What is it with the stay home and not work generation?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
$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.
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 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.
$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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ---
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?
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.
The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient use of human labour.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok so what's your solution?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
Capitalism WAS good, but it stinks now. It absoultely must be reformed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[...] Spain should sit on a sausage and spin. Fuck this
place.
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.
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.
Actually China is a weird monster.
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.
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.
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.
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. ---
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 upOk so what's your solution?
the poor. Howev the reality is that instead of the current minimum wage
|07 HusTler
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 milli
american adults with firearms to defend our land. and most of them will.
china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
Good question.
They keep telling me I would be very successful with Kentucky farmgirls so may
I
should try my luck there :-)
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.
I think China is halfway there, they flood the market with chinese goods like Pork, Electronics etc..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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 won't invade USA. Could they beat you in armed conflict in their region?
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.
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
... 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
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.
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."
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
It is NOTHING like Marxism. Marxism still has system where you hire labour.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Marxism failed for these reasons
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.
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.
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.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
Marxism failed for these reasons
1 through 5. Can't say I disagree with any of that.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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 :-)
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
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.
Nobody thinks of our system as one of buying employees except Marxists
and students easily influenced by their college professors.
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.
Oh its Marxism with lipstick. Marxism is supposed to be the workers
owning the factory together.
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.
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.
Freed to spend money, to develop a product, free to sell it and profit.
Boraxman, you just gave the dictionary definition of Capitalism!
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.
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.
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.
---
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.
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.
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.
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.
Andeddu wrote to Denn <=-
They are in an excellent position to cripple the Western world should
they be so inclined.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :-(
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 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.
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.
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..
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
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..
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.
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.
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.
Right. You are correct, yours is a co-op and the commies are state
owned.
Because it is 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.
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.
Yup. Consumerism of the West. We are our own worst enemies. But this
has nothing to do with capitalism being "bad" or "broken".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting
people) before..
Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
you just need trump with his finger on the button.
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?
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.
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.
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.
If you work with your own capital, your self-employed.
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.
Because it is human nature.There are many things about Capitalism which are modern constructs and
not human nature.
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'.
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.
happen. China doesn't have this power dynamic because they won't go as "Capitalist" as us.
They learned.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
It is supply/demand of money, not property. There is a high supply of
But because property investors have politicians intheir hip pockets here in Australia, our government runs the country for their benefit.
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...
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
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.
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.
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..
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".
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.
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?
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.
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. ---
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Both are responsible and both go to jail.
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'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).
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..."
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.
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?
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.
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
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
I didnt say he would press it. i said his finger would be on the button.
nobody would fuck with trump.
Freedom is the right to that which the law allows. To the vast majority
of people, THAT is the definition of "freedom".
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.
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.
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. 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.
Voluntariness isn't the issue, it is validity of what is being volunteered. You cannot volunteer to do something you cannot actually
do.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
I didnt say he would press it. i said his finger would be on the button.
nobody would fuck with trump.
Agreed.
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.
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.
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."
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".
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.
"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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No. They understand it perfectly well.
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.
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.
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".
"Exchanging the fruits of our labour for other "fruits" of someone else'slabour is human nature and the root of capitalism."
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?
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.
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.
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!"
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
This should actually be a clue. Both originated with similar fundamental assumptions.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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
Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..
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.
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
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.
Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got
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.
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
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!
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 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
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
Still I had a great time.
And I won the game :-)
we need to get that antiwork reddit moderator in here. the 30 year old trans dog walker. this sounds right up sheman's alley.
---
sorry to break this into two messages, if you don't respond in just one,
I 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
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
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.
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.
Most people place "practicality" above all else. Its "practical" to give you your privacy, or just have people tell you how to live.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 :::
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-
It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in part
be borne by an inanimate object.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No way man can do that. We can't stick with a system for a century, a million years?
The only constant is change.
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
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
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".
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.
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.
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?
By the way, some business may sell product at a loss. Does that mean labour has a negative value?
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.
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.
Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour.
That is just not how business works.
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.
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.
renting is for objects.
You can rent a horse.
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.
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.
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.
renting is for objects.
You can rent a horse.
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
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.
Horses have property rights now???renting is for objects.
You can rent a horse.
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.
You can rent a horse.Horses have property rights now???
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.
Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what
few Germans believed in the last century now.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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 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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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
how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons
Because Twilight is the best pony, that is why.
Any more questions?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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! ;)
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.
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.
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.
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. ;)
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!)
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
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'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.
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.
That "at will" situation kind sounds sucky.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The US government seems hostile to the people who founded it.
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.
--- 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
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.
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!!!
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
Not the US government, or it's people, it's the Democrats and the Left... I them a break as they have not figured out that their party has left them... known there people in the US government that will sell out their country fo The same problem exists in Canada but it's harder to recognize... mainly be
BTW, I voted for the man who gave up profit for his country... I miss the w
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 towar
- Andre
@VIA: MSRDBBSAmen brother... a president should love his country and put it first. He also loved the citizens of his country and genuinely tried to better their lives.
@MSGID: <62122C7F.55072.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
@REPLY: <6210F7B7.123304.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
@TZ: 9258
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 the The far left zealots have taken over... Truth b
known there people in the US government that will sell out their countr profit, this is a problem on the left and right
The same problem exists in Canada but it's harder to recognize... mainl because he wears Black Face...
BTW, I voted for the man who gave up profit for his country... I miss t 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.
---
That's not going to work because the type of people who work these kind jobs rely on a regular pay cheque with a steady amount on that cheque e weeks. This is why entrepreneurs start pizza parlours, bear the burden 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.
@VIA: MSRDBBSAmen brother... a president should love his country and put it first. He also
@MSGID: <62122C7F.55072.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
@REPLY: <6210F7B7.123304.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
@TZ: 9258
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 th The far left zealots have taken over... Truth b
known there people in the US government that will sell out their count profit, this is a problem on the left and right
The same problem exists in Canada but it's harder to recognize... main because he wears Black Face...
BTW, I voted for the man who gave up profit for his country... I miss 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.
---
That's not going to work because the type of people who work these kin jobs rely on a regular pay cheque with a steady amount on that cheque weeks. This is why entrepreneurs start pizza parlours, bear the burde 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.
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.
Boraxman wrote to Andre <=-
The US government seems hostile to the people who founded 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.
Someone has probably already pointed out that "white" is a race (caucasian) and thus protected against descrimination. --
Amen brother... a president should love his country and put it first. He also loved the citizens of his country and genuinely tried to better their lives.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
Right. That is "business". If one's business model isn't successful
then the business fails. If it is viable and successful then then ups
and downs are accounted for and even out. Not a flow in minimum wage
per se. The alternative would simply be for regional governments to
allow businesses that are typically wage payers offer an alternative to the perspective employee. It isn't capitalism that is preventing this.
It is lack of demand by citizens of their government for regulatory change.
Look at say Uber (or the "gig economy" in general) where Uber doesn't
pay a wage etc and the driver is not an employee but a private business utilizing Uber services to run their business. The only problem...it
fails and regional governments around the world are starting to dictate
to Uber that their drivers are employees and that they have to be
treated accordingly.
Capitalism is less designed and more of a natural system. Governments
regulate it to prevent abuse of employees. People in minimum-wage jobs
for life aren't there because some "system" has kept them down. The
fact is the world is full of all types of people and not everyone is
able or even willing to rise above any specific level.
The real fight for equality isn't tearing down capitalism to emerge
with some contrived unnatural system. It is decentralized finance and
the battle to prevent it from coming to fruition by the established financial institutions of the world.
When you don't need a bank for "banking" and you don't need a bank for
a loan because the world is one big decentralized financial system,
that is when everyone will have equality of opportunity (equality of outcome = misery for all).
Digital Man wrote to Andre <=-1
@MSGID: <6212C982.123330.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
@REPLY: <620FAA75.6966.dove-general@bbs.radiomentor.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Andre to Boraxman on
Fri Feb 18 2022 08:17 am
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Feb
8 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.
Someone has probably already pointed out that "white" is a race (caucasian) and thus protected against descrimination. --
Boraxman wrote to Andre <=-
The US government seems hostile to the people who founded it.
It's been hostile to the peoples that *built* the country for so long, I suppose it's finally our turn.
Look at say Uber (or the "gig economy" in general) where Uber doesn't pay a wage etc and the driver is not an employee but a private business utilizing Uber services to run their business. The only problem...it fails and regional governments around the world are starting to dictate to Uber that their drivers are employees and that they have to be treated accordingly.
I think Capitalism is preventing this, because 'employment', and the wage-system is a necessary CULTURAL feature of Capitalism. I suspect this is the case because of the automatic push-back I get whenever any alternative to 'wage-pagement' is proposed as a means of exchange between labour and customer.
The "gig economy" is kind of half way there. You're technically not employed, but you're not self-employed either because you're subject to their rules and requirements. It's not simply a matter of paying Uber for use of the app to hook people with you. You're still "Uber" but have no say.
Amen brother... a president should love his country and put it first.
He also loved the citizens of his country and genuinely tried to
better their lives.
Donald Trump considered Americans his subjects and leveraged them for political gain. His word choice, rhetoric, and ability to bring people against their own neighbors solidified this "con". Donald Trump loves profit over people and would walk over anyone getting in his way. You can put a blind eye to it, but the guy is a lying egomaniac.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Sat Feb 19 2022 09:07 am
Boraxman wrote to Andre <=-
The US government seems hostile to the people who founded it.
It's been hostile to the peoples that *built* the country for so long, I suppose it's finally our turn.
who are the people that built the country in your opinion? and why do you thik you are part of that group.
who are the people that built the country in your opinion? and why do you thik you are part of that group.
Certaintly not those that came in yesterday.
It was founded for "our" posterity (I'm not American, so "our" doesn't
Crypto? Agreed that we are under some predatory monetary policy, and
that banks in general are ruining us through cheap credit, but I think
the issue is one of poor or predatory governance, than lack of decentralisation.
I think we are on the same page that having centralised power is not a good thing, but we are using two different solutions. I am looking at decentralising and distributing power and wealth in the economy by empowering labour and productivity over capital holding. Not a complete solution, we still have the Fed to deal with but it would lead to a more equal, and I would say, natural outcome, as gain of wealth becomes more tied with *production* rather than *assets*. This is a major problem, that it is holding assets, moreso than productive activity, which determines how much of socities productive input you can claim as your own.
Denn wrote to Dream Master <=-
Donald Trump considered Americans his subjects and leveraged them for political gain. His word choice, rhetoric, and ability to bring people against their own neighbors solidified this "con". Donald Trump loves profit over people and would walk over anyone getting in his way. You can put a blind eye to it, but the guy is a lying egomaniac.
Uhmmm No, that's just propaganda on your part, but thats pretty much
all you do
Denn wrote to Dream Master <=-
Donald Trump considered Americans his subjects and leveraged them for political gain. His word choice, rhetoric, and ability to bring people against their own neighbors solidified this "con". Donald Trump loves profit over people and would walk over anyone getting in his way. You can put a blind eye to it, but the guy is a lying egomaniac.
Uhmmm No, that's just propaganda on your part, but thats pretty much all you do
Care to disprove him on this tiny little stage of ours?
Donald Trump considered Americans his subjects and leveraged them
Uhmmm No, that's just propaganda on your part, but thats pretty much
all you do
Care to disprove him on this tiny little stage of ours?
Donald Trump considered Americans his subjects and leveraged them
for political gain. His word choice, rhetoric, and ability to
bring people against their own neighbors solidified this "con".
Donald Trump loves profit over people and would walk over anyone
getting in his way. You can put a blind eye to it, but the guy is
a lying egomaniac.
Uhmmm No, that's just propaganda on your part, but thats pretty
much
all you do
Care to disprove him on this tiny little stage of ours?
look at the prosperity of donald trump in office and his dealings with foreign entities and compare him to YOUR president.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Denn on Tue Feb 22 2022 06:36 am
Donald Trump considered Americans his subjects and leveraged them
Uhmmm No, that's just propaganda on your part, but thats pretty much
all you do
Care to disprove him on this tiny little stage of ours?
Trump could have made a lot of money doing what he was doing, he stepped up became President, he could've made a buttload more money.
He's already rich so getting richer wasn't his goal.
He put the Military and the working class as his priority, He exposed the corruption in washington on both sides.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to poindexter FORTRAN on Tue Feb 22 2022 11:10 pm
Donald Trump considered Americans his subjects and leveraged them DM>> for political gain. His word choice, rhetoric, and ability to
bring people against their own neighbors solidified this "con".
Donald Trump loves profit over people and would walk over anyone DM>> getting in his way. You can put a blind eye to it, but the guy is DM>> a lying egomaniac.
Uhmmm No, that's just propaganda on your part, but thats pretty
much
all you do
Care to disprove him on this tiny little stage of ours?
look at the prosperity of donald trump in office and his dealings with foreign entities and compare him to YOUR president.
Dream Master lives in an alternate universe.
Yes Trump made the allied Nations step up and start paying their share for a change.
All Preident poopy pants done so far is drive gas prices up and soaring inflation, oh and the embarassing audience with the pope where he took a holy shit.
Face it Biden is the weakest president in our lifetime, China and Russia see's how weak and compromised he is, Russia is already invading its Neighbor.
who came in yesterday?
It was founded for "our" posterity (I'm not American, so "our" doesn't
our founding fathers created our country, the united states of ameria. thei very ideals have been opposed and circumvented. they were very intelligent went through a ton of bullshit. they knew how trivial popularity and 'news' taints a country.
The issue with your solution is you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to be implying something needs to be forced for this to happen. Forced systems go against human nature and hence they fail. There is nothing stopping what you've described from happening now un-forced. The question is why hasn't i happened? There are certainly enough democracies friendly to new business models. Others may be so heavily regulated that such a model as yours would "illegal" at the moment. But I think there are enough countries where it cou happen if people wanted it to. Clearly enough people don't. I think it again comes down to human nature.
our founding fathers created our country, the united states of ameria. thei very ideals have been opposed and circumvented. they were very intelligent went through a ton of bullshit. they knew how trivial popularity and 'news' taints a country.
They didn't create America so it could just exist as a fungible labour pool for corporatists, or to be just a resource for no one in particular.
this is sounding like antiwork again.
Donald Trump considered Americans his subjects and leveraged them
Uhmmm No, that's just propaganda on your part, but thats pretty
much all you do
Care to disprove him on this tiny little stage of ours?
Trump could have made a lot of money doing what he was doing, he
stepped up became President, he could've made a buttload more money.
He's already rich so getting richer wasn't his goal.
He put the Military and the working class as his priority, He exposed
the corruption in washington on both sides.
he's also done more for black people, people in prison, and animals than any other president for many years.
Donald Trump considered Americans his subjects and leveraged
them for political gain. His word choice, rhetoric, and ability DM>>> to bring people against their own neighbors solidified this
"con". Donald Trump loves profit over people and would walk
over anyone getting in his way. You can put a blind eye to it,
but the guy is a lying egomaniac.
Uhmmm No, that's just propaganda on your part, but thats pretty De>>> much
all you do
Care to disprove him on this tiny little stage of ours?
look at the prosperity of donald trump in office and his dealings
with foreign entities and compare him to YOUR president.
Dream Master lives in an alternate universe.
it seems like any democrat nowadays has his head in the sand.
I'm saying something should be abolished for this to happen, namely the employment contract.
Face it Biden is the weakest president in our lifetime, China and Russia see'
look at the prosperity of donald trump in office and his dealings with foreign entities and compare him to YOUR president.
Trump could have made a lot of money doing what he was doing, he stepped up became President, he could've made a buttload more money.
He's already rich so getting richer wasn't his goal.
He put the Military and the working class as his priority, He exposed the corruption in washington on both sides.
Dream Master lives in an alternate universe.
Yes Trump made the allied Nations step up and start paying their share for a change.
All Preident poopy pants done so far is drive gas prices up and soaring inflation, oh and the embarassing audience with the pope where he took a holy shit.
Face it Biden is the weakest president in our lifetime, China and Russia see's how weak and compromised he is, Russia is already invading its Neighbor.
Looks like China might try to invade Taiwan soon.
he's also done more for black people, people in prison, and animals than any other president for many years.
He is one of many. Donald Trump came off as strong, as he used words that communicated to his followers, but he was weak in policy, communication, and negotiation.
Russia is simply trying to bring back what it lost during the USSRs downfall Ukraine provides the easiest entry point into the West, why not leverage it? Russia knows that America will not put boots on the ground.
he's also done more for black people, people in prison, and animals than any other president for many years.
He's also been a champion of manorities, these people see what Trump has done yet they choose to ignore facts and create a false narrative of the man.
I'm trying to think of one posative thing president poopy pants has done in the last 50 years, He while in the senate hearings used the "N" word, he was friends with KKK Robert Byrd and segregationist George Wallace, He was also a segregationist.
it seems like any democrat nowadays has his head in the sand.
Yes they ignore truth and promote leftist propaganda.
If Joe Biden actually did something good for America I would give praise where praise is due, Unfortunatly we have a President that should be in a nursing home.
legal protection to leave at any time I don't feel comfortable, means I can also be fired without any real legal recourse, and it makes forming unions harder. The only job I ever had with a Union was at the Airport because it was a thing about all Airports. I bet most Docks are the same.
And I do understand that at will employment doesn't negate non-competiton agrements, arbitration agreements, NDAs, Unwarranted Drug Tests, or other nasty nessecities most jobs make you sign.
Dream Master wrote to Denn <=-
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Denn to poindexter FORTRAN on Tue Feb 22 2022 10:43 pm
Trump could have made a lot of money doing what he was doing, he stepped up became President, he could've made a buttload more money.
Donald Trump is the greatest conman ever put into office. He was
a puppet who created a narrative for people like you to easily
follow.
You can keep on believing that financial gain is the
only goal in America, yet in his case, with no divestment of his
assets, he continued to make more money by keeping his properties
under his control and allowing foreign powers to use those same
properties to increase his wealth. (If you need references here,
I'll be happy to provide them.)
He's already rich so getting richer wasn't his goal.
He didn't divest of his business interests. He continued gaining
wealth while in office.
Dream Master wrote to Denn <=-
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Denn to MRO on Tue Feb 22 2022 10:56 pm
Dream Master lives in an alternate universe.
I live in a world of facts, not conjecture.
Yes Trump made the allied Nations step up and start paying their share for a change.
I believe you are referring to the "United Nations". Trump did
nothing for this except communicate the gap in the US's
contribution versus those of other countries. Whether a member
of the UN chooses to pay more is irrelevant, they are still bound
by the UN conventions and charter.
All Preident poopy pants done so far is drive gas prices up and soaring inflation, oh and the embarassing audience with the pope where he took a holy shit.
The US President has no direct control over gas prices.
Policies put in place can create wide deltas in gas prices, but it is the oil cartels that control the output, thus driving gas prices up or down.
Looks like China might try to invade Taiwan soon.
Oh, well.
Face it Biden is the weakest president in our lifetime, China and
Russia see'
Quite possibly ever.
look at the prosperity of donald trump in office and his dealings with
foreign entities and compare him to YOUR president.
You said it right there: "the prosperity of donald trump..." Donald Trump's dealings with foreign entities was lackluster and treasonous at
best. His "hard driving" and "wheeling and dealing" attitude towards foreign powers created more division throughout the world than
unification. He did nothing with China, actually created a greater trade rift between the US and China, and "rewrote" NAFTA creating even greater issues moving commerce between our three nations.
Check your facts.
Trump could have made a lot of money doing what he was doing, he
stepped up became President, he could've made a buttload more money.
Donald Trump is the greatest conman ever put into office. He was a puppet who created a narrative for people like you to easily follow. You can keep on believing that financial gain is the only goal in America, yet in his case, with no divestment of his assets, he continued to make more money by keeping his properties under his control and allowing foreign powers to use those same properties to increase his wealth. (If you need references here, I'll be happy to provide them.)
Dream Master lives in an alternate universe.
I live in a world of facts, not conjecture.
Yes Trump made the allied Nations step up and start paying their share
for a change.
I believe you are referring to the "United Nations". Trump did nothing for this except communicate the gap in the US's contribution versus those of other countries. Whether a member of the UN chooses to pay more is irrelevant, they are still bound by the UN conventions and charter.
All Preident poopy pants done so far is drive gas prices up and
soaring inflation, oh and the embarassing audience with the pope where
he took a holy shit.
The US President has no direct control over gas prices. Policies put in place can create wide deltas in gas prices, but it is the oil cartels that control the output, thus driving gas prices up or down.
Who cares about the Pope.
Face it Biden is the weakest president in our lifetime, China and
Russia see's how weak and compromised he is, Russia is already
invading its Neighbor.
He is one of many. Donald Trump came off as strong, as he used words that communicated to his followers, but he was weak in policy, communication, and negotiation.
Russia is simply trying to bring back what it lost during the USSRs downfall. Ukraine provides the easiest entry point into the West, why not leverage it? Russia knows that America will not put boots on the ground.
Looks like China might try to invade Taiwan soon.
Oh, well.
he's also done more for black people, people in prison, and
animals than any other president for many years.
He's also been a champion of manorities, these people see what Trump
has done yet they choose to ignore facts and create a false narrative
of the man.
I'm trying to think of one posative thing president poopy pants has
done in the last 50 years, He while in the senate hearings used the
"N" word, he was friends with KKK Robert Byrd and segregationist
George Wallace, He was also a segregationist.
the media and everyone political went after donald trump because he's not a member of the good ole boy's club. he may have went to their parties and
it seems like any democrat nowadays has his head in the sand.
Yes they ignore truth and promote leftist propaganda.
If Joe Biden actually did something good for America I would give
praise where praise is due, Unfortunatly we have a President that
should be in a nursing home.
it's sad because this is borderline senior abuse. they use his wife to lead him around when he's lost at places too. it's sad.
All Preident poopy pants done so far is drive gas prices up and
soaring inflation, oh and the embarassing audience with the pope
where he took a holy shit.
The US President has no direct control over gas prices.
Do you honestly believe that? Why have the prices gone up so drastically since Biden became President?
They didn't create America so it could just exist as a fungible labour po for corporatists, or to be just a resource for no one in particular.
this is sounding like antiwork again.
nobody is forcing anybody to work. there's plenty of people that live off of the charity of others. people claim ssi and dont have to work.
i've worked hard all my life. it allows me to buy things on amazon. a lot of things. i have no problem with my life situation.
i'm not out holding a sign and i have good insurance and decent pay.
Ellerman is known (not especially popular) in socialist, marxist, and anarch circles.
I'm saying something should be abolished for this to happen, namely the employment contract.
Maybe this is coming from the fact that the grass looks greener on the other side, but the at will employment laws of Florida, while providing me the leg protection to leave at any time I don't feel comfortable, means I can also b fired without any real legal recourse, and it makes forming unions harder. T only job I ever had with a Union was at the Airport because it was a thing about all Airports. I bet most Docks are the same.
And I do understand that at will employment doesn't negate non-competiton agrements, arbitration agreements, NDAs, Unwarranted Drug Tests, or other na nessecities most jobs make you sign.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dumas Walker to DENN on Wed Feb 23 2022 04:12 pm
Face it Biden is the weakest president in our lifetime, China and
Russia see'
Quite possibly ever.
Most embarassing president ever as well.
the media and everyone political went after donald trump because he's not a member of the good ole boy's club. he may have went to their parties and
He also exposed the coruption in DC and exposed the fake news media for what it has become (a political arm of the Democrat party).
Removing employment doesn't necessarily mean "at will" contracts. You would contract with others to be part of the organisation, and that may very well involve requirements to give you notice before you are voted out, and other protections which mean you're position is not at the whim of one person.
You guys should really take this over to Debate, so the rest of us don't have to listen to a bunch of rocket scientists curse each other out over something that you powerless nobodies have *any* impact over.
that sounds really shitty and i don't think it could be effective or even implimented. ---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
@VIA: BBSESINF
@MSGID: <621777E2.8464.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <62174DC3.55133.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
@TZ: 4168
Re: Re: The stay home and not
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Vlk-451 at Whenever, I dono man.
Removing employment doesn't necessarily mean "at will" contracts. You would contract with others to be part of the organisation, and that may very well involve requirements to give you notice before you are voted out, and other protections which mean you're position is not at the whim of one person.
I'm saying something should be abolished for this to happen, namely the employment contract. By the way, this isn't really my view, people who have thought about this far more than I have, have advocated this model. David Ellerman writes about this in "Property and Contract", a freely available book. There are very few books I can say that utterly changed my worldview when I read them, and that was one. Once I read it, the argument seemed logical and sound. The contract we consider valid,
where someone "sells their labour" isn't actually one which can be fulfilled, and is therefore fraudulent.
We also abolished slavery. This isn't "forcing" people to not be
slaves, it is a change in law which recognised that a contract of
slavery is not a legitimate contract. You could sign a contract to be
my slave, but it will not be honored in a court of law. We don't
consider slavery a valid state, because even as a slave, you are still exercising your own labour and your own mind.
What this is about is not a new economic model, not at all. Economic models must be "forced", like how taxation is "forced". Universal self-employment is people voluntarily engaging in trade and group membership, being responsible for their own labour, their own
consumption and consenting and agreeing to how the product of their
labour is used.
I think this is more 'natural' than what we have now. It seems more in tune with human nature that we work together, and that those that
produce pay their debts for what they use, and decide how to dispose, trade or consume their end product. This seem far more natural than
say, a tribe working to produce goods, but not having any say because so one on another island is claiming they "own the means of production" and therefore claiming that everything produced by these people is his.
That person may own the land and rightfully claim a tribute, that seems natural, but owning the "means of production", that is a modern
invention supported by a structure of property laws.
Andre wrote to All <=-
You guys should really take this over to Debate, so the rest of us
don't have to listen to a bunch of rocket scientists curse each other
out over something that you powerless nobodies have *any* impact over.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Vlk-451 on Thu Feb 24 2022 20:20:03
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Vlk-451 at Whenever, I dono man.
Removing employment doesn't necessarily mean "at will" contracts. You would contract with others to be part of the organisation, and that may very well involve requirements to give you notice before you are voted out, and other protections which mean you're position is not at the whim of one person.
I know this was meant to be read as "You can't just be fired by one person." but somehow you made it sound so spooky that all I could imagine was Waco or some cult shit that's all like "No, you are not permitted to leave the satanic polyamorous goat sacrifice unless the 3 high counicl members permit your absence, petulant child."
Andre wrote to All <=-
You guys should really take this over to Debate, so the rest of us
don't have to listen to a bunch of rocket scientists curse each
other out over something that you powerless nobodies have *any*
impact over.
Seconded.
Never going to happen, we tried it already and it comes back here everytime.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Vlk-451 on Thu Feb 24 2022 20:20:03
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Vlk-451 at Whenever, I dono man.
Removing employment doesn't necessarily mean "at will" contracts. You wo contract with others to be part of the organisation, and that may very we involve requirements to give you notice before you are voted out, and oth protections which mean you're position is not at the whim of one person.
I know this was meant to be read as "You can't just be fired by one person." but somehow you made it sound so spooky that all I could imagine was Waco or some cult shit that's all like "No, you are not permitted to leave the satan polyamorous goat sacrifice unless the 3 high counicl members permit your absence, petulant child."
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <621806EE.123397.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
The thing is to "abolish" something you have to outlaw it. And when something is outlawed it is done so with the force of law, and behind
the force of law is actual physical force. Not cool.
Not a valid comparison at all. Being an employee is not the same thing
in any way as being a slave.
This is why the roots of capitalism is natural and not forced.
Universal self-employment isn't natural. But it is free to exist on its own. The fact you believe something else has to be abolished by force
in order for universal self-employment to exist demonstrates it isn't natural.
That's not how it works. That's the, excuse me, warped view that the
book you read came up with. The book is wrong. Dead wrong. But we've
been down that discussion already lol.
MRO wrote to Vlk-451 <=-
@MSGID: <62184298.8469.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <6217B47D.6985.dove-general@midnightlounge.online>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Vlk-451 to Boraxman on Thu Feb 24 2022 10:38 am
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Vlk-451 on Thu Feb 24 2022 20:20:03
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Vlk-451 at Whenever, I dono man.
Removing employment doesn't necessarily mean "at will" contracts. You would contract with others to be part of the organisation, and that may very well involve requirements to give you notice before you are voted out, and other protections which mean you're position is not at the whim of one person.
I know this was meant to be read as "You can't just be fired by one person." but somehow you made it sound so spooky that all I could imagine was Waco or some cult shit that's all like "No, you are not permitted to leave the satanic polyamorous goat sacrifice unless the 3 high counicl members permit your absence, petulant child."
yeah i dont want to be in a survivor style employment where we have
group voting on who to keep. i dont want to contract with others. and
if you're going to be fired, you probably know it. even if it's not
your fault, you probably know it or you're just stupid. ---
--- POINDEXTER FORTRAN wrote ---
Andre wrote to All <=-
You guys should really take this over to Debate, so the rest of usother
don't have to listen to a bunch of rocket scientists curse each
out over something that you powerless nobodies have *any* impactover.
Seconded.
your fault, you probably know it or you're just stupid. ---
So "at will" employment is better? I'm honestly confused. The ONLY people I've worked with, who would have been pushed out by popular opinion, were genuinely not worthy of their positions in the first place. But then, if the company is a bunch of vindictive snipes, then why would you want to work there in the first place?
--- POINDEXTER FORTRAN wrote ---
Andre wrote to All <=-
You guys should really take this over to Debate, so the rest of us don't have to listen to a bunch of rocket scientists curse eachother
out over something that you powerless nobodies have *any* impactover.
Seconded.
Thirded. I mean, I'm a socialist liberal idiot, right? I might even participate if it moved over there.
Never going to happen, we tried it already and it comes back here
everytime.
No, discussions happen here every time. Then about 3-4 of you start being nasty and profane and find some way to make every topic about Trump/Biden because you can't hold a normal discussion.
You guys should really take this over to Debate, so the rest of usother
don't have to listen to a bunch of rocket scientists curse each
out over something that you powerless nobodies have *any* impactover.
Seconded.
Thirded. I mean, I'm a socialist liberal idiot, right? I might even participate if it moved over there.
This is an open topic board all topics are welcome here.
pretty much no msg sub on dovenet has people that obey the subject. except ma
e the audio one and the hobby one.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Denn to the doctor on Fri Feb 25 2022 12:35 pm
This is an open topic board all topics are welcome here.
Again, it's not the topics that people are talking about. It's that they all devolve into just a few of you being dicks to each other and breaking rules and #2 nonstop.
- Andre
I just sit back and eat the popcorn.
Obviously I think it is better form to place Debatable topics in Debate, but having General be the mixed bag of off-topics is not that bad IMO.
Usually I agree. We're all fairly pecular, and sometimes interesting, characters.
Most old-school techies, anyone between 40 and 60, are quite peculiar. We are
ery set in our ways and don't like change. When we get stuck on a topic, we t
d to not move on from it.
I cannot prove it, but I suspect we are peculiar and don't like change because we came up in our hobby/profession working with systems where things like security were paramount.
The world of mobile apps, and what some users are willing to give up to use them, seems to go very much against what we learned on the way.
This is an open topic board all topics are welcome here.
Again, it's not the topics that people are talking about. It's that they all devolve into just a few of you being dicks to each other and breaking rules and #2 nonstop.
I just sit back and eat the popcorn.
Obviously I think it is better form to place Debatable topics in Debate, but having General be the mixed bag of off-topics is not that bad IMO.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dumas Walker to DREAM MASTER on Sat Feb 26 2022 10:38 am
I cannot prove it, but I suspect we are peculiar and don't like change because we came up in our hobby/profession working with systems where things like security were paramount.
The world of mobile apps, and what some users are willing to give up to use them, seems to go very much against what we learned on the way.
In a way though, it seems the opposite is true too - At least for personal computing, it seems like there's more focus on security today than there use to be. In the 80s and 90s, operating systems like DOS and earlier versions Windows were single-user operating systems and didn't even need any sort of user account or password to get into. Other computers were similar - You'd just turn them on and use the OS without any sort of user account at all. I remember when Windows 95 came out and it had a user login but that could be easily bypassed (which seemed a bit hilarious). I seem to also remember Windows 95 and 98 storing some user data (such as IE bookmarks) somewhere common rather than a user directory.
Nowdays, operating systems for personal computers all require a user account and password to get into. Also, on smartphones (at least for Android), late I've been seeing more and more apps ask if you want to use your fingerprint identification for something more secure than a password.
People may be focusing less on security in some ways, but at the same time i seems like there is more focus on security in other ways.
Nightfox
This is an open topic board all topics are welcome here.
Again, it's not the topics that people are talking about. It's that
they all devolve into just a few of you being dicks to each other
and breaking rules and #2 nonstop.
I just sit back and eat the popcorn.
Obviously I think it is better form to place Debatable topics in
Debate, but having General be the mixed bag of off-topics is not that
bad IMO.
I can't say much because I was one of those "dicks" back in the day. So much pent-up teen angst that I wasn't very good at managing or redirecting to a meaningful purpose. In fact, to say I was a "dick" at that time is a colossal understatement that I'm rather ashamed to admit.
IMO the most effective way to handle these keyboard kommandos that automagically find bravery hiding behind their computer screens is to take a tactical approach outlined in these steps:
1. Ignore them.
2. Should they slander or defame you, then go get a lawyer if you want to shut them up.
I guarantee, all it will take is one good legal ruling and suance leveled against one of these guys getting their ass handed to them to quiet down the rhetoric for a while.
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers lined up
waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
I guarantee, all it will take is one good legal ruling and suance leveled against one of these guys getting their ass handed to them to quiet down the rhetoric for a while.
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Nightfox wrote to Andre <=-
Unfortunately, they'll probably say any discussion topic is allowed in 'General'..
Boraxman wrote to Vlk-451 <=-
some cult shit that's all like "No, you are not permitted to leave the satan polyamorous goat sacrifice unless the 3 high counicl members permit your absence, petulant child."
You know, some people do get into contracts like that.
Your old DOS machine would have no password or user account, but chances were it didn't connect to the outside world and, if it did, it did not leak your information unless explicitly instructed to do so. The rest of the time it stood at home where only you could access it.
Your smartphone may have fingerprint unlocking and face recognition and a thousand PINs, but it is designed to store all your information within servers
operated by third parties.
It looks to me like smartphone and modern OS developers want to secure OS access in order to ensure they are the only ones gaining access to the user's data.
pretty much no msg sub on dovenet has people that obey the subject.
except ma
e the audio one and the hobby one.
The Synchronet related ones used to. Then someone started posting their general chat stuff in those echos because people were "too mean" in this one.
IMO the most effective way to handle these keyboard kommandos that automagically find bravery hiding behind their computer screens is to take a tactical approach outlined in these steps:
1. Ignore them.
2. Should they slander or defame you, then go get a lawyer if you want to shut them up.
I guarantee, all it will take is one good legal ruling and suance leveled against one of these guys getting their ass handed to them to quiet down the rhetoric for a while.
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Denn to SYS64738 on Sun Feb 27 2022 12:06 am
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers lined up
waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Lawyers will line up just fine for anyone willing to pay the $$$ for them to act.
Mewcenary.
to quiet down the rhetoric for a while.
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Throw caution to the wind at your own peril.
I'm living proof. It happened to me. Broke me of that bad habit too.
Nightfox wrote to Andre <=-
Unfortunately, they'll probably say any discussion topic is allowed in 'General'..
And claim their first amendment rights are being trod upon. I've been trying to keep things civil and organized for 30 years now, you think I'd have learned by now.
Dumas Walker wrote to DREAM MASTER <=-
I cannot prove it, but I suspect we are peculiar and don't like change because we came up in our hobby/profession working with systems where things like security were paramount.
The world of mobile apps, and what some users are willing to give up to use them, seems to go very much against what we learned on the way.
The thing is to "abolish" something you have to outlaw it. And when something is outlawed it is done so with the force of law, and behind the force of law is actual physical force. Not cool.
You are against laws?
This is why the roots of capitalism is natural and not forced. Universal self-employment isn't natural. But it is free to exist on i own. The fact you believe something else has to be abolished by force in order for universal self-employment to exist demonstrates it isn't natural.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I simply do not
consider the state natural, and there isn't an anthropological corollary which backs it up. Perhaps many are USED to it. But being used to something doesn't mean it is natural. People got used to Communism and slavery too.
Yes, we have, and the argument could be settled with anthropological evidence, or a line of reasoning whereby individual property rights and self-governance leads to our current system. I think the problem is
that people assume that our system is "Capitalism", i.e., fleshed out
from basic principles, when historically, it has NOT been. We have incremental change based on a multitude of reforms.
No offence, but I think this discussion has run its course as we are talking past each other. One either believes that we have reached the pinnacale of human development and political and economic evolution, or that we are still on that journey and need to keep adapting.
I believe the latter, but many don't.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dumas Walker to DREAM MASTER on Sat Feb 26 2022 10:38 am
I cannot prove it, but I suspect we are peculiar and don't like change because we came up in our hobby/profession working with systems where things like security were paramount.
The world of mobile apps, and what some users are willing to give up to use them, seems to go very much against what we learned on the way.
In a way though, it seems the opposite is true too - At least for personal c er operating systems and didn't even need any sort of user account or passwo user login but that could be easily bypassed (which seemed a bit hilarious).
Nowdays, operating systems for personal computers all require a user account
something more secure than a password.
People may be focusing less on security in some ways, but at the same time i
Nightfox
With the invention of always on internet access, people gave up security for accessability. Computers were not secure in the past. They were only secure becasue of limitations in how the operating system communicated with each other. If i was connected directly with a BBS through a phone line, the chances of someone under the government level listening in was null. If I did n't leave my modem to pick up calls, not one could sneak in. it was even harder when the phone cable was unplugged.
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
You know, some people do get into contracts like that.
Happens often out here, in Silicon Valley. Indian programmers and DBAs want to work in the US, find a consulting firm in India who promises them work and housing with the intention of staying in America. The consulting firm owns their H1B visa, shipping the guys out here and paying them a fraction of their earnings - while forcing them to pay back their H1B fees.
I've known guys we're paying market rate salaries to their firm and they're living 4 to a garage provided by the company and barely getting by.
I turn my PC off when I'm not using it though, so it's still not connected a the time (no reason to keep consuming electricity if I'm not using it). If had a tablet, I'd also turn it off when I'm not using it for the same reason think smartphones are another matter though.. I tend to leave my phone on a the time, and it's always connected to the internet.
Nightfox
Dumas Walker wrote to DREAM MASTER <=-
I cannot prove it, but I suspect we are peculiar and don't like
change
because we came up in our hobby/profession working with systems where things like security were paramount.
I grew up in a world where people allowed open SMTP servers and video conferencing units as a professional courtesy. Security came later when the marketers and carpet-baggers came along.
A place where you could allow open access to a folder and not have a
nitwit
delete everything by dropping when he/she should have dragged.
With the invention of always on internet access, people gave up security for accessability. Computers were not secure in the past. They were only secure becasue of limitations in how the operating system communicated with each other. If i was connected directly with a BBS through a phone line, the chances of someone under the government level listening in was null. If I did n't leave my modem to pick up calls, not one could sneak in. it was even harder when the phone cable was unplugged.
I turn my PC off when I'm not using it though, so it's still not connected all the time (no reason to keep consuming electricity if I'm not using it). If I had a tablet, I'd also turn it off when I'm not using it for the same
reason. I think smartphones are another matter though.. I tend to leave my phone on all the time, and it's always connected to the internet.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Denn to SYS64738 on Sun Feb 27 2022 12:06 am
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Several years ago, someone on Dove-Net talked about getting a lawyer to sue MRO for online slander, and I remember MRO saying he did get sued.
There's a company I worked at which employed a lot of people from overseas, and I remember seeing an article about said company in the local newspaper online where people were commenting about how they'd sponsor many of them for H1B visas rather than hiring local talent (though, I suppose to be fair, perhaps there isn't enough local talent available).
I just turn everything off when I am not using it. I even turn off most phones dufing lunch or diner time because I don't want to get interrupted unless something serious is happening.
The idea that everybody must be reachable 24/7 is disturbing.
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers
lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Lawyers will line up just fine for anyone willing to pay the $$$ for them to act.
I guarantee, all it will take is one good legal ruling and suance
leveled against one of these guys getting their ass handed to them
to quiet down the rhetoric for a while.
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers
lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Throw caution to the wind at your own peril.
Unfortunately, they'll probably say any discussion topic is allowed
in 'General'..
And claim their first amendment rights are being trod upon. I've been trying to keep things civil and organized for 30 years now, you think I'd have learned by now.
IMO the most effective way to handle these keyboard kommandos that
automagically find bravery hiding behind their computer screens is to
take a tactical approach outlined in these steps:
1. Ignore them.
2. Should they slander or defame you, then go get a lawyer if you want
to shut them up.
oh god i love it when people threaten me with legal action. gives me a huge boner.
I guarantee, all it will take is one good legal ruling and suance
leveled against one of these guys getting their ass handed to them to
quiet down the rhetoric for a while.
home visit. then they see i am the same dude in person as i am online.
i almost did that with evan elias and dude shit his pants.
he was making up lies saying i was giving people viruses.
this is when all my src was viewable.
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers
lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
yeah the person going to court will waste their money and everyone will get a good chuckle.
"someone said something mean to me on the internet!!!!"
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers
lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Several years ago, someone on Dove-Net talked about getting a lawyer to sue MRO for online slander, and I remember MRO saying he did get sued.
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are
Lawyers lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Several years ago, someone on Dove-Net talked about getting a lawyer
to sue MRO for online slander, and I remember MRO saying he did get
sued.
you have a problem with your memory again.
I just turn everything off when I am not using it. I even turn off most phones
dufing lunch or diner time because I don't want to get interrupted unless something serious is happening.
The idea that everybody must be reachable 24/7 is disturbing.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Arelor to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 2022 06:26 pm
I just turn everything off when I am not using it. I even turn off most phones
dufing lunch or diner time because I don't want to get interrupted unle something serious is happening.
The idea that everybody must be reachable 24/7 is disturbing.
This is an important lesson in the Social Media World [TM].
The Apps are designed to 'ping' you for notification to suit _their_ needs (i.e. keep you engaged with their App), not yours. Which is why, by default you'll get notifications like, "Hey, someone you vaguely know is posting abo BBS Doors!"
You can turn all that stuff off. But it's still there to suck people in.
Mewcenary.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <621B9548.50705.dove.dove-gen@realitycheckbbs.org>
@REPLY: <62189723.55154.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Boraxman wrote to Vlk-451 <=-
You know, some people do get into contracts like that.
Happens often out here, in Silicon Valley. Indian programmers and DBAs want to work in the US, find a consulting firm in India who promises
them work and housing with the intention of staying in America. The consulting firm owns their H1B visa, shipping the guys out here and
paying them a fraction of their earnings - while forcing them to pay
back their H1B fees.
I've known guys we're paying market rate salaries to their firm and they're living 4 to a garage provided by the company and barely getting by.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <621BD146.123453.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
The thing is to "abolish" something you have to outlaw it. And when something is outlawed it is done so with the force of law, and behind the force of law is actual physical force. Not cool.
You are against laws?
Some laws, absolutely!
This is why the roots of capitalism is natural and not forced. Universal self-employment isn't natural. But it is free to exist on i own. The fact you believe something else has to be abolished by force in order for universal self-employment to exist demonstrates it isn't natural.
Sure there is. Societies round the world most often (no always) revert
to a form of capitalism when there is nothing else (i.e. no central government forcing some other system). People didn't get used to communism and slavery. They suffered under it until the former failed
and the latter ended (well, in the West anyway).
That's just semantics. Like when a Western Marxists says (insert real world example here) "that's not real Marxism" after you've pointed out every failure of that particular system known to mankind.
None taken. Bit of a false dichotomy there. There is also refinement,
as society and technology evolves. There is also reform where some capitalist societies need it.
I agree, you stand mostly alone in that regard. Most don't want adaptations, they falsely believe Marxism "just hasn't been done right" because their Uni professors told them so. I also believe that saying:
Hard times produce hard men,
Hard men create good times,
Good times produce soft men,
Soft men create hard times.
is true and we're in the soft men creating hard times phase. Youth who don't actually know inequality, hard economic times, inflation,
suffering etc are convinced capitalism and democracy are bad/evil and
need to be changed into "democratic socialism" or even outright
Marxism. These types are the largest group who want to move away from capitalism.
Throw caution to the wind at your own peril.
1st off there has to be slander and that has not happened here.
2nd only an Idiot would waste time and money to pursue a fradulent case loke that.
3rd If someone is that stupid I would counter sue and win.
he was making up lies saying i was giving people viruses.
this is when all my src was viewable.
These people that try to shut everyone up with dumb ass threats are probably Democrat's they only believe in thier right to free speech not ours, They're hypocrites.
so here's a salute to them .i..
yeah the person going to court will waste their money and everyone will get a good chuckle.
and they would pay all court fee's all Attorney fees and thousands for wasting my time.
"someone said something mean to me on the internet!!!!"
Lol, Same thing the Democrats and Rino's said about Trump's tweets.
lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Several years ago, someone on Dove-Net talked about getting a lawyer to sue MRO for online slander, and I remember MRO saying he did get sued.
I'm sure Mro won any lawsuit leveled against him for slander on a BBS.
you have a problem with your memory again.
Lol go figure he had a huge brain fart.
I've known guys we're paying market rate salaries to their firm and they're living 4 to a garage provided by the company and barely getting by.
Doesn't really match the "you are paid what the value of your work is" narrative, does it?
he was making up lies saying i was giving people viruses.
this is when all my src was viewable.
These people that try to shut everyone up with dumb ass threats are
probably Democrat's they only believe in thier right to free speech
not ours, They're hypocrites.
so here's a salute to them .i..
if someone would mess with me, i would kick their ass. i always get accused of being a keyboard warrior or whatever. i'm not a bad person or w
yeah the person going to court will waste their money and everyone
will get a good chuckle.
and they would pay all court fee's all Attorney fees and thousands for
wasting my time.
"someone said something mean to me on the internet!!!!"
Lol, Same thing the Democrats and Rino's said about Trump's tweets.
they would probably be better off as being a police harasser. as in they call the police on people and police are obligated to investigate it. i dont mean swatting, which is now a big crime where the person can get decent jailtime if caught.
you have a problem with your memory again.
Lol go figure he had a huge brain fart.
i've never been sued or had to sue someone. also i've always paid my bills on time and never been evicted. whats sad is there's a lot of people that
That is nature. Coyotes feed on an over population of rabbits, reproduceThe thing is to "abolish" something you have to outlaw it. And whe something is outlawed it is done so with the force of law, and beh the force of law is actual physical force. Not cool.
You are against laws?
Some laws, absolutely!
This is why the roots of capitalism is natural and not forced. Universal self-employment isn't natural. But it is free to exist o own. The fact you believe something else has to be abolished by fo in order for universal self-employment to exist demonstrates it is natural.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I simply do not consider the state natural, and there isn't an anthropological corollar which backs it up. Perhaps many are USED to it. But being used to something doesn't mean it is natural. People got used to Communism and slavery too.
Sure there is. Societies round the world most often (no always) revert to a il the former failed and the latter ended (well, in the West anyway).
Yes, we have, and the argument could be settled with anthropological evidence, or a line of reasoning whereby individual property rights and self-governance leads to our current system. I think the problem is that people assume that our system is "Capitalism", i.e., fleshed out from basic principles, when historically, it has NOT been. We have incremental change based on a multitude of reforms.
That's just semantics. Like when a Western Marxists says (insert real world
No offence, but I think this discussion has run its course as we are talking past each other. One either believes that we have reached the pinnacale of human development and political and economic evolution, or that we are still on that journey and need to keep adapting.
None taken. Bit of a false dichotomy there. There is also refinement, as soc
I believe the latter, but many don't.
I agree, you stand mostly alone in that regard. Most don't want adaptations,
Hard times produce hard men,
Hard men create good times,
Good times produce soft men,
Soft men create hard times.
is true and we're in the soft men creating hard times phase. Youth who don't
even outright Marxism. These types are the largest group who want to move
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 2022 11:43 am
With the invention of always on internet access, people gave up securit for accessability. Computers were not secure in the past. They were onl secure becasue of limitations in how the operating system communicated with each other. If i was connected directly with a BBS through a phone line, the chances of someone under the government level listening in wa null. If I did n't leave my modem to pick up calls, not one could sneak in. it was even harder when the phone cable was unplugged.
I turn my PC off when I'm not using it though, so it's still not connected a
are another matter though.. I tend to leave my phone on all the time, and
Nightfox
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Nightfox to Moondog on Sun Feb 27 2022 03:21 pm
I turn my PC off when I'm not using it though, so it's still not connecte the time (no reason to keep consuming electricity if I'm not using it). had a tablet, I'd also turn it off when I'm not using it for the same rea think smartphones are another matter though.. I tend to leave my phone o the time, and it's always connected to the internet.
Nightfox
I just turn everything off when I am not using it. I even turn off most phon dufing lunch or diner time because I don't want to get interrupted unless something serious is happening.
The idea that everybody must be reachable 24/7 is disturbing.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 2022 11:43 am
With the invention of always on internet access, people gave up security accessability. Computers were not secure in the past. They were only secure becasue of limitations in how the operating system communicated wi each other. If i was connected directly with a BBS through a phone line, the chances of someone under the government level listening in was null. I did n't leave my modem to pick up calls, not one could sneak in. it wa even harder when the phone cable was unplugged.
yeah, but even then, they had their ways. they could sit outside your house kinds of shit, though.
we've never really had security. only an illusion of security.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Nightfox to Moondog on Sun Feb 27 2022 03:21 pm
I turn my PC off when I'm not using it though, so it's still not connecte all the time (no reason to keep consuming electricity if I'm not using it If I had a tablet, I'd also turn it off when I'm not using it for the sam
i keep my computer on all the time. i'm worried that someday i'll turn it o and then it wont start up.
reason. I think smartphones are another matter though.. I tend to leave phone on all the time, and it's always connected to the internet.
yeah our listening devices are always on. just recently at work i was talki
The world of mobile apps, and what some users are willing to give up to use them, seems to go very much against what we learned on the way.
That is a weird one. I saw an interesting app called Rhubarb that used "ai" to custom-tailor a resume to a job posting. All it needed to do was have access to anything you entered into any web page. But, it's FrEE!
I put my pc's in suspend/ sleep mode to save power and to save time when resuming.
I put my pc's in suspend/ sleep mode to save power and to save time when resuming.
The world of mobile apps, and what some users are willing to give up use them, seems to go very much against what we learned on the way.
That is a weird one. I saw an interesting app called Rhubarb that used "ai to custom-tailor a resume to a job posting. All it needed to do was have access to anything you entered into any web page. But, it's FrEE!
Hey, where can I use that?!? LOL.
Aps that can do that can also craft fake identities based on your information.
* SLMR 2.1a * Once again, Odo wins the Twister championship.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Nightfox on Mon Feb 28 2022 12:28 pm
I put my pc's in suspend/ sleep mode to save power and to save time when resuming.
I don't think I have anything set to powersaving mode. Even the servers in
Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS
My main desktop is the biggest enrgy fiend, and gets put
to sleep when not in use.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Denn to the doctor on Fri Feb 25 2022 12:35 pm
This is an open topic board all topics are welcome here.
Again, it's not the topics that people are talking about. It's that they all devolve into just a few of you being dicks to each other and breaking rules #1 and #2 nonstop.
- Andre
The Synchronet related ones used to. Then someone started posting their general chat stuff in those echos because people were "too mean" in this one.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Andre to Arelor on Fri Feb 25 2022 07:14 pm
Usually I agree. We're all fairly pecular, and sometimes interesting, characters.
Most old-school techies, anyone between 40 and 60, are quite peculiar. We are very set in our ways and don't like change. When we get stuck on a topic, we tend to not move on from it.
Then again, debate should be in debate. :)
Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Arelor to Andre on Fri Feb 25 2022 17:16:03
This is an open topic board all topics are welcome here.
Again, it's not the topics that people are talking about. It's that they all devolve into just a few of you being dicks to each other and breaking rules and #2 nonstop.
I just sit back and eat the popcorn.
Obviously I think it is better form to place Debatable topics in Debate, but having General be the mixed bag of off-topics is not that bad IMO.
I can't say much because I was one of those "dicks" back in the day. So much pent-up teen angst that I wasn't very good at managing or redirecting to a meaningful purpose. In fact, to say I was a "dick" at that time is a colossal understatement that I'm rather ashamed to admit.
IMO the most effective way to handle these keyboard kommandos that automagically find bravery hiding behind their computer screens is to take a tactical approach outlined in these steps:
1. Ignore them.
2. Should they slander or defame you, then go get a lawyer if you want to shut them up.
I guarantee, all it will take is one good legal ruling and suance leveled against one of these guys getting their ass handed to them to quiet down the rhetoric for a while.
2. Should they slander or defame you, then go get a lawyer if you want to shut them up.
I guarantee, all it will take is one good legal ruling and suance leveled against one of these guys getting their ass handed to them to quiet down the rhetoric for a while.
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Denn to SYS64738 on Sun Feb 27 2022 00:06:30
I guarantee, all it will take is one good legal ruling and suance leveled against one of these guys getting their ass handed to them to quiet down the rhetoric for a while.
Oh yes get a Lawyer and sue for slander, I'm sure there are Lawyers lined up waiting to take a slander case on a BBS forum.
Throw caution to the wind at your own peril.
I'm living proof. It happened to me. Broke me of that bad habit too.
Nightfox wrote to Andre <=-
Unfortunately, they'll probably say any discussion topic is allowed in 'General'..
And claim their first amendment rights are being trod upon. I've been trying to keep things civil and organized for 30 years now, you think I'd have learned by now.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Dream Master on Tue Mar 01 2022 02:21 pm
My main desktop is the biggest enrgy fiend, and gets put
to sleep when not in use.
Why not shut down entirely, or perhaps hibernated? That would use even less
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Dream Master on Tue Mar 01 2022 02:21 pm
My main desktop is the biggest enrgy fiend, and gets put
to sleep when not in use.
Why not shut down entirely, or perhaps hibernated? That would use even less power than sleep mode.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Fri Feb 25 2022 07:09:00
Nightfox wrote to Andre <=-
Unfortunately, they'll probably say any discussion topic is allowed in 'General'..
And claim their first amendment rights are being trod upon. I've been trying to keep things civil and organized for 30 years now, you think I'd have learned by now.
I mean, all of you effectively are the SysOps, and as a community ran thing, short of Digital Man showing up and laying down the law, I feel like the general state of Dove-net is alright. It's more active the some of the others ones back when I was still looking.
Dumas Walker wrote to ARELOR <=-ere
Your old DOS machine would have no password or user account, but chances
it didn't connect to the outside world and, if it did, it did not leak your information unless explicitly instructed to do so. The rest of the time it stood at home where only you could access it.
Yes. Also, we worked with mainframes instead of systems that are
housed on distributed systems with web access.
Arelor wrote to Nightfox <=-
The idea that everybody must be reachable 24/7 is disturbing.
Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Doesn't really match the "you are paid what the value of your work is" narrative, does it?
Moondog wrote to Arelor <=-
A portable phone can either liberate or trap you. It's all about application. When VPN first arrived, some users complained they may be expected to connect during off hours to complete last minute urgent
tasks. The folks who lived further from the office saw it as a blessing because they would have to change and drive to work otherwise on their time off to do the same thing. One exec said he loved the ability to approve work packages or return correspondence while spending time with his wife and kids at the park.
it took some time away from them, but at least he didn't have to disappear for a couple of hours.
Yes. Also, we worked with mainframes instead of systems that are
housed on distributed systems with web access.
Mainframes that were in a server room behind card key access in raised-floor
rooms with separate card key access for physical access to the system.
Why not shut down entirely, or perhaps hibernated? That would use
even less power than sleep mode.
desktop computers don't even use that much power anymore. your smart tv turned off or a fishtank is probably the big energy user. also your fridge.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to Nightfox on Wed Mar 02 2022 02:18 pm
Why not shut down entirely, or perhaps hibernated? That would use
even less power than sleep mode.
desktop computers don't even use that much power anymore. your smart tv turned off or a fishtank is probably the big energy user. also your fridge.
True. I'm still not going to leave my PC on all the time.
Nightfox
but seriously get a killowat meter. it's on amazon.
you plug it in and it records the usage.
I think it depends on management. If you have a "butts in seats working away from 9 to 5" management culture, it's a trap.
If you have a management culture that focuses on results, a flexible work style benefits both parties. I worked at a company where I could leave work early, pick up my daughter from day care before they closed, spend some time with her.
I think it depends on management. If you have a "butts in seats
working away from 9 to 5" management culture, it's a trap.
My former employer had a philosophy that expected everyone to be in their seats between 9 to 5 (or similar). I countered that if they expected me to be on-call and/or respond 24x7, these expectations have to stop. It took some time but they finally quit checking the clock on my team and I after we stopped answering the phone at 3am.
The Synchronet related ones used to. Then someone started posting their general chat stuff in those echos because people were "too mean" in this one.
I thought being rude over the internet was just part of the culture.
Yes. Also, we worked with mainframes instead of systems that are
housed on distributed systems with web access.
Mainframes that were in a server room behind card key access in raised-floor rooms with separate card key access for physical access to the system.
Moondog wrote to Arelor <=-
A portable phone can either liberate or trap you. It's all about application. When VPN first arrived, some users complained they may be expected to connect during off hours to complete last minute urgent tasks. The folks who lived further from the office saw it as a blessing because they would have to change and drive to work otherwise on their time off to do the same thing. One exec said he loved the ability to approve work packages or return correspondence while spending time with his wife and kids at the park.
it took some time away from them, but at least he didn't have to disappear for a couple of hours.
I think it depends on management. If you have a "butts in seats working away from 9 to 5" management culture, it's a trap.
If you have a management culture that focuses on results, a flexible work style benefits both parties. I worked at a company where I could leave work early, pick up my daughter from day care before they closed, spend some time with her.
While I was in the car, I could send emails/chats (while pulled over, of course) and have conference calls while driving home.
Once my daughter had gone to sleep, I'd log onto my messenger app, and see all of the dads logged on at 11pm - we were all finishing up work after taking a block of time out for family.
Another benefit was being able to work with teams around the world on their working hours. Working with Shanghai otherwise was a lesson in delayed messaging.
Management changed to the "butts on seats" variety, and I didn't stay much longer after that.
... Abandon desire
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Dumas Walker on Mon Feb 28 2022 06:26 am
Yes. Also, we worked with mainframes instead of systems that are
housed on distributed systems with web access.
Mainframes that were in a server room behind card key access in raised- rooms with separate card key access for physical access to the system.
Same principles today with cloud computing.
The hardware itself is in ultra-secure facilities.
But the users can still open up all the ports should they wish....
Shared Responsibility Model.
Mewcenary.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Nightfox to MRO on Wed Mar 02 2022 09:16 am
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to Nightfox on Wed Mar 02 2022 02:18 pm
Why not shut down entirely, or perhaps hibernated? That would use
even less power than sleep mode.
desktop computers don't even use that much power anymore. your smart turned off or a fishtank is probably the big energy user. also your fridge.
True. I'm still not going to leave my PC on all the time.
Nightfox
DO EEEET.
but seriously get a killowat meter. it's on amazon.
you plug it in and it records the usage.
Dream Master wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
My former employer had a philosophy that expected everyone to be in
their seats between 9 to 5 (or similar). I countered that if they expected me to be on-call and/or respond 24x7, these expectations have
to stop. It took some time but they finally quit checking the clock on
my team and I after we stopped answering the phone at 3am.
Results focused employers are much better than those from the old
school camp. If I spend more time worrying about my health because I can't get to the doctors, I won't be as productive. Allowing
flexibility is key.
There is a concept the Japanese used to call the "hidden office." The employee was pressured not to working overtime, so he'd go home and continue working off the clock, digging into his personal time. This would skew all the productivity metrics because they cannot measure what they cannot see. By creating these artificial benchmarks, they would eventually screw themselves over because they would be expected to maintain that rate while
Vlk-451 wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
I thought being rude over the internet was just part of the culture.
My former employer had a philosophy that expected everyone to be in their seat
between 9 to 5 (or similar). I countered that if they expected me to be on-ca
and/or respond 24x7, these expectations have to stop. It took some time but ey finally quit checking the clock on my team and I after we stopped answering
he phone at 3am.
You are against laws?
Some laws, absolutely!
All laws have force to back them up. All contracts are backed up by force. Threat of force is an absolute necessity in civilised society.
I agree that market economies, trade, personal possessions and ownership is natural. No argument there. But we layer on top of that complex patterns of contracts, and they are an additional later to the natural aspects of Capitalism. High Frequency Derivative trading and Fractional Reserve Banking is NOT natural. Do you not think that maybe, maybe
people who hold power would prefer a particular patter of contracts and laws which support that power structure? Is it that difficult to
believe that perhaps some aspects of our socioeconomic system are
designed for self-serving reasons?
There is measurably great inequality now, more so than a generation or
two ago. In Australia, we are all but priced out of home ownership,
there is little hope of my children being able to afford a home like
what my parents could, or perhaps even what I could. Less job security, companies offshoring and selling out the nation. The Western world is being picked at by Big Capital like a buzzard picks at a corpse. The banking system is the destroyer of nations. And yet so called "Conservatives" still want me to root for these guys??
If you want people to care about Capitalism, they have to have Capital. Want people to support Capitalism? Have a system where they can
actually afford to have savings, investment, property and where they can build up wealth. The current Capitalist system, and it alone, is to
blame for the Socialist leanings. If people actually had ownership
within the economy, skin in the game, a sense that they OWN a piece of
the economy, you'll see a stark change in the ideology.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <62215DCA.123595.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
All laws have force to back them up. All contracts are backed up by force. Threat of force is an absolute necessity in civilised society.
Yes, but some laws are themselves uncivilized and/or unjust.
The problem is you are lumping in things with "capitalism" that are actually just an issue with a specific democracy in a specific region.
You won't find derivatives and fractional reserve banking in Canada. Regardless, one can be for or see the benefits of capitalism (the
benefits are all around us) and still oppose bits and pieces that are harmful. Different nations need to tackle different problems they may
have (i.e. in Canada a corporation cannot make a donation to a
politician or political party, but in the US they can; individual donations are also limited to a yearly maximum of just $1500 in
Canada). The problem is the electorate. The electorate is politically illiterate and the media is probably largely to blame.
Unaffordable housing is not inequality. And why did it become unaffordable? Housing is no different than any other commodity. Supply
and demand set the price. There are other issues going on with housing prices in Australia that you have mentioned before, but again that
isn't inequality. That is the Australian people failing to demand their politicians end such practices as speculative investments etc.
As for the banking system, well I don't know what Australia's is like.
The US is certainly bad, with the road it went down that let to its collapse and "bail-out" circa 2008. But Canada's banking wasn't like
that and didn't suffer those issues. In fact we came out relatively unscathed by that whole recession due to our banks being nothing like
the US. So clearly these issues can be addressed without throwing capitalism out with the bathwater.
I agree with the first part of that paragraph and here in Canada (and
the US) it is the Liberal Party of Canada (and the Democratic Party)
who's policies have made live unaffordable, that have eaten away at the middle class. When such policies get removed economies tend to bounce back. There is an old saying in Canada among the centre-right
population, "life always gets harder under a Liberal government". And
it has held true for my lifetime so far.
As for ownership and skin in the game, as discussed before, there is nothing stopping this from happening. There is no need to use force of law. But it doesn't happen because most people aren't capable of making
it happen. I don't mean they don't have capital. I mean they don't have the know how or the "get up and go" to do it. You can't force people to
be successful and you can't force people to be equal unless that is
equal in misery.
To me blaming "capitalism" is just a scapegoat for people's own
failures. Both as individuals and as societies. In a proper
western-style democracy, in which both you and I live, there is no
reason any truly problematic law/regulation can't be fixed other than
an utter lack of will of the people. I'm not that old (early 50's), but
I swear Canadians have gotten a lot dumber in the past 15 years. A lot dumber. Sure they can be nurses, or professionals of some kind etc,
but their knowledge of everyday goings on in the country with respect
to government, finances etc is rock bottom. If they didn't see it whiz
by in their Facebook feed then they have no knowledge of it. If they
did see it whiz by in their Facebook feed then it likely is actually a sensational headline from what truly amounts to a biased opinion piece (left or right, doesn't matter) masquerading as "news". This, to me,
is the real problem with the West. Solve this problem and problems with
capitalism will be solved too.
Dream Master wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
My former employer had a philosophy that expected everyone to be in
their seats between 9 to 5 (or similar). I countered that if they expected me to be on-call and/or respond 24x7, these expectations have
to stop. It took some time but they finally quit checking the clock on
my team and I after we stopped answering the phone at 3am.
If you have a management culture that focuses on results, a flexible work style benefits both parties. I worked at a company where I could leave work early, pick up my daughter from day care before they closed, spend some time with her.
Results focused employers are much better than those from the old
school camp. If I spend more time worrying about my health because I can't get to the doctors, I won't be as productive. Allowing
flexibility is key.
Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-
Mainframes that were in a server room behind card key access in raised-floor rooms with separate card key access for physical access to the system.
Yep, that is familiar. :)
Moondog wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
There is a concept the Japanese used to call the "hidden office." The employee was pressured not to working overtime, so he'd go home and continue working off the clock, digging into his personal time.
Boraxman wrote to Dream Master <=-
You get what you reward, and if what you reward is simply being
present, then all you'll get, is people simply being present.
Moondog wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
There is a concept the Japanese used to call the "hidden office." The employee was pressured not to working overtime, so he'd go home and continue working off the clock, digging into his personal time.
I'd never heard that term before, it's fitting.
Moondog wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
There is a concept the Japanese used to call the "hidden office." The employee was pressured not to working overtime, so he'd go home and continue working off the clock, digging into his personal time.
I'd never heard that term before, it's fitting.
On another level, on my weekly trip into the office, I drive around and see many, many for lease signs. I'm starting to see the liquidator trucks picking up furniture from offices.
We're all spending our own money to upgrade our office spaces, pay for
an ISP, buying new monitors, office chairs, and so on - on our own dimes for the most part. That's quite a shift from the previous model.
I get a newsletter from a Silicon Valley newspaper, they have a weekly "people to watch in business" section. It reads like they haven't gotten the memo, as all of the people lauded for promotions/hires/etc are architects, banking, real estate, construction and design firms - when leases are going for pennies on the dollar around here.
When people start going back into the office it'll be like the 2000s again - they'll probably put in kombucha taps, circular slides, climbing walls and karaoke conference rooms to try and entice people back.
... No appropriate tagline.
Boraxman wrote to Dream Master <=-
You get what you reward, and if what you reward is simply being present, then all you'll get, is people simply being present.
Another pitfall is quantity versus quality. I've done IT management, and worked with outsourced tech pools that focus on ticket closure and ticket quotas. You'll get techs who do the bare minimum to hit that target unless they're engaged in the workplace.
Yes, you closed 50 tickets this week. What was the average wait time for the customer, and how satisfied was your customer afterwards?
... No appropriate tagline.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Boraxman <=-
Boraxman wrote to Dream Master <=-
You get what you reward, and if what you reward is simply being
present, then all you'll get, is people simply being present.
Another pitfall is quantity versus quality. I've done IT management,
and worked with outsourced tech pools that focus on ticket closure and ticket quotas. You'll get techs who do the bare minimum to hit that
target unless they're engaged in the workplace.
Yes, you closed 50 tickets this week. What was the average wait time
for the customer, and how satisfied was your customer afterwards?
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Moondog on Thu Mar 03 2022 07:39 am
Moondog wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
There is a concept the Japanese used to call the "hidden office." T employee was pressured not to working overtime, so he'd go home and continue working off the clock, digging into his personal time.
I'd never heard that term before, it's fitting.
that's because he just made it up.
they wouldnt hide hard work for the company.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Boraxman <=-
Boraxman wrote to Dream Master <=-
You get what you reward, and if what you reward is simply being present, then all you'll get, is people simply being present.
Another pitfall is quantity versus quality. I've done IT management, and worked with outsourced tech pools that focus on ticket closure and ticket quotas. You'll get techs who do the bare minimum to hit that target unless they're engaged in the workplace.
Yes, you closed 50 tickets this week. What was the average wait time for the customer, and how satisfied was your customer afterwards?
One other thing that can happen, if you work somewhere like where I work, wh there might be an incentive to close issues quickly, is you make a lot of issues that are easily closed. So things which wouldn't be recorded are, an are closed straight away, to get the average closure time down.
We are doing at my workplace yearly goals, so people just throw in their dai jobs as additional goals, (ie, instead of a project, they claim their day to day work is a project). Incentive systems are kind of silly, because people should be incentivised just to do their job better. But because salaries ar fixed, that incentive doens't fixed, so business tries to find other ways.
Agreed, I am for free enterprise (to a degree). People should be free
to start their own business, design and sell their own products,
something you couldn't do in Communist countries. People should be free to trade on their own terms, I don't disagree with that. I think that
the "bits and pieces" regarding property rights have fundamental flaws.
I say these are fundamental parts of Capitalism because I believe that a system whereby people can claim to own the productive output of others
is throughout the world, is consider ONE core feature of Capitalism. People wouldn't recognise a free market, free enterprise society where humans had the right to claim what they produced as their own as Capitalism.
I don't believe many actual Capitalists want a true, free-market system. By Capitalists, I mean people who control vast amounts of Capitalists,
not the wage-worker bag boy who just likes the idea of it.
The supply/demand argument was put to the test during Covid, when our borders was shut and immigration stopped. That was empirical evidence that something else, not demand was pushing house prices up.
Unaffordable housing is inequality when one can use leverage and debt to acquire a large property portfolio, and other cannot, given not too dissimilar productive outputs. Ones share of societies output should be commensurate with their work, but there are too many mechanisms where
one can game the system to acquire far more, at the expense of others. The game is rigged, tax payers are having to pay to rig the game in the favour of investors with tax breaks and concessions designed to keep prices high.
Banks in Australia are not far from the US, we were just "lucky" because we were able to prop up our market with some money from China and there
is a lot of propaganda to instil "confidence". We dodged the GFC bullet somewhat. It is all built on lies, people in Australia believe that our market is sound, Americans were more sceptical.
I'm far more sceptical as to how much of a democracy we have and how
much power we as people really have. I'm also more sceptical as to how much we really are a "Capitalist" society, IF you define Capitalism as a fair game (i.e., it isn't rigged). I'm just more sceptical in general,
it seems and systems can fail, at least, I believe they can.
Your statement of how the economy changes between the two sides, that sentiment exists here. Except that from my observation the "better economic managers" label of the "right wing" side of the political
duopoly (the Liberal Party, a little counterintuitive) is not deserved. It is a myth, a lie. We had this party during the 2000's, and they
crowed about their success, but it was all a sham. Private and
structural debt skyrocketed.
People may be dumber, but they have little power. It's not the fault of the twenty something retail assistant obsessed with Facebook that China
is cornering Australia, that our trade balance is shot, that we
offshored our manufacturing, that you need a million dollars to get a house now. I'm younger than you, but for those even younger than me, starting out in life, getting their career going, trying to start a family, no way they are responsible for the current state.
A fair system would be one where peoples gain of wealth is commensurate with what they produce, and those who don't produce, who don't provide services that people seek, drain down what they have, i.e., get nothing. But this is an anathema to Capitalists, oddly. A working system would
be one where the nation is secure, has a future, where people are able
to house themselves, can afford to start and raise a family.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <62256E9F.123623.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
I simply define capitalism as a market the government doesn't control (regulate sure) as in they don't set prices, control supply/deman etc. Here in Canada our dairy is actually NOT free market. The Dairy Board
of Canada sets quotas. Farmers routinely pour milk down the drain. That isn't capitalism and the US is right to squawk about it whenever our
two nations have some minor trade dispute. But generally, to me
capitalism just means people are free to trade largely unencumbered by government. True free markets are probably quite rare and exist in
nations where government doesn't have "reach" and control everywhere.
No they don't. Big mega corporations (especially global ones) are a problem. But I see that as a democracy issue not a capitalism issue. Certain democracies allow them to exist, manipulate and behave badly because the people haven't demanded the politicians they elect do something about it. That's the problem with democracy, its a terrible system! lol Just a sight better than the rest though.
Well I can't speak for Australia but the above isn't true here.
Vancouver, generally, is the only city with foreign buyers buying up condos (and keeping them vacant) for speculative investment (and money laundering). The problem here is people are attracted to the big cities yet the big cities are full (in terms of housing). We have lots of
smaller cities and towns with affordable housing markets. When one
hears on the news "the average price of a home in Canada today is..."
that price will be because of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver (in that
order) and it will be about triple what you'd pay in a small city or larger town.
Well that just sounds like Marxism. Everyone isn't equal and equality shouldn't be forced. Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal starting position. Don't be jealous of the rich kids. And if one has capital and uses that capital to build a business that employs those who don't have capital, the capitalist deserves to reap what they sow just as much as
the employee for their work. It isn't a rigged system. It is just that "fair" isn't a thing. Doesn't exist in nature.
Now these people using leverage and debt to buy property portfolios, if these properties remain vacant and are just bought/sold among investors and never lived in, then that sounds like a problem for your government
to fix. But if people are buying them and living in them then it is no different than some dude being able to afford a Ferrari while you and I drive a Ford Focus.
Well that's no good. I'm a bit surprised by that. Not that I follow Australian financial news, but I would have thought a bit more sanity would prevail there. As for the China situation ref Australia, you
have my sympathies. I hope the collective "West" get their heads out of their asses and wake up to the danger China is and that we enabled. If Australia is even a tiny but under China's thumb then the time is right now to get out of it.
Could be you are jaded from your Australian perspective (and perhaps US news, though their electoral college seems superior to a straight Westminister First Past the Post system). As for capitalism, I don't define it as "a fair game". As I said earlier. Fair isn't a thing. Individuals can choose, in a specific moment, to act fairly. But that's it, outside of that fair is a fairy tale. Now equality is a thing. But that doesn't (nor shouldn't) mean equal outcome.
Your conservative party is called the Liberal Party? For provincial politics in British Columbia it is the same. But for the rest of
Canada, federally and provincially the "Liberals" are centre-left. The Progressive Conservatives (an oxymoron? lol) provincially and the Conservative Party of Canada federally are the centre-right.
The Conservative Party are somewhat responsible for the sane banking we had leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. They practiced some
shrinking of the government. But they didn't really get to be fiscal conservatives post 2008 as they had two back to back minority
governments and the opposition demanded a massive deficit to "spend our way to prosperity".
No, the twenty-somethings aren't responsible for the current state. But
if they don't wake up, pay attention, and demand better of their politicians going forward then yes it is their fault. A lot of
Canadians these days simply want and expect "government" to take care
of them for all manner of things. So they can live their lives not
caring about anything other than Facebook etc. That's on them.
The media (at least here in Canada and the US; we get inundated with US media in Canada) is largely to blame as they have abandoned journalism
in favour of endless biased opinion.
The school system here has also dumbed things down over the decades. My son is in Grade 10 now. I remember his years in later elementary school and middle school (so lets say grade 5 to 8) thinking to myself that
some of what he was learning I learned grades earlier. And the math
they had to do by drawing little boxes, even into grade 9! They try to accommodate all learning levels whereas in my day some kids just didn't get to go to school with everyone else.
A lot of the time they seem to be teaching kids what to regurgitate
too, rather than critical thinking. Fortunately my son has had a couple
of good teachers, and one in particular, in high school that have been encouraging with critical thinking.
There's that word fair again. If someone has capital (whether saved or borrowed) and they build a business with it, even if that business has employees who produce for the business, that someone deserves to reap
the rewards. A system that outlaws that is indeed one of the three infamous -isms.
Perspective. An interesting thing. Yours is that there is inequality
and capitalism (and to some degree democracy) is to blame. Mine
(although I haven't really expressed it here) is that democracy is slipping away to creeping authoritarianism. Western democracies are getting less and less free as the decades go by.
As for inequality, that's actually just the middle class slipping away
as our nations let globalism ruin our economies. I am old enough to remember (Pepperidge Farm remembers...does that joke mean anything in Australia?) the economy we had 40 years ago, in terms of the types of
jobs and careers that were available, and can easily contrast that with the one of today and where and why those good middle income jobs went
to. We did it to ourselves and the defenders of the working class (at least here in Canada and the US) no longer care about the working man
or woman today but care deeply about transgender rights and other
"social justice" stuff like that. They're often left by champaign socialists. The right of centre parties here and in the US are becoming the parties of the working class.
How many major national parties do you have in Australia? Is there a viable third party or is it the typical centre-left/centre-right dichotomy?
Boraxman wrote to Otto Reverse <=-
Yes, but some laws are themselves uncivilized and/or unjust.
And those laws are ones that people shouldn't respect or uphold.
Moondog wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
with little or no effort applied. We ditched that system and it opened people 's eyes to the real metrics, however it was too late and the new CFO outsourced the service desk and we let go 2/3 the tech staff. Afew months later they called back a few techs to see if they'd come back because they learned the manufcaturing plant and warehouse facility
liked having a tech on hand first thing in the morning when something isn't working right.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Nightfox on Mon Feb 28 2022 12:28 pm
I put my pc's in suspend/ sleep mode to save power and to save time when resuming.
I don't think I have anything set to powersaving mode. Even the servers in home-office are always on. Oh, well.
Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dream Master to Moondog on Tue Mar 01 2022 12:16 am
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Nightfox on Mon Feb 28 2022 12:28 pm
I put my pc's in suspend/ sleep mode to save power and to save time wh resuming.
I don't think I have anything set to powersaving mode. Even the servers
Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS
Some devices have to be always on, such as file servers and system monitorin gear. My main desktop is the biggest enrgy fiend, and gets put to sleep whe not in use. None of my other non-workstation devices have ever had Facebook Google sign on's or web searches other than linux updates with regards to browser activity.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Andre to Denn on Fri Feb 25 2022 14:55:12
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Denn to the doctor on Fri Feb 25 2022 12:35 pm
This is an open topic board all topics are welcome here.
Again, it's not the topics that people are talking about. It's that they devolve into just a few of you being dicks to each other and breaking rul #1 and #2 nonstop.
- Andre
If they aren't gonna do it on Facebook, you have to expect them to do it her At least this is an interface they're familiar with.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Fri Feb 25 2022 15:50:00
The Synchronet related ones used to. Then someone started posting their general chat stuff in those echos because people were "too mean" in this one.
I thought being rude over the internet was just part of the culture.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Nightfox to Moondog on Tue Mar 01 2022 03:18 pm
desktop computers don't even use that much power anymore. your smart tv turned off or a fishtank is probably the big energy user. also your fridge.
It's been said to me before that keeping a computer saves electricity from constantly doing a constant hard boot all the time and keeping the system on idle.
I do like Linux in the aspect that system updates don't always need to restart the completely to do the job unlike Windows that has an update every few days and is always annoying by having to have a partial update, reboot, finish update.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Vlk-451 to Andre on Tue Mar 01 2022 10:42 pm
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Andre to Denn on Fri Feb 25 2022 14:55:12
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Denn to the doctor on Fri Feb 25 2022 12:35 pm
This is an open topic board all topics are welcome here.
Again, it's not the topics that people are talking about. It's that they devolve into just a few of you being dicks to each other and breaking rul #1 and #2 nonstop.
- Andre
If they aren't gonna do it on Facebook, you have to expect them to do it her At least this is an interface they're familiar with.
Facebook has gotta really old since it meanstreamed. I still love interacting with folks via BBSing where the old school is still a thing this day and age.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Boraxman <=-
Boraxman wrote to Otto Reverse <=-
Yes, but some laws are themselves uncivilized and/or unjust.
And those laws are ones that people shouldn't respect or uphold.
And there's a process for removing an unjust law. The problem is that
it relies upon an elected body that represents the will and the
well-being of the people who elected them. That behavior, alas, is
getting rarer and rarer these days.
The pendulum always swings. In 2008, every IT department was seemingly told to cut their expenses by 10-20%, and like a lot of others, we ended up getting rid of FTEs and replacing them with "managed services".
I went through 5 solid years of "ticket culture", an environment void of focus on customer needs and focused instead on hitting gamed metrics.
Service suffered, and in 2015-2016, management initiated a BOLD MANAGEMENT MOVE -- hiring FTEs who gave a shit about the business.
It's been said to me before that keeping a computer saves electricity from constantly doing a constant hard boot all the time and keeping the system on idle. I don't know if that's true, but my system is usually on a majority of the time too. It seems to save time to access the computer by just clicking a mouse button to 'revive' my system then waiting for POST to finish, the OS to get to my desktop and all that. So I guess it's a time is worth money sort of thing.
I do like Linux in the aspect that system updates don't always need to restart the completely to do the job unlike Windows that has an update every few days and is always annoying by having to have a partial update, reboot, finish update.
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.
Property rights often get overlooked, in particular, how we ascribe property rights in the first place. This is one things we take for granted, or don't really question or look at. When something of value...
is brought into existence, who is the rightful owner?
The particular rights that companies or corporations have, their property claims, exist because of the state. But without a state, no such
company can exist at all, because private property wouldn't exist.
The major cities, in particular Melbourne and Sydney are targets for foriegn investment (and money launderers). The Real Estate industry
turns a blind eye, and so does the state. They are corrupt, no doubt,
but Australia is mad on Real Estate, and property investment is the holiest of holies here.
I'm not sure why that statement I made is controversial. What you earn, should reflect what you produce of value to others. The more value you produce of value for others, the more you earn. If you are twice as productive as someone else, one would expect you to have twice as much wealth. If that is not what is happening, then either you are also getting something that someone else created, or someone is getting something you created.
It takes laws, "men with guns" so to speak, to move away from this
natural state. So if there is increasing wealth inequality which isn't correlated with difference in production, there are men with guns enforcing an inequality.
Note I said PRODUCTIVE, not effort, not work. No one owes you anything for your work. The fact you work hard entitles you to NOTHING.
We have a strong entitlement mentality, people claiming because they worked hard, or invested, or bought this or that asset, then they should earn.
I think we are infested with parasites (both Socialist and Capitalist), who seek to obtain wealth from people without actually producing
anything in return.
Let me repeat, so there is no confusion about me being a Marxist. The only wealth you are entitled to, is that which people trade with you to purchase things YOU made. IF you made it, and have paid off all the factor suppliers, and someone wants to buy, you are entitled the
residual (ie, what is left over from the payment to you, after you've
paid others your purchased from to make the product/service a reality).
Why should they fix it? They get stamp duty from each sale, they are bought off by the Property Industry, and the Australian economy is built on Real Estate and pumping up debt so money can be injected. The whole reason the government did this was to make people feel wealthy and use equity to spend, spend, spend. Then the debt grew, and they've since
been trying to keep the bubble inflated so that the market doesn't
correct itself.
Australians are economically illiterate, and due to being isolated, and lucky, complacent. We've never had a war on our shores, we have no conflict. We are like the Eloi.
And Australia is definately under China's thumb, but we thought it was a good idea because like most of the West, Australia believed in Globalism and The End of History, and that everyone in the world is just wanting
to be like White Liberals.
A fair system means it isn't gamed. You have the same rights as
everyone else, the same property rights, the laws don't favour one class over an other. Government policy isn't designed to take from one type
of person to enrich another. The state doesn't prop the economy by selectively propping up select industries.
Yes, our "conservative party" is actually the Liberal Party. Confusing, but they are actually Liberal in the Classical Liberal sense (sort of). Classic Liberalism is pro Free Market and Free Enterprise. These are Liberal ideals.
Again, if the system wasn't gamed, then we would have seen Wall St
crooks in jail, seen their businesses fall and fail. Instead, they got bailed out. Does YOUR business get bailed out because you act
illegally, engage in risky practices and ignore counter advice?
I have two young children, and I've noted the drop in standards. Part
of it here is the drop in standards at University, so that Universities can take in and pass lots of paying foriegn students. The other is apathy, a lack of male teachers, a hostile environment for male teachers and just a general cultural beleif that as long as you get a job, it doesn't matter.
There are three things going on here. Application of Capital (money), use of assets, and labour. Building a business requires all three. We tend to lazily just lump it all together, and treat all this as one as
the same, but there are differences here, and different implications regarding ownership.
It isn't as cut and dried as you think. If I hire you to start a business, just as an employee, you do all the work, arrange the
contracts, produce the widgets, then I own the productive output of the business. i.e., I am the residual claimant after the business disposes
of its product by means of sale.. If you loan money from me, do all the work, arrange the contracts, produce the widgets, then you own the productive output and are the residual claimant.
There is no such thing as an automatic "I build this, its mine". How we determine ownership of the businesses produce, is actually determine by who hires whom. Are you hiring capital, or is capital hiring you?
Most people never think of the implications here, but we can see how property rights can be inverted, simply by who hires whom.
My argument is that in a true Capitalist system, with STRONG property rights, you would be the residual claimant, i.e, the one who gets to
keep the profit from the business you built. Period. Your obligation
to Capital is to pay back the loan.
Again, it confuses me why people in the West defend a system where banks/Capital can claim to own their own work. I swear it is like cuckoldry.
There are two major parties, Labor and The Liberals. The Liberal party
is actually in a coalition with a smaller party, the Nationals. The Nationals get votes in country seats, which gives the coalition a majority. The Liberals wouldn't win nearly as much if they weren't in
the coalition. Then we have smaller parties, The Greens, One Nation, United Australia, which can win some seats here and there. In the
senate, there are many, and minor parties get seats there, but is it pretty much a typical centre-left/centre-right arrangement that the establishment protects, with some minor parties getting enough seats sometimes to force them to adjust policies. You can tell there is an establishment because when we had a hung party, mainstream media berated people for not voting for the majors.
I would say there are no defenders of the working class now. The left abandoned that ages ago in order to push culturally and nationally destructive "social justice", which China must be loving. They are building a future for our people while Universities here are have donors withdraw their donations because the University doesn't change "Diversity". The only parties in Western nations which seem to support workers are the populist Right ones. Front National is probably the
most pro-working class party in France now!
My perspective is that there were fundamental flaws in the system all along, and that this end result was inevitable. The fact that Baby Boomers had what they had is a historical accident due to WWII, not the result of a fundamental truth that we've hit upon a working system that will serve us from here on in. We should drop any nostalgia for that period and should begin to strenghthen our core, which I think by now is too late. It was probably too late even when I was born.
We have a strong entitlement mentality, people claiming because they worked hard, or invested, or bought this or that asset, then they shoul earn.
I think a lot of the younger generation has that. They see so much more weal and fame on their small screens than I ever did on the TV. They think they deserve that too and that it should be easy to get.
Dream Master wrote to cr1mson <=-
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it
10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain
access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot,
login, etc., etc.
Dream Master wrote to cr1mson <=-
Oracle introduced (okay, they purchased the IP from another company--always what Oracle does) some years back the ability to slipstream kernel changes without requiring a reboot to their variant
of RHEL (Oracle Linux). It was an amazing feature, especially in a
data center always-on environment. Windows keeps getting closure to online updates but I have yet to see one patch Tuesday that doesn't require at least one reboot.
Nightfox wrote to Dream Master <=-
My current desktop PC is one that I built in 2019. I imagine it will
last me quite a while, but one thing I think is odd is usually it takes some time (probably at least 15-30 seconds or so) before the BIOS boot screen even comes up. I'm not sure why that takes as long as it does.
But I don't think that's really a big deal.
Nightfox wrote to Dream Master <=-
My current desktop PC is one that I built in 2019. I imagine it will last me quite a while, but one thing I think is odd is usually it takes some time (probably at least 15-30 seconds or so) before the BIOS boot screen even comes up. I'm not sure why that takes as long as it does. But I don't think that's really a big deal.
I have a 2019 Dell, and it takes about as long to get to the Dell logo/BIOS screen as it does to boot to Windows 10 from there. Odd.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <622BF7E0.123676.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
...
Capitalism and democracy overlap in such discussions. While the concept
of property rights may have been largely born of capitalism, it is
firmly the domain of democracy now. In Canada we don't have property rights enshrined in our "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" (similar, but much weaker than the US's Bill of Rights) as the provincial governments wouldn't agree to it (our Constitution came about in 1982). Most
Canadians seem blase (I don't know how to make that accented e) about
it. Only really comes up when a particular provincial government does
too much civil forfeiture under the auspices of "proceeds of crime". Oh and when the Liberal government periodically confiscates classes of firearms from people like me.
But in terms of something of value being brought into existence, the rightful owner is the creator...unless he/she are under some legal arrangement otherwise. I don't think changing laws to make it illegal
for someone to enter such an arrangement is moral.
Well yes and no. Without a state you'd have anarchy or some form of dictatorship. But nonetheless, it comes down to the legal agreement between a company/corporation and those who work for them. No one is getting ripped off and again, creating laws that would forbid such a
legal agreement is amoral as it would be restricting the freedoms of
the individual to trade in a manner of which they choose.
That's Vancouver here. Though as I mentioned before, the provincial government (and I think the Feds promised something) have made attempts
to curb that. I believe as it stands now there are vacancy taxes etc.
Well I guess the issue is what do you mean by "should". Should as in
"it would be moral for company X to pay worker A commensurate with the value of what they produce", or do you mean "there should be a law requiring company X to pay worker A commensurate with the value of what they produce"?
Yeah, no. That's just wrong. If you don't like the pay for the job then find work elsewhere. We don't need a society where wages and salaries
are inspected and forced to this degree. A minimum wage is sufficient.
I mean think of the abuse such a system would end up with. As it stands now every feminist and "soy boy" will tell you that there is a gender
wage gap. They won't acknowledge career choice or having kids etc. It would be a disaster and you'd end up with everyone working to the
lowest common denominator.
Free is messy and flawed. But it still works better than forced.
Lol, clearly you don't work for government.
I think a lot of the younger generation has that. They see so much more wealth and fame on their small screens than I ever did on the TV. They think they deserve that too and that it should be easy to get.
Yup
I don't think you are a Marxist. Just that some things you've stated
are similar even if they come at it from a different angle. I also
don't think the political spectrum is a straight line but rather more a horse shoe.
As for only if you made it, don't agree with that. Not saying stealing
to trade is okay, but there are other ways to acquire things of value.
For example, I have some Bitcoin that I bought in 2012 (no, I'm not
rich lol, it was just a fraction left over from some VPN service I
tried once that wanted to be paid in BTC). I didn't make it and it is worth a lot more than what I paid for it.
Yes, that goes on here. In my own small village (3000 people) they
allow new semi-detached (two houses under one roof and on one common foundation) to be built so that they can get twice the property tax out
of that parcel of land. There is no need as there is plenty of land
here and houses are still (relatively) cheap. But they see $$$ when
they realize the tax gains.
Our central bank just raised the prime lending rate by 0.5% after
several years of saying they would raise it and not doing so. Canadians hold enormous amounts of personal debt because money has never been so "cheap". If they prime lending rate ever went up by a few percent in
one year we'd see markets crash.
Same here for a majority of the population. The record debt our
government has racked up doesn't even register with people. No wars
here either and people think we don't need to spend on our military
with the US next door.
Our PM about 5 years ago called Canada the first "post national state".
Hasn't worked out so well. We're not under China's thumb yet, but
we've been selling our resources to them. And I don't mean the raw material, but the mines and land itself!
Well we have that here except for the "take from one type of
person...". The middle class gets soaked and different governments want them to pay for "universal basic income" and carbon taxes. On the provincial level some governments have given out what I call corporate welfare. Not bailing them out but subsidizing payrolls. If company X
sets up shop in Nova Scotia then the Nova Scotian government will pay
20% of the payroll. That type of thing. Inevitably the company ends up folding or leaving the province after the subsidy runs out.
Makes sense.
True, but that was one country. Didn't happen here. Our banks didn't
fail either. We did contribute to the GM bailout as they had plants in Canada, but that money was actually paid back in full.
I don't know about the standards at University (will find out in a
couple of years lol) but I would be shocked if they aren't lower. I
hear critical thinking is gone (hopefully not for STEM at least). We do get the foreign students thing where many universities make most of
their money from them and cater to them. Causes tuitions to rise etc.
The implications simply depend on the legal agreement made between two
or more parties. It isn't any more complicated than that.
It isn't as cut and dried as you think. If I hire you to start a business, just as an employee, you do all the work, arrange the
contracts, produce the widgets, then I own the productive output of the business. i.e., I am the residual claimant after the business disposes
of its product by means of sale.. If you loan money from me, do all the work, arrange the contracts, produce the widgets, then you own the productive output and are the residual claimant.
Not sure if that is an argument as I agree with it.
Right. You build it on your own it is yours. You borrow capital then
the terms of that borrowing may stipulate partial ownership or not. If
you build it for me as an employee you may just get a wage or perhaps
you get "options".
I think people think of it all the time actually. I just don't think people see that certain aspect as "property rights".
That already exists. It just isn't forced as the only option. The
problem is capital. If you don't have it you are not entitled to it. So you have to save up for it (legit, happens all the time) or borrow it (also legit and happens all the time). But in a system where someone
with capital hiring someone else to build the business is outlawed,
well I doubt there'd be too many businesses compared to now. We can't
all be entrepreneurs or capitalists.
And while there are situations where there are people who have the
skill to build something but don't have the capital nor can borrow the capital, it doesn't mean they are owed that opportunity (capital). We
come into this world owed nothing.
Not at all. People exchange their work for money. It is quite straight forward. The idea that this exchange can't happen because your view of property rights states that the product of an individual's work is
their own at all times is confusing lol.
That's like our NDP and Liberals (only they are left/centre-left) right now. The NDP have been propping up the Liberals the past few years (and two elections) now. Greens get 1 or two seats. While the Liberals and Conservatives are the two "establishment" parties, we've only had 1 Conservative PM in the past 30 years. The NDP have never formed
government and have been the official opposition once about a decade
ago. They used to be the rural party of the worker. Now they are the
urban party of champaigne socialists.
Yup, same here (destructive social justice vice working class).
I think more that with the post WWII boom and "easy times" we piled on more government, more government programs, that led to more taxes, inflation, two parents required to work instead of one etc. With
leaner government, less regulation, less taxes etc we could get back to where we were decades ago.
But that just isn't going to happen. The masses are used to big
government (and big taxes) and are conditioned (even taught) to blame capitalism and especially big corporations and "the rich". "If only the rich would pay their fair share" they chant in unison.
My parents bought a house when interest rates were something like 17%
and owned a car on a single income. Mum clipped coupons and bought
certain thing in bulk etc, but this was done on a middle income salary. They sold the "starter home" and built a bigger (not big, just bigger) house and eventually had two cars. Again with high interest rates and
just one household income. This was the 70's and 80's. Government was smaller, taxes were lower. There wasn't as much pressure on woman to
leave the home and have a career. So there wasn't inflationary pressure
on houses and big ticket items due to all this "extra" income (yet). Capitalism hasn't failed. We did this to ourselves. Just like we killed off the small shops by choosing to go to Walmart etc.
We have a strong entitlement mentality, people claiming because th worked hard, or invested, or bought this or that asset, then they earn.
I think a lot of the younger generation has that. They see so much more and fame on their small screens than I ever did on the TV. They think t deserve that too and that it should be easy to get.
There is a bit of that, but I think that is only a small part.
I think a lot of young people compare how they are doing in life to how their parents and grandparents were doing in life when they were the
same age. Any youngster who entered the job market past 2009 could only pick jobs which could not afford them the same standards of living we
used to have.
As you know, I think such a legal arrangement is immoral, and a
violation of your rights. I disagree with the Libertarian ideal that
any contract agreed to is valid. Some arrangements debase society. You cannot be allowed to degrade your rights, because doing so will create social conditions where others then find they have to.
I don't consider an arrangement where you forfiet inalienable human rights, something worthy of being considered legally valid.
That's Vancouver here. Though as I mentioned before, the provincial government (and I think the Feds promised something) have made attemp to curb that. I believe as it stands now there are vacancy taxes etc.
None of which have worked, I bet.
If people where the owners of their labour, the point would be moot. No one would have to "Decide" what you get paid, because the market would take care of that. The market would pay you based on what you produce, and no one would have to jump inbetween to "correct" it.
If you want a situation where people are paid a wage, then they should be inspected. Minimum wage should be enforced.
You are wanting a system where human beings are rented, and if you want
to be able to claim the labour of others is yours, you then take responsibility for paying enough for that persons upkeep.
The Gender paygap is largely nonsense, but I have no sympathy for businesses which hire people having the wages they pay called into question. You are taking part-time ownership of the person, suck it up and take responsibility for their welfare.
I work in the private sector, but it isn't that different to government. There is as much waste, inefficiency, people paid to do nothing of
value. The idea that the private sector is this bastion of efficiency
is a sick joke. Especially when you work for a larger company. They'll still spend money to hire people for "cultural" rubbish, and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. These people are useless, worse than useless.
The market needs to be crashed, there is no other way out, but stupid
dumb westerners would rather pull the rug out of the base of their own society than stop a system of grift.
Our PM about 5 years ago called Canada the first "post national state
Hasn't worked out so well. We're not under China's thumb yet, but we've been selling our resources to them. And I don't mean the raw material, but the mines and land itself!
Then he is a traitor. The Prime Minister is obligated to serve the nation, if they don't want to do that, they should not be in the role.
To have world leaders get up in front of their people and say they rule for all, not just the nation is a travesty. Your job as the leader of
the nation is to serve that nation, if that is not what you are in it
for, you're a fraud.
Well, that statement is the basis of my economic ideals. You being responsible for what your produce should be NORMATIVE, not an exception. At the moment, it is an exception.
You keep saying "Forced", which doesn't make sense. No one is forcing
any body to do anything. Not allowing you to engage in a fraudulent contract is not "force". This is weird Libertarian thinking.
Once you accept that rights can be bargained, traded away, we are on the
I won't rehash, but unless it can be explained how ownership if labour is transferred, I just don't buy this logic. You keep alternating between exchanging labour and exchanging product of labour, or exchanging
rights. I'm not going to accept such confusion as a normative means of economic exchange. We deserve better. Well, *I* deserve better anyway.
Taxes were high back then, this argument doesn't really hold up. Something happened in the 70s where productivity decoupled from wages.
My grandparents and parents could afford to raise a family on one
income, and still own a decent house. I can barely manage it, but I've had to take a more senior, professional position to be able to follow close behind.
One of the reasons that you need two incomes, is because it became expected that women would be working too, so the economy "Adjusted". Wages now only need to be what they are because it is assumed that
housing would be paid by a couple, not one breadwinner. Feminism isn't
to blame though, they didn't understand how Capitalism works.
Taxation isn't the problem, at least not in Australia. IF taxes were dropped, all that would happen is that rents/housing prices would go up
to absorb any gain. So I'd RATHER my money go to tax, and at least get hospitals health care, etc, because otherwise it would go to financial parasites.
People aren't going to choose to go to smaller stores. I'm not sure whether my parents had much of a mortgage left when interest rates (briefly) reached that figure. Though by my calculations, housing is
less affordable now than it was during that period, that itnerest not withstanding. By the way, it was capped at 12% for payments in
Australia I think. Lots of boomers moan about it, but the fact my
friend could live in his own house near me, with his dad driving taxi's for a living, and he can't afford a house despite being a project
manager is objective evidence it is harder now.
So do I, and I'm not a libertarian. I agree with "live and let live" as a general sort of principal, but I've never agreed with any Libertarian party platform I've ever read.
It seems like most Libertarians now days scream about "their freedoms". They scream most loudly about things that they should be free to do, that infringe on others' freedoms, though.
Libertarians are the most selfish of political parties. As long as it doesn't affect them, personally, they don't care.
For instance, there are some Libertarians that thought they should be free to walk around, while infected with COVID-19, in public places. It's not their responsibility to keep others from being sick, after all!
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Tue Mar 15 2022 12:12 pm
So do I, and I'm not a libertarian. I agree with "live and let live" as a gene
sort of principal, but I've never agreed with any Libertarian party platform I
ever read.
It seems like most Libertarians now days scream about "their freedoms". They scre
most loudly about things that they should be free to do, that infringe on others'
freedoms, though.
Libertarians are the most selfish of political parties. As long as it doesn't affec
them, personally, they don't care.
For instance, there are some Libertarians that thought they should be free to walk
around, while infected with COVID-19, in public places. It's not their responsibil
to keep others from being sick, after all!
DaiTengu
... Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses.
everyone was infected with covid 19. it was super contagious.
how dare they want freedom!
luckily omnicron came around and gave everyone natural immunity. everything we were forced to do did jack fucking shit to stop the covid virus.
everyone has a right to be free. don't fall for the bullshit that it's for the greater good to take away your rights. ---
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to DaiTengu on Tue Mar 15 2022 06:11 pm
everyone was infected with covid 19. it was super contagious.
how dare they want freedom!
I wasn't. My wife wasn't. neither were my parents.
luckily omnicron came around and gave everyone natural immunity. everything we were forced to do did jack fucking shit to stop the covid virus.
Except those people that got it twice. It's almost like "natural immunity" causes a similar, or by many accounts, worse immune system response than what the vaccinations give you.
everyone has a right to be free. don't fall for the bullshit that it's for the greater good to take away your rights. ---
That's right. Every company should be free to dump their toxic sludge into our drinking water, or into the lakes and rivers that I go fishing in, because their freedoms are far more important than my freedoms to go catch fish. My neighbor should be free to blast his music 24/7, because everyone else around him can sleep when they're dead.
Now, Libertarianism has something called "The Harm Principle". in essence it's "you should be able to do what you want, persue happiness as you see fit, as long as it doesn't harm someone else". But there's no good definition of "harm". One person's idea of "harm" can be very different
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6230E983.123732.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
So do I, and I'm not a libertarian. I agree with "live and let live" as
a general sort of principal, but I've never agreed with any Libertarian party platform I've ever read.
Neither do I. But we do disagree on something you argue is a human
right and I argue isn't.
I haven't followed it closely as that is thousands of miles on the
other side of the country and we don't have that problem here. COVID
has also overshadowed national reporting on that sort of thing.
That option already exists. I would hazard a guess that it isn't
commonly practiced because far too many people are willing to work for
a wage instead.
If you are referring to people getting paid for the hours they work,
well there isn't an issue here in Canada with that (except those gig workers for apps who thought they'd be their own businesses). The real issue here is companies working the schedule so many of the employees aren't "full time" and therefore don't get certain benefits.
No, you pay the going rate for said labour based on the available pool
of potential employees.
Never happens here (pay called into question directly). Whenever some pundit writes an op-ed or appears on a "news" program spouting nonsense
of a pay gap then never ever point to any specific example where they
can say men are paid X and women are paid Y. Never. Best they can do is point to a specific industry and then say that over a lifetime of work
men earned X and women earned Y.
Dilbert!
They keep predicting one here (big cities) based on anticipated
interest rate hikes. The rate hikes never come and neither does the
crash. Everyone still thinks it is inevitable though.
He is indeed a bit of a traitor and in large part a fraud. But too many voters can't see that. He's been re-elected twice now. A minority government both times but the NDP prop him up as if he has a majority.
Thing is it is the standard, when you do it on your own. But also the standard is the right to trade that. Is that right immoral? Most would
say no, of course not.
lol, again, not a libertarian. I say forced because I (and probably
most people) don't consider it a fraudulent contract. So not allowing something considered moral and a right would indeed be forcing it.
That's the crux of your argument, I think, that people need convincing
of. That trading what you produce is fraudulent.
We have to agree on whether or not they are rights first lol.
Well I won't re-hash either. But I will state while I am alternating, because I see exchanging labour and exchanging the product of labour as more often than not synonymous.
Perhaps I didn't articulate it well, but that is what I said (both
working instead of just one "bread winner" was a major factor in
driving up prices).
Can't say I've experienced a tax drop in Canada. Over a decade ago the federal government dropped the federal sales tax twice. But each time,
the provincial government raised their sales tax by the same amount. 5 years ago the federal government lowered the tax rate for my income
level, but eliminated a whole bunch of deductions, with a net effect
that I have paid a couple thousand dollars more than when the tax rate
was higher.
As for services like health care, Canada suffers from inefficiency and poor management. We throw more money at it sometimes but it never
improves anything. I'd like to see a hybrid model of public and
private. Something like in France of some of the Scandinavian countries where the private practices alleviate wait times in the public space
not just by existing but also as overflow to the public system as necessary. But the minute someone breathes "private" in Canada they get shouted down by an angry mob of lefties before they can explain themselves.
Yup. And I think it is that two-incomes driving prices thing over the
past decades, and the speculative investing etc in more recent times.
Here it can be somewhat alleviated by a mobile workforce that can work remotely. But they have to wake up to that realization and also be
willing to leave the big city behind. For Australia, from what you've described, I don't know what the answer is other than a massive market crash.
The Australia health care system works well, the envy of the world, using a model similar to what you described. The public service is good, but the private is there to take some of the burden.
MRO wrote to DaiTengu <=-
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: DaiTengu to MRO on Tue Mar 15 2022 08:22 pm
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to DaiTengu on Tue Mar 15 2022 06:11 pm
everyone was infected with covid 19. it was super contagious.
how dare they want freedom!
I wasn't. My wife wasn't. neither were my parents.
you probably all had it and you didn't know it. that's how it was with most people.
luckily omnicron came around and gave everyone natural immunity. everything we were forced to do did jack fucking shit to stop the covid virus.
Except those people that got it twice. It's almost like "natural immunity" causes a similar, or by many accounts, worse immune system response than what the vaccinations give you.
i dont personally know any people that got it twice. also we've found
out that the pcr tests have been flagging colds and flus as covid.
i dont personally know any people that got it twice. also we've found out that the pcr tests have been flagging colds and flus as covid.
My Wife and I had it twice. Both in our 60's. Once at the beginning before the vaccine and then last year after being vaccinated. Neither time was bad and have had the flu that was WAY worse. Still put us in bed for a day or so hough.
Can you please show me an employment contract which stipulates what transfer happening from the employee to the employer?
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Wed Mar 16 2022 09:18 pm
The Australia health care system works well, the envy of the world, using model similar to what you described. The public service is good, but the private is there to take some of the burden.
I'm 45 years old and i've never heard of the australian health care system being the envy of the world. australia is very small. it's highly likely t their methods could not be applied to a larger country.
Then you go to the Socialized Healthcare office in your village and the doctor is never there. And if you find him, the treatment you may be after is not covered by the welfare system.
I think politicians have this tendency to declare "Our X is the best and people looks at us with envy" but the argument probably does not hold out of the borders :-)
Then you go to the Socialized Healthcare office in your village and the doctor is never there. And if you find him, the treatment you may be after is not covered by the welfare system.
I think politicians have this tendency to declare "Our X is the best and people looks at us with envy" but the argument probably does not hold out of the borders :-)
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <62320F31.8768.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <6231B9E1.55500.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Wed Mar 16 2022 09:18 pm
The Australia health care system works well, the envy of the world, using a model similar to what you described. The public service is good, but the private is there to take some of the burden.
I'm 45 years old and i've never heard of the australian health care
system being the envy of the world. australia is very small. it's
highly likely that their methods could not be applied to a larger
country. ---
Then you go to the Socialized Healthcare office in your village and the doctor is never there. And if you find him, the treatment you may be af is not covered by the welfare system.
Aside from people who far to the left, once you cross a certain salary threshold in America, you don't envy socialized medicine anymore. But for th who outright can't afford it, or who are bad at saving money for emergencies and can't figure out how to do their welfare paperwork, it's not a great system.
there's nothing wrong with libritarianism. I've seen it get attacked by progressives/liberals in the past 5 years or so. I guess they see it as a
The solution to this problem would be to just outright sell the office to a local healthcare group and let them sort it out. I'd rather have a State Sponsored charity coupon system for poor people rather than a free-for-all system you cannot rely on too much.
system being the envy of the world. australia is very small. it's highly likely that their methods could not be applied to a larger country. ---
Maybe people talk it up, but foriegners that have moved here (and there are many people that have migrated to Australia) have said it is pretty good.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to DaiTengu on Wed Mar 16 2022 12:53 am
there's nothing wrong with libritarianism. I've seen it get attacked by progressives/liberals in the past 5 years or so. I guess they see it as a
Many Radio people call Democrats liberals, I don't because the term dosen't
--- BORAXMAN wrote ---
Maybe people talk it up, but foriegners that have moved here (and there
are many people that have migrated to Australia) have said it is pretty good.
I'm an American living in the UK for 21 years now. I stay here because of the NHS.
--- BORAXMAN wrote ---
Maybe people talk it up, but foriegners that have moved here (and there are many people that have migrated to Australia) have said it is pretty good.
I'm an American living in the UK for 21 years now. I stay here because of the NHS.
--- MRO wrote ---
are you that sick that you stay in a country because of the health
system?
lives in Arizona and works for a living. He cannot afford the insulin
that I get here, which is completely covered by the NHS.
I had a heart attack about five years ago. The NHS saved my life.
I also have diabetic retinopathy as well. I imagine treatment for all
the above would be expensive.
Meanwhile, my brother is having to fly from Washington State to Arizona
to help one of her inlaws who has cancer. She will lose her health insurance if she quits working. That's barbaric. The US is barbaric.
I had to live here a while to see that, but it's true.
insurance if she quits working. That's barbaric. The US is barbaric.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <62330161.27672.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <6231B9E1.55500.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
Wed Mar 16 2022 09:18 pm
Can you please show me an employment contract which stipulates what transfer happening from the employee to the employer?
I think most employments involding writers for hire have a segment
which clarifies that the rights to the stuff the employee writes for
the company are transfered to the company. I think lots of IT jobs have similar disclaimers for software.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
I think most employments involding writers for hire have a segment
which clarifies that the rights to the stuff the employee writes for
the company are transfered to the company. I think lots of IT jobs have similar disclaimers for software.
to help one of her inlaws who has cancer. She will lose her health insurance if she quits working. That's barbaric. The US is barbaric.
--- MRO wrote ---
well that's a harsh way to look at it. i've know people with the same problems and they didnt have a horrible experiences.
i think in the usa insurance companies and healthcare providers have been playing this game where the people pay the price. trump was working on fixing that but now we have the big guy in charge.
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
On 18 Mar 2022, the doctor said the following...
Damn it, I've been avoiding this thread specifically because I knew this kind of insanity would be going on.
What's barbaric is stealing from people. Charity at the point of a gun is not charity, it's theft. Gaslighting the victims to make them believe
them believe that everyone has a right to the victims' labor is wrong.
Poverty and lack are man's natural state. Work must be done to raise one out of that. When people get a product or service without work it *must*
be taken from somewhere. What those who demand free healthcare are saying is, "hey you, you're my slave, you work for me now". Whether they're
saying it to their fellow taxpayers, or holding healthcare providers under the threat of violence, it's the same thing.
The morally correct approach is to get the government entirely out of it
and let private providers handle it. The Catholics have been doing an admirable job of caring for the poor in healthcare settings for centuries.
Other private charities do the same.
I, too, have health challenges, and removing government regulation could likely harm me (my costs would go up significantly), but it's the morally correct thing to do.
--- ANDRE wrote ---
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: the doctor to MRO on Fri Mar 18 2022 11:31 am
to help one of her inlaws who has cancer. She will lose her health insurance if she quits working. That's barbaric. The US is barbaric.
Nope. We have Medicare for 65yo+ and Medicaid for poor and unemployed.
- Andre
---
? Synchronet ? Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
--- ANDRE wrote ---
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: the doctor to MRO on Fri Mar 18 2022 11:31 am
Nope. We have Medicare for 65yo+ and Medicaid for poor and unemployed.
But then, that is specifically about work, but what about labour, time?
Does that mean I can manage my own time as I see fit, and as long as I trans the work at the end, all is good?
Again, I don't really see it that way. You want to have your life shortened because that's "morally right"? I'd call that, crazy. (:
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
On 18 Mar 2022, the doctor said the following...
Damn it, I've been avoiding this thread specifically because I knew this kind of insanity would be going on.
What's barbaric is stealing from people. Charity at the point of a gun not charity, it's theft. Gaslighting the victims to make them believe them believe that everyone has a right to the victims' labor is wrong.
Really? You are entitled to your opinion, but society as a whole has decided that isn't the case, and that governments are allowed to intervene in some situtations in the public interest. This is one of them.
Poverty and lack are man's natural state. Work must be done to raise on out of that. When people get a product or service without work it *must be taken from somewhere. What those who demand free healthcare are sayi is, "hey you, you're my slave, you work for me now". Whether they're saying it to their fellow taxpayers, or holding healthcare providers und the threat of violence, it's the same thing.
That is presumptious, because you are assuming that I (and the vast majority of people here who use the NHS) do not work. I've worked full time since I was 16 years old. You could just as easily say, "People
who want free fire protection are saying, 'Hey you, you are my slave,
you work for me now, put out my fire.'"
The morally correct approach is to get the government entirely out of it and let private providers handle it. The Catholics have been doing an admirable job of caring for the poor in healthcare settings for centurie
Other private charities do the same.
The morally correct approach, in my opinion, is to make sure that people have healthcare. Saying everyone who doesn't have excellent insurance should take charity isn't realistic. Maybe it was a century ago.
removing government regulation could td> > likely harm me (my costs would go up significantly), but it's the morall td> > correct thing to do.I, too, have health challenges, and
Again, I don't really see it that way. You want to have your life shortened because that's "morally right"? I'd call that, crazy. (:
--- ARELOR wrote ---
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: the doctor to GREENLFC on Fri Mar 18 2022 03:34
pm
That is a bit like saying:
"You want to have your life shortened because stabbing the guy who has
the Philosopher's Stone and taking it away is 'morally wrong'? I'd call that crazy."
What is being questioned is the morality of the method. If you think the method is moral or not depending on whether you benefit from it or not, that is
not ethics at all, but self-interest.
I personally think the US Healthcare is a captive market, because there is
a lot of protectionism and artificial scarcity of healthcare resources. I could ship a World Class Doctor from here who would work for a fair price but the US administration would not allow him to practice medicine without
+10 years of paperwork.
The US is also known for trigger-happy lawyers, which also adds to the
bill. If chances are that you are getting sued over every little thing then the
hospital will make a risk assetment and increase prices accordinly to cover for
lawyers.
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
On 18 Mar 2022, the doctor said the following...
Forcing anyone to buy a product or support someone who won't support themselves is theft at best and extortion at worst.
You're forced into a scheme with no choice in the matter. Even if it's
the scheme you personally would have chosen, that doesn't make it right.
Not everyone *needs* excellent insurance, and frankly, many of the biggest proponents for government run healthcare could easily afford insurance;
it's just not a priority for them. Of course, if folks had to pay for
their own healthcare they might make different choices (eating healthier, taking fewer risks, etc.
There are more important things than a long life.
MRO wrote to Thumper <=-
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Thumper to MRO on Wed Mar 16 2022 08:29 am
i dont personally know any people that got it twice. also we've found out that the pcr tests have been flagging colds and flus as covid.
My Wife and I had it twice. Both in our 60's. Once at the beginning before the vaccine and then last year after being vaccinated. Neither time was bad and have had the flu that was WAY worse. Still put us in bed for a day or so hough.
yeah but do you know that you had it twice? it could have been the flu.
i also had something that was like a fake covid in feb. it feels like covid but it's like a 24hr flu. almost everyone at my job had it. i
had the same weird aches but it went away real quick. ---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
What is being questioned is the morality of the method. If you think the method is moral or not depending on whether you benefit from it or not, th is
not ethics at all, but self-interest.
Well, okay. I still think it's crazy. I also don't understand how it's more moral than the alternative, which involves people dying and suffering needlessly.
Not in the UK. You are forced to fund the scheme, but, with the exception of emergency care, you don't have to use it. You can buy private health insurance and go to a private doctor and all the rest.
It seems like most Libertarians now days scream about "their freedoms". They scream most loudly about things that they should be free to do,
that infringe on others' freedoms, though.
Libertarians are the most selfish of political parties. As long as it doesn't affect them, personally, they don't care.
For instance, there are some Libertarians that thought they should be
free to walk around, while infected with COVID-19, in public places.
It's not their responsibility to keep others from being sick, after all!
--- ARELOR wrote ---
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: the doctor to GREENLFC on Fri Mar 18 2022 08:07
pm
That is like saying that it is ok for Comcast to force you to buy a subscripion from them, because if you don't like their Internet services, you can just
buy another subscription in addition to Comcast's.
Neither do I. But we do disagree on something you argue is a human right and I argue isn't.
We agree that property is a human right, and that property that you
create starting its life as being your property is a right, the disagreement is whether this right can be voluntarity forfeited. I
don't consider the claim that you have "sold your labour" valid.
Every attempt to "solve" the housing crises has either failed, or at
best, been useless. I haven't seen any successful attempt in the Anglosphere. The only "solutions" are from vested interests, solutions which make the problem worse.
If you start your own business, it is an option, but a modern economy cannot work if no one works with others. Practically speaking, it is not
a viable option. People are used to waged labour, but this is a modern invention. Humans have existed for generations without this so we are capable. The reality you are used to is a specific cultural invention which is localised in the span of human history.
I am convinced that this arrangement will change, the question is WHO is going to dicate the socio-economic system of the future. If you don't
do it, our "elite" will, and trust me, you don't want that. Keeping
what we have is not an option.
The wage system is leading to conflict and problems that require solutions. What should people be paid? Do people deserve a living
wage? How to resolve the conflict between capital and labour? These
are all Capitalist specific problems, they are no inherit parts of human nature.
If you don't jibe with the philosophy I am describing, then fine, but I think if you choose "status quo", you'll get the "status quo" that
people with nasty intentions want. If you don't work on shaping your future, someone else will.
The other problem is that people are looking at the "pay gap" on an individual basis. My wife and I are actually contributing to a 'household' income, so the fact I earn more than here is irrelevant. It gets pooled. People seem to miss that point. It is irrelevant to her that she gets paid less than me. If we swapped our wages, it would make no difference!
Companies literally pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for "Diversity, Inclusion and Equity" consultants. It is a rort, but somehow they have been talked into believing it is necessary and critical. So much for
the people at the top having good business acumen. Now we have major corporations deciding to enact their own foreign policy and trying to cancel Russia, as if someohow they are now the worlds saviours. God
save us from the corporatocracy! They'll kill us all in nuclear fire!
I've always said (and written articles about this), that the market will correct. It will either correct by a drop in prices, or, if the prices don't drop, there will be a corresponding drop in the quality of life, some other realised massive cost. Either way, we ARE going to pay for
it. Asset bubbles are not a free lunch. Driving up the price of assets does not create wealth. Australia will pay for it, somehow, someway.
What you have said is that you can forfeit your property rights, but I
say this is bunk. I have *NEVER* seen an employment contract which stipulates that this. It is just *assumed*.
And lowering wages. Wages can be lower if there are two income earners per family instead of one. Some (mainly on the right) are arguing for even further reduction in wages, because they are arguing that people in entry level jobs may be living at home with their parents, and don't
need a wage to support a family, or even themselves living on their own. These very same people will then argue that wages are based on market forces, but if wages are determined by what a person needs, we've left Capitalism and gone into Marxism (to each according to their needs).
Taxes in Australia have been reduced, but it made no difference. If tax rates drop further, it just means banks can lend you more money, which means house prices will go up (as someone will use their tax savings to outbid someone else).
Our system overtly speaks about controlling peoples spending through policy, which is why I wonder how people can still claim we live in a 'market' society and not a rigged system.
From what I've seen of privatised services in Australia, it hasn't
really been an improvement. In Victoria, we used to get our electricty through the SEC, which was privatised into many competing retailers, but prices just started going up, and its really inefficient to duplicate
the administration multiple times.
The Australia health care system works well, the envy of the world,
using a model similar to what you described. The public service is
good, but the private is there to take some of the burden.
Decentralisation is the other option, but real estate in the towns isn't cheap. There is also the problem of why people who were born and bred
in Melbourne, should be forced out (and replaced by the hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming in). That seems perverse.
The thing is, Australia, like much of the West during the last part of
the 20th century had low birthrates, so population SHOULDN'T be a
problem. Governments panicked and ramped up immigration, creating a
much bigger problem. Business loves it because they get a steady supply of cheap labour, which must be kept going constantly to support our
broken business model.
As I mentioned before, I think if the market doesn't crash, it will
result in long term, costly social problems.
I understand that has been made illegal... not by Trump but by the law he spent about six months trying to repeal.
I personally think the US Healthcare is a captive market, because there is a lot of protectionism and artificial scarcity of healthcare resources. I could ship a World Class Doctor from here who would work for a fair price but
the US administration would not allow him to practice medicine without +10 years of paperwork.
yeah but do you know that you had it twice? it could have been the flu.
We both had to get tested because our jobs and both times positive. Of course who knows....
This idea that you are "forced" to do this terrible thing of using the
NHS or, indeed, paying for it, would be so alien to people here that
they really wouldn't understand. It's actually more important to them
that people are cared for medically, like it's more important to people
that they don't get shot by someone with a handgun, than that people
be able to own them.
--- MRO wrote ---
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: the doctor to MRO on Fri Mar 18 2022 03:26 pm
if you're talking about that trainwreck obamacare, they tried to repeal
and replace that non functional healthcare mess.
after that he made executive orders that made positive healthcare
reforms.
i'm not sure if biden reversed them.
some of the things it allowed was people to buy healthcare out of state, which would allow them to shop around.
--- MRO wrote ---
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: the doctor to ARELOR on Sat Mar 19 2022 12:41 am
why should people pay for something they don't use? why should i pay for your healthcare when you might not pay for mine?
why not give people a choice to opt out? if they WANT to be part of this healthcare plan hey can. if not, they can opt out. why make it forced?
it's wrong.
it's good that you are alive, but it's wrong.
hitler made the trains run on time.
some of the things it allowed was people to buy healthcare out of state, which would allow them to shop around.
I don't like the ACA either. It does allow people I know to get insurance who couldn't before... in what I think is the worst possible mechanism.
You can make that argument about every public service. Besides, that is
the way health insurance works. You pay for other people. If everyone
used the system all the time, it would go broke.
it's wrong.
Lots of things are not ideal.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6234D173.27723.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623450C6.55549.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Fri Mar 18 2022 08:14 pm
But then, that is specifically about work, but what about labour, time?
Does that mean I can manage my own time as I see fit, and as long as I trans the work at the end, all is good?
HP Printing here has what they call "agile timetables", which
essentially mean you can show up and leave as often as you want and
when you want as long as your hours add up at the end of the day.
Which I know is not what you are looking for, but I thought it was
worth mentioning.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <62353409.123827.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
Neither do I. But we do disagree on something you argue is a human right and I argue isn't.
Right, because I (and I think most people) would argue one has the
right to trade (be it labour, property, whatever).
Government isn't known for solutions, generally. That is the "free" market. If prices are high then demand is greater than supply. If that isn't the case then there must be plenty of vacant homes. And if that
is indeed the case then government can be a solution. I'm not saying
they WILL be a solution, but they could be.
What we have isn't as broken as you claim and is easily "fixed" by laws/regulation. Just need the people to demand it and then vote in the right politicians. Probably to different effect in different countries.
I know the US has a lot of wealthy "elites" as politicians making millions. But this just isn't the case in Canada. Our PM is a trust
fund "elite" and are former finance minister was, but that's about it. Corporate elite in big global mega corporations can be problematic, but again that can be addressed and differs from country to country.
Doesn't require throwing out the only economic system history has known that has created a global middle class and that has lifted a billion people out of poverty in the past quarter century alone. There are
much less drastic solutions that don't require such risky economic experiments that have the potential to result in wide-spread human
misery.
These aren't capitalist specific problems. The
commies/socialists/marxist all experienced the same thing. They all had their elite class and the rest of society reached equality in misery.
The "living wage" thing is a trope. What is a living wage? Clearly most people would say it should include food, clothing and shelter. But to
what level? Should there be "luxuries" too? Entertainment money? We
have minimum wages to prevent exploitation, but at some point people
need to be responsible for themselves if they want to move beyond
minimum wage. Nobody is owed a comfortable life. Life is hard.
I never espoused the status quo. But all the issues of concern you've mentioned here and in the past don't require dumping the current
economic system and a major re-write in human rights laws. People (generations really) need to start to take responsibility for their
lives, get involved and elect politicians who will make the changes necessary. Most would rather complain online (not talking about you, I mean the youngest of millenials and Gen Z Tik Tok types) than actually learn about candidates and then vote let alone write an MP about a specific issue.
Our western democracies have all the tools needed to change what needs changing. But we're too busy being consumers rather than citizens.
So true.
I think a lot of big brand companies are more "woke" than the general population and get caught up in this stuff. Whereas most people just
want to live their lives.
Interest rates may cause corrections if various central banks
eventually let them get to where they truly should be by now. But I
think they are too concerned about protecting current governments
rather than allowing such a correction. "Cheap money" has caused more
harm than good, at least in the past 20 years.
I've seen it stipulated. It is quite common for people who develop software.
I haven't seen that. I remember Google started to pay some of its
remote workers less than those living in San Francisco because of cost
of living. But that's "market forces". Corporate pundits (is there
such a thing? lol) can talk about lower wages all they want, but it
will still be the labour market that dictates what wages are. Sometimes hot air is just hot air.
Yup, this is where central banks artificially keep lending rates low
which in turn causes higher housing prices.
Here in Nova Scotia they privatised the provincial power company into
one single private company. Rates in this province are in the top third for the country (and that includes the northern territories where everything is mega expensive). There is no real way to have competing power companies in such a small province. They thought there would be efficiencies with a private company vs a Crown corp, and there was, but that's now called profit lol.
Nice! And I am envious.
Interesting. We have some more expensive towns and smaller cities too.
But plenty that are "cheap" relatively speaking.
As for moving, a former Canadian PM when speaking about jobs in a
region of this province that traditionally had high unemployment (and seasonal fisherman) said "there are plenty of jobs to be had in Canada, you just have to be willing to move". I didn't vote for the guy, but I agreed with what he said. No one is owed a living. Life is hard. My
mother and grand parents came from England. I moved from one coast to
the other for work. My son will likely leave this province for
university and work afterwards. While it would be great to have
everything one needs over the course of a lifetime in one's "hometown",
it isn't always possible and again no one is owed that. It isn't a
right.
Our own immigration has been ramped up dramatically the past 6 years.
Our PM thinks they'll all be Liberal voters as they mostly move to the
big three cities which are predominantly Liberal voting. But it has driven house prices up as well as rent. I can't honestly say I have a
clue as to how it affects employment in those cities. Closer to home my own province has been trying to attract these immigrants and it has
been working to some degree. Though we don't suffer from any sort of affordable housing crisis here.
Yes I'd agree with that. I think we will see it. Interest rates will be kept artificially low for a time, but eventually they won't be able to hold them there and they will start to rise to levels not seen in
decades.
Boomers are also starting to "sunset". Over the next 30 years boomers
will be dying off of natural causes left and right, leaving homes to children or at the very least creating "vacancies" in the market.
Didn't mean to be grim with that lol. Sorry to any boomers reading
this.
Greenlfc wrote to the doctor <=-
@MSGID: <62347D3F.123803.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 18 Mar 2022, the doctor said the following...
insurance if she quits working. That's barbaric. The US is barbaric.
Damn it, I've been avoiding this thread specifically because I knew
this kind of insanity would be going on.
What's barbaric is stealing from people. Charity at the point of a gun
is not charity, it's theft. Gaslighting the victims to make them
believe them believe that everyone has a right to the victims' labor is wrong.
Poverty and lack are man's natural state. Work must be done to raise
one out of that. When people get a product or service without work it *must* be taken from somewhere. What those who demand free healthcare
are saying is, "hey you, you're my slave, you work for me now".
Whether they're saying it to their fellow taxpayers, or holding
healthcare providers under the threat of violence, it's the same thing.
The morally correct approach is to get the government entirely out of
it and let private providers handle it. The Catholics have been doing
an admirable job of caring for the poor in healthcare settings for centuries. Other private charities do the same.
I, too, have health challenges, and removing government regulation
could likely harm me (my costs would go up significantly), but it's the morally correct thing to do.
Why oh why would you want to follow the US's example? Are people seriously still pushing this Libertarian garbage? The only economic philosophy that sounds dumber than Socialism.
still pushing this Libertarian garbage? The only economic philosophy that sounds dumber than Socialism.
I'm OK with paying taxes for good healthcare. I happen to like civilisation.
The problem with Socialism is precisely that it does not sound dumb, which makes it an easier sell.
The US is also very far from Libertarian.
Right, because I (and I think most people) would argue one has the right to trade (be it labour, property, whatever).
You keep misunderstanding the argument. I am not arguing you don't have
a right to trade labour, I am arguing that your claim that you have
traded your labour is false.
You cannot trade what you cannot transfer. You can't use a contract as "proof" of anything. You must PROVE that you have transferred labour. Just SAYING that you have done it means nothing.
All you have been able to argue is that you can act *as if* labour was transferred. That is not the same as *actually* transferring labour. I'll tell you what, you pay me for me car, as we'll act *as if* the car was transferred to you.
They government would ensure that demand remains high by keeping immigration high, or keeping incentives for investors to purchase high. The market is rigged. Construction has boomed in Australia. I've never seen as many houses demolished and subdivided as before. "market
forces" aren't working. The "market" is rigged.
No way the system would allow fundamental changes to occur. The entire system is built to support the status quo. Vote your way into change by voting for major parties and status quo leaders? Surely you don't think this could actually happen? If anyone actually proposed any change, a scare campaign would put a stop to that. And don't think that education will help, as George Carlin said, the system wants is ignorant so we
don't realise how we're getting screwed.
I'm not worried about how we got out of poverty, I'm worried about not sliding back into authoritarinism and poverty and the conditions of the gilded age.
Yes, they experienced the same thing because they kept the same
structure we did (people are a purchasable asset, property of the owner
of the means of production). We will always be plagued by this problem
if we insist that human beings are assets.
I would say a living wage is what is necessary to be a functional and viable, healthy member of society. Clothing, food, shelter, education, health (mental and physical) and some quality of life, and yes, even
some entertainment.
Also, minimum wage is paid to people who are older than 18, it has to
be. IF you're working full time, you should have some reasonable
standard of living. If you're not, the system is failing. We're not savages on the savannah anymore.
I'm not proposing dumping the entire system, that is a strawman argument, though I'm more and more thinking it may be necessary. It is one
change. Property rights remain the same. Entreprenerial rights remain the same. The financial system remains the same. It is less of a
change than the "Great Reset" or "Stakeholder Capitalism". You OK with those ideas instead? Because that is what you'll get.
Our children will see much greater changes than you realise, and in retrospect, your objection to this will seem foolish and overblown.
It isn't the companies really which are woke, it is a small minority in Human Resources (or whatever they choose to call themselves) and in the exec/PR team. Most employees in these companies probably don't care, or don't subscribe to these ideas. The "companies" are captured by a small elite within them. Ben and Jerry's are not Woke, a small number within the company are woke and claiming to represent the organisation as a
whole (which is fraudulent).
If Google is paying less, then that is an admission that wages are based on the cost of upkeep of the person, and not value of labour. The value of what you produce doesn't change because of the latitude and longitude you were when you produced it, ESPECIALLY for software development.
Googles action PROVE my argument. It is evidence that companies are paying not on value of labour, but on upkeep of what they are renting. Because the employee has less rent to pay, the upkeep is less and they
can pay less.
This has nothing to do with "the market", and everything to do with the disproportionate power between labour and capital. There is no reason
why "the market" would value a piece of software less because it was written in one area rather than another.
Our "Capitalism" is a fraud. And screw Google, they're evil.
They do this deliberately to keep prices high. As I've said, so called Capitalism is a rigged game. You are dead wrong thinking you live in a "Capitalist" country. I find your belief in voting in the market really naive, as if you're looking at the world through rose coloured glasses.
My grandparents moved to Australian with barely anything. It wasn't
easy. But if people are having to always move, then something is wrong. They moved because of a World War. People moving isn't a good thing.
We should be striving to make life easier, more stable. Make cities viable places to stay. I don't want my children to have to move away
from their home city, if they don't want to. It is THEIR city.
They'll be kept low for a long time. They've been talking about rate rises "just around the corner" every week since 2010. The GFC stuffed things up more than people want to admit. Our economic system was/is broken. I'm somewhat convinced that the talk of rate rises is just a smokescreen, a way of signalling that things will return to normal when
in reality they wont. The GFC was another nail in the coffin of the modern West.
They'll be snapped up by investors. They only need to outbid others and then rent them out, or leave them empty and just seek capital gains.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <62377F57.27753.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <62371536.55596.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on
Sun Mar 20 2022 10:38 pm
Why oh why would you want to follow the US's example? Are people seriously still pushing this Libertarian garbage? The only economic philosophy that sounds dumber than Socialism.
The problem with Socialism is precisely that it does not sound dumb,
which makes it an easier sell.
The US is also very far from Libertarian.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6237A78B.8847.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <62371536.55596.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Sun Mar 20 2022 10:38 pm
still pushing this Libertarian garbage? The only economic philosophy that sounds dumber than Socialism.
I'm OK with paying taxes for good healthcare. I happen to like civilisation.
you know you can get free healthcare in the usa.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6237BAED.123850.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
Right, because I (and I think most people) would argue one has the
right to trade (be it labour, property, whatever).
You keep misunderstanding the argument. I am not arguing you don't have
a right to trade labour, I am arguing that your claim that you have
traded your labour is false.
Semantics. My point was your belief isn't widely held, unproven and frankly ludicrous. It is pie in the sky philosophy 101 mumbo jumbo.
This is said mumbo jumbo. I sweep the floor. The employer pays me
money. Nobody cares or thinks about any transfer of labour, they simply performed labour in exchange for money as is their right to do so.
There was nothing nefarious about it.
No, I don't think I've used the term "transferred". That's yours. I
said "traded". One trades their labour for pay.
That's simply bad government.
Well this is what I was talking about with people being lazy. If they
want change and voting in a federal election doesn't do it then they
need to join a political party, participate in their local riding association so that they can have a say in what candidate is nominated
and have a say in what the association's delegate pushes for policy and the party policy convention. And vote. Voting is the bare minimum in a democracy. Participating fully is work. People are lazy. That old
saying about getting the government you deserve is apt precisely
because people are lazy. Much easier to blame capitalism and boogeymen such as the "elite" than to do work to effect change. The status quo exists because people won't get off their asses more than once every 4 years to vote (and a significant percent won't even do that).
I'm with you on the authoritarianism bit. But it is the "progressives" that will take us there. They're the ones calling capitalism bad and demanding change (and big government). They're the useful idiots the champaign socialist politicians use to get elected and re-elected while enriching their big business supporters (crony capitalists).
lol, no. That's not the reason at all. They experienced that because equality of outcome (progressives call that a "living wage" these days) eliminates incentive for production, invention, entrepreneurship, performance etc. Proven fact. Ask any old Soviet escapee.
That would lead to inflation and an exit of capital wherever it was implemented. A good example is our socialized health care and our
pharmacy industry. Because of our laws in Canada, we are emphatically
not designers/discoverors of new drugs nor are we leaders in modern medical procedures etc. Where does that primarily happen? The good old USA, where capitalism drives innovation due to incentive.
I don't entirely disagree. However minimum wage and the jobs associated with it were never intended to be "middle income" life-style jobs. And they simply can't be. The only way to accomplish that is to bring
everyone else down. That was tried and failed, though some want to try
it yet again (looking at you AOC).
When the minimum wage goes up, the cost of many other things rise with
it. In turn that effectively wipes out the pay raise those minimum wage workers just got. We see this across the US and Canada in various jurisdictions time and time again.
The only way to avoid that is to legislate things like "maximum profit" for companies. But unless the entire world does that at comparable
rates and at the same time, well corporations and capital just moves.
We see capital move all the time when corporate taxes or unfavourable regulations drive them away.
I thought changing property rights in a major way was the crux of your system. As for the rest, no, no I would literally fight against the
great reset as would many of my fellow countrymen and Americans.
The great reset pushers were really hoping COVID would be their
catalyst but that failed to gain the traction they were hoping for. I think with the US mid-terms they will be further de-railed (and the
2024 US presidential election too).
No, capitalism is what will save us not do us in. Less regulation, less government, more free market solutions to problems. Build more houses, create more good paying jobs etc. As long as the people vote to keep crony capitalism at bay (looking at you Trudeau voters Canada) and the West starts to ween itself off Chinese goods we'll be alright.
Things will go one of two ways. Authoritarianism-lite will become entrenched in western democracies, or small government will make a comeback, allowing capitalism to elevate all.
Probably both. Some corps seem full of woke employees. Like Spotify and Google. They make the news for the employees demanding the employer ban this person or that product etc.
Nope. It is the labour market entirely. Nothing to do with what is produced directly but rather who can they get to produce it. For
someone they hire to work at their office they have to pay market rate
for that geo-location. For a remote worker they also pay the market
rate. If they didn't need local employees then their entire workforce would be cheaper remote workers. No different than a company that hires people from India instead of local. Only in this case they simply
aren't going that far with their remote workforce.
Yes, Google is evil. They seem to know it too as they removed their
once famous "Do no evil" sign from their main building lobby several
years back.
I don't see it through rose coloured glasses. There are lots of flaws
due to bad law/regulation or lack thereof. I also see lazy and ignorant masses who've let this happen. Then we get the same crying for change "because capitalism evil". That's where the naivety lives.
I never meant moving constantly or frequently. Once should do it. But cities that aren't viable is typical as cities are usually full of progressives and lefties who fuck up everything they touch. If you look
at a map of the US for example and place your finger on any city, find
out if it has predominantly been run by Democrat mayors and I can guarantee you it is a shithole with high crime etc. Things aren't as
bad in Canada but our lefty mayors in our big cities follow the same
path making the same bad decisions that cause high crime and other problems.
It is possible. That's been the pattern here. As for the GFC, Canada
was largely unscathed by that. Wasn't really a thing here. We had a
minor recession simply because our trading partner's economies were
fucked for a while. But other than that the GFC didn't happen here.
And again this isn't "capitalism" failing, it is government. And when government fails to do the right thing it is because the people haven't made them.
civilisation.
you know you can get free healthcare in the usa.
Is that a result of theft though?
--- BORAXMAN wrote ---
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Socialism does sound dumb. One class of people will work, toil in the fields, one will defend, get shot and injured, one will grind in the factory and
intellectuals will get to sit back and tell all these people what to do?
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
On 18 Mar 2022, the doctor said the following...
Forcing anyone to buy a product or support someone who won't support themselves is theft at best and extortion at worst.
I could go though the litany of all the other product or services that
you are required to fund via your taxes, but there are many of them.
You can call being taxed "theft" if you want to. I don't like it either.
You're forced into a scheme with no choice in the matter. Even if it's the scheme you personally would have chosen, that doesn't make it right.
Not in the UK. You are forced to fund the scheme, but, with the
exception of emergency care, you don't have to use it. You can buy private health insurance and go to a private doctor and all the rest.
Not everyone *needs* excellent insurance, and frankly, many of the bigge proponents for government run healthcare could easily afford insurance; it's just not a priority for them. Of course, if folks had to pay for their own healthcare they might make different choices (eating healthier taking fewer risks, etc.
Suresure. Very few people can "afford to pay for their own healthcare." How do I know? I used to be forced to do just that. I couldn't afford
it.
There are more important things than a long life.
Well, without insulin and other lifesaving treatment I've recieved here, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm OK with paying taxes for good healthcare. I happen to like civilisation.
The problem with Socialism is precisely that it does not sound dumb,
which makes it an easier sell.
The US is also very far from Libertarian.
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
With the exception of common defense (military) most of those programs are completely worthless, and we wouldn't need as big of a military if we weren't always butting in.
A distinction without a difference, sir. You've purchased the service. That money could have been used for you to buy better or cheaper
insurance, but you've been denied the option.
You couldn't afford it because of government regulation. By the time you add the overhead from processing health insurance, liability insurance,
and being able to charge more because it doesn't directly impact peoples' pockets (that includes the traditionally insured), you end up with a shot that should cost you $5 at Walmart costing $3000/mo. Big pharma *loves* when .gov gets involved with things.
You would not have been denied lifesaving treatment in the US and you wouldn't get stuck on crazy waiting lists for "elective" surgeries.
Boraxman wrote to Arelor <=-
No, these contracts ALSO assume they get to "buy you", or buy your
time. That part isn't elucidated.
the doctor wrote to ANDRE <=-
Have you ever tried claiming Medicaid? I don't know about anywhere but Arizona, but in Arizona, their idea of poor is, well, homeless. That's not an exaggeration. They said to me, "Empty your pockets, we want to
see how much money you have."
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
HP Printing here has what they call "agile timetables", which
essentially mean you can show up and leave as often as you want and
when you want as long as your hours add up at the end of the day.
Arelor wrote to the doctor <=-
I personally think the US Healthcare is a captive market, because there
is a lot of protectionism and artificial scarcity of healthcare
resources. I could ship a World Class Doctor from here who would work
for a fair price but the US administration would not allow him to
practice medicine without +10 years of paperwork.
The US is also known for trigger-happy lawyers, which also adds to the bill. If chances are that you are getting sued over every little thing then the hospital will make a risk assetment and increase prices accordinly to cover for lawyers.
the doctor wrote to ANDRE <=-
Have you ever tried claiming Medicaid? I don't know about anywhere but Arizona, but in Arizona, their idea of poor is, well, homeless. That's not an exaggeration. They said to me, "Empty your pockets, we want to see how much money you have."
Even medicare - before medicare would kick in to pay for care for my elder relatives and family friends, assets had to be exhausted - including primary residences and all savings.
Socialism does sound dumb. One class of people will work, toil in the field one will defend, get shot and injured, one will grind in the factory and intellectuals will get to sit back and tell all these people what to do?
Imagine if someone came out and proposed this system, that they would rule manage us, and we do all the work. This proposition should have been met wi laughter.
The US isn't completely Libertarian because a truly Libertarian "state" woul have fallen apart by now.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Sun Mar 20 2022 10:38 pm
Why oh why would you want to follow the US's example? Are people serious still pushing this Libertarian garbage? The only economic philosophy tha sounds dumber than Socialism.
The problem with Socialism is precisely that it does not sound dumb, which makes it an easier sell.
The US is also very far from Libertarian.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623860F2.8857.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <62385332.55608.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Mon Mar 21 2022 08:31 pm
civilisation.
you know you can get free healthcare in the usa.
Is that a result of theft though?
not always. there's grants and partnerships that clinics and other
places can use. also volunteers.
also if you remember pharma bro he pointed out that while some
medicines had their prices jacked up, there are programs where people
can get them cheap or free. people just didnt know where to look and
they werent being informed by their providers.
there's also 'don't pay your bill'
i did that once when i went to get cleared for work and they put a shitload of charges on my bill. it probably fucked up my credit but i
was a kid and it didnt phase me and it's gone now. ---
= Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <62388DD6.123860.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 20 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
I'm OK with paying taxes for good healthcare. I happen to like civilisation.
You can't have civilization without manners and morals. Robbing your fellow citizens at gunpoint demonstrates neither.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6238809A.50953.dove.dove-gen@realitycheckbbs.org>
@REPLY: <623450C6.55549.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Boraxman wrote to Arelor <=-
No, these contracts ALSO assume they get to "buy you", or buy your
time. That part isn't elucidated.
I suppose that's a good argument for independent contractor status as a content creator - get paid for specific assignments and not for the blanket use of your time. Then, it would be simple to determine who
owns the rights to what.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6238F29F.27775.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <62385332.55607.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Mon Mar 21 2022 08:30 pm
Socialism does sound dumb. One class of people will work, toil in the field one will defend, get shot and injured, one will grind in the factory and intellectuals will get to sit back and tell all these people what to do?
Imagine if someone came out and proposed this system, that they would rule manage us, and we do all the work. This proposition should have been met wi laughter.
The US isn't completely Libertarian because a truly Libertarian "state" woul have fallen apart by now.
They don't sell Socialism that way.
The way they sell Socialism is by telling you people can band together
and build a set of services together so everybody owns a piece of it
and everybody can benefit.
The US is not Libertarian because people loves to use the power of the State to oppress others or to take stuff from others :-)
the doctor wrote to BORAXMAN <=-
@MSGID: <623873EB.123858.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
--- BORAXMAN wrote ---
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Socialism does sound dumb. One class of people will work, toil in the fields, one will defend, get shot and injured, one will grind in the factorya
nd
intellectuals will get to sit back and tell all these people what to do?
Sounds like captialism to me... or is Jeff Bezos out "working in a
field"?
The Pharma Bro? You mean Martin Shkreli, that pathetic excuse for a human being?
Not paying your bill is also theft.
I have to say, Libertarianism is the
most brainded economic/moral philsophy
Oddly, I don't see people robbed at gunpoint. Maybe its different where you live, but I haven't met one person who was robbed at gunpoint, let alont robbed at gunpoint to extract taxes.
MRO wrote to Thumper <=-
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Thumper to MRO on Fri Mar 18 2022 08:07 am
yeah but do you know that you had it twice? it could have been the flu.
We both had to get tested because our jobs and both times positive. Of course who knows....
yeah but you didnt see what i said. they are saying the pcr tests were flagging colds and flu as covid. ---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
You can't have civilization without manners and morals. Robbing your fellow citizens at gunpoint demonstrates neither.
Oddly, I don't see people robbed at gunpoint. Maybe its different where you live, but I haven't met one person who was robbed at gunpoint, let alont robbed at gunpoint to extract taxes.
Nobody working at McDonald's or retail deserves $15/h. Minimum wage was never designed to be a living wage. It is what it's called - minimum.
Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <62388DD6.123860.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 20 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
I'm OK with paying taxes for good healthcare. I happen to like civilisation.
You can't have civilization without manners and morals. Robbing your fellow
citizens at gunpoint demonstrates neither.
Oddly, I don't see people robbed at gunpoint. Maybe its different where you live,
I haven't met one person who was robbed at gunpoint, let alont robbed at gunpoint t
extract taxes.
the doctor wrote to BORAXMAN <=-
@MSGID: <623873EB.123858.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
--- BORAXMAN wrote ---
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Socialism does sound dumb. One class of people will work, toil in the fields, oa
will defend, get shot and injured, one will grind in the factory
nd
intellectuals will get to sit back and tell all these people what to do?
Sounds like captialism to me... or is Jeff Bezos out "working in a field"?
Well, each company is essentially run as a Communist organisation. Communism is
nothing more than the entire nation being turned into a company.
I do like how Libertarians think they can sit at the adults table with their juveni
philosophy, so removed from any empirical evidence. Libertarianism is the only
philosophy which not only would fail horrendously, but even if it worked as stated
the box, would still be a nightmare. At least Communism can sound good in theory.
I was just saying the many ways it can be handled. you can also wait
until it goes to a collections company and then work out a deal and pay your bill f
much less. i know a person who had to pay 20k and it went down to 2,500 usd.
Other than a living wage, for what purpose is a minimum wage meant to be minimum fo
Nightfox
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
Oddly, I don't see people robbed at gunpoint. Maybe its different where you live, but I haven't met one person who was robbed at gunpoint, let alont robbed at gunpoint to extract taxes.
there is a robbery every 1.7 minutes in the usa.
people tried to rob me or something during valentines day week
but i just walked to my car where i have a lot of stuff.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
I go into the doctors office to talk to the doctor for 1 minute.
i have to pay 500 out of pocket so they can weigh me and do their
dumb shit i don't need. is that right? also they are charging my insurance thousands.
I was just saying the many ways it can be handled. you can also
wait until it goes to a collections company and then work out a
deal and pay your bill for much less. i know a person who had to
pay 20k and it went down to 2,500 usd.
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
On 22 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
What happens if you don't pay your taxes to fund the scheme du jour? You get a fine, maybe have your home taken, and bank accounts seized.
If you still don't pay and knuckle under, armed men will come to take you
to prison.
If you don't want to go with them, they will use force to take you.
If you resist that force, they will attempt to kill you. With guns.
Every time someone says, "There ought to be a law," they are saying that those who disagree should be killed if they don't comply. Any time
someone uses the government's (near) monopoly of force to enact something they want, that's what they're doing.
People choose not to think of their "reasonable" demands in that way, but
a failure to look to the end result doesn't make it so.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6239B2F8.8876.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <623994E4.55625.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Mar 22 2022 07:58 pm
The Pharma Bro? You mean Martin Shkreli, that pathetic excuse for a human being?
well there's a lot of people that are pathetic excuses for human
beings. maybe most of us fit that definition. whats funny is he went
to prison for a whitecollar crime. and nobody suffered. he actually
made these investors money even though he dipped from his other company
to do it.
regardless of what you think of him, he is a genius. and when he spoke about those programs, he was correct.
Not paying your bill is also theft.
if i dont pay a bill, i don't go to prison or jail.
also these hospitals overcharge and make fraudulant charges.
I go into the doctors office to talk to the doctor for 1 minute.
i have to pay 500 out of pocket so they can weigh me and do their dumb shit i don't need. is that right? also they are charging my insurance thousands.
I was just saying the many ways it can be handled. you can also wait until it goes to a collections company and then work out a deal and pay your bill for much less. i know a person who had to pay 20k and it
went down to 2,500 usd.
in the usa you don't have to go without. there's many options.
I have to say, Libertarianism is the
most brainded economic/moral philsophy
why are you talking about libritarians and marxists?
Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623A25B1.123881.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 22 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
What happens if you don't pay your taxes to fund the scheme du jour?
You get a fine, maybe have your home taken, and bank accounts seized.
If you still don't pay and knuckle under, armed men will come to take
you to prison.
If you don't want to go with them, they will use force to take you.
If you resist that force, they will attempt to kill you. With guns.
Every time someone says, "There ought to be a law," they are saying
that those who disagree should be killed if they don't comply. Any
time someone uses the government's (near) monopoly of force to enact something they want, that's what they're doing.
People choose not to think of their "reasonable" demands in that way,
but a failure to look to the end result doesn't make it so.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-civilisa
@MSGID: <623A6AA2.27792.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623994E6.55626.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on
Tue Mar 22 2022 08:08 pm
Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <62388DD6.123860.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 20 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
I'm OK with paying taxes for good healthcare. I happen to like
tion.fe
You can't have civilization without manners and morals. Robbing your
llowgunp
citizens at gunpoint demonstrates neither.
Oddly, I don't see people robbed at gunpoint. Maybe its different where you
live,
I haven't met one person who was robbed at gunpoint, let alont robbed at
oint t
extract taxes.
Come to Spain and expand your catalog of experiences.
Modern Socialism is coercitive by force. It works on the premise that
you do what you are told, else the cops show up and beat your brains
out against a wall. The threat of force is usually very well hidden and people does not think much about it, but here is this: Socializing
forces scalate their threat against anybody who resists until disidence
is destroyed.
See, if you don't place a "No Smoking" sign in your bar you get a
letter with a fine. If you don't pay the fine, you get a citation. If
you get a citation and ignore it, they command you to close the bar. If you refuse to close the bar, they send government mercenaries to close
the bar. If you still refuse to close the bar, they beat your brains
out of your head.
The common response is "Nobody is so stupid to push matters up to that point," and while that may be true, it does not deny the fact that
Every Single Command from Government is backed by the threat that they will eventually destroy anybody who disobeys.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Actually, Anarcho-Syndicalism is turning a territory into a federation
of cooperative companies (since they don't recognize the notion of nation), Communism is about turning the whole nation into a Cooperative (and eventually disolve the nation) and Fascism is about turning the nation into a company, in which every department is run in a semi-cooperative way.
The reason why Communist regimes end up operating as quasi-fascism is because in order to have people join the Cooperative you need to force them to join, and that requires power structures. Once you have power structures in place, the people on top has no reason to release the
reins because they can be the Dear Leaders forever.
Fascism has a similar peoblem with having people join State Unionized firms... they need to force people to accept working in the Union the General of the Week wants to give them, which is the reason there was
so much black market and illegal Unions going on in Spain back in the days.
Greenlfc wrote to Arelor <=-
@MSGID: <62388DD6.123861.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 20 Mar 2022, Arelor said the following...
The problem with Socialism is precisely that it does not sound dumb,
which makes it an easier sell.
The US is also very far from Libertarian.
(I'm agreeing with you here).
Socialism sounds smart to dumb people. Why shouldn't we take care of people and share our resources, and so on? It's just that socialism is the worst possible way to do it, because it relies on human nature
*not* being what it is. See The Tragedy of the Commons, or Lord Acton.
The US hasn't been anywhere close to libertarian (small-l) since around 1913 or so. We started the slide to socialism around then and only our history of rugged individualism in some places has slowed it down, but
not stopped it. We're going on this ride, and I don't like where it
ends up.
Gamgee wrote to MRO <=-
@MSGID: <623A7927.27800.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <6239B2F8.8876.dove-gen@bbses.info>
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
I go into the doctors office to talk to the doctor for 1 minute.
i have to pay 500 out of pocket so they can weigh me and do their
dumb shit i don't need. is that right? also they are charging my insurance thousands.
Either your insurance SUCKS BADLY, or you're lying.
I was just saying the many ways it can be handled. you can also
wait until it goes to a collections company and then work out a
deal and pay your bill for much less. i know a person who had to
pay 20k and it went down to 2,500 usd.
Oh yeah, that's a great solution. Does wonders for the credit rating, too. LOL
I was just saying the many ways it can be handled. you can also wait until it goes to a collections company and then work out a deal and pay your bill f much less. i know a person who had to pay 20k and it went down to 2,500 usd.
That is a so-so solution at best and should not be considered a standard.
Captive markets are so bad because this sort of shit happens. Lots of medicines can be expensive in an area because they are the only authorized ones for disease X, but if you smuggled them from somewhere else you could have them for less than half the price.
Minimum wages are meant for getting voters for the Spanish Worker's Socialist Party. That is the reason why Spanish minimum wage is the same all across the territory regardless of the fact it is more than you need in a poor area, and won't afford you a living at all in a rich one.
You preach anarchy.
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
On 22 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
why are you talking about libritarians and marxists?
$500? I hear conflicting things about the healthcare system there, some says its OK, but whenever I heard actual details, they're mortifying.
The US hasn't been anywhere close to libertarian (small-l) since around 1913 or so. We started the slide to socialism around then and only our history of rugged individualism in some places has slowed it down, but not stopped it. We're going on this ride, and I don't like where it ends up.
Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...
Are you saying that if I rent a property from you, decide not to pay rent anymore and refuse to vacate, you can't use force against me?
Force is required, because in this ideological state, agreement/disagreement is rendered as moral/immoral. That is, "we" are right, because we have the solution and are moral, and everyone
else must be immoral. Take for examples the "taxation is theft" line. That belies a firm and rigid belief that only one pattern of property rights is legitimate, and people who accept an
other are not only accepting an inferior belief, but are IMMORAL and HARMFUL. These ideologies are profoundly anti-Western, anti-Enlightenment, as we have come to a system where what is mor
what our system should be, is based on consensus and self-rule. We choose our moral frameworks and precepts and alternative ones simply need to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Arelor to Nightfox on Tue Mar 22 2022 08:17 pm
Minimum wages are meant for getting voters for the Spanish Worker's Socialist Party. That is the reason why Spanish minimum wage is the same all across the territory regardless of the fac
it is more than you need in a poor area, and won't afford you a living at all in a rich one.
i still don't get the argument about minimum wage.
Is this very common in other countries?
in the usa it's just a political selling point.
not many people are ON minimum wage. not even people at walmart.
i know people that mop floors that make 20/hr.
--- MRO wrote ---
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: the doctor to GREENLFC on Wed Mar 23 2022 09:35 am
You preach anarchy.
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
On 22 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
post on the bottom please. most of us are reading on bbses.
You preach anarchy.`
You realise that ALL contracts must be enforced, by threat of force?
Even in a pure "voluntaryist" society, you need "men with guns".
Lets say I decide that property is theft, and I don't pay back my mortgage, or refuse to pay rent as I believe it is immoral. Men with
guns will come eventually to kick me off, if I don't comply with earlier demands to vacate.
Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...
well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.
It's not like that anymore. usa sold itself out. jobs went to
india and china.
i'm 45 and worked hard my entire life and I couldn't have a house
other than inheriting one. i also didn't handle my finances
well, but i wonder how well they handled it back in the boomer
days.
the doctor wrote to MRO <=-
post on the bottom please. most of us are reading on bbses.
As am I, and I usually do that, however, it seemed a long post to
quote (and scroll though) for a one line reply.
well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.
You still can. I know many people like that, including myself.
So..... do you think there's any relationship between not handling your finances well and not being able to buy a house?
Yup.
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
No. Anarchy and Democracy are basically the same thing. You have to protect freedoms, and yes it's a tight balance. Basically, I line up with the US founders, Locke, etc, in that the sole purpose of government is to protect against outside aggression and to ensure individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property. Everything outside of that is wrong.
--- GAMGEE wrote ---
the doctor wrote to MRO <=-
Doesn't matter. Top-posting is always the wrong choice.
the doctor wrote to GAMGEE <=-
Doesn't matter. Top-posting is always the wrong choice.
I feel dirty.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
By: Gamgee to MRO on Wed Mar 23 2022 02:42 pm
well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.
You still can. I know many people like that, including myself.
So..... do you think there's any relationship between not handling your finances well and not being able to buy a house?
It depends on where you live and what industry you work in.
As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now,
at least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof. Just
looking right now, I see a listing for a house for sale in my
area on Zillow.com for $505,000, and it's only a 960 square foot
house. $699,500 for a 1,185 square foot house. Another is a
1,769 square foot house and they want $649,000 for it.
As far as jobs, companies these days seem to change their plans
all the time.
They'll start new projects and cancel projects all
the time, resulting in layoffs.
There's no such thing as company loyalty anymore -
Companies can let you go at any time (and people leave for
other jobs all the time). I feel like there's no such thing
as a job for life anymore.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B1C1D.8900.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <623AED87.55648.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:17 pm
why are you talking about libritarians and marxists?
$500? I hear conflicting things about the healthcare system there, some says its OK, but whenever I heard actual details, they're mortifying.
there's a lot of factors and different types of insurance. with my current insurance i wouldn't have to pay that much probably. it's complicated stuff. you have a deductable you agree to, then you have various coverages for care and for drugs. i wouldn't expect someone
from another country to understand it because it's so convoluted.
For some providers i'm paying a lot and having to do that deductable,
for other ones i'm paying a few cents. there's also agreements that
the hospitals have with insurance companies and there's also generic drugs.
it's very complicated so you can't believe someone when they explain it
in 2 sentences.
Our system really needs to be gutted and fixed, and that's what Trump
was working on. You couldn't go in before and say how much to fix a broken arm? how much if i have a sinus infection? how much if i need a yearly physical? they would tell you to fuck off before. they don't
know. i'm not sure if that law/order got pushed through [or reversed
by biden] by trump, but it was a great thing. ---
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B1D1A.8901.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <623AED8D.55652.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:39 pm
The US hasn't been anywhere close to libertarian (small-l) since around 1913 or so. We started the slide to socialism around then and only our history of rugged individualism in some places has slowed it down, but not stopped it. We're going on this ride, and I don't like where it ends up.
Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...
well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the wife
sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place and have a
job for life.
It's not like that anymore. usa sold itself out. jobs went to india and china.
i'm 45 and worked hard my entire life and I couldn't have a house other than inheriting one. i also didn't handle my finances well, but i
wonder how well they handled it back in the boomer days.
btw, i could have had a couple houses via inheritance but i turned them down because they required fixing up, and i'd have to relocate. also houses can be a financial drain if you have an older one. ---
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-any
@MSGID: <623B2FE1.27813.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623AED89.55650.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Wed Mar 23 2022 08:23 pm
Are you saying that if I rent a property from you, decide not to pay rent
more and refuse to vacate, you can't use force against me?
No, what I am saying is that all modern laws are a variation of "If you don't do X, we crush you," which makes a lot of demands from the government hard to justify unless you do mental gymnastics to ignore
this very fact.
In the case of socialized healthcare, it is a clearcut case of "You
must hire my healthcare system, even if you don't use it, or I fail to provide it. If you don't, I crush you."
It is a hold up at gun point in which we, as a society, have chosen to willingly pretend there is no gun and that the gun holder is working
for our own good.
This is nothing more than the classical miniarchist argument according
to which the government should only be transfered power that is
reasonable to hold in such way. "If you steal stuff, we'll crush you"
is a threat which may be reasonable to enforce. "If you don't register your hamster with the pet registry, we'll crush you" is certainly not.
The government is a corporation that can get away with bullying because
it has convinced everybody that it is something other than a
corporation. Ask yourself whether it would look right for Google to
force everybody to buy healthcare services from it under the promise it will make it available for the needy.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B33B2.27814.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623AED8B.55651.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Wed Mar 23 2022 08:35 pm
Most "Taxation is theft" card holders don't care if you want to
purchase services from the government. Anarchocapitalists and the like tend to think that if you want to set up a comune or a cooperative or
any socialistic sort of society that is a problem for you and your followers alone.
It is the socialistic types which build political systems and then need
to incorporate everybody they can into them. This is the main reason
why it is very hard to opt-out of heavyweight socialist services: they want to force everybody to participate. If you do as much as complain because it works badly you will be labeled a rebel, unless you imply
that it would work better if it grew bigger.
Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B5B07.123912.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 23 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
You realise that ALL contracts must be enforced, by threat of force?
Even in a pure "voluntaryist" society, you need "men with guns".
Lets say I decide that property is theft, and I don't pay back my mortgage, or refuse to pay rent as I believe it is immoral. Men with
guns will come eventually to kick me off, if I don't comply with earlier demands to vacate.
Here is the key. The *only* appropriate use for government's monopoly
of force is to protect an individual's life, liberty, and property. In the case of you not paying your rent or mortgage, you're infringing on
the rights of the true owner of the property.
Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B5B07.123913.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 23 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...
All of which covered up things like mounting debt, increased
restrictions on rights, the urbanization of society, and the eventual destruction of the nuclear family. The post-war years were *built* on debt, debt we as a nation can never pay back. The 20th Century was the fun part of a roller coaster that goes "splat" at the end. We're just waiting for the splat.
MRO wrote to Arelor <=-
@MSGID: <623B1AEE.8898.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <623A7527.27798.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Arelor to Nightfox on Tue Mar 22 2022 08:17 pm
Minimum wages are meant for getting voters for the Spanish Worker's Socialist Party. That is the reason why Spanish minimum wage is the same all across the territory regardless of the fact it is more than you need in a poor area, and won't afford you a living at all in a rich one.
i still don't get the argument about minimum wage.
Is this very common in other countries?
in the usa it's just a political selling point.
not many people are ON minimum wage. not even people at walmart.
i know people that mop floors that make 20/hr.
Gamgee wrote to Nightfox <=-
@MSGID: <623BC74F.27828.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623B8B02.64996.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
By: Gamgee to MRO on Wed Mar 23 2022 02:42 pm
well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.
You still can. I know many people like that, including myself.
So..... do you think there's any relationship between not handling your finances well and not being able to buy a house?
It depends on where you live and what industry you work in.
Well, yes, to some extent. If those two items are preventing you from getting what you want, perhaps they should be changed?
As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now,
at least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof. Just
looking right now, I see a listing for a house for sale in my
area on Zillow.com for $505,000, and it's only a 960 square foot
house. $699,500 for a 1,185 square foot house. Another is a
1,769 square foot house and they want $649,000 for it.
Agreed, and understood. But...... it's not that bad everywhere.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now, at
least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof.
As far as jobs, companies these days seem to change their plans all the time. They'll start new projects and cancel projects all the time, resulting in layoffs.
There's no such thing as company loyalty anymore
I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
Boraxman wrote to Greenlfc <=-
There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.
Consider this. The person serving you your food, or working the retail store gets paid more per hour, but we don't tip. Well, we sometimes do, but its an exception, not an expectation. The tip you pay in the US is a 'minimum wage tax', a necessary addition to make up for the fact they are paid poorly.
We just give them a higher wage, so we don't have to worry about a surcharge whenever we buy anything where minimum wage workers are involved.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.
As far as jobs, companies these days seem to change their plans all
the time. They'll start new projects and cancel projects all the
time, resulting in layoffs.
Yup. They plan to do something. Then something happens (often it's new gov't regulations) that derails the plan. Since the current plan won't have any payback, they need to cut their losses.
There's no such thing as company loyalty anymore
That hasn't existed for decades now. Nothing new.
I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
That hasn't existed for decades now either.
As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now, at
least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof.
This is what happens when the gov't interferes with the market.
Using the Socialist Utopia of California as an example:
+ Many locales actively block the development of new housing.
+ They dump a ton of rules and regulations on anyone who can get permission to build something new, and on the current landlords.
The result: Supply stagnates, demand stays the same (or increases). Anyone who has taken Economics 101 knows that means prices go up.
I can say a similar thing is true for Australia. Building things on debt is a necessarily bad thing either. You need to borrow to build, ask anyone who has build or bought their own house.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.
That is according to YOUR morals, and YOUR values. According to mine, my vi of property rights, autonomy and my morals and values, the state has a right make a property claim from citizens in a quid-pro-quo where functional civilisation is offered in return.
Boraxman wrote to Greenlfc <=-
There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.
And there it is. The marker that you are a "progressive".
... *IT IS* documented, look under "For Internal Use Only."
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B2FE1.27813.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623AED89.55650.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Wed Mar 23 2022 08:23 pm
Are you saying that if I rent a property from you, decide not to pay rentany
more and refuse to vacate, you can't use force against me?
No, what I am saying is that all modern laws are a variation of "If you don't do X, we crush you," which makes a lot of demands from the government hard to justify unless you do mental gymnastics to ignore this very fact.
In the case of socialized healthcare, it is a clearcut case of "You must hire my healthcare system, even if you don't use it, or I fail to provide it. If you don't, I crush you."
It is a hold up at gun point in which we, as a society, have chosen to willingly pretend there is no gun and that the gun holder is working for our own good.
This is nothing more than the classical miniarchist argument according to which the government should only be transfered power that is reasonable to hold in such way. "If you steal stuff, we'll crush you" is a threat which may be reasonable to enforce. "If you don't register your hamster with the pet registry, we'll crush you" is certainly not.
The government is a corporation that can get away with bullying because it has convinced everybody that it is something other than a corporation. Ask yourself whether it would look right for Google to force everybody to buy healthcare services from it under the promise it will make it available for the needy.
All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without threa of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must be coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government an system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.
I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, without 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.
I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.
Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Thu Mar 24 2022 08:36 pm
That is according to YOUR morals, and YOUR values. According to mine, my of property rights, autonomy and my morals and values, the state has a ri make a property claim from citizens in a quid-pro-quo where functional civilisation is offered in return.
Why does the State have claim to property but a Security Company doesn't?
The Spanish State fails to secure lots of property. Occupy style people ofte get into houses while their owners are out on vacation and then won't let th in. Many people who can actually afford rent move into a house and then refu to pay the rent because the government is not going to enforce rental contracts. What happens is you end up paying a Security Company to enforce y property claims, this is, you pay a group of tough guys who move in and one or another remove the offending party from property.
Since the State is failing to enforce property rights there, your logic dictates we should be bending knee to some sort of Desocupa styled agency?
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Dr. What wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623C6F6A.123932.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
Boraxman wrote to Greenlfc <=-
There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.
And there it is. The marker that you are a "progressive".
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623C8626.8921.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <623C4080.55683.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Mar 24 2022 08:54 pm
Consider this. The person serving you your food, or working the retail store gets paid more per hour, but we don't tip. Well, we sometimes do, but its an exception, not an expectation. The tip you pay in the US is a 'minimum wage tax', a necessary addition to make up for the fact they are paid poorly.
We just give them a higher wage, so we don't have to worry about a surcharge whenever we buy anything where minimum wage workers are involved.
well i like to reward good service. there's times when i was ignored so they got nothing. tips arent mandatory. one thing i dont like is they are adding tipping to all kinds of food restaurants. if i go there to
pick up food, i'm not tipping. there's no table service.
a tip isnt a surcharge in the usa.
well, at most places. some restaurants state that they will do a % of gratuity on the bill. that's kinda rare. ---
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623C8EBF.27841.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623C4073.55679.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Thu Mar 24 2022 08:23 pm
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.
That is hidden circular reasoning. It asumes the State's claims for managing your property are legitimate; therefore, any management of
your property by the State is legitimate.
It also breaks off quite badly because the State may decide your money
is necessary for keeping up positive discrimination policies, pro gay campaigns and a whole lot of policies which you have mentioned to
consider self destructive. Feel free not to call it theft, butif they
take your money in order to perpretate what you consider a destructive activity then my bet is you'd have issue with that.
The circular reasoning breaks at the moment you put into question what legitimates the government to manage your property. It can't be the sovereignity confered by the population, since you have already claimed that the population has no say in the outcome of politics and that politics is a rigged game.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
I can say a similar thing is true for Australia. Building things on debt is a necessarily bad thing either. You need to borrow to build, ask anyone who has build or bought their own house.
Then again, "debt sucks" card holders are usually not against debt per
se, but against contracting more debt that there is a plan for paying
off for. Specifically if the money is then missused, and MORE
specifically if it is missused in something that won't help pay the
debt off later.
See, if I contract debt and use the debt to build a machine, and then I use the machine to produce stuff, I can sell the stuff I produce and
then use the money to pay the debt off. If I take debt and use it to
bribe unions, pay diversity programs, or pay for benefits for the
CHurch, that money goes into a blackhole and is never seen again. And
then you still have to pay it back.
End result is that the common citizen is then forced to pay more debt
than he can pay off reasonably.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Returning to this circular reasoning, which boils down to:
"The State defines what your claim to property is. Therefore, it is ok
for the State to determine what your claim to property is"
According to your proposition, if the State is the source of all
property, and the State is legitimated to define what your property is, then it might decide that the legs of everybody whose Internet nick is boraxman belong to the State. Since the government defines what is your property or what isn't, then they could lay legitimate claim on
anything, including your legs, your house or your kid.
Needless to say, this is absurd. Therefore the logic falls appart and
the premise (that the fact the State has a legitimate, unlimited claim
to property because it is the source or property) is false.
There is a reason why US Constitutionalist are so anal with their Constitutional rights, and are always bitching "the Constitution this"
and "the Constitution that." The reason is no other than the fact the State is recognized as a rotten entity which cannot be trusted with limitless power. The very existence of bills or rights and the like
(which are very, VERY Western) is an open admission that State's power structures will be used to stomp the population if left uncheck.
So here is your non-dogmatic real world example of wide acceptance of
the idea that Governments are dangerous to its own subjects. With
plenty empirical evidence of what happens when the government is not
set hard limits at that. Gotta love those Marry your Rapist laws in
15th Century I guess.
Claiming that "The Alternative to my Government" is worse does not make your proposition good. All it does is convince people to worship Satan instead of the Alternative, but that does not mean eating babies in
Black Masses is virtuous.
What actually serves a use is to recognize Satan's dark nature, so when
he makes a move to grab more of your stuff, you can recognize it for
what it is and act accordingly, instead of falling for Satanist
propaganda about his legitimacy to break your butt when he pleases, because he acts with your good at heart.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without threa
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must be coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government an system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.
I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, without 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.
I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.
Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.
If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the
Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the
law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't
property cleared things up
Denn wrote to Dr. What <=-
I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
That hasn't existed for decades now either.
Wrong! Government jobs seem to be for life.
Arelor wrote to Dr. What <=-
There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.
And there it is. The marker that you are a "progressive".
Actually, his proposals are more in line with Rivera's Fascism than
with modern progressives.
Which makes acusing Libertarians of making baseless untested
propositions funny, because Spain had a Rivera influenced political
system for decades and it was proven to suck big time.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
well, at most places. some restaurants state that they will do a % of gratuity on the bill. that's kinda rare. ---
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Returning to this circular reasoning, which boils down to:
"The State defines what your claim to property is. Therefore, it is ok
for the State to determine what your claim to property is"
I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
That hasn't existed for decades now either.
Wrong! Government jobs seem to be for life.
I could argue that doing a job implies doing work. Since most of those people do no useful work, they don't have a job. They have an "appointment" just like the judges on the Supreme Court do.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
well, at most places. some restaurants state that they will do a % of gratuity on the bill. that's kinda rare. ---
That's usually for something out of the ordinary - like a very large group, or a birthday party - where the server will be doing more work than normal and the place wants to make sure that the server is compensated for the extra work.
The population does have a say in democracies, in societies which recognise right to self-ownership and self-governance. I do concur with critiques tha we have now does not match this ideal, but that idea is sound. Modern Liber Democracy is based on the idea that because the state represents the will of the people (in theory), and we are by means of the system in place, governin ourselves. This is a preferable form of governance than autocracy.
The states claims are legitimate because we believe them to be so. That is same for any system. Monarchies, theocracies even anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist states. All these are legitimate when we believe them to be so. To argue that because YOU don't consider it legitima and therefore it is a tyranny, that is an accusation against ALL system, including yours. All systems without exception.
The claim of circular reasoning doesn't hold. The circle is broken by recognition that the state is legitimate, and it is legitimate according to Western values because of the reasons stated before. If we, en masse, did n believe the state to be legitimate, then so be it, it is no longer legitimat It could force itself, but then it would be a tyranny. A state which takes money under the pretext of providing basic social service sand uses it to ke up discriminatory policies, etc, would, should, according to Western values, considered illegitimate.
This is the flaw in Libertarian reasoning. It proposes that an axiom alone render a state legitimate, which is closer to how tyrannies operate (adopt o values, no choice what they are, or else). The "voluntary" nature is a lie, because it too must act like a state and enforce management of property. Th is no "natural" state of property rights. The moment you accept that someon can own a block of land they don't actually live on and make those on it trespassers, you have a state, and you are at the exact same point where we now, with a claim that the management of property is legitimate, and the ent deciding so, enforcing that, is legitimate.
Now, if your claim was the state is usurping its power, abusing the system, failing to uphold the ideals that modern Western civlised culture is based o and that those in power should be replaced, by means of revolution with thos who CAN uphold those ideals, then that is a claim I can agree with. But wha people want to do, is use this problem as a means of sneaking in their own ideal
The reason the West is the Best is because we managed to squeeze in Constitutions, a Bill of Rights, rule of law, and checks and balances that k the state in check, INCLUDING an armed population. You cannot have freedom you are not willing to oppose the state. Opposing the state is very legitim when it needs to be opposed and I think there are cases in the West where th warranted now. The US is almost, if not already, a fascist state.
But that is not the same as opposing the idea of a state and saying that the idea of a state is bad.
So three questions,
1) How do you have property without some state, or state like system.
2) Can I choose not to accept your patter of property rights?
3) How would an alternative actually work?
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
well, at most places. some restaurants state that they will do a % of gratuity on the bill. that's kinda rare. ---
That's usually for something out of the ordinary - like a very large group, a birthday party - where the server will be doing more work than normal and place wants to make sure that the server is compensated for the extra work.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dr. What to Denn on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:34 am
I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
That hasn't existed for decades now either.
Wrong! Government jobs seem to be for life.
I could argue that doing a job implies doing work. Since most of those people do no useful work, they don't have a job. They have an "appointment" just like the judges on the Supreme Court do.
But they're there sucking the tax coffers, I do agree many don't really wor
the ones that do work usually screw over the tax payers.
When I see a "tip" included in a bill, it looks very artificial to me. It makes me not want to consume in bars abroad.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Modern Democracies' claim to legitimacy is that their sovereignity
comes from its citizens. Since the citizens delegate their power on the government's agencies then the government agencies' actions are legitimized as an extension of the will of the people.
Now, as you have pointed out, governing agencies rarely act as an extension of the will of the people. Frankly, I can't remember many politicians here who got elected and then _tried_ to carry out their political promises. That alone puts a heavy dent in governments' claim
to legitimacy, since if their power is not an extension of the will of the people, their justification is proven false.
So you see, it is just not a single axiom hacking at the idea that governing bodies aren't full of shit.
That something is right or wrong depending on how many people supports
the idea is moral relativism. If you buy into that idea you must then conceede that Identitary Politics and measures which priorize ethnic
and non heterosexual minorities over normative mayorities are morally right, since such ideas pack much more support from Western population
in general than the alternative.
So you either recognize those policies as legit and change your
political views, or recognize your proposition for moral relativism as absurd.
The claim against your circular reasoning holds because you are taking
the Government's right over property as a tautology and then running around in circles with it. "The government has the right to define your claim to property by virtue of being a legitimate definer of property." Which I have reduced to absurd too in an earlier message.
And yes, something I have actually argued is that governing agencies
are usurping the power transfered to them by citizens - if such
transfer can be done. I don't think a citizen can transfer to the government rights a citizen has not, but modern Democracies claim it is
so done.
It is funny you make a case against voluntarism since your proposed economical model is presented as a voluntarist one by a number of
groups :-)
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
But that is not the same as opposing the idea of a state and saying that the idea of a state is bad.
So three questions,
1) How do you have property without some state, or state like system.
2) Can I choose not to accept your patter of property rights?
3) How would an alternative actually work?
I see States as Wintel hardware. They suck for a number of reasons but
we keep rolling with them because that is what most of the population
can afford.
Modern States are actually QUITE recent so there is no shortage of examples of alternatives. Actually, most of mankind's (Pre)?History has been spent in tribalistic-like anarchy and we haven't all died, so
there is that.
Feudal systems work without a State. They consist on people swearing fealty to more powerful people, who swears fealty to people who is even more powerful than them. Kings didn't use to be heads of State, but
just men with a lot of support. If they messed up with their own oaths they lost all their support. Variations of this still exist in the
world.
Honestly, I think the best no-State alternative would be similar to Spanish Neighbourhood Juntas (which, by the way, are recognized as administrative bodies). They are like town halls which rent land from villagers and then use it to produce stuff, which they sell, and then
the benefits are invested in town infrastructure. Or they own a
percentage of the village and rent it to third parties, and invest the profits in village infrastructure. Or, most usually, a mix of both.
They get bonus support points because the govnerment tried to stomp
them not long ago - with a very serious backslash. Corruption is very
low because everybody knows everybody and issues would be noticed very very quickly. Involvement is very direct because if something is not working you can talk about it with the Junta members in the bar and you can replace them just as quickly if they prove themselves useless.
Oh, and the current lieutenant in mine has an awesome horse who he
loves so much, and will let me visit him anytime I want.
The big issue with Neighbourhood Juntas is they only work with small populations in which everybody knows everybody, so they aren't really a general solution for, say, anything larger than my village. Lots of Spanish anarchists would split cities up in hundreds of small neighbourhood Juntas but I don't think the concept translates well to urban areas at all. I guess cities are stuck with Wintel hardware.
So let's recap:
1 - There are Stateless political models which work without imploding
(and this can be proved) Heck, Revolutionary Catalonia in the 30s consisted on a bunch of trade unions, cooperatives and militias and
lasted 3 whole years before Franco stomped them. Bonus points because I think you would have liked it. 2 - They are not Universaly aplicable and/or are morally bankrupt in their own way.
3 - Modern States are morally bankrupt, but have too much staying power
in the places where they are implemented, so the places that have them
are stuck with them. However, it is important for the population to acknowledge that their governing State is morally bankrupt in order to limit its ability to spread its filth.
That pretty much sums up what I think. I hope it makes sense now.
Dr. What wrote to Arelor <=-
@MSGID: <623DB508.123954.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Returning to this circular reasoning, which boils down to:
"The State defines what your claim to property is. Therefore, it is ok
for the State to determine what your claim to property is"
Which is the normal argument for the leftie Elites: Let the "experts" decide for you. They are way smarter than you. (Which implies that
they think you are too stupid to decide for themselves.)
They also ignore that in EVERY instance where this has happened, the
gov't has turned corrupt and taken everything for the few at the "top".
MRO wrote to Dr. What <=-
in the uk or the united states?
i dont go out to eat a lot, especially after the pandemic but i know of
a couple of places where it's the standard. they also have places for x amount of people have it kick in.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without thr
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.
I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, witho 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.
I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then tax is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful propert it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enfor your rightful claim to your income.
Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.
If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't property cleared things up
I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permanentl you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them). people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.
Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.
This case, and a few others, were cited in future cases where agreement holders were attempting to prove that these agreements meant they "owned" and debtor that broke an agreement and, later, were also cited as proof that slavery was already state sanctioned and therefore was legal.
My next door neighbors have a second home in Italy. It's
family property that belonged to their grandparents. The
last time they visited, all the furniture was placed in
storage and the house was being used as a government
office. The main office was under renovation,so they
commandeered the house. I have no idea if they were
compensated for it's use.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without thr
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.
I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, witho 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.
I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then tax is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful propert it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enfor your rightful claim to your income.
Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.
If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't property cleared things up
I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permanentl you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them). people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.
Voluntary servitude is based on an agreement, while involuntary is
forced upon
an individual.
Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their
debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.
Eventually slaves were involuntarily brought over from Africa. These slaves, though kidnapped or rounded up, were intended to be released
after a defined amount of time. That changed when the courts sided
with a slave owner who claimed the "catch and release" system put the poorer slave owners at a disadvantage when it came to release a slave,
and allowed them to keep slaves indefinitely.
Hello Moondog!
** On Thursday 24.03.22 - 14:16, Moondog wrote to Arelor:
My next door neighbors have a second home in Italy. It's
family property that belonged to their grandparents. The
last time they visited, all the furniture was placed in
storage and the house was being used as a government
office. The main office was under renovation,so they
commandeered the house. I have no idea if they were
compensated for it's use.
WHO did the commandeering? The neighbours? The gov't?
This case, and a few others, were cited in future cases where agreement holders were attempting to prove that these agreements meant they "owned" and debtor that broke an agreement and, later, were also cited as proof tha
slavery was already state sanctioned and therefore was legal.
they would also do stuff where they said they had cost the owner money but dam
ing equipment or whatever, and then tack on years.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It m coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of governm system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.
I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, wi 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that y believe should exist.
I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative worse.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determin *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim t property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful prop it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which en your rightful claim to your income.
Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours alienable and conditional to contract.
If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't property cleared things up
I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permane you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them) people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.
Voluntary servitude is based on an agreement, while involuntary is forced upon
an individual.
Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.
Eventually slaves were involuntarily brought over from Africa. These slaves, though kidnapped or rounded up, were intended to be released after a defined amount of time. That changed when the courts sided with a slave owner who claimed the "catch and release" system put the poorer slave owners at a disadvantage when it came to release a slave, and allowed them to keep slaves indefinitely.
Slavery has also been based on a voluntary agreement too. Some schools of libertarian thought allow this as a valid contract. Should we allow volunt slavery? Should we a allow a contract where someone sells all their future labour? I can think of some entrepreneurs that could create a business mode which involves exactly this. They wouldn't call it slavery, it would have s "hip" name like "gig economy" that makes it sound innovative. Imagine if someone could enter an economic agreement with a company, where that company managed their finances, owned their labour, and in returned, provided "life management". They could provide advantages such as pooling the clients resources for economies of scale, handling housing, insurance etc.
This isn't far fetched, we already have companies which trade labour (labour hire companies), already have companies which take over your debt, restructu it, manage your finances. Why not combine all this? You sign up with the company, they hire you out, and in return use the wealth to provide what you want. Voluntary slavery.
My argument is that the voluntariness of such a contract isn't the only thin that matters. With some imagination and entrepreneurial thinking, you can imagine situations where people voluntary come into similar states.
Does a free society honour such contracts, or forbid them to ensure that the economic system cannot result in people losing freedom and self ownership?
My next door neighbors have a second home in Italy. [...]
The city governmentThe main office was under renovation,so they
commandeered the house. [...]
WHO did the commandeering? The neighbours? The gov't?
--- GAMGEE wrote ---
the doctor wrote to GAMGEE <=-
Haha! That actually made me LOL for real. :-)
Thanks for not being easily offended, like so many.
All good, cheers.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-> > I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permane
you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them) people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.
Voluntary servitude is based on an agreement, while involuntary is forced upon
an individual.
Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.
Eventually slaves were involuntarily brought over from Africa. These slaves, though kidnapped or rounded up, were intended to be released after a defined amount of time. That changed when the courts sided with a slave owner who claimed the "catch and release" system put the poorer slave owners at a disadvantage when it came to release a slave, and allowed them to keep slaves indefinitely.
Slavery has also been based on a voluntary agreement too. Some schools of libertarian thought allow this as a valid contract. Should we allow volunt slavery? Should we a allow a contract where someone sells all their future labour? I can think of some entrepreneurs that could create a business mode which involves exactly this. They wouldn't call it slavery, it would have s "hip" name like "gig economy" that makes it sound innovative. Imagine if someone could enter an economic agreement with a company, where that company managed their finances, owned their labour, and in returned, provided "life management". They could provide advantages such as pooling the clients resources for economies of scale, handling housing, insurance etc.
This isn't far fetched, we already have companies which trade labour (labour hire companies), already have companies which take over your debt, restructu it, manage your finances. Why not combine all this? You sign up with the company, they hire you out, and in return use the wealth to provide what you want. Voluntary slavery.
My argument is that the voluntariness of such a contract isn't the only thin that matters. With some imagination and entrepreneurial thinking, you can imagine situations where people voluntary come into similar states.
Does a free society honour such contracts, or forbid them to ensure that the economic system cannot result in people losing freedom and self ownership?
Voluntary servitude exists. Terms for employment at most companies
would probably qualify since the servitude is based on compensation for time served.
the doctor wrote to GAMGEE <=-
I'm glad you liked it. I'm tired of the always offended people... and I've had enough of eternal september...
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dream Master to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 2022 09:02 am
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.
But, when do you get the coffees?
- nostalia
nostalia wrote to Dream Master <=-
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.
But, when do you get the coffees?
Boraxman wrote to nostalia <=-
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to
start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each time.
SSDs took that valuable time from me!Ya.. darn the new tech making things so fast!
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: nostalia to Dream Master on Mon Jun 06 2022 06:30 pm
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dream Master to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 2022 09:02 am
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.
But, when do you get the coffees?
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each
Boraxman wrote to nostalia <=-
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each time.
If you're sticking with a spinning drive, swapping the drive out for a Hybrid SSD makes a world of difference. Picture a SATA drive with 4-8 GB of cache stuck on the side of it. It boots like a SATA drive, loading all of the apps you use into the cache on first load, so the next time you open the app, it's served from the fast flash cache.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dream Master to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 2022 09:02 am
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.
But, when do you get the coffees?
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each
i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.Memory holes? You mean having the RAM written to the hard disk?
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, an is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer ea
i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.
i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.Memory holes? You mean having the RAM written to the hard disk?
I hate leaving stuff on unecessarily.
If you are using consumer grade hardware (ie. cheap laptop) then the chances of producing a non-correctable RAM error are low but non trivial.
I don't have the numbers here but if a certain RAM card produces an error per every 4 GB per every X hours of operation, the more time you leave the computer running the higher the chance you hit a RAM error.
Consumer grade hardware is not designed for running 24/7. You can do it but I'd certainly prefer to shut it down when not in use XD
my mobo is supposed to be military grade.
i think that's just BS though
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to Arelor on Thu Jun 09 2022 07:30 am
my mobo is supposed to be military grade.
i think that's just BS though
Yeah, it sounds like a marketing scam XD If it comes with ECC memory then
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, an is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer ea
i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.
I don't know.
If you are using consumer grade hardware (ie. cheap laptop) then the chances of producing a non-correctable RAM error are low but non trivial.
I don't have the numbers here but if a certain RAM card produces an error per every 4 GB per every X hours of operation, the more time you leave the computer running the higher the chance you hit a RAM error.
Consumer grade hardware is not designed for running 24/7. You can do it but I'd certainly prefer to shut it down when not in use XD
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Besides, this laptop takes IDE drives, not SATA.
Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Besides, this laptop takes IDE drives, not SATA.
That does make it challenging. I did find an IDE SSD a couple of years back for an old Thinkpad T42 I couldn't bear to part with.
Best. Laptop. Keyboard. Ever.
Even though you're still limited to IDE transfer speeds, the lack of appreciable seek time made a huge difference.
... Where is the center of the maze?
| Sysop: | Tandy |
|---|---|
| Location: | New York, USA |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 13 (0 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 16:14:38 |
| Calls: | 335 |
| Messages: | 112,963 |