to pretend there is a transaction and avoiding the real nature of the contract.

    No, nobody is confused and pretty much everyone can explain it. You
    just aren't listening. It is very simple. Extremely simple. Person A agrees to exchange the product of their labour to person B for money. That's it. There is no "how can that happen". It happens every day by
    the millions (probably billions) and is the simplest thing.

    But you can't, except for some vague "doing work for someone else" which could apply to any number of arrangements.

    No. They understand it perfectly well.

    Except for the fact that when people are pressed to describe how it works, they can't beyond the vaguest statements, and contradictory explanations.

    People say they are "selling their time", "selling their labour", "exchanging what they produce", "doing work for someone else", to name a few. All these are different, and if people actually knew, there would be one clear understanding. So no, people don't actually understand it.

    Oh, and if people knew, they would be able to point to their employment contract which states exactly what the economic transaction is. Ie, states exactly what it is they are paying for.

    They can't do that either.

    Effort. You are exchanging effort for pay. Simple concept that doesn't need a degree in philosophy to understand. In fact philosophy is
    probably why you are so confused by it. Over-thinking.

    We have now yet another explanation. Exchanging effort for pay. Not labour? Are you sure it isn't time? Because they pay you based on time, not unit of labour. Oh, but you said they were buying the fruits of your labour, so they should by paying based on production.

    The concept isn't as simple as you think.


    It is illegal in most countries, certainly all Western democracies, to kill and to get someone else to kill. Courts aren't disregarding the contract. It is illegal to contract someone to kill someone else. This isn't philosophy. It is law.

    Yes, but not only is the person who contracted it guilty (as conspirator), so is the person who "exchanged the fruits of the labour".

    If they exchanged labour/effort, it is no longer theirs. If they exchanged their effort, their labour, then the labour is the hirer.

    The fact is this person was still working for themselves, owning their own effort, own labour and the fruits of their labour, DESPITE the contract which claimed it was transferred is consistent with the courts verdict.

    When push comes to shove, we see, intuitively, that people revert to a more naturalistic understanding, that you are still you doing your own work and you never actually transfer something about you to someone else.

    If what you are saying is true, the shooter MUST be innocent. They traded away whatever it was that made the murder happen.

    You know you flip flop a lot. Often in the same message.

    Yes exactly, you agreed ahead of time to labour to produce something
    for a wage or salary or one-time payment. As this agreement takes place before you labour then the product of the labour is never yours".

    So therefore this statement of yours

    "Exchanging the fruits of our labour for other "fruits" of someone else's
    labour is human nature and the root of capitalism."

    ,isn't actually correct.

    It contradicts your statement "the product of the labour is never yours."

    You cannot claim that the product of labour that is never yours, is the "fruits of your labour". It is the fruits of the employer. The employee (you claim), "exchange their labour for money".

    Can you reconcile these contradictions?

    Please note that everyone that I speak to comes up with contradictory statements.

    I'm not asking you to accept coops, I'm trying to get you to look at these contradictions, and think about why they exist, when in EVERY OTHER contract in capitalism, property rights and exchange are clearly spelled out.

    What is the reason for this? How did we get to such an arrangement? These are the fundamental questions here.


    Ah, not here. Rural and small town housing ranges from cheap to well
    under the national average. Not a lot of new apartment buildings in the big cities as there is no room. The smaller ones, yes, as they tend to have much more land to expand into. Cheap money and investors yes, tax concessions no. But no penalties for "specuvestors" (like that term)
    yet. Some promised on the way but I don't think any have come into
    force yet.

    Wow! Well, if I were an Australian tax payer I would be quite upset.
    Any of the main political parties (with a chance of forming government) against this, promised reform?

    Yes, one of the major ones did actually stop this over 30 years ago, but landlords and the property industry kicked up a stink, and they changed their mind soon after. There was some increase in rents, but nothing catastrophic. The same party about 5 years ago were again going to reform this by removing the tax break, but there was another scare campaign.

    People are scared about crashing the market, so we won't get reform. Australians would rather impoverish and lock their future generations out of housing and economic stability, than risk a "crash".

    In Australia, it has been government policy to make people think they are wealthy by inflating the housing market by any means necessary. If that means tax breaks, importing people by the hundreds of thousands, they'll do it. Our economy rests on selling houses at higher and higher prices back and forth.

    It's a depressingly stupid policy.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to BORAXMAN on Sun Jan 30 04:56:00 2022
    Fair enough, in Australia, when you obtain temporary use, you rent or hire it.
    We generally "rent" cars and houses, but occasionally people will refer to "hiring" a car, or "hiring" a suit, or "renting" a suit.

    I have heard "hire" used this way in British English also.


    * SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....bacon..."

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to ARELOR on Sun Jan 30 04:57:00 2022
    Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got invited. I usually have a whole lot of trouble understanding Australians, but this guy had a brittish gentleman touch which made me reconsider my views on the accent.

    Happy Birthday, assuming it was your party.


    * SLMR 2.1a * "My eyeballs nearly popped out!"

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sun Jan 30 06:15:00 2022
    Our exchanges are getting longer and longer yet we continue to say the same things to each other. Allow me to sum up what I belive your position to be and my response. You take the last reply to say "yeah, mostly" or "not at all!" lol

    You:
    - the product of labour is property
    - the exchange of that property for money cannot be done, no one can explain how it is done
    - despite that, said exchange is immoral

    Me:
    - the product of labour is property, well okay, sure but it is agreed ahead of time to exchange that property for pay
    - under such an agreement property rights of the labourer isn't any sort of issue as said labourer agreed to labour and produce "something" that will belong to the "employer" once produced for an agreed upon some of money
    - this is not immoral, it is normal and human nature

    Cheers
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dumas Walker on Sun Jan 30 10:42:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Sun Jan 30 2022 09:57 am

    Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got invited. I usually have a whole lot of trouble understanding Australians, this guy had a brittish gentleman touch which made me reconsider my views the accent.

    Happy Birthday, assuming it was your party.


    * SLMR 2.1a * "My eyeballs nearly popped out!"


    Thanks, man.

    I totally feel like a grandpa. So old.

    We had a blast with the party, actually. I set a Terraforming Mars server and a Mumble (voip) server so I could play with some international friends of mine. It was freaking great! As expected, none of my Spanish friends showed up, lol. Still I had a great time.

    And I won the game :-)

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Otto Reverse on Sun Jan 30 11:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Sun Jan 30 2022 11:15 am

    ahead of time to exchange that property for pay
    - under such an agreement property rights of the labourer isn't any sort of issue as said labourer agreed to labour and produce "something" that will belong to the "employer" once produced for an agreed upon some of money
    - this is not immoral, it is normal and human nature

    we need to get that antiwork reddit moderator in here. the 30 year old trans dog walker. this sounds right up sheman's alley.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sun Jan 30 21:06:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:33 pm

    This should actually be a clue. Both originated with similar fundamental assumptions.

    I believe both Communism and Capitalism are systems based on a single economic spectrum... they were concieved as a vehicle to reconstruct the World in a way it should have been constructed.

    We have democracy which is a system of government that people seem to know very little about. Either government is your master or your slave, it cannot be both. Plato said that democracy will always lead to communitarianism which will lead to a dictatorship.

    Thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The new system will be one run on the economic principle of necessity where no one should be born without a function to fulfil in which to serve the World State. This is the system we read about in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

    "Both systems" is incorrect. There is a greater range of possible economic arrangements than Capitalism and Communism.

    To borrow an example from David Ellerman, consider slavery in Ancient Greece. There were two models, the Athenian model of public ownership of slaves, and the Spartan model of private ownership of slaves. There was debate about which was better.

    <SNIP>

    I agree that there are many more possible types of economic systems -- we have had many over the last seven thousand years. I believe the next system will be neither of the above; it will be the third way, the blending of Fascism and Communism.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sun Jan 30 21:24:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:37 pm

    George Carlin said it perfectly -- "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there is no such thing as rights. They are imaginary."

    Yes, they are. But they are also what makes our civilisation, what makes life in modern Western Civilisation bearable. Man made they may be, but we are doing ourselves a disservice, and potentially subjecting our future generations to horrors we thought were just in history, by treating them less than God-given rights.

    The problem then is that man has allowed the intellect to rule. This mostly occurred during the Age of Enlightenment with the promulgation of scientific Atheism. By creating man-made laws which are subjective and malleable rather than an objective and concrete belief system, along with an overton window that is continually moving to the Left, anything can by justified. The horrors that you speak of are just around the corner. They will serve as both a lesson and a bridge between two ages.

    "They are nothing more than privileges. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. Temporary privileges."

    We have to fight for strong rights. I feel Western Civilisation is in decline, and we are heading towards barbarism, because we don't really believe in our founding ideals, don't care they are dying.

    We have to restore the idea of "rights", becaues if we relegate them to privileges, we invite fascism.

    The masses have been inculcated with new beliefs and therefore cannot fight what they cannot see.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 12:26:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F66DCC.26917.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F5EC8E.54753.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on
    Sun Jan 30 2022 12:13 pm

    If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own


    Well, if you are hired to shoot somebody, you do know what the deal is about, so the example is not comparable at all.

    You do know, but theoretically, if you transfer your labour, it is the owner of the labour who owns the end product. You should be able to shoot and claim that you sold the labour/fruits of the labour. The hirer contracted to own the product.


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 31 12:44:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F6E64E.123015.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>

    Our exchanges are getting longer and longer yet we continue to say the same things to each other. Allow me to sum up what I belive your
    position to be and my response. You take the last reply to say "yeah, mostly" or "not at all!" lol

    This is better.

    You:
    - the product of labour is property
    - the exchange of that property for money cannot be done, no one can explain how it is done
    - despite that, said exchange is immoral

    Not quite, my position

    1) The product of your labour begins life as your property, as only labour can create new property.
    2) You cannot transfer your 'labour', 'effort', 'agency' or yourself in any way to another human being. It is literally not possible. We can PRETEND that you are just my instrument, but you remain an independent self-owning human being de-facto.
    3) You are therefore responsible for any inputs you use, any result of your labour, and therefore own the end outcome. Your "personhood", and all the rights taht come with it are fundamental and inalienable. You cannot be relegated to the economic equivalent of a machine (which is exactly what employment does).
    4) The economic exchange is therefore you selling the end product.

    Universal self employment means that this always remains the standard model. But when you work with others, "you" are part of alegal entity which shares responsibilities and ownership.


    Me:
    - the product of labour is property, well okay, sure but it is agreed ahead of time to exchange that property for pay
    - under such an agreement property rights of the labourer isn't any
    sort of issue as said labourer agreed to labour and produce "something" that will belong to the "employer" once produced for an agreed upon
    some of money
    - this is not immoral, it is normal and human nature


    The issue I have with this position, is that it accepts a reality where a contract can change someones fundamental rights. I consider an individuals property rights and self-ownership inalienable. These are not things which can be true in one sphere, and untrue in another. The difference is that with self-employment, you never give up your sovreignty as an individual.

    It is simply not necessary to give other people positive control rights over you.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 12:47:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F74431.29877.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F5EC92.54755.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Sun Jan 30 2022 12:33 pm

    This should actually be a clue. Both originated with similar fundamental assumptions.

    I believe both Communism and Capitalism are systems based on a single economic spectrum... they were concieved as a vehicle to reconstruct
    the World in a way it should have been constructed.

    We have democracy which is a system of government that people seem to
    know very little about. Either government is your master or your slave,
    it cannot be both. Plato said that democracy will always lead to communitarianism which will lead to a dictatorship.

    Thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The new system will be one run on the economic principle of necessity where no one should be born without a function to fulfil in which to serve the World State. This is the
    system we read about in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

    Communism and Capitalism are NOT opposites. They share an origin in liberalism, they share similar theories on labour.

    "Both systems" is incorrect. There is a greater range of possible economic arrangements than Capitalism and Communism.

    To borrow an example from David Ellerman, consider slavery in Ancient Greece. There were two models, the Athenian model of public ownership of slaves, and the Spartan model of private ownership of slaves. There was debate about which was better.

    <SNIP>

    I agree that there are many more possible types of economic systems --
    we have had many over the last seven thousand years. I believe the next system will be neither of the above; it will be the third way, the blending of Fascism and Communism.

    I am pushing for an "ownership economy" where we move away from the old "masters own us" paradigm to one where we are free individuals trading, and we own ourselves and our own product.

    Unfortunately. most Capitalists don't want this. They seem to fear freedom, and want masters. So they'll get Fascism.


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 12:49:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F74846.29878.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F5EC94.54756.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Sun Jan 30 2022 12:37 pm

    George Carlin said it perfectly -- "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there is no such thing as rights. They are imaginary."

    Yes, they are. But they are also what makes our civilisation, what makes life in modern Western Civilisation bearable. Man made they may be, but we are doing ourselves a disservice, and potentially subjecting our future generations to horrors we thought were just in history, by treating them less than God-given rights.

    The problem then is that man has allowed the intellect to rule. This mostly occurred during the Age of Enlightenment with the promulgation
    of scientific Atheism. By creating man-made laws which are subjective
    and malleable rather than an objective and concrete belief system,
    along with an overton window that is continually moving to the Left, anything can by justified. The horrors that you speak of are just
    around the corner. They will serve as both a lesson and a bridge
    between two ages.

    Not having a grounded, solid belief system leads to nihilism. Part of why I'm pushing rights. We should have God-given rights. Rights which are fundamental, not conditional based on whether other people think they are suitable at this point in time or not.

    "They are nothing more than privileges. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. Temporary privileges."

    We have to fight for strong rights. I feel Western Civilisation is in decline, and we are heading towards barbarism, because we don't really believe in our founding ideals, don't care they are dying.

    We have to restore the idea of "rights", becaues if we relegate them to privileges, we invite fascism.

    The masses have been inculcated with new beliefs and therefore cannot fight what they cannot see.

    Most people place "practicality" above all else. Its "practical" to give you your privacy, or just have people tell you how to live.


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 31 13:11:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Sun Jan 30 2022 11:15 am

    Me:
    - the product of labour is property, well okay, sure but it is agreed ahea of time to exchange that property for pay
    - under such an agreement property rights of the labourer isn't any sort o issue as said labourer agreed to labour and produce "something" that will belong to the "employer" once produced for an agreed upon some of money
    - this is not immoral, it is normal and human nature

    sorry to break this into two messages, if you don't respond in just one, I will.

    Just wanted to add my interpretation of this model

    - You enter into a contract where you hire yourself out in a time-wise basis to someone else. This is basically renting you.
    - The hirer/renter employs your labour to extract value. The employee is used much in the same way that equipment is used, a means to produce a product. But with one difference, the employer still needs you to operate your own body and mind under your own will.
    - The employee is paid a wage, which is the rental fee. Wages are tied to cost of living, not production. Compare this to a rental car. The rental fee covers the cost of the car, it is up to the renter to extract greater value.

    I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure that we recoup the employment cost plus extra. Workers are paid a set hourly rate, not based on how much labour/goods are transferred

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 01:49:00 2022
    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    It fits. Early in my career, I saw lots of people, myself included, get
    sucked into a company that encouraged its workers to work long hours, spent lavishly on perks, and built a "family" mindset. We had people dating co- workers (because, how are you going to meet people when you work 80-hour weeks?), very little hiring from outside, lots of people promoted from
    within who shouldn't have, and other red flags (at least to me now)

    It was all well and good until the company pivoted and laid off a third of their staff. You had couples where one person was laid off, the other remained. People whose social groups were gutted, and a complete lack of morale. People who had so much stuff at work that it took them 2 days to get it all home. People who had their entire personal lives on their company computers. (this was back in the early '90s)

    One of my co-workers left that company with the mantra

    "THE. COMPANY. IS. NOT. YOUR. FRIEND."

    Your obligation to them ends with each paycheck, as does their obligation to you.


    ... UNPRISON YOUR THINK RHINO
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Nightfox on Mon Jan 31 01:24:00 2022
    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of
    something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a
    British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in
    (and grew up in) the US.

    "Car for hire" - I remember hearing that term in London for getting a car service, with a driver.




    ... Where is the edge?
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Mon Jan 31 07:52:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 31 2022 06:11 pm

    I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure that we recoup the employment cost plus extra. Workers are paid a set hourly rate, not based on how much labour/goods are transferred

    guess you never heard of production bonuses or piece rate.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 31 06:01:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 06:49 am

    It was all well and good until the company pivoted and laid off a third of their staff. You had couples where one person was laid off, the other remained. People whose social groups were gutted, and a complete lack of morale. People who had so much stuff at work that it took them 2 days to get it all home. People who had their entire personal lives on their company computers. (this was back in the early '90s)

    One of my co-workers left that company with the mantra

    "THE. COMPANY. IS. NOT. YOUR. FRIEND."

    Your obligation to them ends with each paycheck, as does their obligation to you.

    Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees. Your job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 06:06:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to Dumas Walker on Sat Jan 29 2022 11:38 am

    Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got

    What is a "digital" birthday party? I'm guessing that means it was via an online video meeting?

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Mon Jan 31 08:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 31 2022 11:01 am


    Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees.
    Your job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.

    i was at a place for 17 years and they didnt give a shit when i quit. they were calling me up asking me questions weeks later, though. they didnt know how to do things i did there.

    a lot of people left because of paycuts during covid times. they didnt try to keep them or get them back.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 06:05:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 2022 12:09 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Sat Jan 29 2022 11:59 pm

    If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money from employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.

    How did you sign an employment contract to sell something that is not you property? Is this not fraud?

    Thought experiment here:

    If I am a self-employed comediant and do stand-up comedy, I am commiting fra against the guy who hired me to lighten a birthday party up? Because I am no selling a product. I am selling pure work.

    If I am a plastic surgeon and do reconstructive work for somebody who had hi face splashed by acid, I am comitting fraud? Because I am not sellig a produ I am selling pure work.

    The surgeon does not own the face he is fixing. The face belongs to the pati all throughout the deal.

    The main problem I have with your stance is that if is product oriented but eventually leads to the idea that services have no place in a legit economic system.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken


    Good point. If your HVAC isn't working, they send out a tech to fix it. befo re he even touches anything, you're paying for him to show up. If he finds nothing wrong, or let's say he finds something wrong and you don't agree with the high estimate to repair, he will still get paid for showing up and giving
    a diagnostic.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Mon Jan 31 06:18:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:13 pm

    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F57E76.26899.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F3B652.54714.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 08:05 pm

    If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the mur is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and st that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.


    Actually the guy doing the paying would get hit with murder conspiracy charges or similar.

    It also works the other way around. If somebody purchases a product from you in order to facilitate a crime you may be held accountable (ie. if you sell a brick to somebody, knowing that brick is going to be used for cracking somebody s skull, you may be regarded a crime facilitator).

    The point is you are held accountable both if you are selling labour and if you are selling products.

    If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own

    Labour is financially treated the same way, so in theory, it should be the same. But it isn't.

    This simple though experience is designed to show that intuitively, we understand that labour isn't transferred, but is conducted by the person own it.

    Therefore, hiring a person and car is not the same, yet financially, it is considered to be the same.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    This reminds me of junk law suits the firearms manufacturers go through each year. A manufacturer assembles the firearm, sells it to a distributor, which in turn sells it to a dealer, who sells it to the end customer. If the buyer uses that firearm to kill another person, that person's family will attempt
    a civil suit against the manufacturer, claiming they market their product as
    a good way to kill people. This will get thrown out of court eventually because no manufacturer would create literature claiming such a
    thing, however it is done to drain that company's funds through legal action.
    How is a manufacturer who is separated from the customer by at least two degrees of vetted wholesalers and retailer possibly be responsible?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 31 11:08:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 06:49 am

    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    It fits. Early in my career, I saw lots of people, myself included, get sucked into a company that encouraged its workers to work long hours, spent lavishly on perks, and built a "family" mindset. We had people dating co- workers (because, how are you going to meet people when you work 80-hour weeks?), very little hiring from outside, lots of people promoted from within who shouldn't have, and other red flags (at least to me now)


    Yeah, I agree that companies that pretend to be something other than an employers who hires you to do a job are to be avoided just as if they were Satanist sects which do human sacrifices in the cellar every week.

    Lots of employees nowadays are indoctrinated with corporative compliance courses and videos which have nothing to do with the work they are intended to perform, but with behaving like the brainless cog they are supposed to be. The manufacturing of propaganda materials seems to me a booming industry.

    I think that is the point in which you are not being paid for making a product but you enter the boraxman realm in which you are being paid for being their bitch. That people withstands this crap always amazes me.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Mon Jan 31 11:11:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 31 2022 11:01 am

    Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees. You job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.

    Nightfox

    A mom and dad business might have that loyal¤ty. I have worked for
    not-so-small companies which operate internationally which cared for their collaborators (as long as the collaborators had proven themselves trustworthy).

    Anything bigger than that, and you should expect the human resources lady to grow a pinoccio-like nose each time she tells how much the firm cares for your well-being.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Mon Jan 31 11:13:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Nightfox to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 2022 11:06 am

    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to Dumas Walker on Sat Jan 29 2022 11:38 am

    Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian

    What is a "digital" birthday party? I'm guessing that means it was via an online video meeting?

    Nightfox


    There is more information at my gophersite.

    Long story short: we set a VOIP server and a Terraforming Mars server and laugthed at each other's lame attempts to make the planet habitable until it was 3 am here.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to ARELOR on Mon Jan 31 11:07:00 2022
    Still I had a great time.

    And I won the game :-)

    As it should be on one's birthday. :)


    * SLMR 2.1a * ....we came in?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to MRO on Mon Jan 31 11:25:00 2022
    we need to get that antiwork reddit moderator in here. the 30 year old trans dog walker. this sounds right up sheman's alley.
    ---

    lol, I didn't follow that closely but I know what you're talking about. Anti-work reddit. "Back in my day" we called that lazy! lol
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Mon Jan 31 11:33:00 2022
    sorry to break this into two messages, if you don't respond in just one,
    I will.

    If I reply it breaks my "you have the last word" so once again, after my reply below, you have the last word lol.

    Cheers

    - The employee is paid a wage, which is the rental fee. Wages are tied
    to cost of living, not production. Compare this to a rental car. The

    Wages shouldn't be "tied" to anything. Market dictates. If what they employee is doing is in demand they will get paid more. If not less.

    I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure

    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Mon Jan 31 19:54:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 2022 05:47 pm

    Communism and Capitalism are NOT opposites. They share an origin in liberalism, they share similar theories on labour.

    I am pushing for an "ownership economy" where we move away from the old "masters own us" paradigm to one where we are free individuals trading, and we own ourselves and our own product.

    Unfortunately. most Capitalists don't want this. They seem to fear freedom, and want masters. So they'll get Fascism.

    I concur that they are not opposites and, furthermore, likely originated from the same source. Carl Marx did not concieve of Communism as an ideal. We can trace the ideas behind Communism before the French Revolution in Germany. Intellectuals were aware that such a system would result in totalitarian rule by the dominant minority... high struggles such as the French Revolution were instigated to remove the old orders, i.e. the monarchies, and replace them with liberal and democratic political systems which could be co-opted and used to steer the masses in a pre-determined direction.

    I do not disagree with your idea of an "ownership economy" as it appears to be a system that would offer greater protection to individual rights. Such a system would never be used as industrialists, capitalists and bankers would find it more difficult to consolidate their power.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Mon Jan 31 20:21:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 2022 05:49 pm

    Not having a grounded, solid belief system leads to nihilism. Part of why I'm pushing rights. We should have God-given rights. Rights which are fundamental, not conditional based on whether other people think they are suitable at this point in time or not.

    The West no longer follows God's authority. The Age of Enlightenment was designed such that it would set the people free. We now have man-made laws which can be changed because they are just ink on a piece of paper. Man's intellect chose personal freedom over divine authority. Once you subscribe to the idea of personal freedom you are cut loose from a linear morality system. This is why we are seeing post-modernism. The modern system during the Age of Enlightenment consisted of man-made constructs which were used to replace the pre-modern Biblical order. Post-modernism has now arrived which is here to deconstruct all of the laws which were brought in by a previous incarnation of itself.

    Man-made laws change over time because there is no longer a divine authority.

    With no objective right or wrong in the world, you can see how quickly things degenerate into pure nihilism.

    Most people place "practicality" above all else. Its "practical" to give you your privacy, or just have people tell you how to live.

    True. This is a hallmark of a consumer based society. People are too busy to think for themselves... they prefer being told what to do.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From fang-castro@VERT/NIGHTVLT to Tom Barnes on Mon Jan 31 13:59:00 2022
    On 17 Jan 2022, Tom Barnes said the following...

    What is it with the stay home and not work generation?

    Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and
    get back
    to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.

    You don't tell me what to do, I tell people what to do!

    |01-- Three words that describe my work ethic: Lazy.
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Mon Jan 31 15:12:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Nightfox <=-

    Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees.
    Your job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.

    i was at a place for 17 years and they didnt give a shit when i
    quit. they were calling me up asking me questions weeks later,
    though. they didnt know how to do things i did there.

    What, they didn't know how long to keep the fries in the deep fat fryer?



    ... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From fang-castro@VERT/NIGHTVLT to Sys 64738 on Mon Jan 31 14:00:00 2022
    On 19 Jan 2022, Sys 64738 said the following...
    In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so

    lmfao... bootlicker!

    |01-- Three words that describe my work ethic: Lazy.
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 14:54:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Tue Feb 01 2022 01:21 am

    The West no longer follows God's authority. The Age of Enlightenment was designed such that it would set the people free. We now have man-made laws which can be changed because they are just ink on a piece of paper. Man's intellect chose personal freedom over divine authority. Once you subscribe to the idea of personal freedom you are cut loose from a linear morality system. This is why we are seeing post-modernism. The modern system during the Age of Enlightenment consisted of man-made constructs which were used to replace the pre-modern Biblical order. Post-modernism has now arrived which is here to deconstruct all of the laws which were brought in by a previous incarnation of itself.

    Man-made laws change over time because there is no longer a divine authority.

    With no objective right or wrong in the world, you can see how quickly things degenerate into pure nihilism.

    With the many different religions in the world, it seems to me that even deciding which religion or god to follow would be subjective. Also, religion is a personal thing, and at least in countries like the US, there is freedom of religion, which is normally considered a good thing. As such, the government has no right to push the rule of one religion onto all if its citizens (which is what many of the North American colonists were trying to get away from in the UK in the 1700s).

    Which religion's God should a government choose to enforce laws from? If God's laws are so universal and unchanging, why are there so many different religions in the world?

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Ogg@VERT/CAPCITY2 to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 14:31:00 2022
    Hello Arelor!

    ** On Monday 31.01.22 - 16:13, Arelor wrote to Nightfox:

    What is a "digital" birthday party? I'm guessing that
    means it was via an online video meeting?

    There is more information at my gophersite.

    I only see 6 posts. Nothing for 2022.


    --- OpenXP 5.0.51
    * Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 19:20:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Nightfox on Mon Jan 31 2022 04:11 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 31 2022 11:01 am

    Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees. You job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.

    Nightfox

    A mom and dad business might have that loyal­ty. I have worked for not-so-small companies which operate internationally which cared for their collaborators (as long as the collaborators had proven themselves trustworthy).

    Anything bigger than that, and you should expect the human resources lady to grow a pinoccio-like nose each time she tells how much the firm cares for your well-being.

    oh i have worked for family companies and they were the most crooked ones of them all. they didnt care about the workers, broke many laws and stiffed a lot of people out of their pay.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 31 19:42:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to MRO on Mon Jan 31 2022 04:25 pm

    we need to get that antiwork reddit moderator in here. the 30 year old trans dog walker. this sounds right up sheman's alley.
    ---

    lol, I didn't follow that closely but I know what you're talking about. Anti-work reddit. "Back in my day" we called that lazy! lol


    they fired she him them
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Tue Feb 1 16:15:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F82FFF.8151.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F78B8D.54781.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 31 2022 06:11 pm

    I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure that we recoup the employment cost plus extra. Workers are paid a set hourly rate, not based on how much labour/goods are transferred

    guess you never heard of production bonuses or piece rate.

    Bonus's are just that, and piece rate is the exception. People actually being paid per unit produced is not the norm.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Tue Feb 1 16:18:00 2022
    Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F80BDB.77165.dove-gen@cavebbs.homeip.net>
    @REPLY: <61F5EC8E.54753.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on
    Sun Jan 30 2022 12:13 pm

    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F57E76.26899.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F3B652.54714.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 08:05 pm

    If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the mur is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and st that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.


    Actually the guy doing the paying would get hit with murder conspiracy charges or similar.

    It also works the other way around. If somebody purchases a product from you in order to facilitate a crime you may be held accountable (ie. if you sell a brick to somebody, knowing that brick is going to be used for cracking somebody s skull, you may be regarded a crime facilitator).

    The point is you are held accountable both if you are selling labour and if you are selling products.

    If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own

    Labour is financially treated the same way, so in theory, it should be the same. But it isn't.

    This simple though experience is designed to show that intuitively, we understand that labour isn't transferred, but is conducted by the person own it.

    Therefore, hiring a person and car is not the same, yet financially, it is considered to be the same.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    This reminds me of junk law suits the firearms manufacturers go through each year. A manufacturer assembles the firearm, sells it to a distributor, which in turn sells it to a dealer, who sells it to the
    end customer. If the buyer uses that firearm to kill another person,
    that person's family will attempt a civil suit against the
    manufacturer, claiming they market their product as a good way to kill people. This will get thrown out of court eventually because no manufacturer would create literature claiming such a thing, however it
    is done to drain that company's funds through legal action.
    How is a manufacturer who is separated from the customer by at least
    two degrees of vetted wholesalers and retailer possibly be responsible?

    It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in part be borne by an inanimate object.



    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Tue Feb 1 16:22:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F884CA.29899.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F786AB.54779.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Mon Jan 31 2022 05:47 pm

    Communism and Capitalism are NOT opposites. They share an origin in liberalism, they share similar theories on labour.

    I am pushing for an "ownership economy" where we move away from the old "masters own us" paradigm to one where we are free individuals trading, and we own ourselves and our own product.

    Unfortunately. most Capitalists don't want this. They seem to fear freedom, and want masters. So they'll get Fascism.

    I concur that they are not opposites and, furthermore, likely
    originated from the same source. Carl Marx did not concieve of
    Communism as an ideal. We can trace the ideas behind Communism before
    the French Revolution in Germany. Intellectuals were aware that such a system would result in totalitarian rule by the dominant minority...
    high struggles such as the French Revolution were instigated to remove
    the old orders, i.e. the monarchies, and replace them with liberal and democratic political systems which could be co-opted and used to steer
    the masses in a pre-determined direction.

    I do not disagree with your idea of an "ownership economy" as it
    appears to be a system that would offer greater protection to
    individual rights. Such a system would never be used as industrialists, capitalists and bankers would find it more difficult to consolidate
    their power.

    That people would have more power is definately one of the advantages. It shift power towards producers.

    Capitalists can still make money. You can make money lending funds, renting equipment and buildings. Capital however will not be able to equivocate itself with labour (ie, claim it produced a product that it didn't produce).


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Tue Feb 1 16:32:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F88B26.29900.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F786AD.54780.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Mon Jan 31 2022 05:49 pm

    Not having a grounded, solid belief system leads to nihilism. Part of why I'm pushing rights. We should have God-given rights. Rights which are fundamental, not conditional based on whether other people think they are suitable at this point in time or not.

    The West no longer follows God's authority. The Age of Enlightenment
    was designed such that it would set the people free. We now have
    man-made laws which can be changed because they are just ink on a piece
    of paper. Man's intellect chose personal freedom over divine authority. Once you subscribe to the idea of personal freedom you are cut loose
    from a linear morality system. This is why we are seeing
    post-modernism. The modern system during the Age of Enlightenment consisted of man-made constructs which were used to replace the
    pre-modern Biblical order. Post-modernism has now arrived which is here
    to deconstruct all of the laws which were brought in by a previous incarnation of itself.

    Man-made laws change over time because there is no longer a divine authority.

    With no objective right or wrong in the world, you can see how quickly things degenerate into pure nihilism.

    Most people place "practicality" above all else. Its "practical" to give you your privacy, or just have people tell you how to live.

    True. This is a hallmark of a consumer based society. People are too
    busy to think for themselves... they prefer being told what to do.

    The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence and nature of God.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 1 16:45:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F88C2F.123044.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
    sorry to break this into two messages, if you don't respond in just one,
    I will.

    If I reply it breaks my "you have the last word" so once again, after
    my reply below, you have the last word lol.

    Cheers

    - The employee is paid a wage, which is the rental fee. Wages are tied
    to cost of living, not production. Compare this to a rental car. The

    Wages shouldn't be "tied" to anything. Market dictates. If what they employee is doing is in demand they will get paid more. If not less.

    But wages are based on cost of living.

    What I suggest is this. There is no wage. The money you or the coop makes is profit. Instead of trying to determine a cost of labour, and factoring that into the product, there is no cost of labour. There is the cost of the inputs, and the market value of the output. If the latter is more than the former, a profit is realised.

    I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure

    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of
    the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).

    No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.

    Each person gets paid the same, regardless of the value of the product they produce, or how many units they produce. When we calculate the labour cost, the price of labour is fixed per hour. We them amortize the cost of labour per unit produce (on average throughout the whole site), and that is the cost of labour.

    The final figures that we submit to head office regarding the Cost Of Goods Sold, has a labour cost that is based on the cost to hold an employee per period of time.

    Economically, it is IDENTICAL to calculating the rental cost of equipment per unit produce. It is not economically a transfer of produced units from employee to employer.

    The business then has to ensure it is able to obtain enough value from what is produced per unit time of labour (labour is measured by time, not output) to recoup the cost.

    If you run a business, you'll see the economic calculations don't match the idea that people are buying labours output.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Feb 1 07:35:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:15 pm

    guess you never heard of production bonuses or piece rate.

    Bonus's are just that, and piece rate is the exception. People actually being paid per unit produced is not the norm.


    if you want a job that pays per unit produced, get one.
    it might not be the norm, but they're out there.

    and what do you mean bonuses are just that? that means nothing.

    if goals are met you are rewarded with more money.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Feb 1 07:37:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:45 pm


    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).

    No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.


    where do you get that information? is this only in your country? in mine it's just voted in. in my country minimum wage is a starter wage for kids or people who want part time work.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Nightfox on Tue Feb 1 10:59:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 2022 07:54 pm

    With the many different religions in the world, it seems to me that even deciding which religion or god to follow would be subjective. Also, religion is a personal thing, and at least in countries like the US, there is freedom of religion, which is normally considered a good thing. As such, the government has no right to push the rule of one religion onto all if its citizens (which is what many of the North American colonists were trying to get away from in the UK in the 1700s).

    Which religion's God should a government choose to enforce laws from? If God's laws are so universal and unchanging, why are there so many different religions in the world?

    I was speaking about the West, specifically, whose system is based on Christianity and the God of Abraham. The US constitution was written during the Age of Enlightenment hence the reason it is such a liberal construct.

    You can see where I am coming from though. With man-made laws your so called rights are relegated to mere privileges, and privileges can be taken away temporarily or permanently.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to MRO on Tue Feb 1 11:35:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Arelor on Tue Feb 01 2022 12:20 am

    oh i have worked for family companies and they were the most crooked ones of them all. they didnt care about the workers, broke many laws and stiffed a lot of people out of their pay.

    Because they're tiny entities they can operate outwith the sphere of corporate etiquette. Big corporations have legal and HR departments so they always seem to pay the worker what they're owed even when things go awry... smaller companies often attempt to stiff workers or make them jump through hoops for basic entitlements.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Wed Feb 2 14:31:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F97DD7.8182.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F91000.54814.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:45 pm


    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).

    No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.


    where do you get that information? is this only in your country? in
    mine it's just voted in. in my country minimum wage is a starter wage
    for kids or people who want part time work. ---
    = Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

    That is every country. Do you really honestly believe minimum wage is calculated from value of labour?

    Minimum wage came about for one reason, to stop exploitation and poverty. People needed to be earning more to be able to support themselves.

    In the US, the minimum was was created to, and I quote, for a "minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being, without substantially curtailing employment".

    I don't know why something so obvious, that wages are set to buy you a lifestyle, seems to evade peoples observation.

    Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour. That is just not how business works.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Ogg on Tue Feb 1 23:57:00 2022
    Re: more information at my gophersite
    By: Ogg to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 2022 07:31 pm

    Hello Arelor!

    ** On Monday 31.01.22 - 16:13, Arelor wrote to Nightfox:

    What is a "digital" birthday party? I'm guessing that
    means it was via an online video meeting?

    There is more information at my gophersite.

    I only see 6 posts. Nothing for 2022.

    Oh, well, that would be my "other" gophersite. I will send you a priv with more details later (and an answer for your last netmail, since outgoing netmail here is
    restricted)

    Cheers!

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Tue Feb 1 23:59:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Arelor on Tue Feb 01 2022 12:20 am

    oh i have worked for family companies and they were the most crooked ones of them a
    they didnt care about the workers, broke many laws and stiffed a lot of people out
    their pay.

    Oh, lol, well, sorry to hear :-) It does not match my experience. I can easily imagine
    a mom and dad business being dickish though.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Andeddu on Wed Feb 2 00:18:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andeddu to MRO on Tue Feb 01 2022 04:35 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Arelor on Tue Feb 01 2022 12:20 am

    oh i have worked for family companies and they were the most crooked ones of the
    all. they didnt care about the workers, broke many laws and stiffed a lot of
    people out of their pay.

    Because they're tiny entities they can operate outwith the sphere of corporate
    etiquette. Big corporations have legal and HR departments so they always seem to pa
    the worker what they're owed even when things go awry... smaller companies often
    attempt to stiff workers or make them jump through hoops for basic entitlements.


    Human Resources exist to defend the company against the employees,not the other way
    around.

    Human Resources are pushy as heck trying to get people to work more hours than they
    are due and trying people to absorb corporative propaganda out of work hours. I have
    also seen Human Resources trying to cheat people with dirty tricks (We can't pay you
    with money this month, so here are some chocolate coins) or pay people bellow the
    current Union agreement - which, by the way, happens because Unions usually just want
    to get the medal for achieving the agreement but they never care if a worker of two is
    fucked up hard.

    Human Resources are like Cthulhu. THey wrap reality around them and suck the sanity
    out of your body.

    Some family firms can get rough, but the ones I have seen which got out of hand were
    very upfront about it for the most part. The biggest exception is construction firms,
    because Spanish construction firms are legendary for their douchebaggery, deceiptful
    smooth talk, and scammy tactics.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Arelor on Wed Feb 2 02:31:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Ogg <=-

    There is more information at my gophersite.

    I only see 6 posts. Nothing for 2022.

    Oh, well, that would be my "other" gophersite. I will send you a
    priv with more details later (and an answer for your last
    netmail, since outgoing netmail here is restricted)

    Arelor, that was an oversight on my part... should work now, give it
    (netmail) a try if you'd like.



    ... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Gamgee on Wed Feb 2 03:37:00 2022
    Re: Re: more information at my gophersite
    By: Gamgee to Arelor on Wed Feb 02 2022 07:31 am

    Arelor wrote to Ogg <=-

    There is more information at my gophersite.

    I only see 6 posts. Nothing for 2022.

    Oh, well, that would be my "other" gophersite. I will send you a
    priv with more details later (and an answer for your last
    netmail, since outgoing netmail here is restricted)

    Arelor, that was an oversight on my part... should work now, give it (netmail) a try if you'd like.



    ... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.

    Thanks, I will try it right now.

    As always, Palantir has a 5 stars service. I am very likely to recommend this BBS to a
    friend and I would return to this BBS :-)

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed Feb 2 07:20:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed Feb 02 2022 07:31 pm

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F97DD7.8182.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F91000.54814.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:45 pm


    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).

    No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.


    where do you get that information? is this only in your country? in mine it's just voted in. in my country minimum wage is a starter wage for kids or people who want part time work. ---
    = Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

    That is every country. Do you really honestly believe minimum wage is calculated from value of labour?


    i never heard that. i also don't make minimum wage.
    as i've said before, minimum wage is for kids and retirees.

    being calculated based on the cost of living may be what google says, but it's just somthing they increase every x amount of years here in the usa.

    anyways, why are you preoccupied with this minimum wage talk? are you making minimum wage?
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Wed Feb 2 13:04:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:32 pm

    The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence and nature of God.

    We do not necessarily require God's literal authority as I suppose man can model a solid and unchanging constitution fit for the next million years. As long as it is protected from amendments and is considered unalterable and MORE than simple ink on a piece of paper.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Arelor on Wed Feb 2 13:15:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Andeddu on Wed Feb 02 2022 05:18 am

    Human Resources exist to defend the company against the employees,not the other way around.

    Human Resources are pushy as heck trying to get people to work more hours than they are due and trying people to absorb corporative propaganda out of work
    hours. I have
    also seen Human Resources trying to cheat people with dirty tricks (We can't pay you
    with money this month, so here are some chocolate coins) or pay people bellow the
    current Union agreement - which, by the way, happens because Unions usually just want
    to get the medal for achieving the agreement but they never care if a worker of two is
    fucked up hard.

    I suppose you're right about HR. I was speaking more about small fish things such as overtime owed, tax discrepencies, bonuses, etc... big companies tend to be easier to deal with in those regards. When trying to sue firms or claim a substantial amount of compensation, that's when they close up shop and freeze you out. They are less petty than small businesses but exist only to protect the firm.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Thu Feb 3 15:35:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Andeddu on Wed Feb 02 2022 05:18 am

    Human Resources exist to defend the company against the employees,not the ot way around.

    Human Resources are pushy as heck trying to get people to work more hours th they are due and trying people to absorb corporative propaganda out of work hours. I have also seen Human Resources trying to cheat people with dirty tricks (We can't pay you with money this month, so here are some chocolate coins) or pay people bellow the current Union agreement - which, by the way, happens because Unions usually just want to get the medal for achieving the agreement but they never care if a worker of two is fucked up hard.

    Human Resources are like Cthulhu. THey wrap reality around them and suck the sanity out of your body.

    Some family firms can get rough, but the ones I have seen which got out of h were very upfront about it for the most part. The biggest exception is construction firms, because Spanish construction firms are legendary for the douchebaggery, deceiptful smooth talk, and scammy tactics.


    Half their job is conning companies into thinking all their ideas and plans and cultural change is really necessary. They command their salary by working on problems that don't exist, or aren't really the company's business in the first place.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Thu Feb 3 15:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Wed Feb 02 2022 12:20 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed Feb 02 2022 07:31 pm

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F97DD7.8182.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F91000.54814.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:45 pm


    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/dema of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).

    No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.


    where do you get that information? is this only in your country? in mine it's just voted in. in my country minimum wage is a starter wa for kids or people who want part time work. ---
    = Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

    That is every country. Do you really honestly believe minimum wage is calculated from value of labour?


    i never heard that. i also don't make minimum wage.
    as i've said before, minimum wage is for kids and retirees.

    being calculated based on the cost of living may be what google says, but it just somthing they increase every x amount of years here in the usa.

    anyways, why are you preoccupied with this minimum wage talk? are you making minimum wage?



    No, I make comfortably more than that. The point is the demonstrate that wages are bases on the cost to acquire the use of a human being, not based on objective value of what the labour produces.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Thu Feb 3 15:37:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Wed Feb 02 2022 06:04 pm

    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:32 pm

    The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence and nature of Go

    We do not necessarily require God's literal authority as I suppose man can model a solid and unchanging constitution fit for the next million years. As long as it is protected from amendments and is considered unalterable and MO than simple ink on a piece of paper.


    No way man can do that. We can't stick with a system for a century, a million years?



    The only constant is change.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Dr. What@VERT/CFBBS to Arelor on Thu Feb 3 04:15:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to MRO <=-

    Oh, lol, well, sorry to hear :-) It does not match my experience. I can easily imagine a mom and dad business being dickish though.

    The "family owned" ones (as opposed to the ones that are stockholder owned) are much more dickish. But in the long term, they are cutting their own throats when they can't get people to come work for them.

    I remember a big retailer (that's no longer in business) was like that in their I.T. dept. Over many years, they treated their people poorly and found it harder and harder to get people to come work for them. They ended up paying high pay for the below-average people. After while, their I.T. systems just fell apart and the whole company down shortly after that (you can't get income if you can't accept credit cards, or worse, you blindly accept credit cards and customers defraud you).


    ... You have only a very small head and must live within it.
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Wed Feb 2 01:42:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-

    It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in part
    be borne by an inanimate object.

    In asset forfeiture cases, when law enforcement impounds assets (usually
    cash) with the "suspicion" that it is evidence of illegal activity, the criminality is associated with the asset.

    There are court cases named "United States versus $14,000 in small bills".


    ... Voice your suspicions
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Wed Feb 2 01:45:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to Andeddu <=-

    The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation
    of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some
    revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence
    and nature of God.

    A lot of utopian science fiction references the combining of religions. I think we need someone/something to bridge the religions, re-inforce that one god has many names, and that religion is about being part of a whole and behaving in a way that promotes the greater good.

    "Wouldn't it be great if people were nice to each other for a change?"

    --Jesus Christ


    ... Voice your suspicions
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Andeddu on Thu Feb 3 01:47:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    We do not necessarily require God's literal authority as I suppose man
    can model a solid and unchanging constitution fit for the next million years. As long as it is protected from amendments and is considered unalterable and MORE than simple ink on a piece of paper.

    I don't know if amendments are a problem, as long as it's accompanied by a well-defined process for amendment by the body adhering to it, and an apolitical judicial group that defends the constitution against attempts to skirt it and abridge the rights of people outside of the amendment process. You know, sort of like what we used to have.


    ... Faced with a choice, do both.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Thu Feb 3 01:48:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to Arelor <=-

    Half their job is conning companies into thinking all their ideas and plans and cultural change is really necessary. They command their
    salary by working on problems that don't exist, or aren't really the company's business in the first place.

    But, We're Making The World A Better Place!


    ... Emphasize the flaws
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Feb 3 08:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Feb 03 2022 08:36 pm


    No, I make comfortably more than that. The point is the demonstrate that wages are bases on the cost to acquire the use of a human being, not based on objective value of what the labour produces.

    it depends on the type of job.

    also if an employer needs to make a profit and they need to get more people they increase raises. so that value of labor increases the payrate.

    there's also production that has piece rate and production bonuses.

    only on a small scale will you have an employer pay you based on what specific thing you do and how much that specific thing makes.

    when you pay someone to paint your house do you pay by the brush stroke, or do a flat fee you consider fair?

    there ya go.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Thu Feb 3 12:17:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Thu Feb 03 2022 08:37 pm

    No way man can do that. We can't stick with a system for a century, a million years?



    The only constant is change.

    Which is why civilizations go through a life cycle of four stages: genesis, growth, breakdown and disintegration. We are close to disintegration.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 4 04:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Wed Feb 02 2022 06:42 am

    Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-

    It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in part be borne by an inanimate object.

    In asset forfeiture cases, when law enforcement impounds assets (usually cash) with the "suspicion" that it is evidence of illegal activity, the criminality is associated with the asset.

    There are court cases named "United States versus $14,000 in small bills".


    ... Voice your suspicions

    Interesting, that may be because the asset is in itself evidence, or posesson of the asset implies cooperation in the crime.

    I've never heard of a court case like that though.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 4 04:03:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Wed Feb 02 2022 06:45 am

    Boraxman wrote to Andeddu <=-

    The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence and nature of God.

    A lot of utopian science fiction references the combining of religions. I think we need someone/something to bridge the religions, re-inforce that one god has many names, and that religion is about being part of a whole and behaving in a way that promotes the greater good.

    "Wouldn't it be great if people were nice to each other for a change?"

    --Jesus Christ


    ... Voice your suspicions

    That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity under one power.

    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    Live and let live I say.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Thu Feb 3 11:14:00 2022
    In asset forfeiture cases, when law enforcement impounds assets (usually cash) with the "suspicion" that it is evidence of illegal activity, the criminality is associated with the asset.

    There are court cases named "United States versus $14,000 in small bills".

    Is that why people sometimes supposedly don't get their assets back when
    they themselves are found "not guilty" or when charges are dropped?


    * SLMR 2.1a * Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Fri Feb 4 04:18:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Nightfox on Tue Feb 01 2022 03:59 pm

    I was speaking about the West, specifically, whose system is based on Christianity and the God of Abraham. The US constitution was written during Age of Enlightenment hence the reason it is such a liberal construct.

    You can see where I am coming from though. With man-made laws your so called rights are relegated to mere privileges, and privileges can be taken away temporarily or permanently.


    Yes, I do see that, definately. Rights change from something which is non-negotiable and inalienable to something which is just "practical" and can be taken away the moment anyone can argue some benefit. For example, how some people find free speech problematic and simply argue we shouldn't have it because it doesn't fit in with their corporatised view of the world.

    Rights from God give a solid anchor, and a reason for direction.
    The problem is how to get that without having to convince people God is real again.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Fri Feb 4 04:27:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 03 2022 01:00 pm

    it depends on the type of job.

    also if an employer needs to make a profit and they need to get more people they increase raises. so that value of labor increases the payrate.

    there's also production that has piece rate and production bonuses.

    only on a small scale will you have an employer pay you based on what specif thing you do and how much that specific thing makes.

    when you pay someone to paint your house do you pay by the brush stroke, or a flat fee you consider fair?

    there ya go.

    When you pay someone to paint your house, you don't actually employ them, in a legal sense. You buy a service. So that isn't applicable, he works for himself, but leaves the work with you. I've never gotten a tradesperson to become "my" employee in any legal sense.

    Labour doesn't have value though, only the end product. The customer doesn't care if 10% of the price is labour and 90% materials, or the other way around. They only care about the product. They pay for the product.

    By the way, some business may sell product at a loss. Does that mean labour has a negative value?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Feb 3 19:42:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:27 am

    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 03 2022 01:00 pm

    it depends on the type of job.

    also if an employer needs to make a profit and they need to get more people they increase raises. so that value of labor increases the payrate.

    there's also production that has piece rate and production bonuses.

    only on a small scale will you have an employer pay you based on what specif thing you do and how much that specific thing makes.

    when you pay someone to paint your house do you pay by the brush stroke, or a flat fee you consider fair?

    there ya go.

    When you pay someone to paint your house, you don't actually employ them, in a legal sense. You buy a service. So that isn't applicable, he works for himself, but leaves the work with you. I've never gotten a tradesperson to become "my" employee in any legal sense.

    Labour doesn't have value though, only the end product. The customer doesn't care if 10% of the price is labour and 90% materials, or the other way around. They only care about the product. They pay for the product.

    By the way, some business may sell product at a loss. Does that mean labour has a negative value?


    this labor discussion has become a big semantics jerk off fest
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 01:27:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:27 am

    By the way, some business may sell product at a loss. Does that mean labour has a negative value?


    There is definitively some people you'd pay in order to become an employee for your competitors, so maybe that counts as nevagive value of labour.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Fri Feb 4 03:31:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 03 2022 01:00 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Feb 03 2022 08:36 pm


    No, I make comfortably more than that. The point is the demonstrate that wages are bases on the cost to acquire the use of a human being, not base on objective value of what the labour produces.

    it depends on the type of job.

    also if an employer needs to make a profit and they need to get more people

    there's also production that has piece rate and production bonuses.

    only on a small scale will you have an employer pay you based on what specif

    when you pay someone to paint your house do you pay by the brush stroke, or

    there ya go.

    A friend has a farm, and when she pays for additional labor, she pays by the job. This eliminates clock watching and dragging out how long a project
    takes. Those who get done faster have a chance of getting more work to do.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 03:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:00 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Wed Feb 02 2022 06:42 am

    Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-

    It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in p be borne by an inanimate object.

    In asset forfeiture cases, when law enforcement impounds assets (usually cash) with the "suspicion" that it is evidence of illegal activity, the criminality is associated with the asset.

    There are court cases named "United States versus $14,000 in small bills"


    ... Voice your suspicions

    Interesting, that may be because the asset is in itself evidence, or posesso of the asset implies cooperation in the crime.

    I've never heard of a court case like that though.

    Police have pulled over people for driving infractions, ask consent for a search , and have found large sums of money, but no other evidence to
    indicate a crime or criminal intent. The money will be seized nonetheless. The owner of the money wil have to go to court to get their money back.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 08:53:00 2022
    Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour.
    That is just not how business works.

    So a retail or fast food worker is not making minimum wage because potential employees with those skills are in high supply? A professional (tradesman, engineer, accountant etc) isn't making above minimum wage because of a lower
    supply of potential employees with those skills?

    Of course they are. Their labour commands a value based on what the market of available labour commands.

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. Then Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages were driven down to the floor.

    This is precisely how businesses determine wages. The value of labour is decided by supply and demand.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 08:59:00 2022
    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    Live and let live I say.

    I like the cut of your jib mister! (except your theories on economics lol)
  • From Digital Man@VERT to MRO on Fri Feb 4 16:09:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 01:00 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 2022 09:07 am

    to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in (and grew up in) the US.


    renting is for objects.

    You can rent a horse.
    --
    digital man (rob)

    Sling Blade quote #4:
    Doyle: wimpy-ass kids or mental retards.. she got one of each livin' with her. Norco, CA WX: 56.9øF, 20.0% humidity, 0 mph NE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Digital Man on Fri Feb 4 20:53:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Digital Man to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:09 pm


    renting is for objects.

    You can rent a horse.

    a horse is a vehicle object
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Sat Feb 5 10:32:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm

    Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour. That is just not how business works.

    So a retail or fast food worker is not making minimum wage because potential employees with those skills are in high supply
    A professional (tradesman, engineer, accountant etc) isn't making above minimum wage because of a lower
    supply of potential employees with those skills?

    Of course they are. Their labour commands a value based on what the market of available labour commands.

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. Then Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large
    numbers that wages were driven down to the floor.

    This is precisely how businesses determine wages. The value of labour is decided by supply and demand.

    They are competing against other employees, and want to offer a wage which will attract the candidates they want. The wage is
    still, I maintain, based on them hiring you, not your labour.

    I'm a professional, and my input per unit product is impossible to calculate. What is the value of my labour? I can tell you
    it doesn't exist. However, the business wants people not to get sick taking theer product, so they hire me to ensure it is
    safe. They pay me what they pay me because others pay that amount. That wage gets me a "middle class" lifestyle. That is
    the trade.

    I'm also a director of a small company, I employ people. At NO stage is "value of labour" a factor in determing wages, in the
    contract. We pay to be able to use these people 38 hours a week, and the wage is the cost of having them for that period of
    time.

    Getting "our moneys worth" is then our problem, how we get these people to work and contribute.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat Feb 5 09:27:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu on Thu Feb 03 2022 06:47 am

    I don't know if amendments are a problem, as long as it's accompanied by a well-defined process for amendment by the body adhering to it, and an apolitical judicial group that defends the constitution against attempts to skirt it and abridge the rights of people outside of the amendment process. You know, sort of like what we used to have.

    Well that just leads you in the direction of where we are today. Corruption with cash along with other incentives can degrade any basic principle and transition it out of what it was into something altogether different.

    Apolitical groups and political bodies can be bought.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sat Feb 5 09:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:03 am

    That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity under one power.

    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    Live and let live I say.

    It is not the goal of God either. You have to recall the Tower of Babel and the origins of the multiplicity of languages. The last thing the God of Abraham wants is a united Earth under one government speaking the same language. The idea behind a united human race is Satanistic as the Bible is clear that you cannot seek to have Heaven on Earth.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Digital Man on Sat Feb 5 07:17:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Digital Man to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:09 pm

    renting is for objects.

    You can rent a horse.

    When I was a kid I would rent a horse, but it is not the same experience as owning one.

    It is hard to bond properly, because for a rental horse you are just another moron in the long list of morons he is gonna see today. A horse you own is going to be more work, but for a horse you own (and propely care) you are more likely to be his "Sugar daddy who pets me and teaches me fun tricks!" UNnlike with dogs, horses are not guaranteed to befriend you just because you take care of them, though.

    Bottom line: you can rent a horse, but there is not where the fun is.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Sat Feb 5 07:18:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Digital Man on Sat Feb 05 2022 01:53 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Digital Man to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:09 pm


    renting is for objects.

    You can rent a horse.

    a horse is a vehicle object

    I have heard some Spaniards talking about renting women. Probably because they are rideable too.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Digital Man on Sun Feb 6 08:08:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Digital Man to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:09 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 01:00 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 2022 09:07 am

    to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary u
    of something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that
    because I live in (and grew up in) the US.


    renting is for objects.

    You can rent a horse.
    Horses have property rights now???

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Sun Feb 6 08:10:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Sat Feb 05 2022 02:39 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:03 am

    That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity
    under one power.

    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that,
    getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    Live and let live I say.

    It is not the goal of God either. You have to recall the Tower of Babel and the origins of the multiplicity of languages. Th
    last thing the God of Abraham wants is a united Earth under one government speaking the same language. The idea behind a uni
    human race is Satanistic as the Bible is clear that you cannot seek to have Heaven on Earth.


    Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valuable lesson. Unification of the world under one
    power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, should have so much power over so many people.


    Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what a few Germans believed in the last century now.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sat Feb 5 23:13:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Digital Man on Sun Feb 06 2022 01:08 pm

    You can rent a horse.
    Horses have property rights now???


    Here is a thing,

    when I need to keep my horses distracted while I work in the barn, I hang a ball from a beam so they play with it instead of trying to steal the tools I am using.

    One of the horses will eventually grab the ball and prevent the other from playing with it. She will look at her as if saying "This ball is mine!", which is funny because she actually does not like playing with the ball that much.

    THe bottom line is that she will defend her ball with more conviction than a lot of people defends their rights.

    Lol I feel like a grandpa telling stories to the little kids. My birthday has not done any good to me :-)

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to BORAXMAN on Sun Feb 6 05:17:00 2022
    Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valu
    le lesson. Unification of the world under one
    power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, should hav
    so much power over so many people.

    I agree. For some reason, many Globalists don't see that.

    Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what
    few Germans believed in the last century now.

    It is ironic, the folks who seem to want to cry "fascists!" and "Nazi!" in
    the US are the same ones that don't seem to understand that their Globalist ideas have a lot in common with what those Germans believed. Even the idea
    of the EU was something the Germans were looking towards.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Arnold Layne, don't do it again!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 01:47:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

    Interesting, that may be because the asset is in itself evidence, or posesson of the asset implies cooperation in the crime.

    I've never heard of a court case like that though.

    It's starting to make the news. People travel with cash, get pulled over for
    a traffic stop, police search the car, find the cash, assume it's drug
    money, and confiscate it. Police departments then get to use the money after
    a period of time. At least that's the story that's been reported,
    corroborated by some departments bragging about buying things for the department with confiscated funds.

    When it's your money that's confiscated, you then need to go to court to retrieve it, and that's where the odd court cases come to light. You'll need to pay for a lawyer and it could take a year or more to resolve.


    ... Towards the insignificant
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 01:51:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

    That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity under one power.

    Hindu and buddhist texts both mention the one-ness of God, as well as the oneness of creation - we're part of the whole, and helping one another is ultimately helping yourself.

    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    It's about theoretically combining religions while allowing each to
    flourish, and admittedly the devil's in the details. We may learn that religious people are in fact not spiritual and instead have material goals.


    ... Think of the radio
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Dumas Walker on Fri Feb 4 01:51:00 2022
    Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-

    Is that why people sometimes supposedly don't get their assets back
    when they themselves are found "not guilty" or when charges are
    dropped?

    Yes, even after the erstwhile drug charge is dropped, the "drug money" stays in the custody of the police department.


    ... Think of the radio
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 6 11:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 06:51 am

    Hindu and buddhist texts both mention the one-ness of God, as well as the oneness of creation - we're part of the whole, and helping one another is ultimately helping yourself.


    There is a big difference between endorsing Karma theories and affirming we are all one big spiritual unit, and wanting everybody pulled under the same religious or political regime.

    Specifically because a concept such as a ruler or a government makes no sense, ultimately, if everything is to be just part of The One (tm) eventually.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 6 09:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 06:47 am

    It's starting to make the news. People travel with cash, get pulled over for a traffic stop, police search the car, find the cash, assume it's drug money, and confiscate it. Police departments then get to use the money after a period of time. At least that's the story that's been reported, corroborated by some departments bragging about buying things for the department with confiscated funds.

    When it's your money that's confiscated, you then need to go to court to retrieve it, and that's where the odd court cases come to light. You'll need to pay for a lawyer and it could take a year or more to resolve.

    I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone only based on a suspicion. I'd have thought it would be illegal for the police to take something belonging to someone without proof it's to be used for nefarious purposes or without a warrant of some kind.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From HusTler@VERT/PHARCYDE to Otto Reverse on Sun Feb 6 14:30:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. Then Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages were dri down to the floor.

    Not sure if that argument is valid anymore. The cost of housing is the same for "Indians" as it is for the rest of us.

    |07 HusTler


    ... Click...click...click...damn, out of taglines!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to all on Sun Feb 6 15:31:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 06:47 am

    Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

    Interesting, that may be because the asset is in itself evidence, or posesson of the asset implies cooperation in the crime.

    I've never heard of a court case like that though.

    It's starting to make the news. People travel with cash, get pulled over for a traffic stop, police search the car, find the cash, assume it's drug money, and confiscate it. Police departments then get to use the money after a period of time. At least that's the story that's been reported, corroborated by some departments bragging about buying things for the department with confiscated funds.

    When it's your money that's confiscated, you then need to go to court to retrieve it, and that's where the odd court cases come to light. You'll need to pay for a lawyer and it could take a year or more to resolve.


    ... Towards the insignificant



    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14470003

    this guy is a former police officer who would go and hit people to get assets and money. then they would pose behind the drugs, guns and money.

    he was one of the top guys at the time.

    he has a very interesting video if you can find it.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Sun Feb 6 15:32:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 02:39 pm


    I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone only based on a suspicion. I'd have thought it would be illegal for the police to take something belonging to someone without proof it's to be used for nefarious purposes or without a warrant of some kind.


    you can get it back. but those people are criminals so they want to quit while they're ahead. they might open a can of worms.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to HusTler on Sun Feb 6 15:32:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: HusTler to Otto Reverse on Sun Feb 06 2022 07:30 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. Then Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages were dri down to the floor.

    Not sure if that argument is valid anymore. The cost of housing is the same for "Indians" as it is for the rest of us.

    |07 HusTler


    ... Click...click...click...damn, out of taglines!

    you might want to put down that crack pipe.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sun Feb 6 19:42:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Sun Feb 06 2022 01:10 pm

    Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valuable lesson. Unification of the world under one
    power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, should have so much power over so many people.


    Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what a few Germans believed in the last century now.

    There are so many valuable lessons in the Bible which are relevant today even to those who believe it to be nothing more than a collection of fictitious fables.

    If one person was to raised to a grandiose height and handed the crown of order to become the patriarch of the World... we'd be living in a despotic dystopia.

    Power can never be fully consolidated.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dumas Walker on Sun Feb 6 19:45:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to BORAXMAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 10:17 am

    It is ironic, the folks who seem to want to cry "fascists!" and "Nazi!" in the US are the same ones that don't seem to understand that their Globalist ideas have a lot in common with what those Germans believed. Even the idea of the EU was something the Germans were looking towards.

    I guess it's no accident that the EU's parliament building is modeled after the Tower of Babel... haha.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Sun Feb 6 21:54:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 02:39 pm

    I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone only based on a suspicion. I'd have thought it would be illegal for the pol to take something belonging to someone without proof it's to be used for nefarious purposes or without a warrant of some kind.

    Nightfox


    WELCOME TO SPAIN!!!!!

    It has been like that for a long while here. "Oh, I need a pencil and that guy has one. I am gonna charge that guy with possession of a puncturing weapon and take his pencil!"

    Australia is also very bad in this regard. If they suspect you have child porn in your house they may conduct a search, and finding nothing, will confiscate your legal cutlery because "It looks weapon-like" and you won't see it back.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to HusTler on Sun Feb 6 21:57:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: HusTler to Otto Reverse on Sun Feb 06 2022 07:30 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. The Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages were down to the floor.

    Not sure if that argument is valid anymore. The cost of housing is the sam for "Indians" as it is for the rest of us.

    |07 HusTler


    HP Printing has been placing more and more driver development in India precisely because the costs are much lower.

    But as of late they are bringin a lot of it back to Spain because the drivers they develop are pityful and are full of constructs such as:

    if (true); then
    something()
    fi

    Or better yet:

    while (true); do
    if (condition()); then
    break;
    fi
    done

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Dumas Walker on Mon Feb 7 12:03:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to BORAXMAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 10:17 am

    Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valu
    le lesson. Unification of the world under one
    power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, should hav
    so much power over so many people.

    I agree. For some reason, many Globalists don't see that.

    Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what
    few Germans believed in the last century now.

    It is ironic, the folks who seem to want to cry "fascists!" and "Nazi!" in the US are the same ones that don't seem to understand that their Globalist ideas have a lot in common with what those Germans believed. Even the idea of the EU was something the Germans were looking towards.

    There is another creepier element to them, the "master race" idea. People will literally tell you that it is better that we all blend as one race, because then various problems in the world will go away. This is basically another version of the "if we make this race dominant, and get rid of others, problems will go away" line of reasoning.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Feb 7 12:08:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 06:51 am

    Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

    That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity under one power.

    Hindu and buddhist texts both mention the one-ness of God, as well as the oneness of creation - we're part of the whole, and helping one another is ultimately helping yourself.

    That though is seperate to believing that everything unique has to be mashed together into one homogeneous paste? Surely believing in a one-ness with God doesn't preclude us living our own separate lives, keeping our own identities, our own, if you well, unique expressions of creation.

    That is what I think is the problem, not that we acknowledge that we are part of the same creation, but this desire to homogenise and destroy diversity for political expedience.

    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    It's about theoretically combining religions while allowing each to flourish, and admittedly the devil's in the details. We may learn that religious people are in fact not spiritual and instead have material goals.


    ... Think of the radio

    I can't see how that would world. Yes, people may acknowledge that people who are religious share some base spirituality, a sense the world means more than just that which is materially presented to us. But the devil is in the details, and it is reconciling the details which proves fatal.

    The most bitter religious rivalries aren't even between two different religions, but between two sects of the same branch. People will kill over the small details.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Mon Feb 7 12:14:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Mon Feb 07 2022 12:42 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Sun Feb 06 2022 01:10 pm

    Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valuable lesson. Unification of the world under one
    power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, shoul have so much power over so many people.


    Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what a few Germans believed in the last century now.

    There are so many valuable lessons in the Bible which are relevant today eve to those who believe it to be nothing more than a collection of fictitious fables.

    If one person was to raised to a grandiose height and handed the crown of or to become the patriarch of the World... we'd be living in a despotic dystopi

    Power can never be fully consolidated.


    People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think anyone before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, the problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.

    The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet some 19 year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.

    We would all do well to realise that the values and ideas held by people in the past, where done with with good reason.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Nightfox on Mon Feb 7 04:29:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 02:39 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 06:47 am

    It's starting to make the news. People travel with cash, get pulled ove for a traffic stop, police search the car, find the cash, assume it's d money, and confiscate it. Police departments then get to use the money after a period of time. At least that's the story that's been reported, corroborated by some departments bragging about buying things for the department with confiscated funds.

    When it's your money that's confiscated, you then need to go to court t retrieve it, and that's where the odd court cases come to light. You'll need to pay for a lawyer and it could take a year or more to resolve.

    I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone thout a warrant of some kind.

    Nightfox

    People have been successful getting their money back. Some have trouble explaing why they are carrying $20k in their car.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Mon Feb 7 11:47:00 2022
    Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-

    Is that why people sometimes supposedly don't get their assets back
    when they themselves are found "not guilty" or when charges are
    dropped?

    Yes, even after the erstwhile drug charge is dropped, the "drug money" stays in the custody of the police department.

    While it is often drug money, I wasn't thinking of drugs when I posted
    that. I cannot remember now what local case I was thinking about. :)

    That is an interesting, and unfortunate, racket.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Her voice rings in his ears like the music of the spheres

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to BORAXMAN on Mon Feb 7 11:51:00 2022
    There is another creepier element to them, the "master race" idea. People wil
    literally tell you that it is better that we all blend as one race, because then various problems in the world will go away. This is basically another version of the "if we make this race dominant, and get rid of others, problems
    will go away" line of reasoning.

    And conflicts with messages about diversity being the way.

    That line of reasoning, and I know some follow it, ignores that not all of
    our problems are caused by the colors of our skin being different. I
    honestly think most of them are not. Even in the US, a lot of folks have
    been pointing at race recently, but I think the real problem is the growing divide between our non-collective values. I believe that if you grouped Americans by values, you would find the groups would be racially diverse
    rather than homogeneous.

    I would find it rather boring if everyone looked the same. There is a
    classic Twilight Zone episode about that. Things are not so utopic as one would imagine.


    * SLMR 2.1a * There is no dark side of the moon, really....

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to ANDEDDU on Mon Feb 7 11:51:00 2022
    It is ironic, the folks who seem to want to cry "fascists!" and "Nazi!" in the US are the same ones that don't seem to understand that their Globalist
    ideas have a lot in common with what those Germans believed. Even the idea
    of the EU was something the Germans were looking towards.

    I guess it's no accident that the EU's parliament building is modeled after th
    Tower of Babel... haha.

    Now I am going to have to look that up. :)


    * SLMR 2.1a * He knows changes aren't permanent - but change is!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Mon Feb 7 12:21:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:08 pm

    That though is seperate to believing that everything unique has to be mashed together into one homogeneous paste? Surely believing in a one-ness with Go doesn't preclude us living our own separate lives, keeping our own identitie our own, if you well, unique expressions of creation.

    That is what I think is the problem, not that we acknowledge that we are par of the same creation, but this desire to homogenise and destroy diversity fo political expedience.


    I think that, in practice, practicioners who believe variations of one-ness with the Universe are more interested in achieving it themselves. This is why they practice discipline, restraint and self-sacrifice: they reject distractions that are only good for satisfying egos (which are pointless, because the ego is an illusion that does not exist).

    It is pointless to want a pile of gold for yourself, when your existence as an independent spiritual unit is an illusion.

    When your beliefs operate in this environment, I think wanting to put everybody under the same political regime is completely out of scope. Governments and such are just a pathetic attempt from things that believe they are spiritually independent to control other things which believe they are spiritually independent, but that is hogwash, because the tyrant who gets people shot for disagreeing and the people getting shot are ultimately the same spiritual unit.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Mon Feb 7 12:53:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:14 pm

    People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think anyo before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, the problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.

    The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet some 1 year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.

    We would all do well to realise that the values and ideas held by people in past, where done with with good reason.


    There is a bit of everything.

    A lot of ideas and practices were just counterproductive, or were very helpful only for the people pushing it. Others made a lot whole of sense back in the day, but became obsolete.

    For example, feudalism and feudal armies made sense in the 10th Century, because it tied together nobles with common interests with loyalty oaths and made it so areas dominated by a given type of culture could count with the protection of a warrior class capable of fending off invasive threats. Since keeping a standing army sucked very hard (wars ruined territories, because nobody was tending the crops if all the men were chopping heads), having a group of knights for keeping order and turning the peasants into an army only if need be was an ok deal.

    Once monarchies could afford siege machines nobody else could, feudalism became obsolete because monarchs no longer needed the old loyalty sistem to ensure the obedience of nobles and their subjects. Any noble who disagreed with whoever happened to have the artillery sets that Century would see his house bombed to the ground with no recourse. History classes always point to the rise of the burgoise class as the downfall of the feudal system, but it was standing monarchist armies which turned nobles from warlords and defenders of the land into puppets.

    On the other hand, I think some ideas from the 5th Century Before Christ are still valid. A lot of Europeans look at 2nd Ammendmendt proponents as if they had losed it, but the idea that only slaves and non-citizens would allow themselves to be forbidden from bearing weapons already existed, in a way or another, in ancient Athens, Sparta, the Republican Rome, various Viking folks... the idea still survives in a number of Asian places to this day. And here is something funny: when a culture stops being combative, they abbandon the idea that free people has weapons, weapons get eliminated from society, and that culture collapes under the push of external threats. I recommend the book Ultima Ratio Regis (if it exists in anything else than Spanish), because it makes this specific case despite the fact the author despises pro-gun rights groups.

    So, in conclusion, we can extract valid lessons from the past, but not all that is past is golden either or would be golden if brought back.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dumas Walker on Mon Feb 7 13:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to BORAXMAN on Mon Feb 07 2022 04:51 pm

    I would find it rather boring if everyone looked the same. There is a classic Twilight Zone episode about that. Things are not so utopic as one would imagine.


    They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.

    Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was caused by the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities who set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a magic device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.

    Eventually the village sucked to the point of collapse. Nobody could bake a decent cake, because the ponies with the ability to bake a decent cake had
    been made equal with everybody else in mediocrity. Same with every profession.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Tue Feb 8 15:25:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to Boraxman on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:21 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:08 pm

    That though is seperate to believing that everything unique has to be mas together into one homogeneous paste? Surely believing in a one-ness with doesn't preclude us living our own separate lives, keeping our own identi our own, if you well, unique expressions of creation.

    That is what I think is the problem, not that we acknowledge that we are of the same creation, but this desire to homogenise and destroy diversity political expedience.


    I think that, in practice, practicioners who believe variations of one-ness with the Universe are more interested in achieving it themselves. This is wh they practice discipline, restraint and self-sacrifice: they reject distractions that are only good for satisfying egos (which are pointless, because the ego is an illusion that does not exist).

    It is pointless to want a pile of gold for yourself, when your existence as independent spiritual unit is an illusion.

    When your beliefs operate in this environment, I think wanting to put everyb under the same political regime is completely out of scope. Governments and such are just a pathetic attempt from things that believe they are spiritual independent to control other things which believe they are spiritually independent, but that is hogwash, because the tyrant who gets people shot fo disagreeing and the people getting shot are ultimately the same spiritual un


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken


    That is a description of a very personal and individual spirituality. It can superficially sound like a view that we should all unite externally, but it is actually antithetical to that.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Tue Feb 8 15:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to Boraxman on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:53 pm

    There is a bit of everything.

    A lot of ideas and practices were just counterproductive, or were very helpf only for the people pushing it. Others made a lot whole of sense back in the day, but became obsolete.

    For example, feudalism and feudal armies made sense in the 10th Century, because it tied together nobles with common interests with loyalty oaths and made it so areas dominated by a given type of culture could count with the protection of a warrior class capable of fending off invasive threats. Since keeping a standing army sucked very hard (wars ruined territories, because nobody was tending the crops if all the men were chopping heads), having a group of knights for keeping order and turning the peasants into an army onl if need be was an ok deal.

    Once monarchies could afford siege machines nobody else could, feudalism bec obsolete because monarchs no longer needed the old loyalty sistem to ensure obedience of nobles and their subjects. Any noble who disagreed with whoever happened to have the artillery sets that Century would see his house bombed the ground with no recourse. History classes always point to the rise of the burgoise class as the downfall of the feudal system, but it was standing monarchist armies which turned nobles from warlords and defenders of the lan into puppets.

    On the other hand, I think some ideas from the 5th Century Before Christ are still valid. A lot of Europeans look at 2nd Ammendmendt proponents as if the had losed it, but the idea that only slaves and non-citizens would allow themselves to be forbidden from bearing weapons already existed, in a way or another, in ancient Athens, Sparta, the Republican Rome, various Viking folks... the idea still survives in a number of Asian places to this day. An here is something funny: when a culture stops being combative, they abbandon the idea that free people has weapons, weapons get eliminated from society and that culture collapes under the push of external threats. I recommend th book Ultima Ratio Regis (if it exists in anything else than Spanish), becaus it makes this specific case despite the fact the author despises pro-gun rig groups.

    So, in conclusion, we can extract valid lessons from the past, but not all t is past is golden either or would be golden if brought back.

    I think in part our view of how companies work still has a feudalist mentality.
    We have to balance Traditionalism (standing by culture and tradition) with Progressivism, and making objective assessments of our long held cultural traditions and values. The problem is that sometimes it is not apparent why we held certain beliefs until long after we've abandoned them. I've done a cursory search for Ultima Ratio Regis, and get some hits, but nothing thta looks like an English translation of the book.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Mon Feb 7 23:54:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 08:36 pm

    I think in part our view of how companies work still has a feudalist mentali
    We have to balance Traditionalism (standing by culture and tradition) with Progressivism, and making objective assessments of our long held cultural traditions and values. The problem is that sometimes it is not apparent why held certain beliefs until long after we've abandoned them. I've done a cursory search for Ultima Ratio Regis, and get some hits, but nothing thta looks like an English translation of the book.


    This would be the book. No English translations that I can find :-(

    https://www.librarything.com/work/11346946

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Tue Feb 8 06:15:00 2022
    Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour That is just not how business works.

    So a retail or fast food worker is not making minimum wage because pote employees with those skills are in high supply
    A professional (tradesman, engineer, accountant etc) isn't making above minimum wage because of a lower
    supply of potential employees with those skills?

    Of course they are. Their labour commands a value based on what the mar of available labour commands.


    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. T Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large
    numbers that wages were driven down to the floor.

    This is precisely how businesses determine wages. The value of labour i decided by supply and demand.

    They are competing against other employees, and want to offer a wage
    which will attract the candidates they want. The wage is
    still, I maintain, based on them hiring you, not your labour.

    The wage is based on the supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour. Bigger supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour the lower the wage. Conversely the smaller the supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour the higher the wages. This is a universal truth found in all democratic capitalist nations the world over.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to HusTler on Tue Feb 8 06:18:00 2022
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. T Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages wer down to the floor.

    Not sure if that argument is valid anymore. The cost of housing is the same for "Indians" as it is for the rest of us.

    Are we talking about the same people? I meant Indians from the country of India.
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Nightfox on Tue Feb 8 13:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 02:39 pm

    I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone only based on a suspicion. I'd have thought it would be illegal for the police to take something belonging to someone without proof it's to be used for nefarious purposes or without a warrant of some kind.

    Nightfox

    The police in my country can use legislation known as the Proceeds of Crime to seize belongings (cash, jewelry or any other valuable) that can be viewed as unexplained wealth. These productions are then lodged with a prosecutor who will thereafter release them back to the owner should they be able to prove they were acquired by legal means.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Tue Feb 8 13:10:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:14 pm

    People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think anyone before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, the problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.

    The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet some 19 year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.

    We would all do well to realise that the values and ideas held by people in the past, where done with with good reason.

    The culture creators were able to invert almost all of our beliefs within the span of one century. It was a very impressive undertaking when you think about it like that. The new culture that has been handed to us is destructive however is packaged in such a way that the masses believe to be good and moral.

    Homogeneity and standardisation of all systems, beliefs and cultures in the name of ending all disputues will take us down a dark path.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to BORAXMAN on Tue Feb 8 11:23:00 2022
    People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think anyone
    before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, the problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.

    I wonder, though, if some of them only act that way as a justification to ignore/devalue history so that they can repeat it for their own gains.

    The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet some 19 year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.

    And probably had a professor or TA who also thought they knew better.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Hey, how 'bout a fandango ?!?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to ARELOR on Tue Feb 8 11:42:00 2022
    They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.

    Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was caused by the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities who set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a magic
    device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.

    Eventually the village sucked to the point of collapse. Nobody could bake a decent cake, because the ponies with the ability to bake a decent cake had been made equal with everybody else in mediocrity. Same with every profession.

    If they made an episode like that today, they would probably be labeled as
    some sort of "-ist" or "-phobic." :(


    * SLMR 2.1a * "When you have a rib-eye steak, you must floss it!"-Homer

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Andeddu on Tue Feb 8 19:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andeddu to Nightfox on Tue Feb 08 2022 06:00 pm


    The police in my country can use legislation known as the Proceeds of Crime to seize belongings (cash, jewelry or any other valuable) that can be viewed as unexplained wealth. These productions are then lodged with a prosecutor who will thereafter release them back to the owner should they be able to prove they were acquired by legal means.

    so i guess you just cant say you suck a lot of dick and only for donations.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to all on Tue Feb 8 19:37:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Tue Feb 08 2022 04:42 pm

    They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.

    Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was caused by the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities who set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a magic
    device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.



    how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Arelor on Tue Feb 8 17:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Boraxman on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:53 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:14 pm

    People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think a before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.

    The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet som year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.

    We would all do well to realise that the values and ideas held by people past, where done with with good reason.


    There is a bit of everything.

    A lot of ideas and practices were just counterproductive, or were very helpf only for the people pushing it. Others made a lot whole of sense back in the day, but became obsolete.

    For example, feudalism and feudal armies made sense in the 10th Century, because it tied together nobles with common interests with loyalty oaths and made it so areas dominated by a given type of culture could count with the protection of a warrior class capable of fending off invasive threats. Since keeping a standing army sucked very hard (wars ruined territories, because nobody was tending the crops if all the men were chopping heads), having a group of knights for keeping order and turning the peasants into an army onl if need be was an ok deal.

    Once monarchies could afford siege machines nobody else could, feudalism bec obsolete because monarchs no longer needed the old loyalty sistem to ensure obedience of nobles and their subjects. Any noble who disagreed with whoever happened to have the artillery sets that Century would see his house bombed the ground with no recourse. History classes always point to the rise of the burgoise class as the downfall of the feudal system, but it was standing monarchist armies which turned nobles from warlords and defenders of the lan into puppets.

    On the other hand, I think some ideas from the 5th Century Before Christ are still valid. A lot of Europeans look at 2nd Ammendmendt proponents as if the had losed it, but the idea that only slaves and non-citizens would allow themselves to be forbidden from bearing weapons already existed, in a way or another, in ancient Athens, Sparta, the Republican Rome, various Viking folks... the idea still survives in a number of Asian places to this day. An here is something funny: when a culture stops being combative, they abbandon the idea that free people has weapons, weapons get eliminated from society and that culture collapes under the push of external threats. I recommend th book Ultima Ratio Regis (if it exists in anything else than Spanish), becaus it makes this specific case despite the fact the author despises pro-gun rig groups.

    So, in conclusion, we can extract valid lessons from the past, but not all t is past is golden either or would be golden if brought back.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken


    Also take into consideration that due to the cost of metal forging and sourcin g metals a sword of decent metallurgy would be very expensive, and armor was out of the reach of a common person. Later on, hunting firearms were also rare, since there were very few companies that built them, and a very small market. It wasn't until the US was settled that there was a market for privately owned firearms. Mass production with standardized parts didn't appear until Eli Whitney Jr took over the arms plant his father started. building his own machines and tooling saved him time and money. He built a plant for Samuel Colt, who went from making one gun every couple of months to several thousand a year. instead of a Cattleman or Peacemaker costing in the range only a wealthy man can afford, the cost was in reach of a ranch hand.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Arelor on Tue Feb 8 17:45:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Dumas Walker on Mon Feb 07 2022 06:00 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to BORAXMAN on Mon Feb 07 2022 04:51 pm

    I would find it rather boring if everyone looked the same. There is a classic Twilight Zone episode about that. Things are not so utopic as on would imagine.


    They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.

    Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was cause by the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities who set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a mag device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.

    Eventually the village sucked to the point of collapse. Nobody could bake a decent cake, because the ponies with the ability to bake a decent cake had been made equal with everybody else in mediocrity. Same with every professio

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to provide equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removing any
    limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder for various reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others back than improving conditions for those who have less.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Wed Feb 9 14:45:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Tue Feb 08 2022 11:15 am

    The wage is based on the supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour. Bigger supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour the lower the wage. Conversely the smaller the supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour the higher the wages This is a universal truth found in all democratic capitalist nations the wor over.

    Not sure what you are trying to prove, other than that the price of renting a person for a fixed period of time is subject to market dynamics.

    You might want to think about what you wrote, because it is an admission that the "price of labour" isn't actually based on the price of the product of labour.

    Which is what I've been arguing all along.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Wed Feb 9 14:49:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Tue Feb 08 2022 06:10 pm

    The culture creators were able to invert almost all of our beliefs within th span of one century. It was a very impressive undertaking when you think abo it like that. The new culture that has been handed to us is destructive howe is packaged in such a way that the masses believe to be good and moral.

    Homogeneity and standardisation of all systems, beliefs and cultures in the name of ending all disputues will take us down a dark path.


    These inversions happen from time to time. Values are turned upside down for power. Our current "values" are as such as to benefit those one power, namely globalist government and corporations.

    The fight against "Racism" isn't about tolerance, its about creating social conditions which benefit the elite. Destroying the family structure creates dependence and consolidates power. Power has shifted and as such, the values have had to change.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Wed Feb 9 03:41:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to all on Wed Feb 09 2022 12:37 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Tue Feb 08 2022 04:42 pm

    They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.

    Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was caused
    the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities
    set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a magic
    device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.



    how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons

    Because Twilight is the best pony, that is why.

    Any more questions?

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Wed Feb 9 09:03:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Wed Feb 09 2022 08:41 am

    how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons

    Because Twilight is the best pony, that is why.

    Any more questions?

    you better not be one of those bronys
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Wed Feb 9 13:34:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Feb 09 2022 07:49 pm

    These inversions happen from time to time. Values are turned upside down for power. Our current "values" are as such as to benefit those one power, namely globalist government and corporations.

    The fight against "Racism" isn't about tolerance, its about creating social conditions which benefit the elite. Destroying the family structure creates dependence and consolidates power. Power has shifted and as such, the values have had to change.

    It is all divide and rule. If we are too busy fighting each other we won't be able to see the forest for the trees.

    Communism, as a system, was similar. The misguided people were told it would create a worker's paradise. The big lie was that it did not eradicate the power elite, rather it empowered them.

    In a Communist state, it is the inner circle of the government along with the international bankers who hold power and authority over the people. It was never designed to be a worker's paradise.

    The current Western system of corporatism or corporate facism is a terrible system which is corrupt and cannot be confalted with pure free-market Capitalism. It is the end product of free-market Capitalism though where corporations have become so powerful and influential they are able to impose laws and regulations through governments. This is why, despite claiming to be Capitalist entities, they promote Left Wing progressive values pertaining to collectivism.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Wed Feb 9 10:20:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Arelor on Wed Feb 09 2022 02:03 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Wed Feb 09 2022 08:41 am

    how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons

    Because Twilight is the best pony, that is why.

    Any more questions?

    you better not be one of those bronys

    I have some MLP plushies in my bedroom and used to watch the show, but I don't go to conventions or start Internet fights about whether something was a master plan from Princess Celestia or not.

    Which I suppose means I am a brony according to you :-P

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Thu Feb 10 03:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 10:45 pm

    The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to provide equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removing any limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder for various reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others back than improving conditions for those who have less.

    Where you start DOES matter a lot. Removing the roof doesn't mean much if you're competing with people who have leverage over you.

    I really dislike how equity is implemented, but the wealth inequality is too far gone to avoid any sort of distribution/correction now.

    However, now that instead of it being about assets and money, it is now about race and gender, which I think is the elite wanting to divert attention from where the real inequities actually lie.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Wed Feb 9 12:23:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Wed Feb 09 2022 03:20 pm


    I have some MLP plushies in my bedroom and used to watch the show, but I don't go to conventions or start Internet fights about whether something was a master plan from Princess Celestia or not.

    Which I suppose means I am a brony according to you :-P


    what the fuck. i thought i knew you.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Wed Feb 9 10:55:00 2022
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Tue Feb 08 2022 11:15 am

    The wage is based on the supply of potential employees who can perform required labour. Bigger supply of potential employees who can perform t required labour the lower the wage. Conversely the smaller the supply o potential employees who can perform the required labour the higher the This is a universal truth found in all democratic capitalist nations th over.

    Not sure what you are trying to prove, other than that the price of renting a person for a fixed period of time is subject to market
    dynamics.

    You might want to think about what you wrote, because it is an admission that the "price of labour" isn't actually based on the price of the product of labour.

    Which is what I've been arguing all along.


    I don't need to rethink anything. This discussion stemmed from one on minimum wage and then how companies determine what to pay employees. I had disagreed with what you'd said with my supply and demand argument. You said the company you work for and your own business don't follow that and I said I don't believe it, it is a world-wide truth as far as capitalist societies go. So no, it is not what you've been arguing all along. But hey, if you agree with me now I'll take it! ;)
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Thu Feb 10 15:14:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    I don't need to rethink anything. This discussion stemmed from one on minimum wage and then how companies determine what to pay employees. I
    had disagreed with what you'd said with my supply and demand argument.
    You said the company you work for and your own business don't follow
    that and I said I don't believe it, it is a world-wide truth as far as capitalist societies go. So no, it is not what you've been arguing all along. But hey, if you agree with me now I'll take it! ;)

    You are confusing the cost of obtaining labour, with the value of labour. I never argued that labour didn't have a cost, nor have I argued against that cost being supply/demand influenced.

    We are discussing the value of labour, which is what people claim that wages are for.

    Now if you believe that cost and value are the same thing, then theoretically, you can set minimum wage to $50 an hour, and there is no valid argument that this is "too high".

    You can get into a bidding war to rent an office. That may increase your business costs, but it doesn't increase the value of what you get from the building.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Thu Feb 10 19:33:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 10 2022 08:00 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 10:45 pm

    The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to provid equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removing any limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder for vari reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others back t improving conditions for those who have less.

    Where you start DOES matter a lot. Removing the roof doesn't mean much if you're competing with people who have leverage over you.

    I really dislike how equity is implemented, but the wealth inequality is too far gone to avoid any sort of distribution/correction now.

    However, now that instead of it being about assets and money, it is now abou race and gender, which I think is the elite wanting to divert attention from where the real inequities actually lie.

    People ha ve started with less, and in some cases did better than those who
    had more because of where they started. There is a saying that is often attri buted to John F Kennedy, "rising waters lift all yachts." I feel this is
    true to an extent, however I do not believe the way to uplift some you have
    to drown or hold back others. Quota programs in the apst would open doors
    that some wouldn't have opened on their own, but they also left out others tha t studied heard and should have earned a place in a job or institution.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Feb 11 07:30:00 2022
    You are confusing the cost of obtaining labour, with the value of
    labour. I never argued that labour didn't have a cost, nor have I
    argued against that cost being supply/demand influenced.

    Could be. I don't think so, but I'm not inclined to dig through previous posts. But from my perspective we were talking about minimum wages and why they are what they are (supply/demand). Anyway, I guess we agree. ;)
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Sat Feb 12 05:37:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Fri Feb 11 2022 12:33 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 10 2022 08:00 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 10:45 pm

    The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to pro equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removing a limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder for v reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others bac improving conditions for those who have less.

    Where you start DOES matter a lot. Removing the roof doesn't mean much i you're competing with people who have leverage over you.

    I really dislike how equity is implemented, but the wealth inequality is far gone to avoid any sort of distribution/correction now.

    However, now that instead of it being about assets and money, it is now a race and gender, which I think is the elite wanting to divert attention f where the real inequities actually lie.

    People ha ve started with less, and in some cases did better than those who had more because of where they started. There is a saying that is often att buted to John F Kennedy, "rising waters lift all yachts." I feel this is true to an extent, however I do not believe the way to uplift some you have to drown or hold back others. Quota programs in the apst would open doors that some wouldn't have opened on their own, but they also left out others t t studied heard and should have earned a place in a job or institution.


    That would be an exception, not the rule. And I'm not saying this because I'm butthurt or anything, but I know that some luck, being able to obtain an asset inherited early has made a significant different. Much more so than you would have thought.

    That small advantage gives you leverage to a greater advantages, and that gives you more leverage. The system is gamed to reward "investors", definately. I once made a "mistake" by spending thousands of dollars I didn't have to buy investments, and was fined $50 and had to sell them. I sold them making a few thousand in a short period of time, which I could then just reinvest elsewhere.
    Now I think about those who are renting, where the landlord just ups the rent when they've cottoned on that the renter has had a small pay rise

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Sat Feb 12 05:46:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 11 2022 12:30 pm

    You are confusing the cost of obtaining labour, with the value of labour. I never argued that labour didn't have a cost, nor have I argued against that cost being supply/demand influenced.

    Could be. I don't think so, but I'm not inclined to dig through previous pos But from my perspective we were talking about minimum wages and why they are what they are (supply/demand). Anyway, I guess we agree. ;)

    Yes, we do! That is what I consider the problem. The more logical approach is to value the end product. The customers willingness to pay a price for what is produced is the true value of what was done to make it real.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Sun Feb 13 06:14:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Sat Feb 12 2022 10:37 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Fri Feb 11 2022 12:33 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 10 2022 08:00 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 10:45 pm

    The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removin limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder fo reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others improving conditions for those who have less.

    Where you start DOES matter a lot. Removing the roof doesn't mean muc you're competing with people who have leverage over you.

    I really dislike how equity is implemented, but the wealth inequality far gone to avoid any sort of distribution/correction now.

    However, now that instead of it being about assets and money, it is no race and gender, which I think is the elite wanting to divert attentio where the real inequities actually lie.

    People ha ve started with less, and in some cases did better than those w had more because of where they started. There is a saying that is often buted to John F Kennedy, "rising waters lift all yachts." I feel this is true to an extent, however I do not believe the way to uplift some you ha to drown or hold back others. Quota programs in the apst would open door that some wouldn't have opened on their own, but they also left out other t studied heard and should have earned a place in a job or institution.


    That would be an exception, not the rule. And I'm not saying this because I butthurt or anything, but I know that some luck, being able to obtain an ass inherited early has made a significant different. Much more so than you wou have thought.

    That small advantage gives you leverage to a greater advantages, and that gi you more leverage. The system is gamed to reward "investors", definately. once made a "mistake" by spending thousands of dollars I didn't have to buy investments, and was fined $50 and had to sell them. I sold them making a f thousand in a short period of time, which I could then just reinvest elsewhe
    Now I think about those who are renting, where the landlord just ups the re when they've cottoned on that the renter has had a small pay rise


    Another form of leverage that stems from disadvantage is the hunger factor. In general, hungry animals are going to fight harder for their meal than a
    full animal. Those who have rose from the lower ranks have done some by not being happy with what they had, or didn't have much to lose. It is hard to pass that on to a child that has everything they ask for.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From MATTHEW MUNSON@VERT/IUTOPIA to SYS 64738 on Sun Feb 13 15:31:00 2022
    In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so desirable if everyone was a millionaire.
    Yes, each November in California the fast food joints raise prices
    another 5-10% to compensate for the min wage increases. Then I also
    noticed in Feburary prices rose even again likely due to the cost of the commodities.


    ---
    þ wcQWK 8.0 ÷ Inland Utopia * iutopia.duckdns.org:2323
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Mon Feb 14 15:13:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Sun Feb 13 2022 11:14 am

    Another form of leverage that stems from disadvantage is the hunger factor. In general, hungry animals are going to fight harder for their meal than a full animal. Those who have rose from the lower ranks have done some by not being happy with what they had, or didn't have much to lose. It is hard to pass that on to a child that has everything they ask for.

    True, which is why in family businesses they often tend to decline by the third generation, because they've been handed everything to them and become decadent and lazy, taking what they have for granted.

    Part of that is a work ethic. My grandparents were migrants, and there was a strong work ethic, a strong push to study hard and try to achieve your best. In some of the poorer suburbs here in Melbourne, that senes of wanting to be the best you can be, isn't really there.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From SYS64738@VERT/DIBZ to MATTHEW MUNSON on Mon Feb 14 04:05:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: MATTHEW MUNSON to SYS 64738 on Sun Feb 13 2022 20:31:00

    In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so desirable if everyone was a millionaire.
    Yes, each November in California the fast food joints raise prices
    another 5-10% to compensate for the min wage increases. Then I also
    noticed in Feburary prices rose even again likely due to the cost of the commodities.

    Exactly. It's like having a tub of water and trying to transfer water from the left side of the tub to the right side so there is more water on the right. It never works.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ I got DIBZ on it! (dibz.synchro.net)
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Mon Feb 14 06:09:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Mon Feb 14 2022 08:13 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Sun Feb 13 2022 11:14 am

    Another form of leverage that stems from disadvantage is the hunger fact In general, hungry animals are going to fight harder for their meal than full animal. Those who have rose from the lower ranks have done some by being happy with what they had, or didn't have much to lose. It is hard pass that on to a child that has everything they ask for.

    True, which is why in family businesses they often tend to decline by the th generation, because they've been handed everything to them and become decade and lazy, taking what they have for granted.

    Part of that is a work ethic. My grandparents were migrants, and there was strong work ethic, a strong push to study hard and try to achieve your best. In some of the poorer suburbs here in Melbourne, that senes of wanting to be the best you can be, isn't really there.

    Mileage does vary between individuals, however the fact remains success
    stories do happen and it is possible to escape poverty but it requires considerable effort and a plan.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Tue Feb 15 14:58:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Mon Feb 14 2022 11:09 am

    Mileage does vary between individuals, however the fact remains success stories do happen and it is possible to escape poverty but it requires considerable effort and a plan.

    We get a lot of stories here about some teenager or young adult that "made it rich", and almost always, somewhere in there, is some kind of inheritance, or help from their parents. You'll see stories about these kids who have a business, but the business was partly or completely set up for them. Trump himself started with a lot of money from his parents.

    Stories DO happen, but they are the exception, not the rule. Connections matter more than ability.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Feb 15 02:32:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Tue Feb 15 2022 07:58 pm

    it rich", and almost always, somewhere in there, is some kind of inheritance, or help from their parents. You'll see stories about these kids who have a business, but the business was partly or completely set up for them. Trump himself started with a lot of money from his parents.

    well you need money to make money. and trump probably paid it back with interest. it just wasnt probably reported correctly for their own benefit.
    that's how it works.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Tue Feb 15 06:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Tue Feb 15 2022 07:58 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Mon Feb 14 2022 11:09 am

    Mileage does vary between individuals, however the fact remains success stories do happen and it is possible to escape poverty but it requires considerable effort and a plan.

    We get a lot of stories here about some teenager or young adult that "made i rich", and almost always, somewhere in there, is some kind of inheritance, o help from their parents. You'll see stories about these kids who have a business, but the business was partly or completely set up for them. Trump himself started with a lot of money from his parents.

    Stories DO happen, but they are the exception, not the rule. Connections matter more than ability.

    I jhope this isn't going off too far on a tangent. When Olympic athletes, esp ecially medal winners are asked if they are there because of their personal motivation or their athleticism, they'd choose motivation. You can be the
    most dedicated person yet lack the genetic profile that makes a person athletically better at something, but you won't get there. In your example wi th saying it is connections, I think the drive or motivation is a given, and the connections are the icing on the cake.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Wed Feb 16 13:26:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Tue Feb 15 2022 11:36 am

    I jhope this isn't going off too far on a tangent. When Olympic athletes, e ecially medal winners are asked if they are there because of their personal motivation or their athleticism, they'd choose motivation. You can be the most dedicated person yet lack the genetic profile that makes a person athletically better at something, but you won't get there. In your example th saying it is connections, I think the drive or motivation is a given, and the connections are the icing on the cake.

    Yes, the winners of Olympic events must be ones with the athletic ability. If you survey the winners, you've already filtered out those that don't have it.

    Likewise, if you just speak to people that made it, they too will say it is their own effort. It is human nature to want to attribute our own success to something we chose to do, our own values, effort, work, etc.

    My personal experience though, I've dealt with many who have the connections but no drive, no ability, and who were in the position much to the wonder of everyone else. People CLEARLY unfit for the job, but that is how the corporate machine works. I worked for someone who was utterly lazy, their only skill was knowing who to know. I 've worked with others who's only skill was dating a relative of the CEO. The dumbest property developers will get favours in Australia. Some people are just driven to grift and brown-nose.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 00:46:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Wed Feb 16 2022 06:26 pm

    everyone else. People CLEARLY unfit for the job, but that is how the corporate machine works. I worked for someone who was utterly lazy, their only skill was knowing who to know. I 've worked with others who's only skill was dating a relative of the CEO. The dumbest property developers will get favours in Australia. Some people are just driven to grift and brown-nose.


    i worked at a place where there was this lady in her 50s who fucked the bosses. she was totally unfit for the job and stupid. she had an ego trip and would push people around but i think eventually she was warned about that. each guy she fucked and broke up with talked shit about her to everybody. i caught her giving a guy a handjob in the shipping office when she thought everyone went home. she was one of those people who always had a dark tan and her skin was like leather and all wrinkled.

    eventually she worked under and old 'friend' doing a job she didnt know how to do. with her friend she was protected from layoffs.

    i'm glad i left that place.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 11:01:00 2022
    Could be. I don't think so, but I'm not inclined to dig through previou But from my perspective we were talking about minimum wages and why the what they are (supply/demand). Anyway, I guess we agree. ;)

    Yes, we do! That is what I consider the problem. The more logical approach is to value the end product. The customers willingness to pay
    a price for what is produced is the true value of what was done to make
    it real.

    That does exist in many cases as contract work. But I can't see it working in say a fast food restaurant or retail.
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 17:33:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Wed Feb 16 2022 06:26 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Tue Feb 15 2022 11:36 am

    I jhope this isn't going off too far on a tangent. When Olympic athletes ecially medal winners are asked if they are there because of their person motivation or their athleticism, they'd choose motivation. You can be th most dedicated person yet lack the genetic profile that makes a person athletically better at something, but you won't get there. In your examp th saying it is connections, I think the drive or motivation is a given, the connections are the icing on the cake.

    Yes, the winners of Olympic events must be ones with the athletic ability. you survey the winners, you've already filtered out those that don't have it

    Likewise, if you just speak to people that made it, they too will say it is their own effort. It is human nature to want to attribute our own success to something we chose to do, our own values, effort, work, etc.

    My personal experience though, I've dealt with many who have the connections but no drive, no ability, and who were in the position much to the wonder of everyone else. People CLEARLY unfit for the job, but that is how the corpor machine works. I worked for someone who was utterly lazy, their only skill knowing who to know. I 've worked with others who's only skill was dating a relative of the CEO. The dumbest property developers will get favours in Australia. Some people are just driven to grift and brown-nose.


    Idiots exist as long as their idiocy stays within their department. As soon a s HR or business services begin wondering how much this guy is getting and
    paid and try to measure what he does, politics and chronyism can be overruled by profitability.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Wed Feb 16 17:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 05:46 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Wed Feb 16 2022 06:26 pm

    everyone else. People CLEARLY unfit for the job, but that is how the corporate machine works. I worked for someone who was utterly lazy, thei only skill was knowing who to know. I 've worked with others who's only skill was dating a relative of the CEO. The dumbest property developers will get favours in Australia. Some people are just driven to grift and brown-nose.


    i worked at a place where there was this lady in her 50s who fucked the boss ke up with talked shit about her to everybody. i caught her giving a guy a

    eventually she worked under and old 'friend' doing a job she didnt know how

    i'm glad i left that place.

    My brother works for a small company that has a few ladies that play that
    game. The parent company has their spies that look out for dead weight that plays games like that.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Moondog on Wed Feb 16 19:46:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to MRO on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:36 pm

    i'm glad i left that place.

    My brother works for a small company that has a few ladies that play that game. The parent company has their spies that look out for dead weight that plays games like that.

    my old boss actually called me up a week after I left that job.
    they lost some stuff I had prepared for an important shipment.

    It ended up all being her fault. her boss was gone so she was in charge and everything was screwed up.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Thu Feb 17 15:15:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 04:01 pm

    Could be. I don't think so, but I'm not inclined to dig through prev But from my perspective we were talking about minimum wages and why what they are (supply/demand). Anyway, I guess we agree. ;)

    Yes, we do! That is what I consider the problem. The more logical approach is to value the end product. The customers willingness to pay a price for what is produced is the true value of what was done to make it real.

    That does exist in many cases as contract work. But I can't see it working i say a fast food restaurant or retail.

    Pretty easy to figure. You sell 200 pizzas a night at $20 each, you produced $4,000 worth in value. Subtract your liabilities (cost of ingredients, amortised rent, energy, loans) and the residual is the surplus that the people worked to create would distribute as per their agreed contracts. So instead of arguing that labour is worth $X an hour, you just get a share of the surplus. Some might be reinvested, some might be held in reserve, but the left over is theirs (this includes management!)

    If they can't make enough money to support themselves, then the job isn't worth doing.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 15:17:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:33 pm

    Idiots exist as long as their idiocy stays within their department. As soon s HR or business services begin wondering how much this guy is getting and paid and try to measure what he does, politics and chronyism can be overrule by profitability.
    Maybe in a small company, but in a medium to large one, they get lost in the noise. A large company can afford to keep the driftwood.

    Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large companies social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they are thought of well by the right people, then, little else matters.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 01:25:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:33 pm

    Idiots exist as long as their idiocy stays within their department. As soon a s HR or business services begin wondering how much this guy is getting and paid and try to measure what he does, politics and chronyism can be overruled by profitability.

    I have *never* seen it play out that way. He just gets moved over some other team/project under whatever leader was already protecting him.

    The only time people get worked out is when 2+ peers did a good job scapegoating him with why their departments numbers were bad.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Feb 17 12:07:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 2022 08:17 pm

    Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large companies social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they are thought of well by the right people, then, little else matters.

    all of our states are 'at will' states. that means either side can terminate at anytime for any reason except discrimination.
    i thought california had some laws that made it harder to get rid of people, though.

    usually redundant people stick around out of respect of their amount of years put into the company. at my long time job, one guy who was there 50 years almost destroyed the company with a huge mistake that was because of his lazyness. he was forced to retire.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Thu Feb 17 11:10:00 2022
    That does exist in many cases as contract work. But I can't see it work say a fast food restaurant or retail.

    Pretty easy to figure. You sell 200 pizzas a night at $20 each, you produced $4,000 worth in value. Subtract your liabilities (cost of ingredients, amortised rent, energy, loans) and the residual is the surplus that the people worked to create would distribute as per their agreed contracts. So instead of arguing that labour is worth $X an
    hour, you just get a share of the surplus. Some might be reinvested,
    some might be held in reserve, but the left over is theirs (this
    includes management!)

    That's not going to work because the type of people who work these kinds of jobs rely on a regular pay cheque with a steady amount on that cheque every two weeks. This is why entrepreneurs start pizza parlours, bear the burden/risk and then (if their is one) reap the rewards.
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andre on Fri Feb 18 11:21:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andre to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 2022 06:25 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:33 pm

    Idiots exist as long as their idiocy stays within their department. As soon a s HR or business services begin wondering how much this guy is getting and paid and try to measure what he does, politics and chronyis can be overruled by profitability.

    I have *never* seen it play out that way. He just gets moved over some other team/project under whatever leader was already protecting him.

    The only time people get worked out is when 2+ peers did a good job scapegoating him with why their departments numbers were bad.


    - Andre

    I have seen it once, and the person that was dismissed for poor performance wasn't the worst person I've worked with. The real reason was that she was under pressure from upper management to get stuff released, and they were probably not happy with her not rushing as much as she could have.


    Otherwise, for many, they can find a job where their work isn't time critical and just coast.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Fri Feb 18 11:24:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 17 2022 05:07 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 2022 08:17 pm

    Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large companies social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they ar thought of well by the right people, then, little else matters.

    all of our states are 'at will' states. that means either side can terminate anytime for any reason except discrimination.
    i thought california had some laws that made it harder to get rid of people though.

    usually redundant people stick around out of respect of their amount of year put into the company. at my long time job, one guy who was there 50 years almost destroyed the company with a huge mistake that was because of his lazyness. he was forced to retire.

    That "at will" situation kind sounds sucky. It is perhaps a little too hard to dismiss poor performers here (I've seen people hang around for year, THEY decide to leave, and then we find out they literally were responsible for a significant portion of the operation running sub-par, which their managers knew about.)

    But "at will" means any reason. Try proving discrimination. If youre a protected class, black/gay/trans, you've got a shot, but if you're dismissed because you're white or conservative, I would imagine it would be close to impossible to show it is discrimination if the company just never admits it.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Fri Feb 18 11:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Thu Feb 17 2022 04:10 pm

    That's not going to work because the type of people who work these kinds of jobs rely on a regular pay cheque with a steady amount on that cheque every weeks. This is why entrepreneurs start pizza parlours, bear the burden/risk and then (if their is one) reap the rewards.


    Good point. This could be mitigated by loans, which would be the case anyway if it were running at a loss. It is the capital provider which bears the risk.
    This is often, but not always, the entrepreneur. Often entrepreneurs use other peoples money (probaly usually). But if it their own money, they should only incur liabilities they themselves are responsible for. The flaw with the minimum wage here is that you must pay a set amount per person per hour,
    even if they don't end up doing anything. There are multiple people, but one is bearing all the risk.

    Capitalism shouldn't be designed just to keep a wage-class in a type of welfare system. That is what is repellant to me about the whole set up. We should all bear the risks and responsibilities of ALL our economic activities.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Boraxman on Fri Feb 18 01:52:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andre on Fri Feb 18 2022 04:21 pm

    I have seen it once, and the person that was dismissed for poor performance wasn't the worst person I've worked with. The real reason was that she was under pressure from upper management to get stuff released, and they were probably not happy with her not rushing as much as she could have.

    I see that in my current company more than I have in the past. Completely unrealistic forecasts and timelines from near the top that have zero chance of coming true, and everyone just figures out how best to present progress that they know isn't true but won't upset the boss.

    Someone will end up with the blame, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say it isn't the executive.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Boraxman on Fri Feb 18 02:04:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Feb 18 2022 04:24 pm

    That "at will" situation kind sounds sucky.

    I really like it and wish it was that way in more companies. There's a huge difference with how workers in different countries act based on how secure their employment is. I prefer the freedom and chaos that comes with being a bit more of a free market.

    The only thing I really wish was different is some sort of government mandated severence for maybe people under $100k or $150k or something. Like at a certain point, if you've been paid decently, you should have been able to amass an emergency fund. If you keep buying expensive things and living on credit, then you reap what you sow.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Boraxman on Fri Feb 18 03:17:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Feb 18 2022 04:24 pm

    But "at will" means any reason. Try proving discrimination. If youre a protected class, black/gay/trans, you've got a shot, but if you're dismissed because you're white or conservative, I would imagine it would be close to impossible to show it is discrimination if the company just never admits it.

    Being white and/or conservative is not a protected class in US federal law. It's age, pregnancy, origin, race, ethinicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Fri Feb 18 04:40:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 17 2022 05:07 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 2022 08:17 pm

    Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large companies social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they ar thought of well by the right people, then, little else matters.

    all of our states are 'at will' states. that means either side can terminate i thought california had some laws that made it harder to get rid of people

    usually redundant people stick around out of respect of their amount of year retire.

    Yeah, it's hard to get rid of non-performers when the company is doing well. When times are tough, some companies would rather offer incentives for early retirement before voluntary layoffs or terminations when money is tight. I worked for a couple of places where the budget would tip from feast to famine as quick as the wind blew. One week they would be cutting the level of
    buyers in purchasing, then hiring new buyers a month later.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andre on Sat Feb 19 10:08:00 2022
    Andre wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <620F996C.6965.dove-general@bbs.radiomentor.org>
    @REPLY: <620F2D9B.55048.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri
    Feb 18 2022 04:24 pm

    That "at will" situation kind sounds sucky.

    I really like it and wish it was that way in more companies. There's a huge difference with how workers in different countries act based on
    how secure their employment is. I prefer the freedom and chaos that
    comes with being a bit more of a free market.

    The only thing I really wish was different is some sort of government mandated severence for maybe people under $100k or $150k or something. Like at a certain point, if you've been paid decently, you should have been able to amass an emergency fund. If you keep buying expensive
    things and living on credit, then you reap what you sow.


    I don't like chaos, and it is unbecoming of a civilised society. I dont really hold a "free market" as an ideal, as it all too often is used to justify rather unsavoury economic values. besies, no one really believes in true free markets.

    I think at will contracts are wrong because the decision making is done by a few, if not one or two. companies should be democratically run.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andre on Sat Feb 19 10:09:00 2022
    Andre wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <620FAA75.6966.dove-general@bbs.radiomentor.org>
    @REPLY: <620F2D9B.55048.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri
    Feb 18 2022 04:24 pm

    But "at will" means any reason. Try proving discrimination. If youre a protected class, black/gay/trans, you've got a shot, but if you're dismissed because you're white or conservative, I would imagine it would be close to impossible to show it is discrimination if the company just never admits it.

    Being white and/or conservative is not a protected class in US federal law. It's age, pregnancy, origin, race, ethinicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

    The US government seems hostile to the people who founded it.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From IB Joe@VERT/JOESBBS to Boraxman on Sat Feb 19 01:51:00 2022
    On 19 Feb 2022, Boraxman said the following...

    The US government seems hostile to the people who founded it.



    Not the US government, or it's people, it's the Democrats and the Left... I'm not talking about the "Normal" Democrats... Give them a break as they have not figured out that their party has left them... The far left zealots have taken over... Truth be known there people in the US government that will sell out their country for profit, this is a problem on the left and right... The same problem exists in Canada but it's harder to recognize... mainly because he wears Black Face...

    BTW, I voted for the man who gave up profit for his country... I miss the way he says China!!!

    IB Joe
    AKA Joe Schweier
    SysOp of Joe's BBS
    -=JoesBBS.com=-

    ... If at first you don't succeed, blame your parents!
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Boraxman on Sat Feb 19 02:50:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andre on Sat Feb 19 2022 03:09 pm

    The US government seems hostile to the people who founded it.

    White, property-owning males? Naw, we're good. Maybe a little hostile towards Protestants, I suppose.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Moondog on Sat Feb 19 03:48:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to MRO on Fri Feb 18 2022 09:40 am

    terminate i thought california had some laws that made it harder to get rid of people

    usually redundant people stick around out of respect of their amount of year retire.

    Yeah, it's hard to get rid of non-performers when the company is doing well. When times are tough, some companies would rather offer incentives for early retirement before voluntary layoffs or terminations when money is tight. I worked for a couple of places where the budget would tip from feast to famine as quick as the wind blew. One week they would be cutting the level of
    buyers in purchasing, then hiring new buyers a month later.

    oh yeah, i saw all that. that's why i left my company.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBSTEST to BORAXMAN on Sat Feb 19 10:19:00 2022
    When I worked at EDS they used to promote incompetent poeple to get rid of them.



    --- BORAXMAN wrote ---
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:33 pm

    Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just
    let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large
    companies
    social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they are thought
    of
    well by the right people, then, little else matters.

    ---
    Synchronet MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org



    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From ROBERT WOLFE@VERT/OTHETA to ANDRE on Sun Feb 20 04:22:00 2022

    On Feb 18, 2022 08:17am, ANDRE wrote to BORAXMAN:

    Being white and/or conservative is not a protected class in US federal
    law. It's age, pregnancy, origin, race, ethinicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

    However, I think sexual orientation is becoming more and more protected in
    most states whereas gener identity is still fighting an uphill battle, IMO.

    ... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
    ---
    þ wcQWK 8.0 ÷ Omicron Theta * Cordova, TN * winserver.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to IB Joe on Sun Feb 20 17:56:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: IB Joe to Boraxman on Sat Feb 19 2022 06:51 am

    Not the US government, or it's people, it's the Democrats and the Left... I'm not talking about the "Normal" Democrats... Gi
    them a break as they have not figured out that their party has left them... The far left zealots have taken over... Truth b
    known there people in the US government that will sell out their country for profit, this is a problem on the left and right
    The same problem exists in Canada but it's harder to recognize... mainly because he wears Black Face...

    BTW, I voted for the man who gave up profit for his country... I miss the way he says China!!!

    The deep state seems hostile to Americans too, as does a lot of the corporate ruling class. People that will offshore jobs to
    enrich a foriegn people and make their own unemployed are traitors. Governments that seek to change demographics are traitors.
    The American people, as in the West, have tolerated treachery and traitors for too long. We seem, far, far too tolerant of a
    kakistracry.

    BTW, I miss the way he said China too! I think he genuinely did care for the country, but he is a Boomer and was stuck in the
    past in some respects.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andre on Sun Feb 20 17:57:00 2022