• The stay home and not wor

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

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

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

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

    Tom

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

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

    I get why people give up.


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

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

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

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

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

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

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

    I get why people give up.

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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


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

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

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

    I get why people give up.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

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

    I get why people give up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Right?


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

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

    $15 an hour isn't that much.

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

    I get why people give up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Right?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Good luck, hope you get it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What do you mean by "masters"?

    Nightfox

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

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

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

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

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


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

    |07 HusTler


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Socialism etc don't work anywhere. Never have.

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

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

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

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

    There are more but most are either capitalist and Socialism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    Pretty much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Actually China is a weird monster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

    that's just bullshit they taught in schools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    |07 HusTler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hello Arelor!

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

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

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

    Good question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.

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

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

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

    Hello Otto Reverse!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    3) Profit motive. Self explanatory.

    4) Political and social repression, and inequality.

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

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


    china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

    or drop some nukes.

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That was a collosal error in judgement.

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

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

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

    Nightfox

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Good question.

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    The anarcho-primitivists have their own explanation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Nightfox


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


    who thought that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That was a collosal error in judgement.

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

    Marxism failed for these reasons

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That was a collosal error in judgement.

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

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

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

    They are not in control of their own destiny.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


    who thought that?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    The anarcho-primitivists have their own explanation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Human beings are not tradeable objects. That is perverse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That is not true.

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

    Capitalism is dominant because it produced more. Period.

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

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

    Adapt or die.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


    Hiring = renting. They mean the same thing.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    That was a collosal error in judgement.

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

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

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

    They are not in control of their own destiny.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Communist endgame is for the State to disappear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Nightfox

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

    Capitalism is dominant because it produced more. Period.

    Because it is human nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Nightfox

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

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

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

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

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

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


    who thought that?

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


    what time was this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Communist endgame is for the State to disappear.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They DON'T wan't freedom for all.

    Because it is human nature.

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

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

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

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

    Same reasoning.

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

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

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

    They learned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reason #143 why the US is toast.


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

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

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

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

    Nightfox

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

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

    When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    i dont know what your point is, comparing renting and hiring and saying they are the same words.

    let this soak in:

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 07:59:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Fri Jan 28 2022 08:23 pm


    Amazing. The US is LITERALLY selling their land to a country they expect to go to war with (Australia is doing the same), and people STILL don't see a problem with a system which allows this.



    renting!

    the usa still can take it back.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 08:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 2022 09:07 am

    to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in (and grew up in) the US.


    renting is for objects.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to MRO on Fri Jan 28 07:14:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 2022 12:53 pm

    i dont know what your point is, comparing renting and hiring and saying they are the same words.

    let this soak in:

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits.

    Definitions and usages of words can be slightly different depending on the country. Apparently, renting is an acceptable use in the UK for hiring an employee (whereas in the US we wouldn't say that).

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to MRO on Fri Jan 28 11:17:00 2022
    you just need trump with his finger on the button.

    You mean the only President in what, the past 6 not to bring the US into any new conflict? I think if the US were attacked in a major way he would be "all in", but barring that I don't see it.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to MRO on Fri Jan 28 11:18:00 2022
    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will b more like us.

    who thought that?

    It was the common thought of the West. Maybe it wasn't communicated well by US media to US citizens, but it definitely was what the West was collectively thinking at the time.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 11:58:00 2022
    Disagree. When you are hired you are trading your labour for income. is a mutually beneficial trade.

    This is what is claimed is occuring. But it is not possible for you
    trade your labour. You can labour according to anothers instruction,
    but you cannot trade it. It is not possible for you to transfer your labour or agency to another person.

    It is not what I am claiming is occurring. It is literally what is occurring. It is very possible and quite easy. It is in essence a contract. Easy. Simple. Ancient. Free (as in freedom).

    What happens when you "buy labour". Someone else actually does work, using their own labour, which they control, to produce something. You never, ever, were in posession or control of the labour.

    More nonsense I'm afraid Boraxman. I don't mean to be rude, honestly, but I think you are in a distopian funk or something. The person labouring is not a slave. They are not being robbed of "their" product. They simply agree to an exchange. It is really that simple.

    The employees are part of the purchase. They are buying the right to
    use your labour.

    The fact you are free to decide otherwise doesn't matter. The company
    has transferred you to them. That is a fact.

    It can and often is. But not in the manner you imply. The fact that they are free to decide does matter. In fact it is critical. Otherwise it would be slavery.

    If you work with your own capital, your self-employed.

    Of course. If you work with borrowed capital you are also self-employed, but you owe (so it's of to work you go, hi ho hi ho [just a little levity]).

    This is what I struggle with. Capitalists argue black and blue about freedom, but when you propose that human beings should work for themselves, have full, unalienable property rights over their own
    actions, and should never be allows to be purchated outright or rented, but remain self-employed, they change their mind.

    Well no. People don't argue that at all. They argue that capitalism shouldn't be replaced with what you propose. There is no reason whatsoever that what you propose can't co-exist with capitalism and in fact it does. We already talked about it. Co-ops. Why to do want to take away people's freedom to exchange labour for money or money for labour? If you don't mean that then your paragraph above is incorrect. If you do mean that then you aren't talking about freedom, you are talking about a forced system.

    Because it is human nature.
    There are many things about Capitalism which are modern constructs and
    not human nature.

    Sure. But you knew I was talking about the core of capitalism of course. One works/labours and can exchange that with others for goods/services/money. As opposed to we all work collectively or are forced etc.

    This is just the "No True Scotsman" fallace. People take what they
    think is wrong with Capitalism, and ascribe it to a different system
    "That is actually socialism", "that is actually crony capitalism"
    thereby distilling the term Capitalism to all that is left, the 'good stuff'.

    No it's not. You're taking the throw the baby out with the bath water (or cut off your nose to spite your face) stance on capitalism. I and others are saying no, it isn't black and white, it can be shaped and tweaked to be anything from bad to okay, good and even excellent. And further capitalism has far more good examples than bad. Socialism only has bad examples.

    It's not "we", its business, in particular those who owned the means of production, who had control over it who were given economic freedom to
    do so.

    No it is definitely we. We are democracies. We elect our government and if so inclined can hold them to account. But we chose to ignore what was happening as we became more and more consumer societies. Growing up there wasn't Walmart in Canada at all, no big box stores etc. We had 1 TV in the house and 1 phone. As I sit here typing this we have 3 TV's 4 land lines (one number) and a few cell phones. Countless other gadgets, computers etc. We live in excess because we as societies evolved that way over the past 40/50 years as life got easier. Still, we demanded more and most importantly we demanded cheaper. As the jobs left for overseas the unemployed protested, but the rest of us we at the mall or Walmart or whatever. We could have demanded our governments made efforts to stop this. Hell, Trump managed to do a bit of that in his short time mostly with just loud rhetoric that got some companies to jump. Imagine if most of the Western democracies demanded the same?

    happen. China doesn't have this power dynamic because they won't go as "Capitalist" as us.

    They learned.

    No. They didn't learn. They're just a dictatorship holding on to said dictatorship.

    Consumerism is a product of our economic system, and the power
    structures. Who gets to decide what is made? Who allocates resources? Who has say? Who does the board report to?

    It is a result of a free and productive society yes. The USSR wasn't known for consumerism because they were too busy standing in bread lines.

    I think the consumerism was an inevitable result. Capital is seeking a return, and capital makes decisions. Property rights over what is produces generally go to capital, because capital generally hires
    labour, than the other way around.

    Yes capital seeks a return. That is the beauty of capitalism. But no, I wholly reject your premise that labour and property rights over what is produced is any sort of issue whatsoever. First it isn't property. Labour is not property. Second, if you want domain over the product of your labour then be self-employed or run your own company. In a democratic capitalist society you have the freedom to do just that. And many do.

    Isn't unfettered capitalism true capitalism though? If it needs to be fettered, regulated, why? Why does the system not have the capability
    to be long-term self-sustaining by its own ideology and workings?

    Because there isn't an ideology. It isn't this thing born of a manifesto, complete with doctrine and ideology. It is simply the freedom to trade. How that is implemented differs widely from region to region. Sometimes the differences are small, sometimes they are big. There is no "true capitalism", never has been.

    Now there is what we generally refer to as the "free market" and more often than not people do not literally mean 100% free of regulation/laws. But when they do they say terms like "true free market". But again that isn't an ideology.

    I actually think a lot of the problems of Capitalism are not because of "free markets" or "consumerism", but property rights.

    So you've said. But you also have some unconventional notions about what property rights are. But capitalism doesn't have a lot of problems. It isn't perfect of course (nothing is). And from time to time certain aspects (crony/monopolies etc) need to be reigned in. But that is what democracy is for. The people just need to pay more attention, get off their iPhones etc and also actually read news, not just headlines scrolling past in a curated fashion. That's the real downfall there, how uninformed most people are.

    As I mentioned before, the idea that you can purchase labour is a fraud. It is outdated, and it should be considered philosophically invalid,
    like how being able to "own" a slave is invalid.

    Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as I think most people accept that it is just a mutually agreed upon exchange.

    No one can explain how labour is transferred from one person to another. If a contract claims that labour is transferred, and it is not, that contract is fraudulent. I have never, ever seen an employment contract which states how this occurs. Every other business contract I've seen, been involved in, is very explicit about what is transferred, and how.

    Labour isn't transferred. If you are talking employer/employee then it is a mutually agreed upon exchange. If it is corporation buying another corporation it is still a mutually agreed upon exchange (the labour being done for the new boss).

    If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the murder) is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment
    contract, and state that they sold their labour, and was hired. The
    hirer is responsible.

    Both are responsible and both go to jail.

    I repeat, there is no physical way possible for you to transfer your agency, your labour to another. YOU make the product. Not your 'employer'.

    No need to transfer. YOU agree to make the product for money. Your employerr agrees to pay you money for making the product. This is not complicated nor sinister.

    It is supply/demand of money, not property. There is a high supply of

    It's both. At least in Canada. The high cost of housing is in large urban areas where there are property investors, low interest rates and scarce housing itself. May be different in Aus, but definitely not enough physical housing in our major urban cities.

    But because property investors have politicians intheir hip pockets here in Australia, our government runs the country for their benefit.

    I don't know if it is quite the same in Canada, but I do know politicians haven't done much about it. That might be because the politicians are in their pockets, but more likely it is laziness and ineptitude (something I generally attribute to Canadian politicians).
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 12:01:00 2022
    Property rights are the domain of the political system not the econom system.

    If property rights are the domain of the political system, then if the state abolished the rental of human beings, we would still be
    Capitalist, yes? The economic system is not changed, only property
    rights as recognised by the state and courts...

    Problem with that premise is the notion that humans are being rented and that the product of their labour as exchanged for money has anything to do with property rights. They aren't, and it doesn't.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 20:25:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Fri Jan 28 2022 12:14 pm


    let this soak in:

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits.

    Definitions and usages of words can be slightly different depending on the country. Apparently, renting is an acceptable use in the UK for hiring an employee (whereas in the US we wouldn't say that).

    Nightfox

    none of us who are discussing this is in the uk and that other dude is in australia.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Otto Reverse on Fri Jan 28 20:25:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to MRO on Fri Jan 28 2022 04:17 pm

    you just need trump with his finger on the button.

    You mean the only President in what, the past 6 not to bring the US into any new conflict? I think if the US were attacked in a major way he would be "all in", but barring that I don't see it.

    I didnt say he would press it. i said his finger would be on the button.

    nobody would fuck with trump.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Otto Reverse on Fri Jan 28 20:26:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to MRO on Fri Jan 28 2022 04:18 pm

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will b more like us.

    who thought that?

    It was the common thought of the West. Maybe it wasn't communicated well by US media to US citizens, but it definitely was what the West was collectively thinking at the time.


    hi, i'm in the west. and i'm old.

    never heard that shit.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Nightfox on Sat Jan 29 07:10:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:22 pm

    I don't think any country uses pure capitalism, and perhaps not pure communism either. I think we already have synergies of both. I don't think the system in the US could even be considered pure capitalism. Much of the system in the US is capitalist, but there are some elements which I don't think are really communist, but socialist: Programs such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance for those who lose their jobs, etc..

    Pure capitalism did exist but we have to go back to the 1800s and early 1900s if we are talking about the USA. I agree that since WW1 we have seen more and more socialist policies make it into Western systems creating a kind of synergy between the two. The synergy I was suggesting for the 21st century, however, is something more akin to the Chinese top-down social credit system. We are already seeing big American banks talk about ranking customers with ESG (Enviromental, Social and Governance) scores. Governments in the West are also big on the idea of resource allocation which falls in line with the Chinese system. We spoke before about CBDCs (central bank digital currencies) which are a pillar of the new system, as all transactions are to become visible to the goverment.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 07:35:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Fri Jan 28 2022 08:12 pm

    We need to rediscover that Western spirit of freedom, self-ownership and individual rights.

    I fear we are losing this, and in the other thread I believe that "Capitalism" has changed from being a force for human liberation, to a justification for our current social structure to entrench current power structures.

    It is sad that so many people who talk about "freedom" will do an about face, once the power of those who lord it over them is threatened.

    I'd be more satisfied if people say "I know people control me, but I'm happy being controlled. I deserve to be controlled and told what to do by my betters".

    Capitalism and Communism are economic ideals that arrived around the same time. You need an antithesis to a thesis, serving as an opposition. Both appear to have served their purpose. Lenin said that the West would eventually collapse into the new system with an over abundance of laws. Mikhail Gorbachev also said, during the collapse of the Soviet Union, that "slowly you will hear that Communism is dead and finished -- don't believe it, we are simply moving onto the next phase of merging with the West."

    Both systems are required to achieve the aim of standardising the world into one economic and legal system.

    Freedom is the right to that which the law allows. To the vast majority of people, THAT is the definition of "freedom".

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 07:51:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Fri Jan 28 2022 08:22 pm

    There isn't really a "Capitalist" system as such. Capitalism describes a system which has a few particular characteristics, but there are many variations within. You can be Capitalist and have worker coops for example, or Capitalism with no taxes, or high taxes, or Capitalist, but purchase of residential property is highly regulated.

    All systems will be corrupted by people, become something else. Is there an instituion or idea which HASN'T eventually transformed into something else? No.

    I think the enlightenment has shown us that individual autonomy and freedom are the way to go. I believe that our system of "renting humans" denies people their God given property rights and selfhood. The problem is pretty much every Capitalist has been indoctrinated to fear true freedom.

    George Carlin said it perfectly -- "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there is no such thing as rights. They are imaginary."

    Rights are man-made.

    "They are nothing more than privileges. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. Temporary privileges."

    I think a lot of people have experienced in the last couple of years that freedom is the right to do that which the law allows, nothing more.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Sat Jan 29 17:46:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F37EE7.8080.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F26014.54690.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:18 pm

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F1A005.8043.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.


    who thought that?

    It was the general opinion of the time, perhaps it was motivated reasoning.


    what time was this?

    The 70s, during the time Nixon opened up diplomatic relations.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Nightfox on Sat Jan 29 17:48:00 2022
    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F422DC.64046.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
    @REPLY: <61F3B650.54713.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Nightfox on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 07:38 pm

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting
    people) before..

    Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.

    To double-check, I looked up the definition of "hire". At least
    according to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of
    something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a
    British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in
    (and grew up in) the US.

    Fair enough, in Australia, when you obtain temporary use, you rent or hire it. We generally "rent" cars and houses, but occasionally people will refer to "hiring" a car, or "hiring" a suit, or "renting" a suit.

    Oddly, hiring is never used in context of a house, and renting is never used in context of employing people, but for cars, equipment, both terms are often used.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Sat Jan 29 17:49:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F43B8E.8093.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F3B650.54713.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 07:38 pm

    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F2CB39.64022.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
    @REPLY: <61F26018.54693.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Thu Jan 27 2022 07:53 pm

    When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    i dont know what your point is, comparing renting and hiring and saying they are the same words.

    let this soak in:

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits. ---

    See my response to Nightfox. The terms are synonymous. Typically hiring is used in some context, and renting in others, but there are cases when both are used interchangeably. You have hire cars and rental cars, they are the same thing.

    Look up the definitions.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Sat Jan 29 18:59:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F497B3.122978.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>

    It is not what I am claiming is occurring. It is literally what is occurring. It is very possible and quite easy. It is in essence a contract. Easy. Simple. Ancient. Free (as in freedom).

    More nonsense I'm afraid Boraxman. I don't mean to be rude, honestly,
    but I think you are in a distopian funk or something. The person
    labouring is not a slave. They are not being robbed of "their" product. They simply agree to an exchange. It is really that simple.

    Then you would be able to explain how I can transfer my labour and agency to another person.

    Argue how this is actually done, and how this is different to me working on the product myself using my own will and body. Otherwise, you will need to justify philosophically how a contract can suspend your right to the fruits of your own labour.

    Maybe you do believe that, but then would put you into the awkward position of supporting a WEAKER concept of individual property rights than I do.


    It can and often is. But not in the manner you imply. The fact that
    they are free to decide does matter. In fact it is critical. Otherwise
    it would be slavery.

    A contract isn't valid simply because it is voluntary. Slavery ended because a contract of slavery was no longer legally valid. You cannot consent to becoming a slave, even if you chose to. You and I could sign a contract, wher e I am your slave, but it would be legally invalid.

    Voluntariness isn't the issue, it is validity of what is being volunteered. You cannot volunteer to do something you cannot actually do.

    Of course. If you work with borrowed capital you are also
    self-employed, but you owe (so it's of to work you go, hi ho hi ho
    [just a little levity]).

    Well no. People don't argue that at all. They argue that capitalism shouldn't be replaced with what you propose. There is no reason
    whatsoever that what you propose can't co-exist with capitalism and in fact it does. We already talked about it. Co-ops. Why to do want to
    take away people's freedom to exchange labour for money or money for labour? If you don't mean that then your paragraph above is incorrect.
    If you do mean that then you aren't talking about freedom, you are
    talking about a forced system.

    I kind of agree. My argument isn't that we should remove Capitalism completely, but that universal self employment co-existing with Capitalism (which is what I support), would not be considered Capitalism by most people.

    In essense, I'm arguing that the evolution to true "Capitalism" hasn't finished, and it is a fear of economic freedom and recognition of the rights that come with the labour theory of property is stopping it. This is to maintain the power the capital has in our society.

    I'm saying that there is still a "Marxist" element to Capitalism, the labour theory of value, and this needs to be removed. Labour has NO value, only the product of labour does. People buy what is produced, not labour. Humans exchange the product of their labour, not each other. We used to, long ago, have slaves, trade people as commodities. Capitalism freed us by allowing us to be free, and sell what we product as free agents. The system of employment is an old hold over, and our laws need to change to allow firms to exist legally structures so that even there, we are selling what we produce, not rights over ourselves.

    Follow that to its logical conclusion. A system whereby all economic activity between people is people exchanging what they produce, not ownership of each other. The same holds for services. You pay someone to fix a fence, but what you are buying is the end result, you are not renting the person.

    Because it is human nature.
    There are many things about Capitalism which are modern constructs and
    not human nature.

    Sure. But you knew I was talking about the core of capitalism of
    course. One works/labours and can exchange that with others for goods/services/money. As opposed to we all work collectively or are
    forced etc.

    Agree. Which is why I advocate that this should be the norm. Yet, when you go to work, you don't exchange anything you produce for money. Most of the economic activity that people engage in their whole life does not fit the description of Capitalism. They rent/hire themselves out at a fee, and never get to exchange what they produce at work because they never, ever had property rights over their product in the first place.


    No it's not. You're taking the throw the baby out with the bath water
    (or cut off your nose to spite your face) stance on capitalism. I and others are saying no, it isn't black and white, it can be shaped and tweaked to be anything from bad to okay, good and even excellent. And further capitalism has far more good examples than bad. Socialism only
    has bad examples.

    No it is definitely we. We are democracies. We elect our government and
    if so inclined can hold them to account. But we chose to ignore what
    was happening as we became more and more consumer societies. Growing up there wasn't Walmart in Canada at all, no big box stores etc. We had 1
    TV in the house and 1 phone. As I sit here typing this we have 3 TV's 4 land lines (one number) and a few cell phones. Countless other gadgets, computers etc. We live in excess because we as societies evolved that
    way over the past 40/50 years as life got easier. Still, we demanded
    more and most importantly we demanded cheaper. As the jobs left for overseas the unemployed protested, but the rest of us we at the mall or Walmart or whatever. We could have demanded our governments made
    efforts to stop this. Hell, Trump managed to do a bit of that in his
    short time mostly with just loud rhetoric that got some companies to
    jump. Imagine if most of the Western democracies demanded the same?

    That is true, but consider the decision making process behind all this. We as consumers, demand a lot of things, but we are also producers.

    Do you realise that you get to exercise your freedom of choice as a consumer, but not as a producer? Even though you ARE a producer?

    I produce more than I consume, but I only have autonomy in the consumption aspect.

    Does this begin to give you a clue as to why "we demanded" consumption leading jobs to go offshore? There is an imbalance here which leads to that.

    If we had the same rights of self governance in both our consumptive AND productive economic activity, I would argue the economic outcome writ-large would be different. We should, as a nation, be making decision more as producers, than consumers.


    No. They didn't learn. They're just a dictatorship holding on to said dictatorship.

    It is a result of a free and productive society yes. The USSR wasn't
    known for consumerism because they were too busy standing in bread
    lines.

    They couldn't create products worth buying and the incentive structure was all wrong. I've known people who lived under Eastern European Communism. You went to work, but did little because they wanted everyone employed.

    Yes capital seeks a return. That is the beauty of capitalism. But no, I wholly reject your premise that labour and property rights over what is produced is any sort of issue whatsoever. First it isn't property.
    Labour is not property. Second, if you want domain over the product of your labour then be self-employed or run your own company. In a
    democratic capitalist society you have the freedom to do just that. And many do.

    If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money from your employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.

    How did you sign an employment contract to sell something that is not your property? Is this not fraud?

    Because there isn't an ideology. It isn't this thing born of a
    manifesto, complete with doctrine and ideology. It is simply the
    freedom to trade. How that is implemented differs widely from region to region. Sometimes the differences are small, sometimes they are big.
    There is no "true capitalism", never has been.

    Now there is what we generally refer to as the "free market" and more often than not people do not literally mean 100% free of
    regulation/laws. But when they do they say terms like "true free
    market". But again that isn't an ideology.

    Right. It was based on a confluence of Western ideals. The right of man to self-govern. The right of man to own his product. The inalienable right to freedom. The recogntion that we trade the fruits of our labour. I support all this. But the difference is, I don't think we need to have "exceptions" to these ideals, nor do I support the "right" of others to destroy them.

    So you've said. But you also have some unconventional notions about
    what property rights are. But capitalism doesn't have a lot of
    problems. It isn't perfect of course (nothing is). And from time to
    time certain aspects (crony/monopolies etc) need to be reigned in. But that is what democracy is for. The people just need to pay more
    attention, get off their iPhones etc and also actually read news, not
    just headlines scrolling past in a curated fashion. That's the real downfall there, how uninformed most people are.

    I would argue, it is you which has the unconvential view of property rights. My view is simple. You, as a self-governing human being, when you bring anything into existence through your labour, that object begins its life as your property. The labour theory of property, the rightful owner is the creator.

    How is that unconventional??

    If you do that in conjunction with 10 others (including managers, entrepreneurs), you collectively own it, and this would be done by being part of a firm. The firm is a legal entity which is the 10 people. Because the firm is democratically run (ie, the people govern themselves), effectively they maintain personal property rights legally. The firm would be responsible for paying the landlord, owner of equipment, capital, any factor suppliers. The firm is legally responsible for liabilities incurred and is the residual claimant of the product. It then sells the product, which may even be a sale to an entrepreneur.

    So when you go to work, you actually LEGALLY do sell the product of your labour in an exchange, instead of pretending you do as you do now.

    Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as I think most people accept that it is just a mutually agreed upon exchange.

    Most people accept the contract. Not a single one has been able to explain it.
    In fact, most people are confused as all hell what they are actually selling at work to their employer.

    Some say they sell what the produce, their time, their labour. All these different answers indicate they don't actually understand it. We just do it because, well, thats just how things are.

    Once, we just accepted you could buy and sell people too.

    Labour isn't transferred. If you are talking employer/employee then it
    is a mutually agreed upon exchange. If it is corporation buying another corporation it is still a mutually agreed upon exchange (the labour
    being done for the new boss).

    What are you exchanging? If you aren't selling your labour, why should they pay you?

    You NEVER legally own the product you produce at work. What you produce at work begins its life as the property of your employer, not yours. What are you exchanging? You are accepting money, but what are you giving in return?

    From what you've told me, nothing. Sounds like fraud.

    You've just been rocking up to work, doing what you are told, but never actually exchanging anything. Does your contract spell it out?

    Both are responsible and both go to jail.

    Why should the courts disregard the contract. They agreed to it, and signed it.

    No need to transfer. YOU agree to make the product for money. Your employerr agrees to pay you money for making the product. This is not complicated nor sinister.

    That would be true, if at some point, the product was legally yours. But it never was. It begins as your employers property.

    Otherwise, you would be entitled to cancel the employment contract, and keep what you made at work. Try that and tell me how your court case goes.

    It's both. At least in Canada. The high cost of housing is in large
    urban areas where there are property investors, low interest rates and scarce housing itself. May be different in Aus, but definitely not
    enough physical housing in our major urban cities.

    I don't know if it is quite the same in Canada, but I do know
    politicians haven't done much about it. That might be because the politicians are in their pockets, but more likely it is laziness and ineptitude (something I generally attribute to Canadian politicians).

    In Australia, housing is expensive pretty much everywhere, except for the most undesirable small towns where there are no opportunities at all. We are quite urbanised (like Canada), but there has been a boom of apartment and unit building. The problem is largely cheap money, investors (which we tax payers support), and tax concessions which favour hoarders. Australia is a sheltered workshop for property specuvestors.

    In Australia, you can overpay for a property, as an investor, and if as a result your rental yield doesn't cover your payments, the tax payer will be fleeced to make up the difference. You can deliberately overprice an asset and be rewarded with tax breaks! Then you get tax concessions on profits, interest only loans. Parasites...

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dumas Walker on Sat Jan 29 06:38:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Thu Jan 27 2022 04:04 pm

    Probably because you like horses. Horse farm girls would probably like that.

    My friends say that, and that my Spanish accent is charming.

    I think my Spanish accent makes my ENnglish sound like an Australian with mouth full of sausages trying to order more from the bar tender :-(

    I am sure your friend is right, the Kentucky horse farm girls would
    probably like it. :)


    * SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....bacon..."


    Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got invited. I usually have a whole lot of trouble understanding Australians, but this guy had a brittish gentleman touch which made me reconsider my views on the accent.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 06:50:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Fri Jan 28 2022 08:05 pm

    If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the murder is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and state that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.


    Actually the guy doing the paying would get hit with murder conspiracy charges or similar.

    It also works the other way around. If somebody purchases a product from you in order to facilitate a crime you may be held accountable (ie. if you sell a brick to somebody, knowing that brick is going to be used for cracking somebody s skull, you may be regarded a crime facilitator).

    The point is you are held accountable both if you are selling labour and if you are selling products.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 07:09:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Sat Jan 29 2022 11:59 pm

    If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money from yo employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.

    How did you sign an employment contract to sell something that is not your property? Is this not fraud?

    Thought experiment here:

    If I am a self-employed comediant and do stand-up comedy, I am commiting fraud against the guy who hired me to lighten a birthday party up? Because I am not selling a product. I am selling pure work.

    If I am a plastic surgeon and do reconstructive work for somebody who had his face splashed by acid, I am comitting fraud? Because I am not sellig a product. I am selling pure work.

    The surgeon does not own the face he is fixing. The face belongs to the patient all throughout the deal.

    The main problem I have with your stance is that if is product oriented but it eventually leads to the idea that services have no place in a legit economic system.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 10:27:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Sat Jan 29 2022 10:46 pm

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F37EE7.8080.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F26014.54690.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:18 pm

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F1A005.8043.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm

    We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.


    who thought that?

    It was the general opinion of the time, perhaps it was motivated reasoning.


    what time was this?

    The 70s, during the time Nixon opened up diplomatic relations.


    okay now that we played 20 questions, you say that in the 70s 'the general opinion' was that china would become another liberal democracy.

    if you say so, it's your story, tell it how you want to tell it.

    china's history says different.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 10:28:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Nightfox on Sat Jan 29 2022 10:48 pm

    Fair enough, in Australia, when you obtain temporary use, you rent or hire it. We generally "rent" cars and houses, but occasionally people will refer to "hiring" a car, or "hiring" a suit, or "renting" a suit.

    Oddly, hiring is never used in context of a house, and renting is never used

    maybe australia needs to stop being fucking weird.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 10:29:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Sat Jan 29 2022 10:49 pm

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits. ---

    See my response to Nightfox. The terms are synonymous. Typically hiring is used in some context, and renting in others, but there are cases when both are used interchangeably. You have hire cars and rental cars, they are the


    if you say so. australia isnt the center of the world.

    i dont call my bbq grill the 'barbee' either.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to MRO on Sat Jan 29 09:19:00 2022
    I didnt say he would press it. i said his finger would be on the button.

    nobody would fuck with trump.

    Agreed.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Andeddu on Sat Jan 29 09:23:00 2022
    Freedom is the right to that which the law allows. To the vast majority
    of people, THAT is the definition of "freedom".

    Which is quite sad because government doesn't grant rights. They only infringe upon them (or not).
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 09:26:00 2022
    Fair enough, in Australia, when you obtain temporary use, you rent or hire We generally "rent" cars and houses, but occasionally people will refer to "hiring" a car, or "hiring" a suit, or "renting" a suit.

    Oddly, hiring is never used in context of a house, and renting is never us context of employing people, but for cars, equipment, both terms are often used.

    Here (Canada) no one ever says "rent" in reference to a person, but we may occasionally say "hire" as in "I hired a driver..." or "I hired a plumber...".

    But equipment is always rented, never hired.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 10:06:00 2022
    More nonsense I'm afraid Boraxman. I don't mean to be rude, honestly, but I think you are in a distopian funk or something. The person labouring is not a slave. They are not being robbed of "their" produc They simply agree to an exchange. It is really that simple.

    Then you would be able to explain how I can transfer my labour and
    agency to another person.

    You don't "transfer" anything. You agree to do work for money. Sometimes that work is piling dirt from the back of a truck into a hole. Sometimes it is producing a physical or intellectual "thing". Regardless you agree to do work for money.

    Argue how this is actually done, and how this is different to me working on the product myself using my own will and body. Otherwise, you will need to justify philosophically how a contract can suspend your right to the fruits of your own labour.

    No I don't need to justify it. You are the one with a theory and that theory is simply and obviously wrong. Proven by "a person agrees to..." and that's the end of it. When you produce something, on your own, with your capital on your time then the fruits of your labour are your own. When you agree to do it for pay then you have agreed to do it for pay. You didn't "suspend your right..."

    Maybe you do believe that, but then would put you into the awkward position of supporting a WEAKER concept of individual property rights
    than I do.

    Not at all. Your concept is simply whackadoodle lol.

    It can and often is. But not in the manner you imply. The fact that they are free to decide does matter. In fact it is critical. Otherwis it would be slavery.

    A contract isn't valid simply because it is voluntary. Slavery ended because a contract of slavery was no longer legally valid. You cannot consent to becoming a slave, even if you chose to. You and I could sign
    a contract, wher e I am your slave, but it would be legally invalid.

    Now you're just being obtuse. I never implied one could contractually agree to be a slave. I said one isn't being "robbed" of the fruits of their labour when they agree to work for pay.

    Voluntariness isn't the issue, it is validity of what is being volunteered. You cannot volunteer to do something you cannot actually
    do.

    Never implied any such thing.

    I kind of agree. My argument isn't that we should remove Capitalism completely, but that universal self employment co-existing with
    Capitalism (which is what I support), would not be considered Capitalism by most people.


    Sure it would. Absolutely. A co-op is capitalism. It is essentially partners in a business. Just may be that every "worker" is also a partner. But it would very much be capitalism. The product/service of the co-op is sold to consumers. This would take place in a free market (remember what I said abou the term "free market" lol, I don't mean 100% free of regulation).

    In essense, I'm arguing that the evolution to true "Capitalism" hasn't finished, and it is a fear of economic freedom and recognition of the rights that come with the labour theory of property is stopping it.
    This is to maintain the power the capital has in our society.

    Yes, that is your argument indeed, but it seems a deeply flawed one on the single premise of your labour property rights theory that is simply not recognized by many. First I've heard of the theory and I wholly reject it. If you agree to "labour" for pay then the product of that labour is not your property. I agree to sell an old phone on a local classified website to some dude for $30. He comes over gives me $30 and I hand over HIS PHONE. Labour is exactly the same.

    That is true, but consider the decision making process behind all this. We as consumers, demand a lot of things, but we are also producers.

    Do you realise that you get to exercise your freedom of choice as a consumer, but not as a producer? Even though you ARE a producer?

    Disagree. I produce code for my employer. I have agreed to produce it for a salary. I freely chose to do that.

    Does this begin to give you a clue as to why "we demanded" consumption leading jobs to go offshore? There is an imbalance here which leads to that.

    No. Consumers like cheap and cheap snowballed until there was a Walmart on every corner.

    It is a result of a free and productive society yes. The USSR wasn't known for consumerism because they were too busy standing in bread lines.

    They couldn't create products worth buying and the incentive structure
    was all wrong. I've known people who lived under Eastern European Communism. You went to work, but did little because they wanted
    everyone employed.

    Right. There was no incentive to be productive. Fred (not a very Russian name I know) could be a little slack and make the same wage as Ivan even if Ivan worked really hard.

    If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money
    from your employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.

    It is property in the sense that you can labour on your own or sell labour to an employer. But that's it. You can't agree to exchance your labour for money and then complain that your employer has no right to your property.

    Right. It was based on a confluence of Western ideals. The right of
    man to self-govern. The right of man to own his product. The
    inalienable right to freedom. The recogntion that we trade the fruits
    of our labour. I support all this. But the difference is, I don't
    think we need to have "exceptions" to these ideals, nor do I support the "right" of others to destroy them.

    Well not everyone wants to be in a co-op and you have no right to force them into one. If Bob wants to exchange his labour for a wage that is his right. Who are you to tell Bob that is wrong and that he should belong to a co-op instead.

    I would argue, it is you which has the unconvential view of property rights. My view is simple. You, as a self-governing human being, when you bring anything into existence through your labour, that object
    begins its life as your property. The labour theory of property, the rightful owner is the creator.

    Well you can argue it, but you are simply wrong. If someone agrees, ahead of time, to exchange their labour for money then whatever they product during that exchange belongs to the employer. The employee agreed ahead of time to do that. Your theory of everything I produce is mine, how can it now be, is weak. Exchanging the fruits of our labour for other "fruits" of someone else's labour is human nature and the root of capitalism.

    Most people accept the contract. Not a single one has been able to explain it. In fact, most people are confused as all hell what they are actually selling at work to their employer.

    No, nobody is confused and pretty much everyone can explain it. You just aren't listening. It is very simple. Extremely simple. Person A agrees to exchange the product of their labour to person B for money. That's it. There is no "how can that happen". It happens every day by the millions (probably billions) and is the simplest thing.

    Some say they sell what the produce, their time, their labour. All these different answers indicate they don't actually understand it. We just
    do it because, well, thats just how things are.

    No. They understand it perfectly well.

    You NEVER legally own the product you produce at work. What you produce at work begins its life as the property of your employer, not yours.
    What are you exchanging? You are accepting money, but what are you
    giving in return?

    Effort. You are exchanging effort for pay. Simple concept that doesn't need a degree in philosophy to understand. In fact philosophy is probably why you are so confused by it. Over-thinking.

    Both are responsible and both go to jail.

    Why should the courts disregard the contract. They agreed to it, and signed it.

    It is illegal in most countries, certainly all Western democracies, to kill and to get someone else to kill. Courts aren't disregarding the contract. It is illegal to contract someone to kill someone else. This isn't philosophy. It is law.

    No need to transfer. YOU agree to make the product for money. Your employerr agrees to pay you money for making the product. This is not complicated nor sinister.

    That would be true, if at some point, the product was legally yours.
    But it never was. It begins as your employers property.

    Otherwise, you would be entitled to cancel the employment contract, and keep what you made at work. Try that and tell me how your court case goes.

    You know you flip flop a lot. Often in the same message.

    Yes exactly, you agreed ahead of time to labour to produce something for a wage or salary or one-time payment. As this agreement takes place before you labour then the product of the labour is never yours.

    In Australia, housing is expensive pretty much everywhere, except for
    the most undesirable small towns where there are no opportunities at
    all. We are quite urbanised (like Canada), but there has been a boom of apartment and unit building. The problem is largely cheap money, investors (which we tax payers support), and tax concessions which
    favour hoarders. Australia is a sheltered workshop for property specuvestors.

    Ah, not here. Rural and small town housing ranges from cheap to well under the national average. Not a lot of new apartment buildings in the big cities as there is no room. The smaller ones, yes, as they tend to have much more land to expand into. Cheap money and investors yes, tax concessions no. But no penalties for "specuvestors" (like that term) yet. Some promised on the way but I don't think any have come into force yet.

    In Australia, you can overpay for a property, as an investor, and if as a result your rental yield doesn't cover your payments, the tax payer will be fleeced to make up the difference. You can deliberately overprice an asset and be rewarded with tax breaks! Then you get tax concessions on profits, interest only loans. Parasites...

    Wow! Well, if I were an Australian tax payer I would be quite upset. Any of the main political parties (with a chance of forming government) against this, promised reform?
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Otto Reverse on Sat Jan 29 12:42:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to MRO on Sat Jan 29 2022 02:19 pm

    I didnt say he would press it. i said his finger would be on the button.

    nobody would fuck with trump.

    Agreed.

    remember, he dropped the largest non-nuke bomb in afghanistan
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 07:13:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F57E76.26899.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F3B652.54714.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 08:05 pm

    If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the murder is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and state that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.


    Actually the guy doing the paying would get hit with murder conspiracy charges or similar.

    It also works the other way around. If somebody purchases a product
    from you in order to facilitate a crime you may be held accountable
    (ie. if you sell a brick to somebody, knowing that brick is going to be used for cracking somebody s skull, you may be regarded a crime facilitator).

    The point is you are held accountable both if you are selling labour
    and if you are selling products.

    If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the owner.

    Labour is financially treated the same way, so in theory, it should be the same. But it isn't.

    This simple though experience is designed to show that intuitively, we understand that labour isn't transferred, but is conducted by the person owning it.

    Therefore, hiring a person and car is not the same, yet financially, it is considered to be the same.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 07:27:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F582C2.26900.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F53A34.54741.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Sat Jan 29 2022 11:59 pm

    If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money from yo employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.

    How did you sign an employment contract to sell something that is not your property? Is this not fraud?

    Thought experiment here:

    If I am a self-employed comediant and do stand-up comedy, I am
    commiting fraud against the guy who hired me to lighten a birthday
    party up? Because I am not selling a product. I am selling pure work.

    If I am a plastic surgeon and do reconstructive work for somebody who
    had his face splashed by acid, I am comitting fraud? Because I am not sellig a product. I am selling pure work.

    The surgeon does not own the face he is fixing. The face belongs to the patient all throughout the deal.

    The main problem I have with your stance is that if is product oriented but it eventually leads to the idea that services have no place in a
    legit economic system.

    By product, I mean services as well. A service is really just creating a product, in a sense.

    The examples you mentioned are examples where someone is self employed, and providing a product/service.

    You end up with the reconstructed face. You get the entertainment from the comedian. When they did the work, you weren't hiring them per se. You didn't get them to sign an employment contract. They were self-employed. They never became your asset. You cannot transfer them like an asset.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Sun Jan 30 07:33:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F5348D.29844.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F3B656.54716.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 08:12 pm

    Capitalism and Communism are economic ideals that arrived around the
    same time. You need an antithesis to a thesis, serving as an
    opposition. Both appear to have served their purpose. Lenin said that
    the West would eventually collapse into the new system with an over abundance of laws. Mikhail Gorbachev also said, during the collapse of
    the Soviet Union, that "slowly you will hear that Communism is dead and finished -- don't believe it, we are simply moving onto the next phase
    of merging with the West."

    This should actually be a clue. Both originated with similar fundamental assumptions.

    Both systems are required to achieve the aim of standardising the world into one economic and legal system.

    "Both systems" is incorrect. There is a greater range of possible economic arrangements than Capitalism and Communism.

    To borrow an example from David Ellerman, consider slavery in Ancient Greece. There were two models, the Athenian model of public ownership of slaves, and the Spartan model of private ownership of slaves. There was debate about which was better.

    We can say these are "THE two systems", any maybe the Athenian model wins out. But that doesn't settle the matter. There aren't "the two" systems, because we have to consider maybe not owning slaves at all.

    Communism and Capitalism share some assumptions, but becaues we consider these two as being the only two options, we never challenge the shared assumptions.

    Or consider if religious debate was solely about Catholocism vs Protestantism, and we never questioned it outside this scope. Or with climate change we only discuss "Carbon Tax set by state" vs "Carbon Credits determined by market"

    You miss the bigger picture. We've been missing the bigger picture economically.

    Freedom is the right to that which the law allows. To the vast majority
    of people, THAT is the definition of "freedom".

    There is "freedom from" and "freedom to". "Freedom from" is probably more important.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Sun Jan 30 07:37:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F53843.29845.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F3B658.54717.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 08:22 pm

    George Carlin said it perfectly -- "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there is no such thing as rights. They are imaginary."

    Rights are man-made.

    Yes, they are. But they are also what makes our civilisation, what makes life in modern Western Civilisation bearable. Man made they may be, but we are doing ourselves a disservice, and potentially subjecting our future generations to horrors we thought were just in history, by treating them less than God-given rights.

    "They are nothing more than privileges. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. Temporary privileges."

    I think a lot of people have experienced in the last couple of years
    that freedom is the right to do that which the law allows, nothing
    more.

    We have to fight for strong rights. I feel Western Civilisation is in decline, and we are heading towards barbarism, because we don't really believe in our founding ideals, don't care they are dying.

    We have to restore the idea of "rights", becaues if we relegate them to privileges, we invite fascism.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Sun Jan 30 07:39:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F5B1C8.8119.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F53A34.54740.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Sat Jan 29 2022 10:49 pm

    RENTING is for property; people are not property.
    HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits. ---

    See my response to Nightfox. The terms are synonymous. Typically hiring is used in some context, and renting in others, but there are cases when both are used interchangeably. You have hire cars and rental cars, they are the


    if you say so. australia isnt the center of the world.

    i dont call my bbq grill the 'barbee' either.

    And you don't put shrimp on them? (We don't really do that much here either, we do BBQ prawns)



    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 17:34:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:39 pm


    And you don't put shrimp on them? (We don't really do that much here either, we do BBQ prawns)


    no, i would imagine that would overcook the shrimp.
    i use my air fryer
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 23:51:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:13 pm

    If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own


    Well, if you are hired to shoot somebody, you do know what the deal is about, so the example is not comparable at all.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 23:58:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:27 pm

    By product, I mean services as well. A service is really just creating a product, in a sense.

    The examples you mentioned are examples where someone is self employed, and providing a product/service.

    You end up with the reconstructed face. You get the entertainment from the comedian. When they did the work, you weren't hiring them per se. You didn get them to sign an employment contract. They were self-employed. They nev became your asset. You cannot transfer them like an asset.


    Thing is, I don't understand the difference here.

    If they hire you for doing stand-up comedy for 30 minutes, then they are basically buying 30 minutes of your time. It does not look much different than a corporation buying X hours per week from your time.

    The only real difference would be that corporations can be sold and bought (and, therefore, if you are a per-contract employee, your contract is transfered) but that also happens a lot with self-employed people. In the case of the plastic surgeon, he could be self-employed and take money from a non-profit in order to perform charity reconstructions. This sort of arrangement is usually regulated by what in Spain is known as a merchantile contract. If the non-profit has its board replaced by new people, the contract transfers to the new board indirectly.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Sun Jan 30 18:16:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    You don't "transfer" anything. You agree to do work for money.

    When you produce something, on your own, with
    your capital on your time then the fruits of your labour are your own. When you agree to do it for pay then you have agreed to do it for pay.
    You didn't "suspend your right..."

    Yes, that is your argument indeed, but it seems a deeply flawed one on
    the single premise of your labour property rights theory that is simply not recognized by many. First I've heard of the theory and I wholly
    reject it. If you agree to "labour" for pay then the product of that labour is not your property. I agree to sell an old phone on a local classified website to some dude for $30. He comes over gives me $30
    and I hand over HIS PHONE. Labour is exactly the same.

    Disagree. I produce code for my employer. I have agreed to produce it
    for a salary. I freely chose to do that.

    If you don't transfer anything, what is the economic exchange?

    "doing work for money" is not a transaction. It does not describe anything about the property rights. That statement is just as true for slavery, as it is for employment, as it is for a coop, as it is for someone producing piecework for royalties, as it is for someone making a product, then selling the product. it is also true if I just give you money for you to work on your own house and clean your own yard for yourself, you know, just because I really think you should do it for your own good.

    Therefore it doesn't explain anything.

    Your theory is that there is an economic exchange taking place, but you are simultaneously arguing that none is occuring.

    I have explained, and can explain, how property rights work in a system of universal self employement, which is coherent.

    You cannot. You have been unable to state exactly what it is the "employer" is buying, other than to state the obvious, that someone is paying someone to get work done. But that doesn't detail a contract.

    Remember, you're supposedly a free person, so if you are being employed, you are in an economic contract. I believe in Western society, no one has any claim over you. Your obligaton to others is through voluntary contract, right?

    Western Civilisation is based on rights, on clear understanding of the philosophical underpinnings which shape those rights. This is what we base our laws on.

    My positoin is that voluntary contracts should be in line with our fundamental rights, notions of property, and be economically coherent. Also, they MUST be fulfillable. A contract you cannot possibly fulfil is invalid.

    Right. There was no incentive to be productive. Fred (not a very
    Russian name I know) could be a little slack and make the same wage as Ivan even if Ivan worked really hard.

    It is property in the sense that you can labour on your own or sell
    labour to an employer. But that's it. You can't agree to exchance your labour for money and then complain that your employer has no right to
    your property.

    You said just before you don't transfer anything. Do you, or do you not sell your labour?

    You can't sell what you don't transfer.

    Well not everyone wants to be in a co-op and you have no right to force them into one. If Bob wants to exchange his labour for a wage that is
    his right. Who are you to tell Bob that is wrong and that he should
    belong to a co-op instead.

    No one has the right to expect society to uphold a contract which is flawed or can't be fulfilled.

    Bob doesn't have the right to sell himself into slavery, or sell all his future labour to another person. Who the hell are we to stop Bob? Why can't Bob do it? Because we not only recognise that slavery is wrong, but Bob CAN'T be a slave, even if he wants to be. It is not possible for Bob to transfer ownership of himself to someone else.

    Bob can enter any contract he likes, BUT, we do not have to consider the contract valid. Bobs contractual slavery will not be enforced.

    Well you can argue it, but you are simply wrong. If someone agrees,
    ahead of time, to exchange their labour for money then whatever they product during that exchange belongs to the employer. The employee
    agreed ahead of time to do that. Your theory of everything I produce
    is mine, how can it now be, is weak. Exchanging the fruits of our
    labour for other "fruits" of someone else's labour is human nature and
    the root of capitalism.

    Either you are exchanging your labour or not. You've said both.

    Either you are exchanging the fruits of your labour, or your labour itself. You've said both.

    You have argued, simultaneously, that the employer is taking your labour, but labour isn't transferred, that you are selling the fruits of your labour, but you never actually have the fruits of your labour to begin with.

    Please try to put forward, in one simple statement, what it is exactly that the economic transaction actually is. This is Capitalism, we trade. So a contract of trade should describe the trade.

    Your confusion comes about because you are trying to pretend there is a transaction and avoiding the real nature of the contract.

    No, nobody is confused and pretty much everyone can explain it. You
    just aren't listening. It is very simple. Extremely simple. Person A agrees to exchange the product of their labour to person B for money. That's it. There is no "how can that happen". It happens every day by
    the millions (probably billions) and is the simplest thing.

    But you can't, except for some vague "doing work for someone else" which could apply to any number of arrangements.

    No. They understand it perfectly well.

    Except for the fact that when people are pressed to describe how it works, they can't beyond the vaguest statements, and contradictory explanations.

    People say they are "selling their time", "selling their labour", "exchanging what they produce", "doing work for someone else", to name a few. All these are different, and if people actually knew, there would be one clear understanding. So no, people don't actually understand it.

    Oh, and if people knew, they would be able to point to their employment contract which states exactly what the economic transaction is. Ie, states exactly what it is they are paying for.

    They can't do that either.

    Effort. You are exchanging effort for pay. Simple concept that doesn't need a degree in philosophy to understand. In fact philosophy is
    probably why you are so confused by it. Over-thinking.

    We have now yet another explanation. Exchanging effort for pay. Not labour? Are you sure it isn't time? Because they pay you based on time, not unit of labour. Oh, but you said they were buying the fruits of your labour, so they should by paying based on production.

    The concept isn't as simple as you think.


    It is illegal in most countries, certainly all Western democracies, to kill and to get someone else to kill. Courts aren't disregarding the contract. It is illegal to contract someone to kill someone else. This isn't philosophy. It is law.

    Yes, but not only is the person who contracted it guilty (as conspirator), so is the person who "exchanged the fruits of the labour".

    If they exchanged labour/effort, it is no longer theirs. If they exchanged their effort, their labour, then the labour is the hirer.

    The fact is this person was still working for themselves, owning their own effort, own labour and the fruits of their labour, DESPITE the contract which claimed it was transferred is consistent with the courts verdict.

    When push comes to shove, we see, intuitively, that people revert to a more naturalistic understanding, that you are still you doing your own work and you never actually transfer something about you to someone else.

    If what you are saying is true, the shooter MUST be innocent. They traded away whatever it was that made the murder happen.

    You know you flip flop a lot. Often in the same message.

    Yes exactly, you agreed ahead of time to labour to produce something
    for a wage or salary or one-time payment. As this agreement takes place before you labour then the product of the labour is never yours".

    So therefore this statement of yours

    "Exchanging the fruits of our labour for other "fruits" of someone else's
    labour is human nature and the root of capitalism."

    ,isn't actually correct.

    It contradicts your statement "the product of the labour is never yours."

    You cannot claim that the product of labour that is never yours, is the "fruits of your labour". It is the fruits of the employer. The employee (you claim), "exchange their labour for money".

    Can you reconcile these contradictions?

    Please note that everyone that I speak to comes up with contradictory statements.

    I'm not asking you to accept coops, I'm trying to get you to look at these contradictions, and think about why they exist, when in EVERY OTHER contract in capitalism, property rights and exchange are clearly spelled out.

    What is the reason for this? How did we get to such an arrangement? These are the fundamental questions here.


    Ah, not here. Rural and small town housing ranges from cheap to well
    under the national average. Not a lot of new apartment buildings in the big cities as there is no room. The smaller ones, yes, as they tend to have much more land to expand into. Cheap money and investors yes, tax concessions no. But no penalties for "specuvestors" (like that term)
    yet. Some promised on the way but I don't think any have come into
    force yet.

    Wow! Well, if I were an Australian tax payer I would be quite upset.
    Any of the main political parties (with a chance of forming government) against this, promised reform?

    Yes, one of the major ones did actually stop this over 30 years ago, but landlords and the property industry kicked up a stink, and they changed their mind soon after. There was some increase in rents, but nothing catastrophic. The same party about 5 years ago were again going to reform this by removing the tax break, but there was another scare campaign.

    People are scared about crashing the market, so we won't get reform. Australians would rather impoverish and lock their future generations out of housing and economic stability, than risk a "crash".

    In Australia, it has been government policy to make people think they are wealthy by inflating the housing market by any means necessary. If that means tax breaks, importing people by the hundreds of thousands, they'll do it. Our economy rests on selling houses at higher and higher prices back and forth.

    It's a depressingly stupid policy.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to BORAXMAN on Sun Jan 30 04:56:00 2022
    Fair enough, in Australia, when you obtain temporary use, you rent or hire it.
    We generally "rent" cars and houses, but occasionally people will refer to "hiring" a car, or "hiring" a suit, or "renting" a suit.

    I have heard "hire" used this way in British English also.


    * SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....bacon..."

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to ARELOR on Sun Jan 30 04:57:00 2022
    Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got invited. I usually have a whole lot of trouble understanding Australians, but this guy had a brittish gentleman touch which made me reconsider my views on the accent.

    Happy Birthday, assuming it was your party.


    * SLMR 2.1a * "My eyeballs nearly popped out!"

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sun Jan 30 06:15:00 2022
    Our exchanges are getting longer and longer yet we continue to say the same things to each other. Allow me to sum up what I belive your position to be and my response. You take the last reply to say "yeah, mostly" or "not at all!" lol

    You:
    - the product of labour is property
    - the exchange of that property for money cannot be done, no one can explain how it is done
    - despite that, said exchange is immoral

    Me:
    - the product of labour is property, well okay, sure but it is agreed ahead of time to exchange that property for pay
    - under such an agreement property rights of the labourer isn't any sort of issue as said labourer agreed to labour and produce "something" that will belong to the "employer" once produced for an agreed upon some of money
    - this is not immoral, it is normal and human nature

    Cheers
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dumas Walker on Sun Jan 30 10:42:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Sun Jan 30 2022 09:57 am

    Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got invited. I usually have a whole lot of trouble understanding Australians, this guy had a brittish gentleman touch which made me reconsider my views the accent.

    Happy Birthday, assuming it was your party.


    * SLMR 2.1a * "My eyeballs nearly popped out!"


    Thanks, man.

    I totally feel like a grandpa. So old.

    We had a blast with the party, actually. I set a Terraforming Mars server and a Mumble (voip) server so I could play with some international friends of mine. It was freaking great! As expected, none of my Spanish friends showed up, lol. Still I had a great time.

    And I won the game :-)

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Otto Reverse on Sun Jan 30 11:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Sun Jan 30 2022 11:15 am

    ahead of time to exchange that property for pay
    - under such an agreement property rights of the labourer isn't any sort of issue as said labourer agreed to labour and produce "something" that will belong to the "employer" once produced for an agreed upon some of money
    - this is not immoral, it is normal and human nature

    we need to get that antiwork reddit moderator in here. the 30 year old trans dog walker. this sounds right up sheman's alley.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sun Jan 30 21:06:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:33 pm

    This should actually be a clue. Both originated with similar fundamental assumptions.

    I believe both Communism and Capitalism are systems based on a single economic spectrum... they were concieved as a vehicle to reconstruct the World in a way it should have been constructed.

    We have democracy which is a system of government that people seem to know very little about. Either government is your master or your slave, it cannot be both. Plato said that democracy will always lead to communitarianism which will lead to a dictatorship.

    Thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The new system will be one run on the economic principle of necessity where no one should be born without a function to fulfil in which to serve the World State. This is the system we read about in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

    "Both systems" is incorrect. There is a greater range of possible economic arrangements than Capitalism and Communism.

    To borrow an example from David Ellerman, consider slavery in Ancient Greece. There were two models, the Athenian model of public ownership of slaves, and the Spartan model of private ownership of slaves. There was debate about which was better.

    <SNIP>

    I agree that there are many more possible types of economic systems -- we have had many over the last seven thousand years. I believe the next system will be neither of the above; it will be the third way, the blending of Fascism and Communism.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sun Jan 30 21:24:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:37 pm

    George Carlin said it perfectly -- "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there is no such thing as rights. They are imaginary."

    Yes, they are. But they are also what makes our civilisation, what makes life in modern Western Civilisation bearable. Man made they may be, but we are doing ourselves a disservice, and potentially subjecting our future generations to horrors we thought were just in history, by treating them less than God-given rights.

    The problem then is that man has allowed the intellect to rule. This mostly occurred during the Age of Enlightenment with the promulgation of scientific Atheism. By creating man-made laws which are subjective and malleable rather than an objective and concrete belief system, along with an overton window that is continually moving to the Left, anything can by justified. The horrors that you speak of are just around the corner. They will serve as both a lesson and a bridge between two ages.

    "They are nothing more than privileges. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. Temporary privileges."

    We have to fight for strong rights. I feel Western Civilisation is in decline, and we are heading towards barbarism, because we don't really believe in our founding ideals, don't care they are dying.

    We have to restore the idea of "rights", becaues if we relegate them to privileges, we invite fascism.

    The masses have been inculcated with new beliefs and therefore cannot fight what they cannot see.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 12:26:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F66DCC.26917.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F5EC8E.54753.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on
    Sun Jan 30 2022 12:13 pm

    If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own


    Well, if you are hired to shoot somebody, you do know what the deal is about, so the example is not comparable at all.

    You do know, but theoretically, if you transfer your labour, it is the owner of the labour who owns the end product. You should be able to shoot and claim that you sold the labour/fruits of the labour. The hirer contracted to own the product.


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 31 12:44:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F6E64E.123015.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>

    Our exchanges are getting longer and longer yet we continue to say the same things to each other. Allow me to sum up what I belive your
    position to be and my response. You take the last reply to say "yeah, mostly" or "not at all!" lol

    This is better.

    You:
    - the product of labour is property
    - the exchange of that property for money cannot be done, no one can explain how it is done
    - despite that, said exchange is immoral

    Not quite, my position

    1) The product of your labour begins life as your property, as only labour can create new property.
    2) You cannot transfer your 'labour', 'effort', 'agency' or yourself in any way to another human being. It is literally not possible. We can PRETEND that you are just my instrument, but you remain an independent self-owning human being de-facto.
    3) You are therefore responsible for any inputs you use, any result of your labour, and therefore own the end outcome. Your "personhood", and all the rights taht come with it are fundamental and inalienable. You cannot be relegated to the economic equivalent of a machine (which is exactly what employment does).
    4) The economic exchange is therefore you selling the end product.

    Universal self employment means that this always remains the standard model. But when you work with others, "you" are part of alegal entity which shares responsibilities and ownership.


    Me:
    - the product of labour is property, well okay, sure but it is agreed ahead of time to exchange that property for pay
    - under such an agreement property rights of the labourer isn't any
    sort of issue as said labourer agreed to labour and produce "something" that will belong to the "employer" once produced for an agreed upon
    some of money
    - this is not immoral, it is normal and human nature


    The issue I have with this position, is that it accepts a reality where a contract can change someones fundamental rights. I consider an individuals property rights and self-ownership inalienable. These are not things which can be true in one sphere, and untrue in another. The difference is that with self-employment, you never give up your sovreignty as an individual.

    It is simply not necessary to give other people positive control rights over you.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 12:47:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F74431.29877.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F5EC92.54755.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Sun Jan 30 2022 12:33 pm

    This should actually be a clue. Both originated with similar fundamental assumptions.

    I believe both Communism and Capitalism are systems based on a single economic spectrum... they were concieved as a vehicle to reconstruct
    the World in a way it should have been constructed.

    We have democracy which is a system of government that people seem to
    know very little about. Either government is your master or your slave,
    it cannot be both. Plato said that democracy will always lead to communitarianism which will lead to a dictatorship.

    Thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The new system will be one run on the economic principle of necessity where no one should be born without a function to fulfil in which to serve the World State. This is the
    system we read about in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

    Communism and Capitalism are NOT opposites. They share an origin in liberalism, they share similar theories on labour.

    "Both systems" is incorrect. There is a greater range of possible economic arrangements than Capitalism and Communism.

    To borrow an example from David Ellerman, consider slavery in Ancient Greece. There were two models, the Athenian model of public ownership of slaves, and the Spartan model of private ownership of slaves. There was debate about which was better.

    <SNIP>

    I agree that there are many more possible types of economic systems --
    we have had many over the last seven thousand years. I believe the next system will be neither of the above; it will be the third way, the blending of Fascism and Communism.

    I am pushing for an "ownership economy" where we move away from the old "masters own us" paradigm to one where we are free individuals trading, and we own ourselves and our own product.

    Unfortunately. most Capitalists don't want this. They seem to fear freedom, and want masters. So they'll get Fascism.


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 12:49:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F74846.29878.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F5EC94.54756.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Sun Jan 30 2022 12:37 pm

    George Carlin said it perfectly -- "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there is no such thing as rights. They are imaginary."

    Yes, they are. But they are also what makes our civilisation, what makes life in modern Western Civilisation bearable. Man made they may be, but we are doing ourselves a disservice, and potentially subjecting our future generations to horrors we thought were just in history, by treating them less than God-given rights.

    The problem then is that man has allowed the intellect to rule. This mostly occurred during the Age of Enlightenment with the promulgation
    of scientific Atheism. By creating man-made laws which are subjective
    and malleable rather than an objective and concrete belief system,
    along with an overton window that is continually moving to the Left, anything can by justified. The horrors that you speak of are just
    around the corner. They will serve as both a lesson and a bridge
    between two ages.

    Not having a grounded, solid belief system leads to nihilism. Part of why I'm pushing rights. We should have God-given rights. Rights which are fundamental, not conditional based on whether other people think they are suitable at this point in time or not.

    "They are nothing more than privileges. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. Temporary privileges."

    We have to fight for strong rights. I feel Western Civilisation is in decline, and we are heading towards barbarism, because we don't really believe in our founding ideals, don't care they are dying.

    We have to restore the idea of "rights", becaues if we relegate them to privileges, we invite fascism.

    The masses have been inculcated with new beliefs and therefore cannot fight what they cannot see.

    Most people place "practicality" above all else. Its "practical" to give you your privacy, or just have people tell you how to live.


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 31 13:11:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Sun Jan 30 2022 11:15 am

    Me:
    - the product of labour is property, well okay, sure but it is agreed ahea of time to exchange that property for pay
    - under such an agreement property rights of the labourer isn't any sort o issue as said labourer agreed to labour and produce "something" that will belong to the "employer" once produced for an agreed upon some of money
    - this is not immoral, it is normal and human nature

    sorry to break this into two messages, if you don't respond in just one, I will.

    Just wanted to add my interpretation of this model

    - You enter into a contract where you hire yourself out in a time-wise basis to someone else. This is basically renting you.
    - The hirer/renter employs your labour to extract value. The employee is used much in the same way that equipment is used, a means to produce a product. But with one difference, the employer still needs you to operate your own body and mind under your own will.
    - The employee is paid a wage, which is the rental fee. Wages are tied to cost of living, not production. Compare this to a rental car. The rental fee covers the cost of the car, it is up to the renter to extract greater value.

    I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure that we recoup the employment cost plus extra. Workers are paid a set hourly rate, not based on how much labour/goods are transferred

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 01:49:00 2022
    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    It fits. Early in my career, I saw lots of people, myself included, get
    sucked into a company that encouraged its workers to work long hours, spent lavishly on perks, and built a "family" mindset. We had people dating co- workers (because, how are you going to meet people when you work 80-hour weeks?), very little hiring from outside, lots of people promoted from
    within who shouldn't have, and other red flags (at least to me now)

    It was all well and good until the company pivoted and laid off a third of their staff. You had couples where one person was laid off, the other remained. People whose social groups were gutted, and a complete lack of morale. People who had so much stuff at work that it took them 2 days to get it all home. People who had their entire personal lives on their company computers. (this was back in the early '90s)

    One of my co-workers left that company with the mantra

    "THE. COMPANY. IS. NOT. YOUR. FRIEND."

    Your obligation to them ends with each paycheck, as does their obligation to you.


    ... UNPRISON YOUR THINK RHINO
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Nightfox on Mon Jan 31 01:24:00 2022
    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of
    something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a
    British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in
    (and grew up in) the US.

    "Car for hire" - I remember hearing that term in London for getting a car service, with a driver.




    ... Where is the edge?
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Mon Jan 31 07:52:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 31 2022 06:11 pm

    I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure that we recoup the employment cost plus extra. Workers are paid a set hourly rate, not based on how much labour/goods are transferred

    guess you never heard of production bonuses or piece rate.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 31 06:01:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 06:49 am

    It was all well and good until the company pivoted and laid off a third of their staff. You had couples where one person was laid off, the other remained. People whose social groups were gutted, and a complete lack of morale. People who had so much stuff at work that it took them 2 days to get it all home. People who had their entire personal lives on their company computers. (this was back in the early '90s)

    One of my co-workers left that company with the mantra

    "THE. COMPANY. IS. NOT. YOUR. FRIEND."

    Your obligation to them ends with each paycheck, as does their obligation to you.

    Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees. Your job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 06:06:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to Dumas Walker on Sat Jan 29 2022 11:38 am

    Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got

    What is a "digital" birthday party? I'm guessing that means it was via an online video meeting?

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Mon Jan 31 08:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 31 2022 11:01 am


    Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees.
    Your job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.

    i was at a place for 17 years and they didnt give a shit when i quit. they were calling me up asking me questions weeks later, though. they didnt know how to do things i did there.

    a lot of people left because of paycuts during covid times. they didnt try to keep them or get them back.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 06:05:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Boraxman on Sat Jan 29 2022 12:09 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Sat Jan 29 2022 11:59 pm

    If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money from employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.

    How did you sign an employment contract to sell something that is not you property? Is this not fraud?

    Thought experiment here:

    If I am a self-employed comediant and do stand-up comedy, I am commiting fra against the guy who hired me to lighten a birthday party up? Because I am no selling a product. I am selling pure work.

    If I am a plastic surgeon and do reconstructive work for somebody who had hi face splashed by acid, I am comitting fraud? Because I am not sellig a produ I am selling pure work.

    The surgeon does not own the face he is fixing. The face belongs to the pati all throughout the deal.

    The main problem I have with your stance is that if is product oriented but eventually leads to the idea that services have no place in a legit economic system.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken


    Good point. If your HVAC isn't working, they send out a tech to fix it. befo re he even touches anything, you're paying for him to show up. If he finds nothing wrong, or let's say he finds something wrong and you don't agree with the high estimate to repair, he will still get paid for showing up and giving
    a diagnostic.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Mon Jan 31 06:18:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 2022 12:13 pm

    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F57E76.26899.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F3B652.54714.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 08:05 pm

    If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the mur is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and st that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.


    Actually the guy doing the paying would get hit with murder conspiracy charges or similar.

    It also works the other way around. If somebody purchases a product from you in order to facilitate a crime you may be held accountable (ie. if you sell a brick to somebody, knowing that brick is going to be used for cracking somebody s skull, you may be regarded a crime facilitator).

    The point is you are held accountable both if you are selling labour and if you are selling products.

    If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own

    Labour is financially treated the same way, so in theory, it should be the same. But it isn't.

    This simple though experience is designed to show that intuitively, we understand that labour isn't transferred, but is conducted by the person own it.

    Therefore, hiring a person and car is not the same, yet financially, it is considered to be the same.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    This reminds me of junk law suits the firearms manufacturers go through each year. A manufacturer assembles the firearm, sells it to a distributor, which in turn sells it to a dealer, who sells it to the end customer. If the buyer uses that firearm to kill another person, that person's family will attempt
    a civil suit against the manufacturer, claiming they market their product as
    a good way to kill people. This will get thrown out of court eventually because no manufacturer would create literature claiming such a
    thing, however it is done to drain that company's funds through legal action.
    How is a manufacturer who is separated from the customer by at least two degrees of vetted wholesalers and retailer possibly be responsible?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 31 11:08:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 06:49 am

    Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

    I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..

    It fits. Early in my career, I saw lots of people, myself included, get sucked into a company that encouraged its workers to work long hours, spent lavishly on perks, and built a "family" mindset. We had people dating co- workers (because, how are you going to meet people when you work 80-hour weeks?), very little hiring from outside, lots of people promoted from within who shouldn't have, and other red flags (at least to me now)


    Yeah, I agree that companies that pretend to be something other than an employers who hires you to do a job are to be avoided just as if they were Satanist sects which do human sacrifices in the cellar every week.

    Lots of employees nowadays are indoctrinated with corporative compliance courses and videos which have nothing to do with the work they are intended to perform, but with behaving like the brainless cog they are supposed to be. The manufacturing of propaganda materials seems to me a booming industry.

    I think that is the point in which you are not being paid for making a product but you enter the boraxman realm in which you are being paid for being their bitch. That people withstands this crap always amazes me.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Mon Jan 31 11:11:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 31 2022 11:01 am

    Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees. You job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.

    Nightfox

    A mom and dad business might have that loyal¤ty. I have worked for
    not-so-small companies which operate internationally which cared for their collaborators (as long as the collaborators had proven themselves trustworthy).

    Anything bigger than that, and you should expect the human resources lady to grow a pinoccio-like nose each time she tells how much the firm cares for your well-being.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Mon Jan 31 11:13:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Nightfox to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 2022 11:06 am

    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to Dumas Walker on Sat Jan 29 2022 11:38 am

    Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian

    What is a "digital" birthday party? I'm guessing that means it was via an online video meeting?

    Nightfox


    There is more information at my gophersite.

    Long story short: we set a VOIP server and a Terraforming Mars server and laugthed at each other's lame attempts to make the planet habitable until it was 3 am here.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to ARELOR on Mon Jan 31 11:07:00 2022
    Still I had a great time.

    And I won the game :-)

    As it should be on one's birthday. :)


    * SLMR 2.1a * ....we came in?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to MRO on Mon Jan 31 11:25:00 2022
    we need to get that antiwork reddit moderator in here. the 30 year old trans dog walker. this sounds right up sheman's alley.
    ---

    lol, I didn't follow that closely but I know what you're talking about. Anti-work reddit. "Back in my day" we called that lazy! lol
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Mon Jan 31 11:33:00 2022
    sorry to break this into two messages, if you don't respond in just one,
    I will.

    If I reply it breaks my "you have the last word" so once again, after my reply below, you have the last word lol.

    Cheers

    - The employee is paid a wage, which is the rental fee. Wages are tied
    to cost of living, not production. Compare this to a rental car. The

    Wages shouldn't be "tied" to anything. Market dictates. If what they employee is doing is in demand they will get paid more. If not less.

    I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure

    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Mon Jan 31 19:54:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 2022 05:47 pm

    Communism and Capitalism are NOT opposites. They share an origin in liberalism, they share similar theories on labour.

    I am pushing for an "ownership economy" where we move away from the old "masters own us" paradigm to one where we are free individuals trading, and we own ourselves and our own product.

    Unfortunately. most Capitalists don't want this. They seem to fear freedom, and want masters. So they'll get Fascism.

    I concur that they are not opposites and, furthermore, likely originated from the same source. Carl Marx did not concieve of Communism as an ideal. We can trace the ideas behind Communism before the French Revolution in Germany. Intellectuals were aware that such a system would result in totalitarian rule by the dominant minority... high struggles such as the French Revolution were instigated to remove the old orders, i.e. the monarchies, and replace them with liberal and democratic political systems which could be co-opted and used to steer the masses in a pre-determined direction.

    I do not disagree with your idea of an "ownership economy" as it appears to be a system that would offer greater protection to individual rights. Such a system would never be used as industrialists, capitalists and bankers would find it more difficult to consolidate their power.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Mon Jan 31 20:21:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 2022 05:49 pm

    Not having a grounded, solid belief system leads to nihilism. Part of why I'm pushing rights. We should have God-given rights. Rights which are fundamental, not conditional based on whether other people think they are suitable at this point in time or not.

    The West no longer follows God's authority. The Age of Enlightenment was designed such that it would set the people free. We now have man-made laws which can be changed because they are just ink on a piece of paper. Man's intellect chose personal freedom over divine authority. Once you subscribe to the idea of personal freedom you are cut loose from a linear morality system. This is why we are seeing post-modernism. The modern system during the Age of Enlightenment consisted of man-made constructs which were used to replace the pre-modern Biblical order. Post-modernism has now arrived which is here to deconstruct all of the laws which were brought in by a previous incarnation of itself.

    Man-made laws change over time because there is no longer a divine authority.

    With no objective right or wrong in the world, you can see how quickly things degenerate into pure nihilism.

    Most people place "practicality" above all else. Its "practical" to give you your privacy, or just have people tell you how to live.

    True. This is a hallmark of a consumer based society. People are too busy to think for themselves... they prefer being told what to do.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From fang-castro@VERT/NIGHTVLT to Tom Barnes on Mon Jan 31 13:59:00 2022
    On 17 Jan 2022, Tom Barnes said the following...

    What is it with the stay home and not work generation?

    Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and
    get back
    to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.

    You don't tell me what to do, I tell people what to do!

    |01-- Three words that describe my work ethic: Lazy.
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Mon Jan 31 15:12:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Nightfox <=-

    Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees.
    Your job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.

    i was at a place for 17 years and they didnt give a shit when i
    quit. they were calling me up asking me questions weeks later,
    though. they didnt know how to do things i did there.

    What, they didn't know how long to keep the fries in the deep fat fryer?



    ... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From fang-castro@VERT/NIGHTVLT to Sys 64738 on Mon Jan 31 14:00:00 2022
    On 19 Jan 2022, Sys 64738 said the following...
    In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so

    lmfao... bootlicker!

    |01-- Three words that describe my work ethic: Lazy.
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 14:54:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Tue Feb 01 2022 01:21 am

    The West no longer follows God's authority. The Age of Enlightenment was designed such that it would set the people free. We now have man-made laws which can be changed because they are just ink on a piece of paper. Man's intellect chose personal freedom over divine authority. Once you subscribe to the idea of personal freedom you are cut loose from a linear morality system. This is why we are seeing post-modernism. The modern system during the Age of Enlightenment consisted of man-made constructs which were used to replace the pre-modern Biblical order. Post-modernism has now arrived which is here to deconstruct all of the laws which were brought in by a previous incarnation of itself.

    Man-made laws change over time because there is no longer a divine authority.

    With no objective right or wrong in the world, you can see how quickly things degenerate into pure nihilism.

    With the many different religions in the world, it seems to me that even deciding which religion or god to follow would be subjective. Also, religion is a personal thing, and at least in countries like the US, there is freedom of religion, which is normally considered a good thing. As such, the government has no right to push the rule of one religion onto all if its citizens (which is what many of the North American colonists were trying to get away from in the UK in the 1700s).

    Which religion's God should a government choose to enforce laws from? If God's laws are so universal and unchanging, why are there so many different religions in the world?

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Ogg@VERT/CAPCITY2 to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 14:31:00 2022
    Hello Arelor!

    ** On Monday 31.01.22 - 16:13, Arelor wrote to Nightfox:

    What is a "digital" birthday party? I'm guessing that
    means it was via an online video meeting?

    There is more information at my gophersite.

    I only see 6 posts. Nothing for 2022.


    --- OpenXP 5.0.51
    * Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 19:20:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Nightfox on Mon Jan 31 2022 04:11 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 31 2022 11:01 am

    Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees. You job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.

    Nightfox

    A mom and dad business might have that loyal­ty. I have worked for not-so-small companies which operate internationally which cared for their collaborators (as long as the collaborators had proven themselves trustworthy).

    Anything bigger than that, and you should expect the human resources lady to grow a pinoccio-like nose each time she tells how much the firm cares for your well-being.

    oh i have worked for family companies and they were the most crooked ones of them all. they didnt care about the workers, broke many laws and stiffed a lot of people out of their pay.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 31 19:42:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to MRO on Mon Jan 31 2022 04:25 pm

    we need to get that antiwork reddit moderator in here. the 30 year old trans dog walker. this sounds right up sheman's alley.
    ---

    lol, I didn't follow that closely but I know what you're talking about. Anti-work reddit. "Back in my day" we called that lazy! lol


    they fired she him them
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Tue Feb 1 16:15:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F82FFF.8151.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F78B8D.54781.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 31 2022 06:11 pm

    I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure that we recoup the employment cost plus extra. Workers are paid a set hourly rate, not based on how much labour/goods are transferred

    guess you never heard of production bonuses or piece rate.

    Bonus's are just that, and piece rate is the exception. People actually being paid per unit produced is not the norm.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Tue Feb 1 16:18:00 2022
    Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F80BDB.77165.dove-gen@cavebbs.homeip.net>
    @REPLY: <61F5EC8E.54753.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on
    Sun Jan 30 2022 12:13 pm

    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F57E76.26899.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
    @REPLY: <61F3B652.54714.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
    Fri Jan 28 2022 08:05 pm

    If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the mur is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and st that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.


    Actually the guy doing the paying would get hit with murder conspiracy charges or similar.

    It also works the other way around. If somebody purchases a product from you in order to facilitate a crime you may be held accountable (ie. if you sell a brick to somebody, knowing that brick is going to be used for cracking somebody s skull, you may be regarded a crime facilitator).

    The point is you are held accountable both if you are selling labour and if you are selling products.

    If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own

    Labour is financially treated the same way, so in theory, it should be the same. But it isn't.

    This simple though experience is designed to show that intuitively, we understand that labour isn't transferred, but is conducted by the person own it.

    Therefore, hiring a person and car is not the same, yet financially, it is considered to be the same.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    This reminds me of junk law suits the firearms manufacturers go through each year. A manufacturer assembles the firearm, sells it to a distributor, which in turn sells it to a dealer, who sells it to the
    end customer. If the buyer uses that firearm to kill another person,
    that person's family will attempt a civil suit against the
    manufacturer, claiming they market their product as a good way to kill people. This will get thrown out of court eventually because no manufacturer would create literature claiming such a thing, however it
    is done to drain that company's funds through legal action.
    How is a manufacturer who is separated from the customer by at least
    two degrees of vetted wholesalers and retailer possibly be responsible?

    It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in part be borne by an inanimate object.



    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Tue Feb 1 16:22:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F884CA.29899.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F786AB.54779.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Mon Jan 31 2022 05:47 pm

    Communism and Capitalism are NOT opposites. They share an origin in liberalism, they share similar theories on labour.

    I am pushing for an "ownership economy" where we move away from the old "masters own us" paradigm to one where we are free individuals trading, and we own ourselves and our own product.

    Unfortunately. most Capitalists don't want this. They seem to fear freedom, and want masters. So they'll get Fascism.

    I concur that they are not opposites and, furthermore, likely
    originated from the same source. Carl Marx did not concieve of
    Communism as an ideal. We can trace the ideas behind Communism before
    the French Revolution in Germany. Intellectuals were aware that such a system would result in totalitarian rule by the dominant minority...
    high struggles such as the French Revolution were instigated to remove
    the old orders, i.e. the monarchies, and replace them with liberal and democratic political systems which could be co-opted and used to steer
    the masses in a pre-determined direction.

    I do not disagree with your idea of an "ownership economy" as it
    appears to be a system that would offer greater protection to
    individual rights. Such a system would never be used as industrialists, capitalists and bankers would find it more difficult to consolidate
    their power.

    That people would have more power is definately one of the advantages. It shift power towards producers.

    Capitalists can still make money. You can make money lending funds, renting equipment and buildings. Capital however will not be able to equivocate itself with labour (ie, claim it produced a product that it didn't produce).


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Tue Feb 1 16:32:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F88B26.29900.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
    @REPLY: <61F786AD.54780.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
    Mon Jan 31 2022 05:49 pm

    Not having a grounded, solid belief system leads to nihilism. Part of why I'm pushing rights. We should have God-given rights. Rights which are fundamental, not conditional based on whether other people think they are suitable at this point in time or not.

    The West no longer follows God's authority. The Age of Enlightenment
    was designed such that it would set the people free. We now have
    man-made laws which can be changed because they are just ink on a piece
    of paper. Man's intellect chose personal freedom over divine authority. Once you subscribe to the idea of personal freedom you are cut loose
    from a linear morality system. This is why we are seeing
    post-modernism. The modern system during the Age of Enlightenment consisted of man-made constructs which were used to replace the
    pre-modern Biblical order. Post-modernism has now arrived which is here
    to deconstruct all of the laws which were brought in by a previous incarnation of itself.

    Man-made laws change over time because there is no longer a divine authority.

    With no objective right or wrong in the world, you can see how quickly things degenerate into pure nihilism.

    Most people place "practicality" above all else. Its "practical" to give you your privacy, or just have people tell you how to live.

    True. This is a hallmark of a consumer based society. People are too
    busy to think for themselves... they prefer being told what to do.

    The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence and nature of God.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 1 16:45:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F88C2F.123044.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
    sorry to break this into two messages, if you don't respond in just one,
    I will.

    If I reply it breaks my "you have the last word" so once again, after
    my reply below, you have the last word lol.

    Cheers

    - The employee is paid a wage, which is the rental fee. Wages are tied
    to cost of living, not production. Compare this to a rental car. The

    Wages shouldn't be "tied" to anything. Market dictates. If what they employee is doing is in demand they will get paid more. If not less.

    But wages are based on cost of living.

    What I suggest is this. There is no wage. The money you or the coop makes is profit. Instead of trying to determine a cost of labour, and factoring that into the product, there is no cost of labour. There is the cost of the inputs, and the market value of the output. If the latter is more than the former, a profit is realised.

    I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure

    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of
    the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).

    No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.

    Each person gets paid the same, regardless of the value of the product they produce, or how many units they produce. When we calculate the labour cost, the price of labour is fixed per hour. We them amortize the cost of labour per unit produce (on average throughout the whole site), and that is the cost of labour.

    The final figures that we submit to head office regarding the Cost Of Goods Sold, has a labour cost that is based on the cost to hold an employee per period of time.

    Economically, it is IDENTICAL to calculating the rental cost of equipment per unit produce. It is not economically a transfer of produced units from employee to employer.

    The business then has to ensure it is able to obtain enough value from what is produced per unit time of labour (labour is measured by time, not output) to recoup the cost.

    If you run a business, you'll see the economic calculations don't match the idea that people are buying labours output.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Feb 1 07:35:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:15 pm

    guess you never heard of production bonuses or piece rate.

    Bonus's are just that, and piece rate is the exception. People actually being paid per unit produced is not the norm.


    if you want a job that pays per unit produced, get one.
    it might not be the norm, but they're out there.

    and what do you mean bonuses are just that? that means nothing.

    if goals are met you are rewarded with more money.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Feb 1 07:37:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:45 pm


    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).

    No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.


    where do you get that information? is this only in your country? in mine it's just voted in. in my country minimum wage is a starter wage for kids or people who want part time work.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Nightfox on Tue Feb 1 10:59:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Mon Jan 31 2022 07:54 pm

    With the many different religions in the world, it seems to me that even deciding which religion or god to follow would be subjective. Also, religion is a personal thing, and at least in countries like the US, there is freedom of religion, which is normally considered a good thing. As such, the government has no right to push the rule of one religion onto all if its citizens (which is what many of the North American colonists were trying to get away from in the UK in the 1700s).

    Which religion's God should a government choose to enforce laws from? If God's laws are so universal and unchanging, why are there so many different religions in the world?

    I was speaking about the West, specifically, whose system is based on Christianity and the God of Abraham. The US constitution was written during the Age of Enlightenment hence the reason it is such a liberal construct.

    You can see where I am coming from though. With man-made laws your so called rights are relegated to mere privileges, and privileges can be taken away temporarily or permanently.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to MRO on Tue Feb 1 11:35:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Arelor on Tue Feb 01 2022 12:20 am

    oh i have worked for family companies and they were the most crooked ones of them all. they didnt care about the workers, broke many laws and stiffed a lot of people out of their pay.

    Because they're tiny entities they can operate outwith the sphere of corporate etiquette. Big corporations have legal and HR departments so they always seem to pay the worker what they're owed even when things go awry... smaller companies often attempt to stiff workers or make them jump through hoops for basic entitlements.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Wed Feb 2 14:31:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F97DD7.8182.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F91000.54814.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:45 pm


    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).

    No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.


    where do you get that information? is this only in your country? in
    mine it's just voted in. in my country minimum wage is a starter wage
    for kids or people who want part time work. ---
    = Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

    That is every country. Do you really honestly believe minimum wage is calculated from value of labour?

    Minimum wage came about for one reason, to stop exploitation and poverty. People needed to be earning more to be able to support themselves.

    In the US, the minimum was was created to, and I quote, for a "minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being, without substantially curtailing employment".

    I don't know why something so obvious, that wages are set to buy you a lifestyle, seems to evade peoples observation.

    Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour. That is just not how business works.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Ogg on Tue Feb 1 23:57:00 2022
    Re: more information at my gophersite
    By: Ogg to Arelor on Mon Jan 31 2022 07:31 pm

    Hello Arelor!

    ** On Monday 31.01.22 - 16:13, Arelor wrote to Nightfox:

    What is a "digital" birthday party? I'm guessing that
    means it was via an online video meeting?

    There is more information at my gophersite.

    I only see 6 posts. Nothing for 2022.

    Oh, well, that would be my "other" gophersite. I will send you a priv with more details later (and an answer for your last netmail, since outgoing netmail here is
    restricted)

    Cheers!

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Tue Feb 1 23:59:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Arelor on Tue Feb 01 2022 12:20 am

    oh i have worked for family companies and they were the most crooked ones of them a
    they didnt care about the workers, broke many laws and stiffed a lot of people out
    their pay.

    Oh, lol, well, sorry to hear :-) It does not match my experience. I can easily imagine
    a mom and dad business being dickish though.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Andeddu on Wed Feb 2 00:18:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andeddu to MRO on Tue Feb 01 2022 04:35 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Arelor on Tue Feb 01 2022 12:20 am

    oh i have worked for family companies and they were the most crooked ones of the
    all. they didnt care about the workers, broke many laws and stiffed a lot of
    people out of their pay.

    Because they're tiny entities they can operate outwith the sphere of corporate
    etiquette. Big corporations have legal and HR departments so they always seem to pa
    the worker what they're owed even when things go awry... smaller companies often
    attempt to stiff workers or make them jump through hoops for basic entitlements.


    Human Resources exist to defend the company against the employees,not the other way
    around.

    Human Resources are pushy as heck trying to get people to work more hours than they
    are due and trying people to absorb corporative propaganda out of work hours. I have
    also seen Human Resources trying to cheat people with dirty tricks (We can't pay you
    with money this month, so here are some chocolate coins) or pay people bellow the
    current Union agreement - which, by the way, happens because Unions usually just want
    to get the medal for achieving the agreement but they never care if a worker of two is
    fucked up hard.

    Human Resources are like Cthulhu. THey wrap reality around them and suck the sanity
    out of your body.

    Some family firms can get rough, but the ones I have seen which got out of hand were
    very upfront about it for the most part. The biggest exception is construction firms,
    because Spanish construction firms are legendary for their douchebaggery, deceiptful
    smooth talk, and scammy tactics.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Arelor on Wed Feb 2 02:31:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Ogg <=-

    There is more information at my gophersite.

    I only see 6 posts. Nothing for 2022.

    Oh, well, that would be my "other" gophersite. I will send you a
    priv with more details later (and an answer for your last
    netmail, since outgoing netmail here is restricted)

    Arelor, that was an oversight on my part... should work now, give it
    (netmail) a try if you'd like.



    ... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Gamgee on Wed Feb 2 03:37:00 2022
    Re: Re: more information at my gophersite
    By: Gamgee to Arelor on Wed Feb 02 2022 07:31 am

    Arelor wrote to Ogg <=-

    There is more information at my gophersite.

    I only see 6 posts. Nothing for 2022.

    Oh, well, that would be my "other" gophersite. I will send you a
    priv with more details later (and an answer for your last
    netmail, since outgoing netmail here is restricted)

    Arelor, that was an oversight on my part... should work now, give it (netmail) a try if you'd like.



    ... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.

    Thanks, I will try it right now.

    As always, Palantir has a 5 stars service. I am very likely to recommend this BBS to a
    friend and I would return to this BBS :-)

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed Feb 2 07:20:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed Feb 02 2022 07:31 pm

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F97DD7.8182.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F91000.54814.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:45 pm


    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).

    No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.


    where do you get that information? is this only in your country? in mine it's just voted in. in my country minimum wage is a starter wage for kids or people who want part time work. ---
    = Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

    That is every country. Do you really honestly believe minimum wage is calculated from value of labour?


    i never heard that. i also don't make minimum wage.
    as i've said before, minimum wage is for kids and retirees.

    being calculated based on the cost of living may be what google says, but it's just somthing they increase every x amount of years here in the usa.

    anyways, why are you preoccupied with this minimum wage talk? are you making minimum wage?
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Wed Feb 2 13:04:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:32 pm

    The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence and nature of God.

    We do not necessarily require God's literal authority as I suppose man can model a solid and unchanging constitution fit for the next million years. As long as it is protected from amendments and is considered unalterable and MORE than simple ink on a piece of paper.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Arelor on Wed Feb 2 13:15:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Andeddu on Wed Feb 02 2022 05:18 am

    Human Resources exist to defend the company against the employees,not the other way around.

    Human Resources are pushy as heck trying to get people to work more hours than they are due and trying people to absorb corporative propaganda out of work
    hours. I have
    also seen Human Resources trying to cheat people with dirty tricks (We can't pay you
    with money this month, so here are some chocolate coins) or pay people bellow the
    current Union agreement - which, by the way, happens because Unions usually just want
    to get the medal for achieving the agreement but they never care if a worker of two is
    fucked up hard.

    I suppose you're right about HR. I was speaking more about small fish things such as overtime owed, tax discrepencies, bonuses, etc... big companies tend to be easier to deal with in those regards. When trying to sue firms or claim a substantial amount of compensation, that's when they close up shop and freeze you out. They are less petty than small businesses but exist only to protect the firm.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Thu Feb 3 15:35:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Andeddu on Wed Feb 02 2022 05:18 am

    Human Resources exist to defend the company against the employees,not the ot way around.

    Human Resources are pushy as heck trying to get people to work more hours th they are due and trying people to absorb corporative propaganda out of work hours. I have also seen Human Resources trying to cheat people with dirty tricks (We can't pay you with money this month, so here are some chocolate coins) or pay people bellow the current Union agreement - which, by the way, happens because Unions usually just want to get the medal for achieving the agreement but they never care if a worker of two is fucked up hard.

    Human Resources are like Cthulhu. THey wrap reality around them and suck the sanity out of your body.

    Some family firms can get rough, but the ones I have seen which got out of h were very upfront about it for the most part. The biggest exception is construction firms, because Spanish construction firms are legendary for the douchebaggery, deceiptful smooth talk, and scammy tactics.


    Half their job is conning companies into thinking all their ideas and plans and cultural change is really necessary. They command their salary by working on problems that don't exist, or aren't really the company's business in the first place.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Thu Feb 3 15:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Wed Feb 02 2022 12:20 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed Feb 02 2022 07:31 pm

    MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <61F97DD7.8182.dove-gen@bbses.info>
    @REPLY: <61F91000.54814.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:45 pm


    I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/dema of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).

    No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.


    where do you get that information? is this only in your country? in mine it's just voted in. in my country minimum wage is a starter wa for kids or people who want part time work. ---
    = Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

    That is every country. Do you really honestly believe minimum wage is calculated from value of labour?


    i never heard that. i also don't make minimum wage.
    as i've said before, minimum wage is for kids and retirees.

    being calculated based on the cost of living may be what google says, but it just somthing they increase every x amount of years here in the usa.

    anyways, why are you preoccupied with this minimum wage talk? are you making minimum wage?



    No, I make comfortably more than that. The point is the demonstrate that wages are bases on the cost to acquire the use of a human being, not based on objective value of what the labour produces.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Thu Feb 3 15:37:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Wed Feb 02 2022 06:04 pm

    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:32 pm

    The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence and nature of Go

    We do not necessarily require God's literal authority as I suppose man can model a solid and unchanging constitution fit for the next million years. As long as it is protected from amendments and is considered unalterable and MO than simple ink on a piece of paper.


    No way man can do that. We can't stick with a system for a century, a million years?



    The only constant is change.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Dr. What@VERT/CFBBS to Arelor on Thu Feb 3 04:15:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to MRO <=-

    Oh, lol, well, sorry to hear :-) It does not match my experience. I can easily imagine a mom and dad business being dickish though.

    The "family owned" ones (as opposed to the ones that are stockholder owned) are much more dickish. But in the long term, they are cutting their own throats when they can't get people to come work for them.

    I remember a big retailer (that's no longer in business) was like that in their I.T. dept. Over many years, they treated their people poorly and found it harder and harder to get people to come work for them. They ended up paying high pay for the below-average people. After while, their I.T. systems just fell apart and the whole company down shortly after that (you can't get income if you can't accept credit cards, or worse, you blindly accept credit cards and customers defraud you).


    ... You have only a very small head and must live within it.
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Wed Feb 2 01:42:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-

    It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in part
    be borne by an inanimate object.

    In asset forfeiture cases, when law enforcement impounds assets (usually
    cash) with the "suspicion" that it is evidence of illegal activity, the criminality is associated with the asset.

    There are court cases named "United States versus $14,000 in small bills".


    ... Voice your suspicions
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Wed Feb 2 01:45:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to Andeddu <=-

    The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation
    of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some
    revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence
    and nature of God.

    A lot of utopian science fiction references the combining of religions. I think we need someone/something to bridge the religions, re-inforce that one god has many names, and that religion is about being part of a whole and behaving in a way that promotes the greater good.

    "Wouldn't it be great if people were nice to each other for a change?"

    --Jesus Christ


    ... Voice your suspicions
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Andeddu on Thu Feb 3 01:47:00 2022
    Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-

    We do not necessarily require God's literal authority as I suppose man
    can model a solid and unchanging constitution fit for the next million years. As long as it is protected from amendments and is considered unalterable and MORE than simple ink on a piece of paper.

    I don't know if amendments are a problem, as long as it's accompanied by a well-defined process for amendment by the body adhering to it, and an apolitical judicial group that defends the constitution against attempts to skirt it and abridge the rights of people outside of the amendment process. You know, sort of like what we used to have.


    ... Faced with a choice, do both.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Thu Feb 3 01:48:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to Arelor <=-

    Half their job is conning companies into thinking all their ideas and plans and cultural change is really necessary. They command their
    salary by working on problems that don't exist, or aren't really the company's business in the first place.

    But, We're Making The World A Better Place!


    ... Emphasize the flaws
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Feb 3 08:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Feb 03 2022 08:36 pm


    No, I make comfortably more than that. The point is the demonstrate that wages are bases on the cost to acquire the use of a human being, not based on objective value of what the labour produces.

    it depends on the type of job.

    also if an employer needs to make a profit and they need to get more people they increase raises. so that value of labor increases the payrate.

    there's also production that has piece rate and production bonuses.

    only on a small scale will you have an employer pay you based on what specific thing you do and how much that specific thing makes.

    when you pay someone to paint your house do you pay by the brush stroke, or do a flat fee you consider fair?

    there ya go.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Thu Feb 3 12:17:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Thu Feb 03 2022 08:37 pm

    No way man can do that. We can't stick with a system for a century, a million years?



    The only constant is change.

    Which is why civilizations go through a life cycle of four stages: genesis, growth, breakdown and disintegration. We are close to disintegration.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 4 04:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Wed Feb 02 2022 06:42 am

    Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-

    It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in part be borne by an inanimate object.

    In asset forfeiture cases, when law enforcement impounds assets (usually cash) with the "suspicion" that it is evidence of illegal activity, the criminality is associated with the asset.

    There are court cases named "United States versus $14,000 in small bills".


    ... Voice your suspicions

    Interesting, that may be because the asset is in itself evidence, or posesson of the asset implies cooperation in the crime.

    I've never heard of a court case like that though.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 4 04:03:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Wed Feb 02 2022 06:45 am

    Boraxman wrote to Andeddu <=-

    The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence and nature of God.

    A lot of utopian science fiction references the combining of religions. I think we need someone/something to bridge the religions, re-inforce that one god has many names, and that religion is about being part of a whole and behaving in a way that promotes the greater good.

    "Wouldn't it be great if people were nice to each other for a change?"

    --Jesus Christ


    ... Voice your suspicions

    That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity under one power.

    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    Live and let live I say.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Thu Feb 3 11:14:00 2022
    In asset forfeiture cases, when law enforcement impounds assets (usually cash) with the "suspicion" that it is evidence of illegal activity, the criminality is associated with the asset.

    There are court cases named "United States versus $14,000 in small bills".

    Is that why people sometimes supposedly don't get their assets back when
    they themselves are found "not guilty" or when charges are dropped?


    * SLMR 2.1a * Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Fri Feb 4 04:18:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Nightfox on Tue Feb 01 2022 03:59 pm

    I was speaking about the West, specifically, whose system is based on Christianity and the God of Abraham. The US constitution was written during Age of Enlightenment hence the reason it is such a liberal construct.

    You can see where I am coming from though. With man-made laws your so called rights are relegated to mere privileges, and privileges can be taken away temporarily or permanently.


    Yes, I do see that, definately. Rights change from something which is non-negotiable and inalienable to something which is just "practical" and can be taken away the moment anyone can argue some benefit. For example, how some people find free speech problematic and simply argue we shouldn't have it because it doesn't fit in with their corporatised view of the world.

    Rights from God give a solid anchor, and a reason for direction.
    The problem is how to get that without having to convince people God is real again.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Fri Feb 4 04:27:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 03 2022 01:00 pm

    it depends on the type of job.

    also if an employer needs to make a profit and they need to get more people they increase raises. so that value of labor increases the payrate.

    there's also production that has piece rate and production bonuses.

    only on a small scale will you have an employer pay you based on what specif thing you do and how much that specific thing makes.

    when you pay someone to paint your house do you pay by the brush stroke, or a flat fee you consider fair?

    there ya go.

    When you pay someone to paint your house, you don't actually employ them, in a legal sense. You buy a service. So that isn't applicable, he works for himself, but leaves the work with you. I've never gotten a tradesperson to become "my" employee in any legal sense.

    Labour doesn't have value though, only the end product. The customer doesn't care if 10% of the price is labour and 90% materials, or the other way around. They only care about the product. They pay for the product.

    By the way, some business may sell product at a loss. Does that mean labour has a negative value?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Feb 3 19:42:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:27 am

    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 03 2022 01:00 pm

    it depends on the type of job.

    also if an employer needs to make a profit and they need to get more people they increase raises. so that value of labor increases the payrate.

    there's also production that has piece rate and production bonuses.

    only on a small scale will you have an employer pay you based on what specif thing you do and how much that specific thing makes.

    when you pay someone to paint your house do you pay by the brush stroke, or a flat fee you consider fair?

    there ya go.

    When you pay someone to paint your house, you don't actually employ them, in a legal sense. You buy a service. So that isn't applicable, he works for himself, but leaves the work with you. I've never gotten a tradesperson to become "my" employee in any legal sense.

    Labour doesn't have value though, only the end product. The customer doesn't care if 10% of the price is labour and 90% materials, or the other way around. They only care about the product. They pay for the product.

    By the way, some business may sell product at a loss. Does that mean labour has a negative value?


    this labor discussion has become a big semantics jerk off fest
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 01:27:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:27 am

    By the way, some business may sell product at a loss. Does that mean labour has a negative value?


    There is definitively some people you'd pay in order to become an employee for your competitors, so maybe that counts as nevagive value of labour.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Fri Feb 4 03:31:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 03 2022 01:00 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Feb 03 2022 08:36 pm


    No, I make comfortably more than that. The point is the demonstrate that wages are bases on the cost to acquire the use of a human being, not base on objective value of what the labour produces.

    it depends on the type of job.

    also if an employer needs to make a profit and they need to get more people

    there's also production that has piece rate and production bonuses.

    only on a small scale will you have an employer pay you based on what specif

    when you pay someone to paint your house do you pay by the brush stroke, or

    there ya go.

    A friend has a farm, and when she pays for additional labor, she pays by the job. This eliminates clock watching and dragging out how long a project
    takes. Those who get done faster have a chance of getting more work to do.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 03:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:00 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Wed Feb 02 2022 06:42 am

    Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-

    It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in p be borne by an inanimate object.

    In asset forfeiture cases, when law enforcement impounds assets (usually cash) with the "suspicion" that it is evidence of illegal activity, the criminality is associated with the asset.

    There are court cases named "United States versus $14,000 in small bills"


    ... Voice your suspicions

    Interesting, that may be because the asset is in itself evidence, or posesso of the asset implies cooperation in the crime.

    I've never heard of a court case like that though.

    Police have pulled over people for driving infractions, ask consent for a search , and have found large sums of money, but no other evidence to
    indicate a crime or criminal intent. The money will be seized nonetheless. The owner of the money wil have to go to court to get their money back.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 08:53:00 2022
    Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour.
    That is just not how business works.

    So a retail or fast food worker is not making minimum wage because potential employees with those skills are in high supply? A professional (tradesman, engineer, accountant etc) isn't making above minimum wage because of a lower
    supply of potential employees with those skills?

    Of course they are. Their labour commands a value based on what the market of available labour commands.

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. Then Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages were driven down to the floor.

    This is precisely how businesses determine wages. The value of labour is decided by supply and demand.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 08:59:00 2022
    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    Live and let live I say.

    I like the cut of your jib mister! (except your theories on economics lol)
  • From Digital Man@VERT to MRO on Fri Feb 4 16:09:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 01:00 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 2022 09:07 am

    to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in (and grew up in) the US.


    renting is for objects.

    You can rent a horse.
    --
    digital man (rob)

    Sling Blade quote #4:
    Doyle: wimpy-ass kids or mental retards.. she got one of each livin' with her. Norco, CA WX: 56.9øF, 20.0% humidity, 0 mph NE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Digital Man on Fri Feb 4 20:53:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Digital Man to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:09 pm


    renting is for objects.

    You can rent a horse.

    a horse is a vehicle object
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Sat Feb 5 10:32:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm

    Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour. That is just not how business works.

    So a retail or fast food worker is not making minimum wage because potential employees with those skills are in high supply
    A professional (tradesman, engineer, accountant etc) isn't making above minimum wage because of a lower
    supply of potential employees with those skills?

    Of course they are. Their labour commands a value based on what the market of available labour commands.

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. Then Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large
    numbers that wages were driven down to the floor.

    This is precisely how businesses determine wages. The value of labour is decided by supply and demand.

    They are competing against other employees, and want to offer a wage which will attract the candidates they want. The wage is
    still, I maintain, based on them hiring you, not your labour.

    I'm a professional, and my input per unit product is impossible to calculate. What is the value of my labour? I can tell you
    it doesn't exist. However, the business wants people not to get sick taking theer product, so they hire me to ensure it is
    safe. They pay me what they pay me because others pay that amount. That wage gets me a "middle class" lifestyle. That is
    the trade.

    I'm also a director of a small company, I employ people. At NO stage is "value of labour" a factor in determing wages, in the
    contract. We pay to be able to use these people 38 hours a week, and the wage is the cost of having them for that period of
    time.

    Getting "our moneys worth" is then our problem, how we get these people to work and contribute.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat Feb 5 09:27:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu on Thu Feb 03 2022 06:47 am

    I don't know if amendments are a problem, as long as it's accompanied by a well-defined process for amendment by the body adhering to it, and an apolitical judicial group that defends the constitution against attempts to skirt it and abridge the rights of people outside of the amendment process. You know, sort of like what we used to have.

    Well that just leads you in the direction of where we are today. Corruption with cash along with other incentives can degrade any basic principle and transition it out of what it was into something altogether different.

    Apolitical groups and political bodies can be bought.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sat Feb 5 09:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:03 am

    That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity under one power.

    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    Live and let live I say.

    It is not the goal of God either. You have to recall the Tower of Babel and the origins of the multiplicity of languages. The last thing the God of Abraham wants is a united Earth under one government speaking the same language. The idea behind a united human race is Satanistic as the Bible is clear that you cannot seek to have Heaven on Earth.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Digital Man on Sat Feb 5 07:17:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Digital Man to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:09 pm

    renting is for objects.

    You can rent a horse.

    When I was a kid I would rent a horse, but it is not the same experience as owning one.

    It is hard to bond properly, because for a rental horse you are just another moron in the long list of morons he is gonna see today. A horse you own is going to be more work, but for a horse you own (and propely care) you are more likely to be his "Sugar daddy who pets me and teaches me fun tricks!" UNnlike with dogs, horses are not guaranteed to befriend you just because you take care of them, though.

    Bottom line: you can rent a horse, but there is not where the fun is.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Sat Feb 5 07:18:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Digital Man on Sat Feb 05 2022 01:53 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Digital Man to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:09 pm


    renting is for objects.

    You can rent a horse.

    a horse is a vehicle object

    I have heard some Spaniards talking about renting women. Probably because they are rideable too.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Digital Man on Sun Feb 6 08:08:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Digital Man to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:09 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 01:00 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 2022 09:07 am

    to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary u
    of something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that
    because I live in (and grew up in) the US.


    renting is for objects.

    You can rent a horse.
    Horses have property rights now???

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Sun Feb 6 08:10:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Sat Feb 05 2022 02:39 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:03 am

    That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity
    under one power.

    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that,
    getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    Live and let live I say.

    It is not the goal of God either. You have to recall the Tower of Babel and the origins of the multiplicity of languages. Th
    last thing the God of Abraham wants is a united Earth under one government speaking the same language. The idea behind a uni
    human race is Satanistic as the Bible is clear that you cannot seek to have Heaven on Earth.


    Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valuable lesson. Unification of the world under one
    power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, should have so much power over so many people.


    Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what a few Germans believed in the last century now.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sat Feb 5 23:13:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Digital Man on Sun Feb 06 2022 01:08 pm

    You can rent a horse.
    Horses have property rights now???


    Here is a thing,

    when I need to keep my horses distracted while I work in the barn, I hang a ball from a beam so they play with it instead of trying to steal the tools I am using.

    One of the horses will eventually grab the ball and prevent the other from playing with it. She will look at her as if saying "This ball is mine!", which is funny because she actually does not like playing with the ball that much.

    THe bottom line is that she will defend her ball with more conviction than a lot of people defends their rights.

    Lol I feel like a grandpa telling stories to the little kids. My birthday has not done any good to me :-)

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to BORAXMAN on Sun Feb 6 05:17:00 2022
    Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valu
    le lesson. Unification of the world under one
    power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, should hav
    so much power over so many people.

    I agree. For some reason, many Globalists don't see that.

    Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what
    few Germans believed in the last century now.

    It is ironic, the folks who seem to want to cry "fascists!" and "Nazi!" in
    the US are the same ones that don't seem to understand that their Globalist ideas have a lot in common with what those Germans believed. Even the idea
    of the EU was something the Germans were looking towards.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Arnold Layne, don't do it again!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 01:47:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

    Interesting, that may be because the asset is in itself evidence, or posesson of the asset implies cooperation in the crime.

    I've never heard of a court case like that though.

    It's starting to make the news. People travel with cash, get pulled over for
    a traffic stop, police search the car, find the cash, assume it's drug
    money, and confiscate it. Police departments then get to use the money after
    a period of time. At least that's the story that's been reported,
    corroborated by some departments bragging about buying things for the department with confiscated funds.

    When it's your money that's confiscated, you then need to go to court to retrieve it, and that's where the odd court cases come to light. You'll need to pay for a lawyer and it could take a year or more to resolve.


    ... Towards the insignificant
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Fri Feb 4 01:51:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

    That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity under one power.

    Hindu and buddhist texts both mention the one-ness of God, as well as the oneness of creation - we're part of the whole, and helping one another is ultimately helping yourself.

    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    It's about theoretically combining religions while allowing each to
    flourish, and admittedly the devil's in the details. We may learn that religious people are in fact not spiritual and instead have material goals.


    ... Think of the radio
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Dumas Walker on Fri Feb 4 01:51:00 2022
    Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-

    Is that why people sometimes supposedly don't get their assets back
    when they themselves are found "not guilty" or when charges are
    dropped?

    Yes, even after the erstwhile drug charge is dropped, the "drug money" stays in the custody of the police department.


    ... Think of the radio
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 6 11:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 06:51 am

    Hindu and buddhist texts both mention the one-ness of God, as well as the oneness of creation - we're part of the whole, and helping one another is ultimately helping yourself.


    There is a big difference between endorsing Karma theories and affirming we are all one big spiritual unit, and wanting everybody pulled under the same religious or political regime.

    Specifically because a concept such as a ruler or a government makes no sense, ultimately, if everything is to be just part of The One (tm) eventually.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 6 09:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 06:47 am

    It's starting to make the news. People travel with cash, get pulled over for a traffic stop, police search the car, find the cash, assume it's drug money, and confiscate it. Police departments then get to use the money after a period of time. At least that's the story that's been reported, corroborated by some departments bragging about buying things for the department with confiscated funds.

    When it's your money that's confiscated, you then need to go to court to retrieve it, and that's where the odd court cases come to light. You'll need to pay for a lawyer and it could take a year or more to resolve.

    I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone only based on a suspicion. I'd have thought it would be illegal for the police to take something belonging to someone without proof it's to be used for nefarious purposes or without a warrant of some kind.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From HusTler@VERT/PHARCYDE to Otto Reverse on Sun Feb 6 14:30:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. Then Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages were dri down to the floor.

    Not sure if that argument is valid anymore. The cost of housing is the same for "Indians" as it is for the rest of us.

    |07 HusTler


    ... Click...click...click...damn, out of taglines!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to all on Sun Feb 6 15:31:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 06:47 am

    Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

    Interesting, that may be because the asset is in itself evidence, or posesson of the asset implies cooperation in the crime.

    I've never heard of a court case like that though.

    It's starting to make the news. People travel with cash, get pulled over for a traffic stop, police search the car, find the cash, assume it's drug money, and confiscate it. Police departments then get to use the money after a period of time. At least that's the story that's been reported, corroborated by some departments bragging about buying things for the department with confiscated funds.

    When it's your money that's confiscated, you then need to go to court to retrieve it, and that's where the odd court cases come to light. You'll need to pay for a lawyer and it could take a year or more to resolve.


    ... Towards the insignificant



    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14470003

    this guy is a former police officer who would go and hit people to get assets and money. then they would pose behind the drugs, guns and money.

    he was one of the top guys at the time.

    he has a very interesting video if you can find it.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Sun Feb 6 15:32:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 02:39 pm


    I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone only based on a suspicion. I'd have thought it would be illegal for the police to take something belonging to someone without proof it's to be used for nefarious purposes or without a warrant of some kind.


    you can get it back. but those people are criminals so they want to quit while they're ahead. they might open a can of worms.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to HusTler on Sun Feb 6 15:32:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: HusTler to Otto Reverse on Sun Feb 06 2022 07:30 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. Then Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages were dri down to the floor.

    Not sure if that argument is valid anymore. The cost of housing is the same for "Indians" as it is for the rest of us.

    |07 HusTler


    ... Click...click...click...damn, out of taglines!

    you might want to put down that crack pipe.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Sun Feb 6 19:42:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Sun Feb 06 2022 01:10 pm

    Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valuable lesson. Unification of the world under one
    power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, should have so much power over so many people.


    Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what a few Germans believed in the last century now.

    There are so many valuable lessons in the Bible which are relevant today even to those who believe it to be nothing more than a collection of fictitious fables.

    If one person was to raised to a grandiose height and handed the crown of order to become the patriarch of the World... we'd be living in a despotic dystopia.

    Power can never be fully consolidated.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dumas Walker on Sun Feb 6 19:45:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to BORAXMAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 10:17 am

    It is ironic, the folks who seem to want to cry "fascists!" and "Nazi!" in the US are the same ones that don't seem to understand that their Globalist ideas have a lot in common with what those Germans believed. Even the idea of the EU was something the Germans were looking towards.

    I guess it's no accident that the EU's parliament building is modeled after the Tower of Babel... haha.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Sun Feb 6 21:54:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 02:39 pm

    I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone only based on a suspicion. I'd have thought it would be illegal for the pol to take something belonging to someone without proof it's to be used for nefarious purposes or without a warrant of some kind.

    Nightfox


    WELCOME TO SPAIN!!!!!

    It has been like that for a long while here. "Oh, I need a pencil and that guy has one. I am gonna charge that guy with possession of a puncturing weapon and take his pencil!"

    Australia is also very bad in this regard. If they suspect you have child porn in your house they may conduct a search, and finding nothing, will confiscate your legal cutlery because "It looks weapon-like" and you won't see it back.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to HusTler on Sun Feb 6 21:57:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: HusTler to Otto Reverse on Sun Feb 06 2022 07:30 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. The Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages were down to the floor.

    Not sure if that argument is valid anymore. The cost of housing is the sam for "Indians" as it is for the rest of us.

    |07 HusTler


    HP Printing has been placing more and more driver development in India precisely because the costs are much lower.

    But as of late they are bringin a lot of it back to Spain because the drivers they develop are pityful and are full of constructs such as:

    if (true); then
    something()
    fi

    Or better yet:

    while (true); do
    if (condition()); then
    break;
    fi
    done

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Dumas Walker on Mon Feb 7 12:03:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to BORAXMAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 10:17 am

    Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valu
    le lesson. Unification of the world under one
    power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, should hav
    so much power over so many people.

    I agree. For some reason, many Globalists don't see that.

    Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what
    few Germans believed in the last century now.

    It is ironic, the folks who seem to want to cry "fascists!" and "Nazi!" in the US are the same ones that don't seem to understand that their Globalist ideas have a lot in common with what those Germans believed. Even the idea of the EU was something the Germans were looking towards.

    There is another creepier element to them, the "master race" idea. People will literally tell you that it is better that we all blend as one race, because then various problems in the world will go away. This is basically another version of the "if we make this race dominant, and get rid of others, problems will go away" line of reasoning.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Feb 7 12:08:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 06:51 am

    Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

    That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity under one power.

    Hindu and buddhist texts both mention the one-ness of God, as well as the oneness of creation - we're part of the whole, and helping one another is ultimately helping yourself.

    That though is seperate to believing that everything unique has to be mashed together into one homogeneous paste? Surely believing in a one-ness with God doesn't preclude us living our own separate lives, keeping our own identities, our own, if you well, unique expressions of creation.

    That is what I think is the problem, not that we acknowledge that we are part of the same creation, but this desire to homogenise and destroy diversity for political expedience.

    I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.

    It's about theoretically combining religions while allowing each to flourish, and admittedly the devil's in the details. We may learn that religious people are in fact not spiritual and instead have material goals.


    ... Think of the radio

    I can't see how that would world. Yes, people may acknowledge that people who are religious share some base spirituality, a sense the world means more than just that which is materially presented to us. But the devil is in the details, and it is reconciling the details which proves fatal.

    The most bitter religious rivalries aren't even between two different religions, but between two sects of the same branch. People will kill over the small details.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Mon Feb 7 12:14:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Mon Feb 07 2022 12:42 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Sun Feb 06 2022 01:10 pm

    Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valuable lesson. Unification of the world under one
    power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, shoul have so much power over so many people.


    Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what a few Germans believed in the last century now.

    There are so many valuable lessons in the Bible which are relevant today eve to those who believe it to be nothing more than a collection of fictitious fables.

    If one person was to raised to a grandiose height and handed the crown of or to become the patriarch of the World... we'd be living in a despotic dystopi

    Power can never be fully consolidated.


    People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think anyone before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, the problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.

    The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet some 19 year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.

    We would all do well to realise that the values and ideas held by people in the past, where done with with good reason.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Nightfox on Mon Feb 7 04:29:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 02:39 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 06:47 am

    It's starting to make the news. People travel with cash, get pulled ove for a traffic stop, police search the car, find the cash, assume it's d money, and confiscate it. Police departments then get to use the money after a period of time. At least that's the story that's been reported, corroborated by some departments bragging about buying things for the department with confiscated funds.

    When it's your money that's confiscated, you then need to go to court t retrieve it, and that's where the odd court cases come to light. You'll need to pay for a lawyer and it could take a year or more to resolve.

    I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone thout a warrant of some kind.

    Nightfox

    People have been successful getting their money back. Some have trouble explaing why they are carrying $20k in their car.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Mon Feb 7 11:47:00 2022
    Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-

    Is that why people sometimes supposedly don't get their assets back
    when they themselves are found "not guilty" or when charges are
    dropped?

    Yes, even after the erstwhile drug charge is dropped, the "drug money" stays in the custody of the police department.

    While it is often drug money, I wasn't thinking of drugs when I posted
    that. I cannot remember now what local case I was thinking about. :)

    That is an interesting, and unfortunate, racket.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Her voice rings in his ears like the music of the spheres

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to BORAXMAN on Mon Feb 7 11:51:00 2022
    There is another creepier element to them, the "master race" idea. People wil
    literally tell you that it is better that we all blend as one race, because then various problems in the world will go away. This is basically another version of the "if we make this race dominant, and get rid of others, problems
    will go away" line of reasoning.

    And conflicts with messages about diversity being the way.

    That line of reasoning, and I know some follow it, ignores that not all of
    our problems are caused by the colors of our skin being different. I
    honestly think most of them are not. Even in the US, a lot of folks have
    been pointing at race recently, but I think the real problem is the growing divide between our non-collective values. I believe that if you grouped Americans by values, you would find the groups would be racially diverse
    rather than homogeneous.

    I would find it rather boring if everyone looked the same. There is a
    classic Twilight Zone episode about that. Things are not so utopic as one would imagine.


    * SLMR 2.1a * There is no dark side of the moon, really....

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to ANDEDDU on Mon Feb 7 11:51:00 2022
    It is ironic, the folks who seem to want to cry "fascists!" and "Nazi!" in the US are the same ones that don't seem to understand that their Globalist
    ideas have a lot in common with what those Germans believed. Even the idea
    of the EU was something the Germans were looking towards.

    I guess it's no accident that the EU's parliament building is modeled after th
    Tower of Babel... haha.

    Now I am going to have to look that up. :)


    * SLMR 2.1a * He knows changes aren't permanent - but change is!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Mon Feb 7 12:21:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:08 pm

    That though is seperate to believing that everything unique has to be mashed together into one homogeneous paste? Surely believing in a one-ness with Go doesn't preclude us living our own separate lives, keeping our own identitie our own, if you well, unique expressions of creation.

    That is what I think is the problem, not that we acknowledge that we are par of the same creation, but this desire to homogenise and destroy diversity fo political expedience.


    I think that, in practice, practicioners who believe variations of one-ness with the Universe are more interested in achieving it themselves. This is why they practice discipline, restraint and self-sacrifice: they reject distractions that are only good for satisfying egos (which are pointless, because the ego is an illusion that does not exist).

    It is pointless to want a pile of gold for yourself, when your existence as an independent spiritual unit is an illusion.

    When your beliefs operate in this environment, I think wanting to put everybody under the same political regime is completely out of scope. Governments and such are just a pathetic attempt from things that believe they are spiritually independent to control other things which believe they are spiritually independent, but that is hogwash, because the tyrant who gets people shot for disagreeing and the people getting shot are ultimately the same spiritual unit.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Mon Feb 7 12:53:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:14 pm

    People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think anyo before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, the problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.

    The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet some 1 year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.

    We would all do well to realise that the values and ideas held by people in past, where done with with good reason.


    There is a bit of everything.

    A lot of ideas and practices were just counterproductive, or were very helpful only for the people pushing it. Others made a lot whole of sense back in the day, but became obsolete.

    For example, feudalism and feudal armies made sense in the 10th Century, because it tied together nobles with common interests with loyalty oaths and made it so areas dominated by a given type of culture could count with the protection of a warrior class capable of fending off invasive threats. Since keeping a standing army sucked very hard (wars ruined territories, because nobody was tending the crops if all the men were chopping heads), having a group of knights for keeping order and turning the peasants into an army only if need be was an ok deal.

    Once monarchies could afford siege machines nobody else could, feudalism became obsolete because monarchs no longer needed the old loyalty sistem to ensure the obedience of nobles and their subjects. Any noble who disagreed with whoever happened to have the artillery sets that Century would see his house bombed to the ground with no recourse. History classes always point to the rise of the burgoise class as the downfall of the feudal system, but it was standing monarchist armies which turned nobles from warlords and defenders of the land into puppets.

    On the other hand, I think some ideas from the 5th Century Before Christ are still valid. A lot of Europeans look at 2nd Ammendmendt proponents as if they had losed it, but the idea that only slaves and non-citizens would allow themselves to be forbidden from bearing weapons already existed, in a way or another, in ancient Athens, Sparta, the Republican Rome, various Viking folks... the idea still survives in a number of Asian places to this day. And here is something funny: when a culture stops being combative, they abbandon the idea that free people has weapons, weapons get eliminated from society, and that culture collapes under the push of external threats. I recommend the book Ultima Ratio Regis (if it exists in anything else than Spanish), because it makes this specific case despite the fact the author despises pro-gun rights groups.

    So, in conclusion, we can extract valid lessons from the past, but not all that is past is golden either or would be golden if brought back.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dumas Walker on Mon Feb 7 13:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to BORAXMAN on Mon Feb 07 2022 04:51 pm

    I would find it rather boring if everyone looked the same. There is a classic Twilight Zone episode about that. Things are not so utopic as one would imagine.


    They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.

    Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was caused by the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities who set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a magic device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.

    Eventually the village sucked to the point of collapse. Nobody could bake a decent cake, because the ponies with the ability to bake a decent cake had
    been made equal with everybody else in mediocrity. Same with every profession.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Tue Feb 8 15:25:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to Boraxman on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:21 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:08 pm

    That though is seperate to believing that everything unique has to be mas together into one homogeneous paste? Surely believing in a one-ness with doesn't preclude us living our own separate lives, keeping our own identi our own, if you well, unique expressions of creation.

    That is what I think is the problem, not that we acknowledge that we are of the same creation, but this desire to homogenise and destroy diversity political expedience.


    I think that, in practice, practicioners who believe variations of one-ness with the Universe are more interested in achieving it themselves. This is wh they practice discipline, restraint and self-sacrifice: they reject distractions that are only good for satisfying egos (which are pointless, because the ego is an illusion that does not exist).

    It is pointless to want a pile of gold for yourself, when your existence as independent spiritual unit is an illusion.

    When your beliefs operate in this environment, I think wanting to put everyb under the same political regime is completely out of scope. Governments and such are just a pathetic attempt from things that believe they are spiritual independent to control other things which believe they are spiritually independent, but that is hogwash, because the tyrant who gets people shot fo disagreeing and the people getting shot are ultimately the same spiritual un


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken


    That is a description of a very personal and individual spirituality. It can superficially sound like a view that we should all unite externally, but it is actually antithetical to that.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Tue Feb 8 15:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to Boraxman on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:53 pm

    There is a bit of everything.

    A lot of ideas and practices were just counterproductive, or were very helpf only for the people pushing it. Others made a lot whole of sense back in the day, but became obsolete.

    For example, feudalism and feudal armies made sense in the 10th Century, because it tied together nobles with common interests with loyalty oaths and made it so areas dominated by a given type of culture could count with the protection of a warrior class capable of fending off invasive threats. Since keeping a standing army sucked very hard (wars ruined territories, because nobody was tending the crops if all the men were chopping heads), having a group of knights for keeping order and turning the peasants into an army onl if need be was an ok deal.

    Once monarchies could afford siege machines nobody else could, feudalism bec obsolete because monarchs no longer needed the old loyalty sistem to ensure obedience of nobles and their subjects. Any noble who disagreed with whoever happened to have the artillery sets that Century would see his house bombed the ground with no recourse. History classes always point to the rise of the burgoise class as the downfall of the feudal system, but it was standing monarchist armies which turned nobles from warlords and defenders of the lan into puppets.

    On the other hand, I think some ideas from the 5th Century Before Christ are still valid. A lot of Europeans look at 2nd Ammendmendt proponents as if the had losed it, but the idea that only slaves and non-citizens would allow themselves to be forbidden from bearing weapons already existed, in a way or another, in ancient Athens, Sparta, the Republican Rome, various Viking folks... the idea still survives in a number of Asian places to this day. An here is something funny: when a culture stops being combative, they abbandon the idea that free people has weapons, weapons get eliminated from society and that culture collapes under the push of external threats. I recommend th book Ultima Ratio Regis (if it exists in anything else than Spanish), becaus it makes this specific case despite the fact the author despises pro-gun rig groups.

    So, in conclusion, we can extract valid lessons from the past, but not all t is past is golden either or would be golden if brought back.

    I think in part our view of how companies work still has a feudalist mentality.
    We have to balance Traditionalism (standing by culture and tradition) with Progressivism, and making objective assessments of our long held cultural traditions and values. The problem is that sometimes it is not apparent why we held certain beliefs until long after we've abandoned them. I've done a cursory search for Ultima Ratio Regis, and get some hits, but nothing thta looks like an English translation of the book.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Mon Feb 7 23:54:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 08:36 pm

    I think in part our view of how companies work still has a feudalist mentali
    We have to balance Traditionalism (standing by culture and tradition) with Progressivism, and making objective assessments of our long held cultural traditions and values. The problem is that sometimes it is not apparent why held certain beliefs until long after we've abandoned them. I've done a cursory search for Ultima Ratio Regis, and get some hits, but nothing thta looks like an English translation of the book.


    This would be the book. No English translations that I can find :-(

    https://www.librarything.com/work/11346946

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Tue Feb 8 06:15:00 2022
    Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour That is just not how business works.

    So a retail or fast food worker is not making minimum wage because pote employees with those skills are in high supply
    A professional (tradesman, engineer, accountant etc) isn't making above minimum wage because of a lower
    supply of potential employees with those skills?

    Of course they are. Their labour commands a value based on what the mar of available labour commands.


    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. T Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large
    numbers that wages were driven down to the floor.

    This is precisely how businesses determine wages. The value of labour i decided by supply and demand.

    They are competing against other employees, and want to offer a wage
    which will attract the candidates they want. The wage is
    still, I maintain, based on them hiring you, not your labour.

    The wage is based on the supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour. Bigger supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour the lower the wage. Conversely the smaller the supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour the higher the wages. This is a universal truth found in all democratic capitalist nations the world over.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to HusTler on Tue Feb 8 06:18:00 2022
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm

    I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. T Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages wer down to the floor.

    Not sure if that argument is valid anymore. The cost of housing is the same for "Indians" as it is for the rest of us.

    Are we talking about the same people? I meant Indians from the country of India.
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Nightfox on Tue Feb 8 13:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 06 2022 02:39 pm

    I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone only based on a suspicion. I'd have thought it would be illegal for the police to take something belonging to someone without proof it's to be used for nefarious purposes or without a warrant of some kind.

    Nightfox

    The police in my country can use legislation known as the Proceeds of Crime to seize belongings (cash, jewelry or any other valuable) that can be viewed as unexplained wealth. These productions are then lodged with a prosecutor who will thereafter release them back to the owner should they be able to prove they were acquired by legal means.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Tue Feb 8 13:10:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:14 pm

    People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think anyone before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, the problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.

    The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet some 19 year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.

    We would all do well to realise that the values and ideas held by people in the past, where done with with good reason.

    The culture creators were able to invert almost all of our beliefs within the span of one century. It was a very impressive undertaking when you think about it like that. The new culture that has been handed to us is destructive however is packaged in such a way that the masses believe to be good and moral.

    Homogeneity and standardisation of all systems, beliefs and cultures in the name of ending all disputues will take us down a dark path.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to BORAXMAN on Tue Feb 8 11:23:00 2022
    People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think anyone
    before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, the problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.

    I wonder, though, if some of them only act that way as a justification to ignore/devalue history so that they can repeat it for their own gains.

    The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet some 19 year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.

    And probably had a professor or TA who also thought they knew better.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Hey, how 'bout a fandango ?!?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to ARELOR on Tue Feb 8 11:42:00 2022
    They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.

    Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was caused by the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities who set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a magic
    device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.

    Eventually the village sucked to the point of collapse. Nobody could bake a decent cake, because the ponies with the ability to bake a decent cake had been made equal with everybody else in mediocrity. Same with every profession.

    If they made an episode like that today, they would probably be labeled as
    some sort of "-ist" or "-phobic." :(


    * SLMR 2.1a * "When you have a rib-eye steak, you must floss it!"-Homer

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Andeddu on Tue Feb 8 19:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andeddu to Nightfox on Tue Feb 08 2022 06:00 pm


    The police in my country can use legislation known as the Proceeds of Crime to seize belongings (cash, jewelry or any other valuable) that can be viewed as unexplained wealth. These productions are then lodged with a prosecutor who will thereafter release them back to the owner should they be able to prove they were acquired by legal means.

    so i guess you just cant say you suck a lot of dick and only for donations.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to all on Tue Feb 8 19:37:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Tue Feb 08 2022 04:42 pm

    They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.

    Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was caused by the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities who set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a magic
    device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.



    how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Arelor on Tue Feb 8 17:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Boraxman on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:53 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:14 pm

    People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think a before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.

    The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet som year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.

    We would all do well to realise that the values and ideas held by people past, where done with with good reason.


    There is a bit of everything.

    A lot of ideas and practices were just counterproductive, or were very helpf only for the people pushing it. Others made a lot whole of sense back in the day, but became obsolete.

    For example, feudalism and feudal armies made sense in the 10th Century, because it tied together nobles with common interests with loyalty oaths and made it so areas dominated by a given type of culture could count with the protection of a warrior class capable of fending off invasive threats. Since keeping a standing army sucked very hard (wars ruined territories, because nobody was tending the crops if all the men were chopping heads), having a group of knights for keeping order and turning the peasants into an army onl if need be was an ok deal.

    Once monarchies could afford siege machines nobody else could, feudalism bec obsolete because monarchs no longer needed the old loyalty sistem to ensure obedience of nobles and their subjects. Any noble who disagreed with whoever happened to have the artillery sets that Century would see his house bombed the ground with no recourse. History classes always point to the rise of the burgoise class as the downfall of the feudal system, but it was standing monarchist armies which turned nobles from warlords and defenders of the lan into puppets.

    On the other hand, I think some ideas from the 5th Century Before Christ are still valid. A lot of Europeans look at 2nd Ammendmendt proponents as if the had losed it, but the idea that only slaves and non-citizens would allow themselves to be forbidden from bearing weapons already existed, in a way or another, in ancient Athens, Sparta, the Republican Rome, various Viking folks... the idea still survives in a number of Asian places to this day. An here is something funny: when a culture stops being combative, they abbandon the idea that free people has weapons, weapons get eliminated from society and that culture collapes under the push of external threats. I recommend th book Ultima Ratio Regis (if it exists in anything else than Spanish), becaus it makes this specific case despite the fact the author despises pro-gun rig groups.

    So, in conclusion, we can extract valid lessons from the past, but not all t is past is golden either or would be golden if brought back.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken


    Also take into consideration that due to the cost of metal forging and sourcin g metals a sword of decent metallurgy would be very expensive, and armor was out of the reach of a common person. Later on, hunting firearms were also rare, since there were very few companies that built them, and a very small market. It wasn't until the US was settled that there was a market for privately owned firearms. Mass production with standardized parts didn't appear until Eli Whitney Jr took over the arms plant his father started. building his own machines and tooling saved him time and money. He built a plant for Samuel Colt, who went from making one gun every couple of months to several thousand a year. instead of a Cattleman or Peacemaker costing in the range only a wealthy man can afford, the cost was in reach of a ranch hand.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Arelor on Tue Feb 8 17:45:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Dumas Walker on Mon Feb 07 2022 06:00 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to BORAXMAN on Mon Feb 07 2022 04:51 pm

    I would find it rather boring if everyone looked the same. There is a classic Twilight Zone episode about that. Things are not so utopic as on would imagine.


    They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.

    Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was cause by the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities who set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a mag device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.

    Eventually the village sucked to the point of collapse. Nobody could bake a decent cake, because the ponies with the ability to bake a decent cake had been made equal with everybody else in mediocrity. Same with every professio

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to provide equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removing any
    limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder for various reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others back than improving conditions for those who have less.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Wed Feb 9 14:45:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Tue Feb 08 2022 11:15 am

    The wage is based on the supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour. Bigger supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour the lower the wage. Conversely the smaller the supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour the higher the wages This is a universal truth found in all democratic capitalist nations the wor over.

    Not sure what you are trying to prove, other than that the price of renting a person for a fixed period of time is subject to market dynamics.

    You might want to think about what you wrote, because it is an admission that the "price of labour" isn't actually based on the price of the product of labour.

    Which is what I've been arguing all along.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andeddu on Wed Feb 9 14:49:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Andeddu to Boraxman on Tue Feb 08 2022 06:10 pm

    The culture creators were able to invert almost all of our beliefs within th span of one century. It was a very impressive undertaking when you think abo it like that. The new culture that has been handed to us is destructive howe is packaged in such a way that the masses believe to be good and moral.

    Homogeneity and standardisation of all systems, beliefs and cultures in the name of ending all disputues will take us down a dark path.


    These inversions happen from time to time. Values are turned upside down for power. Our current "values" are as such as to benefit those one power, namely globalist government and corporations.

    The fight against "Racism" isn't about tolerance, its about creating social conditions which benefit the elite. Destroying the family structure creates dependence and consolidates power. Power has shifted and as such, the values have had to change.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Wed Feb 9 03:41:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to all on Wed Feb 09 2022 12:37 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Tue Feb 08 2022 04:42 pm

    They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.

    Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was caused
    the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities
    set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a magic
    device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.



    how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons

    Because Twilight is the best pony, that is why.

    Any more questions?

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Wed Feb 9 09:03:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Wed Feb 09 2022 08:41 am

    how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons

    Because Twilight is the best pony, that is why.

    Any more questions?

    you better not be one of those bronys
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Boraxman on Wed Feb 9 13:34:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Feb 09 2022 07:49 pm

    These inversions happen from time to time. Values are turned upside down for power. Our current "values" are as such as to benefit those one power, namely globalist government and corporations.

    The fight against "Racism" isn't about tolerance, its about creating social conditions which benefit the elite. Destroying the family structure creates dependence and consolidates power. Power has shifted and as such, the values have had to change.

    It is all divide and rule. If we are too busy fighting each other we won't be able to see the forest for the trees.

    Communism, as a system, was similar. The misguided people were told it would create a worker's paradise. The big lie was that it did not eradicate the power elite, rather it empowered them.

    In a Communist state, it is the inner circle of the government along with the international bankers who hold power and authority over the people. It was never designed to be a worker's paradise.

    The current Western system of corporatism or corporate facism is a terrible system which is corrupt and cannot be confalted with pure free-market Capitalism. It is the end product of free-market Capitalism though where corporations have become so powerful and influential they are able to impose laws and regulations through governments. This is why, despite claiming to be Capitalist entities, they promote Left Wing progressive values pertaining to collectivism.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Wed Feb 9 10:20:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Arelor on Wed Feb 09 2022 02:03 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Wed Feb 09 2022 08:41 am

    how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons

    Because Twilight is the best pony, that is why.

    Any more questions?

    you better not be one of those bronys

    I have some MLP plushies in my bedroom and used to watch the show, but I don't go to conventions or start Internet fights about whether something was a master plan from Princess Celestia or not.

    Which I suppose means I am a brony according to you :-P

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Thu Feb 10 03:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 10:45 pm

    The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to provide equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removing any limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder for various reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others back than improving conditions for those who have less.

    Where you start DOES matter a lot. Removing the roof doesn't mean much if you're competing with people who have leverage over you.

    I really dislike how equity is implemented, but the wealth inequality is too far gone to avoid any sort of distribution/correction now.

    However, now that instead of it being about assets and money, it is now about race and gender, which I think is the elite wanting to divert attention from where the real inequities actually lie.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Wed Feb 9 12:23:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Wed Feb 09 2022 03:20 pm


    I have some MLP plushies in my bedroom and used to watch the show, but I don't go to conventions or start Internet fights about whether something was a master plan from Princess Celestia or not.

    Which I suppose means I am a brony according to you :-P


    what the fuck. i thought i knew you.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Wed Feb 9 10:55:00 2022
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Tue Feb 08 2022 11:15 am

    The wage is based on the supply of potential employees who can perform required labour. Bigger supply of potential employees who can perform t required labour the lower the wage. Conversely the smaller the supply o potential employees who can perform the required labour the higher the This is a universal truth found in all democratic capitalist nations th over.

    Not sure what you are trying to prove, other than that the price of renting a person for a fixed period of time is subject to market
    dynamics.

    You might want to think about what you wrote, because it is an admission that the "price of labour" isn't actually based on the price of the product of labour.

    Which is what I've been arguing all along.


    I don't need to rethink anything. This discussion stemmed from one on minimum wage and then how companies determine what to pay employees. I had disagreed with what you'd said with my supply and demand argument. You said the company you work for and your own business don't follow that and I said I don't believe it, it is a world-wide truth as far as capitalist societies go. So no, it is not what you've been arguing all along. But hey, if you agree with me now I'll take it! ;)
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Thu Feb 10 15:14:00 2022
    Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-

    I don't need to rethink anything. This discussion stemmed from one on minimum wage and then how companies determine what to pay employees. I
    had disagreed with what you'd said with my supply and demand argument.
    You said the company you work for and your own business don't follow
    that and I said I don't believe it, it is a world-wide truth as far as capitalist societies go. So no, it is not what you've been arguing all along. But hey, if you agree with me now I'll take it! ;)

    You are confusing the cost of obtaining labour, with the value of labour. I never argued that labour didn't have a cost, nor have I argued against that cost being supply/demand influenced.

    We are discussing the value of labour, which is what people claim that wages are for.

    Now if you believe that cost and value are the same thing, then theoretically, you can set minimum wage to $50 an hour, and there is no valid argument that this is "too high".

    You can get into a bidding war to rent an office. That may increase your business costs, but it doesn't increase the value of what you get from the building.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Thu Feb 10 19:33:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 10 2022 08:00 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 10:45 pm

    The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to provid equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removing any limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder for vari reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others back t improving conditions for those who have less.

    Where you start DOES matter a lot. Removing the roof doesn't mean much if you're competing with people who have leverage over you.

    I really dislike how equity is implemented, but the wealth inequality is too far gone to avoid any sort of distribution/correction now.

    However, now that instead of it being about assets and money, it is now abou race and gender, which I think is the elite wanting to divert attention from where the real inequities actually lie.

    People ha ve started with less, and in some cases did better than those who
    had more because of where they started. There is a saying that is often attri buted to John F Kennedy, "rising waters lift all yachts." I feel this is
    true to an extent, however I do not believe the way to uplift some you have
    to drown or hold back others. Quota programs in the apst would open doors
    that some wouldn't have opened on their own, but they also left out others tha t studied heard and should have earned a place in a job or institution.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Feb 11 07:30:00 2022
    You are confusing the cost of obtaining labour, with the value of
    labour. I never argued that labour didn't have a cost, nor have I
    argued against that cost being supply/demand influenced.

    Could be. I don't think so, but I'm not inclined to dig through previous posts. But from my perspective we were talking about minimum wages and why they are what they are (supply/demand). Anyway, I guess we agree. ;)
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Sat Feb 12 05:37:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Fri Feb 11 2022 12:33 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 10 2022 08:00 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 10:45 pm

    The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to pro equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removing a limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder for v reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others bac improving conditions for those who have less.

    Where you start DOES matter a lot. Removing the roof doesn't mean much i you're competing with people who have leverage over you.

    I really dislike how equity is implemented, but the wealth inequality is far gone to avoid any sort of distribution/correction now.

    However, now that instead of it being about assets and money, it is now a race and gender, which I think is the elite wanting to divert attention f where the real inequities actually lie.

    People ha ve started with less, and in some cases did better than those who had more because of where they started. There is a saying that is often att buted to John F Kennedy, "rising waters lift all yachts." I feel this is true to an extent, however I do not believe the way to uplift some you have to drown or hold back others. Quota programs in the apst would open doors that some wouldn't have opened on their own, but they also left out others t t studied heard and should have earned a place in a job or institution.


    That would be an exception, not the rule. And I'm not saying this because I'm butthurt or anything, but I know that some luck, being able to obtain an asset inherited early has made a significant different. Much more so than you would have thought.

    That small advantage gives you leverage to a greater advantages, and that gives you more leverage. The system is gamed to reward "investors", definately. I once made a "mistake" by spending thousands of dollars I didn't have to buy investments, and was fined $50 and had to sell them. I sold them making a few thousand in a short period of time, which I could then just reinvest elsewhere.
    Now I think about those who are renting, where the landlord just ups the rent when they've cottoned on that the renter has had a small pay rise

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Sat Feb 12 05:46:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 11 2022 12:30 pm

    You are confusing the cost of obtaining labour, with the value of labour. I never argued that labour didn't have a cost, nor have I argued against that cost being supply/demand influenced.

    Could be. I don't think so, but I'm not inclined to dig through previous pos But from my perspective we were talking about minimum wages and why they are what they are (supply/demand). Anyway, I guess we agree. ;)

    Yes, we do! That is what I consider the problem. The more logical approach is to value the end product. The customers willingness to pay a price for what is produced is the true value of what was done to make it real.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Sun Feb 13 06:14:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Sat Feb 12 2022 10:37 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Fri Feb 11 2022 12:33 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 10 2022 08:00 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 10:45 pm

    The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removin limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder fo reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others improving conditions for those who have less.

    Where you start DOES matter a lot. Removing the roof doesn't mean muc you're competing with people who have leverage over you.

    I really dislike how equity is implemented, but the wealth inequality far gone to avoid any sort of distribution/correction now.

    However, now that instead of it being about assets and money, it is no race and gender, which I think is the elite wanting to divert attentio where the real inequities actually lie.

    People ha ve started with less, and in some cases did better than those w had more because of where they started. There is a saying that is often buted to John F Kennedy, "rising waters lift all yachts." I feel this is true to an extent, however I do not believe the way to uplift some you ha to drown or hold back others. Quota programs in the apst would open door that some wouldn't have opened on their own, but they also left out other t studied heard and should have earned a place in a job or institution.


    That would be an exception, not the rule. And I'm not saying this because I butthurt or anything, but I know that some luck, being able to obtain an ass inherited early has made a significant different. Much more so than you wou have thought.

    That small advantage gives you leverage to a greater advantages, and that gi you more leverage. The system is gamed to reward "investors", definately. once made a "mistake" by spending thousands of dollars I didn't have to buy investments, and was fined $50 and had to sell them. I sold them making a f thousand in a short period of time, which I could then just reinvest elsewhe
    Now I think about those who are renting, where the landlord just ups the re when they've cottoned on that the renter has had a small pay rise


    Another form of leverage that stems from disadvantage is the hunger factor. In general, hungry animals are going to fight harder for their meal than a
    full animal. Those who have rose from the lower ranks have done some by not being happy with what they had, or didn't have much to lose. It is hard to pass that on to a child that has everything they ask for.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From MATTHEW MUNSON@VERT/IUTOPIA to SYS 64738 on Sun Feb 13 15:31:00 2022
    In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so desirable if everyone was a millionaire.
    Yes, each November in California the fast food joints raise prices
    another 5-10% to compensate for the min wage increases. Then I also
    noticed in Feburary prices rose even again likely due to the cost of the commodities.


    ---
    þ wcQWK 8.0 ÷ Inland Utopia * iutopia.duckdns.org:2323
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Mon Feb 14 15:13:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Sun Feb 13 2022 11:14 am

    Another form of leverage that stems from disadvantage is the hunger factor. In general, hungry animals are going to fight harder for their meal than a full animal. Those who have rose from the lower ranks have done some by not being happy with what they had, or didn't have much to lose. It is hard to pass that on to a child that has everything they ask for.

    True, which is why in family businesses they often tend to decline by the third generation, because they've been handed everything to them and become decadent and lazy, taking what they have for granted.

    Part of that is a work ethic. My grandparents were migrants, and there was a strong work ethic, a strong push to study hard and try to achieve your best. In some of the poorer suburbs here in Melbourne, that senes of wanting to be the best you can be, isn't really there.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From SYS64738@VERT/DIBZ to MATTHEW MUNSON on Mon Feb 14 04:05:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: MATTHEW MUNSON to SYS 64738 on Sun Feb 13 2022 20:31:00

    In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so desirable if everyone was a millionaire.
    Yes, each November in California the fast food joints raise prices
    another 5-10% to compensate for the min wage increases. Then I also
    noticed in Feburary prices rose even again likely due to the cost of the commodities.

    Exactly. It's like having a tub of water and trying to transfer water from the left side of the tub to the right side so there is more water on the right. It never works.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ I got DIBZ on it! (dibz.synchro.net)
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Mon Feb 14 06:09:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Mon Feb 14 2022 08:13 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Sun Feb 13 2022 11:14 am

    Another form of leverage that stems from disadvantage is the hunger fact In general, hungry animals are going to fight harder for their meal than full animal. Those who have rose from the lower ranks have done some by being happy with what they had, or didn't have much to lose. It is hard pass that on to a child that has everything they ask for.

    True, which is why in family businesses they often tend to decline by the th generation, because they've been handed everything to them and become decade and lazy, taking what they have for granted.

    Part of that is a work ethic. My grandparents were migrants, and there was strong work ethic, a strong push to study hard and try to achieve your best. In some of the poorer suburbs here in Melbourne, that senes of wanting to be the best you can be, isn't really there.

    Mileage does vary between individuals, however the fact remains success
    stories do happen and it is possible to escape poverty but it requires considerable effort and a plan.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Tue Feb 15 14:58:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Mon Feb 14 2022 11:09 am

    Mileage does vary between individuals, however the fact remains success stories do happen and it is possible to escape poverty but it requires considerable effort and a plan.

    We get a lot of stories here about some teenager or young adult that "made it rich", and almost always, somewhere in there, is some kind of inheritance, or help from their parents. You'll see stories about these kids who have a business, but the business was partly or completely set up for them. Trump himself started with a lot of money from his parents.

    Stories DO happen, but they are the exception, not the rule. Connections matter more than ability.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Feb 15 02:32:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Tue Feb 15 2022 07:58 pm

    it rich", and almost always, somewhere in there, is some kind of inheritance, or help from their parents. You'll see stories about these kids who have a business, but the business was partly or completely set up for them. Trump himself started with a lot of money from his parents.

    well you need money to make money. and trump probably paid it back with interest. it just wasnt probably reported correctly for their own benefit.
    that's how it works.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Tue Feb 15 06:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Tue Feb 15 2022 07:58 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Mon Feb 14 2022 11:09 am

    Mileage does vary between individuals, however the fact remains success stories do happen and it is possible to escape poverty but it requires considerable effort and a plan.

    We get a lot of stories here about some teenager or young adult that "made i rich", and almost always, somewhere in there, is some kind of inheritance, o help from their parents. You'll see stories about these kids who have a business, but the business was partly or completely set up for them. Trump himself started with a lot of money from his parents.

    Stories DO happen, but they are the exception, not the rule. Connections matter more than ability.

    I jhope this isn't going off too far on a tangent. When Olympic athletes, esp ecially medal winners are asked if they are there because of their personal motivation or their athleticism, they'd choose motivation. You can be the
    most dedicated person yet lack the genetic profile that makes a person athletically better at something, but you won't get there. In your example wi th saying it is connections, I think the drive or motivation is a given, and the connections are the icing on the cake.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Wed Feb 16 13:26:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Tue Feb 15 2022 11:36 am

    I jhope this isn't going off too far on a tangent. When Olympic athletes, e ecially medal winners are asked if they are there because of their personal motivation or their athleticism, they'd choose motivation. You can be the most dedicated person yet lack the genetic profile that makes a person athletically better at something, but you won't get there. In your example th saying it is connections, I think the drive or motivation is a given, and the connections are the icing on the cake.

    Yes, the winners of Olympic events must be ones with the athletic ability. If you survey the winners, you've already filtered out those that don't have it.

    Likewise, if you just speak to people that made it, they too will say it is their own effort. It is human nature to want to attribute our own success to something we chose to do, our own values, effort, work, etc.

    My personal experience though, I've dealt with many who have the connections but no drive, no ability, and who were in the position much to the wonder of everyone else. People CLEARLY unfit for the job, but that is how the corporate machine works. I worked for someone who was utterly lazy, their only skill was knowing who to know. I 've worked with others who's only skill was dating a relative of the CEO. The dumbest property developers will get favours in Australia. Some people are just driven to grift and brown-nose.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 00:46:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Wed Feb 16 2022 06:26 pm

    everyone else. People CLEARLY unfit for the job, but that is how the corporate machine works. I worked for someone who was utterly lazy, their only skill was knowing who to know. I 've worked with others who's only skill was dating a relative of the CEO. The dumbest property developers will get favours in Australia. Some people are just driven to grift and brown-nose.


    i worked at a place where there was this lady in her 50s who fucked the bosses. she was totally unfit for the job and stupid. she had an ego trip and would push people around but i think eventually she was warned about that. each guy she fucked and broke up with talked shit about her to everybody. i caught her giving a guy a handjob in the shipping office when she thought everyone went home. she was one of those people who always had a dark tan and her skin was like leather and all wrinkled.

    eventually she worked under and old 'friend' doing a job she didnt know how to do. with her friend she was protected from layoffs.

    i'm glad i left that place.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 11:01:00 2022
    Could be. I don't think so, but I'm not inclined to dig through previou But from my perspective we were talking about minimum wages and why the what they are (supply/demand). Anyway, I guess we agree. ;)

    Yes, we do! That is what I consider the problem. The more logical approach is to value the end product. The customers willingness to pay
    a price for what is produced is the true value of what was done to make
    it real.

    That does exist in many cases as contract work. But I can't see it working in say a fast food restaurant or retail.
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 17:33:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Wed Feb 16 2022 06:26 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Tue Feb 15 2022 11:36 am

    I jhope this isn't going off too far on a tangent. When Olympic athletes ecially medal winners are asked if they are there because of their person motivation or their athleticism, they'd choose motivation. You can be th most dedicated person yet lack the genetic profile that makes a person athletically better at something, but you won't get there. In your examp th saying it is connections, I think the drive or motivation is a given, the connections are the icing on the cake.

    Yes, the winners of Olympic events must be ones with the athletic ability. you survey the winners, you've already filtered out those that don't have it

    Likewise, if you just speak to people that made it, they too will say it is their own effort. It is human nature to want to attribute our own success to something we chose to do, our own values, effort, work, etc.

    My personal experience though, I've dealt with many who have the connections but no drive, no ability, and who were in the position much to the wonder of everyone else. People CLEARLY unfit for the job, but that is how the corpor machine works. I worked for someone who was utterly lazy, their only skill knowing who to know. I 've worked with others who's only skill was dating a relative of the CEO. The dumbest property developers will get favours in Australia. Some people are just driven to grift and brown-nose.


    Idiots exist as long as their idiocy stays within their department. As soon a s HR or business services begin wondering how much this guy is getting and
    paid and try to measure what he does, politics and chronyism can be overruled by profitability.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Wed Feb 16 17:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 05:46 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Wed Feb 16 2022 06:26 pm

    everyone else. People CLEARLY unfit for the job, but that is how the corporate machine works. I worked for someone who was utterly lazy, thei only skill was knowing who to know. I 've worked with others who's only skill was dating a relative of the CEO. The dumbest property developers will get favours in Australia. Some people are just driven to grift and brown-nose.


    i worked at a place where there was this lady in her 50s who fucked the boss ke up with talked shit about her to everybody. i caught her giving a guy a

    eventually she worked under and old 'friend' doing a job she didnt know how

    i'm glad i left that place.

    My brother works for a small company that has a few ladies that play that
    game. The parent company has their spies that look out for dead weight that plays games like that.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Moondog on Wed Feb 16 19:46:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to MRO on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:36 pm

    i'm glad i left that place.

    My brother works for a small company that has a few ladies that play that game. The parent company has their spies that look out for dead weight that plays games like that.

    my old boss actually called me up a week after I left that job.
    they lost some stuff I had prepared for an important shipment.

    It ended up all being her fault. her boss was gone so she was in charge and everything was screwed up.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Thu Feb 17 15:15:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 04:01 pm

    Could be. I don't think so, but I'm not inclined to dig through prev But from my perspective we were talking about minimum wages and why what they are (supply/demand). Anyway, I guess we agree. ;)

    Yes, we do! That is what I consider the problem. The more logical approach is to value the end product. The customers willingness to pay a price for what is produced is the true value of what was done to make it real.

    That does exist in many cases as contract work. But I can't see it working i say a fast food restaurant or retail.

    Pretty easy to figure. You sell 200 pizzas a night at $20 each, you produced $4,000 worth in value. Subtract your liabilities (cost of ingredients, amortised rent, energy, loans) and the residual is the surplus that the people worked to create would distribute as per their agreed contracts. So instead of arguing that labour is worth $X an hour, you just get a share of the surplus. Some might be reinvested, some might be held in reserve, but the left over is theirs (this includes management!)

    If they can't make enough money to support themselves, then the job isn't worth doing.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 15:17:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:33 pm

    Idiots exist as long as their idiocy stays within their department. As soon s HR or business services begin wondering how much this guy is getting and paid and try to measure what he does, politics and chronyism can be overrule by profitability.
    Maybe in a small company, but in a medium to large one, they get lost in the noise. A large company can afford to keep the driftwood.

    Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large companies social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they are thought of well by the right people, then, little else matters.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 01:25:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:33 pm

    Idiots exist as long as their idiocy stays within their department. As soon a s HR or business services begin wondering how much this guy is getting and paid and try to measure what he does, politics and chronyism can be overruled by profitability.

    I have *never* seen it play out that way. He just gets moved over some other team/project under whatever leader was already protecting him.

    The only time people get worked out is when 2+ peers did a good job scapegoating him with why their departments numbers were bad.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Feb 17 12:07:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 2022 08:17 pm

    Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large companies social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they are thought of well by the right people, then, little else matters.

    all of our states are 'at will' states. that means either side can terminate at anytime for any reason except discrimination.
    i thought california had some laws that made it harder to get rid of people, though.

    usually redundant people stick around out of respect of their amount of years put into the company. at my long time job, one guy who was there 50 years almost destroyed the company with a huge mistake that was because of his lazyness. he was forced to retire.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Thu Feb 17 11:10:00 2022
    That does exist in many cases as contract work. But I can't see it work say a fast food restaurant or retail.

    Pretty easy to figure. You sell 200 pizzas a night at $20 each, you produced $4,000 worth in value. Subtract your liabilities (cost of ingredients, amortised rent, energy, loans) and the residual is the surplus that the people worked to create would distribute as per their agreed contracts. So instead of arguing that labour is worth $X an
    hour, you just get a share of the surplus. Some might be reinvested,
    some might be held in reserve, but the left over is theirs (this
    includes management!)

    That's not going to work because the type of people who work these kinds of jobs rely on a regular pay cheque with a steady amount on that cheque every two weeks. This is why entrepreneurs start pizza parlours, bear the burden/risk and then (if their is one) reap the rewards.
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andre on Fri Feb 18 11:21:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andre to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 2022 06:25 am

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:33 pm

    Idiots exist as long as their idiocy stays within their department. As soon a s HR or business services begin wondering how much this guy is getting and paid and try to measure what he does, politics and chronyis can be overruled by profitability.

    I have *never* seen it play out that way. He just gets moved over some other team/project under whatever leader was already protecting him.

    The only time people get worked out is when 2+ peers did a good job scapegoating him with why their departments numbers were bad.


    - Andre

    I have seen it once, and the person that was dismissed for poor performance wasn't the worst person I've worked with. The real reason was that she was under pressure from upper management to get stuff released, and they were probably not happy with her not rushing as much as she could have.


    Otherwise, for many, they can find a job where their work isn't time critical and just coast.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Fri Feb 18 11:24:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 17 2022 05:07 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 2022 08:17 pm

    Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large companies social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they ar thought of well by the right people, then, little else matters.

    all of our states are 'at will' states. that means either side can terminate anytime for any reason except discrimination.
    i thought california had some laws that made it harder to get rid of people though.

    usually redundant people stick around out of respect of their amount of year put into the company. at my long time job, one guy who was there 50 years almost destroyed the company with a huge mistake that was because of his lazyness. he was forced to retire.

    That "at will" situation kind sounds sucky. It is perhaps a little too hard to dismiss poor performers here (I've seen people hang around for year, THEY decide to leave, and then we find out they literally were responsible for a significant portion of the operation running sub-par, which their managers knew about.)

    But "at will" means any reason. Try proving discrimination. If youre a protected class, black/gay/trans, you've got a shot, but if you're dismissed because you're white or conservative, I would imagine it would be close to impossible to show it is discrimination if the company just never admits it.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Fri Feb 18 11:39:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Thu Feb 17 2022 04:10 pm

    That's not going to work because the type of people who work these kinds of jobs rely on a regular pay cheque with a steady amount on that cheque every weeks. This is why entrepreneurs start pizza parlours, bear the burden/risk and then (if their is one) reap the rewards.


    Good point. This could be mitigated by loans, which would be the case anyway if it were running at a loss. It is the capital provider which bears the risk.
    This is often, but not always, the entrepreneur. Often entrepreneurs use other peoples money (probaly usually). But if it their own money, they should only incur liabilities they themselves are responsible for. The flaw with the minimum wage here is that you must pay a set amount per person per hour,
    even if they don't end up doing anything. There are multiple people, but one is bearing all the risk.

    Capitalism shouldn't be designed just to keep a wage-class in a type of welfare system. That is what is repellant to me about the whole set up. We should all bear the risks and responsibilities of ALL our economic activities.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Boraxman on Fri Feb 18 01:52:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andre on Fri Feb 18 2022 04:21 pm

    I have seen it once, and the person that was dismissed for poor performance wasn't the worst person I've worked with. The real reason was that she was under pressure from upper management to get stuff released, and they were probably not happy with her not rushing as much as she could have.

    I see that in my current company more than I have in the past. Completely unrealistic forecasts and timelines from near the top that have zero chance of coming true, and everyone just figures out how best to present progress that they know isn't true but won't upset the boss.

    Someone will end up with the blame, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say it isn't the executive.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Boraxman on Fri Feb 18 02:04:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Feb 18 2022 04:24 pm

    That "at will" situation kind sounds sucky.

    I really like it and wish it was that way in more companies. There's a huge difference with how workers in different countries act based on how secure their employment is. I prefer the freedom and chaos that comes with being a bit more of a free market.

    The only thing I really wish was different is some sort of government mandated severence for maybe people under $100k or $150k or something. Like at a certain point, if you've been paid decently, you should have been able to amass an emergency fund. If you keep buying expensive things and living on credit, then you reap what you sow.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Boraxman on Fri Feb 18 03:17:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Feb 18 2022 04:24 pm

    But "at will" means any reason. Try proving discrimination. If youre a protected class, black/gay/trans, you've got a shot, but if you're dismissed because you're white or conservative, I would imagine it would be close to impossible to show it is discrimination if the company just never admits it.

    Being white and/or conservative is not a protected class in US federal law. It's age, pregnancy, origin, race, ethinicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Fri Feb 18 04:40:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 17 2022 05:07 pm

    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 2022 08:17 pm

    Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large companies social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they ar thought of well by the right people, then, little else matters.

    all of our states are 'at will' states. that means either side can terminate i thought california had some laws that made it harder to get rid of people

    usually redundant people stick around out of respect of their amount of year retire.

    Yeah, it's hard to get rid of non-performers when the company is doing well. When times are tough, some companies would rather offer incentives for early retirement before voluntary layoffs or terminations when money is tight. I worked for a couple of places where the budget would tip from feast to famine as quick as the wind blew. One week they would be cutting the level of
    buyers in purchasing, then hiring new buyers a month later.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andre on Sat Feb 19 10:08:00 2022
    Andre wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <620F996C.6965.dove-general@bbs.radiomentor.org>
    @REPLY: <620F2D9B.55048.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri
    Feb 18 2022 04:24 pm

    That "at will" situation kind sounds sucky.

    I really like it and wish it was that way in more companies. There's a huge difference with how workers in different countries act based on
    how secure their employment is. I prefer the freedom and chaos that
    comes with being a bit more of a free market.

    The only thing I really wish was different is some sort of government mandated severence for maybe people under $100k or $150k or something. Like at a certain point, if you've been paid decently, you should have been able to amass an emergency fund. If you keep buying expensive
    things and living on credit, then you reap what you sow.


    I don't like chaos, and it is unbecoming of a civilised society. I dont really hold a "free market" as an ideal, as it all too often is used to justify rather unsavoury economic values. besies, no one really believes in true free markets.

    I think at will contracts are wrong because the decision making is done by a few, if not one or two. companies should be democratically run.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andre on Sat Feb 19 10:09:00 2022
    Andre wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @MSGID: <620FAA75.6966.dove-general@bbs.radiomentor.org>
    @REPLY: <620F2D9B.55048.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri
    Feb 18 2022 04:24 pm

    But "at will" means any reason. Try proving discrimination. If youre a protected class, black/gay/trans, you've got a shot, but if you're dismissed because you're white or conservative, I would imagine it would be close to impossible to show it is discrimination if the company just never admits it.

    Being white and/or conservative is not a protected class in US federal law. It's age, pregnancy, origin, race, ethinicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

    The US government seems hostile to the people who founded it.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From IB Joe@VERT/JOESBBS to Boraxman on Sat Feb 19 01:51:00 2022
    On 19 Feb 2022, Boraxman said the following...

    The US government seems hostile to the people who founded it.



    Not the US government, or it's people, it's the Democrats and the Left... I'm not talking about the "Normal" Democrats... Give them a break as they have not figured out that their party has left them... The far left zealots have taken over... Truth be known there people in the US government that will sell out their country for profit, this is a problem on the left and right... The same problem exists in Canada but it's harder to recognize... mainly because he wears Black Face...

    BTW, I voted for the man who gave up profit for his country... I miss the way he says China!!!

    IB Joe
    AKA Joe Schweier
    SysOp of Joe's BBS
    -=JoesBBS.com=-

    ... If at first you don't succeed, blame your parents!
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Boraxman on Sat Feb 19 02:50:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Andre on Sat Feb 19 2022 03:09 pm

    The US government seems hostile to the people who founded it.

    White, property-owning males? Naw, we're good. Maybe a little hostile towards Protestants, I suppose.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Moondog on Sat Feb 19 03:48:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to MRO on Fri Feb 18 2022 09:40 am

    terminate i thought california had some laws that made it harder to get rid of people

    usually redundant people stick around out of respect of their amount of year retire.

    Yeah, it's hard to get rid of non-performers when the company is doing well. When times are tough, some companies would rather offer incentives for early retirement before voluntary layoffs or terminations when money is tight. I worked for a couple of places where the budget would tip from feast to famine as quick as the wind blew. One week they would be cutting the level of
    buyers in purchasing, then hiring new buyers a month later.

    oh yeah, i saw all that. that's why i left my company.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBSTEST to BORAXMAN on Sat Feb 19 10:19:00 2022
    When I worked at EDS they used to promote incompetent poeple to get rid of them.



    --- BORAXMAN wrote ---
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:33 pm

    Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just
    let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large
    companies
    social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they are thought
    of
    well by the right people, then, little else matters.

    ---
    Synchronet MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org



    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From ROBERT WOLFE@VERT/OTHETA to ANDRE on Sun Feb 20 04:22:00 2022

    On Feb 18, 2022 08:17am, ANDRE wrote to BORAXMAN:

    Being white and/or conservative is not a protected class in US federal
    law. It's age, pregnancy, origin, race, ethinicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

    However, I think sexual orientation is becoming more and more protected in
    most states whereas gener identity is still fighting an uphill battle, IMO.

    ... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
    ---
    þ wcQWK 8.0 ÷ Omicron Theta * Cordova, TN * winserver.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to IB Joe on Sun Feb 20 17:56:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: IB Joe to Boraxman on Sat Feb 19 2022 06:51 am

    Not the US government, or it's people, it's the Democrats and the Left... I'm not talking about the "Normal" Democrats... Gi
    them a break as they have not figured out that their party has left them... The far left zealots have taken over... Truth b
    known there people in the US government that will sell out their country for profit, this is a problem on the left and right
    The same problem exists in Canada but it's harder to recognize... mainly because he wears Black Face...

    BTW, I voted for the man who gave up profit for his country... I miss the way he says China!!!

    The deep state seems hostile to Americans too, as does a lot of the corporate ruling class. People that will offshore jobs to
    enrich a foriegn people and make their own unemployed are traitors. Governments that seek to change demographics are traitors.
    The American people, as in the West, have tolerated treachery and traitors for too long. We seem, far, far too tolerant of a
    kakistracry.

    BTW, I miss the way he said China too! I think he genuinely did care for the country, but he is a Boomer and was stuck in the
    past in some respects.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andre on Sun Feb 20 17:57:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andre to Boraxman on Sat Feb 19 2022 07:50 am

    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


    Didn't Biden himself say that whites would be a minority and that this would be a good thing? When your government says that,
    they're hostile.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/TTB to oraxman on Sun Feb 20 06:24:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: IB Joe to Boraxman on Sat Feb 19 2022 06:51 am

    Not the US government, or it's people, it's the Democrats and the Left... I 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

    The deep state seems hostile to Americans too, as does a lot of the corporate enrich a foriegn people and make their own unemployed are traitors. Governmen The American people, as in the West, have tolerated treachery and traitors for kakistracry.

    BTW, I miss the way he said China too! I think he genuinely did care for the past in some respects.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
    þ MNET 2.10 [NR]
    þ MNET 2.10 [NR] þ The Titantic BBS Telnet - ttb.rgbbs.info
  • From Boraxman@VERT/TTB to oraxman on Sun Feb 20 06:24:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andre to Boraxman on Sat Feb 19 2022 07:50 am

    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


    Didn't Biden himself say that whites would be a minority and that this would b they're hostile.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
    þ MNET 2.10 [NR]
    þ MNET 2.10 [NR] þ The Titantic BBS Telnet - ttb.rgbbs.info
  • From IB Joe@VERT/JOESBBS to Boraxman on Sun Feb 20 05:33:00 2022
    On 20 Feb 2022, Boraxman said the following...

    @VIA: MSRDBBS
    @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.
    ---
    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.

    Truck convoy has started in the US... I wonder if Biden will gas and flog these protesters like Trudeau did to the ones in Canada.

    IB Joe
    AKA Joe Schweier
    SysOp of Joe's BBS
    -=JoesBBS.com=-

    ... DOS=HIGH? I knew it was on something...
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sun Feb 20 07:44:00 2022
    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.

    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 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.

    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).
  • From Ib Joe@VERT/TTB to b Joe on Sun Feb 20 09:55:00 2022
    On 20 Feb 2022, Boraxman said the following...

    @VIA: MSRDBBS
    @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.
    ---
    Amen brother... a president should love his country and put it first. He also

    Truck convoy has started in the US... I wonder if Biden will gas and flog thes

    IB Joe
    AKA Joe Schweier
    SysOp of Joe's BBS
    -=JoesBBS.com=-

    ... DOS=HIGH? I knew it was on something...
    --- MNET 2.10 [NR]
    þ The Titantic BBS Telnet - ttb.rgbbs.info
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/TTB to tto Reverse on Sun Feb 20 12:27:00 2022
    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.

    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
    --- MNET 2.10 [NR]
    þ The Titantic BBS Telnet - ttb.rgbbs.info
  • From Digital Man@VERT to Andre on Sun Feb 20 10:06:00 2022
    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 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.

    Someone has probably already pointed out that "white" is a race (caucasian) and thus protected against descrimination.
    --
    digital man (rob)

    Rush quote #30:
    You can do a lot in a lifetime if you don't burn out too fast
    Norco, CA WX: 66.2øF, 52.0% humidity, 9 mph SSE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs ---
    þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Sat Feb 19 04:07:00 2022
    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.


    ... SURELY NOT EVERYONE WAS KUNG FU FIGHTING
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Digital Man on Sun Feb 20 12:34:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Digital Man to Andre on Sun Feb 20 2022 03:06 pm

    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. --

    Strangely, no. I think these guys mostly ignore me at this point.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Dream Master@VERT/CAUGHT to IB Joe on Sun Feb 20 14:26:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: IB Joe to Boraxman on Sun Feb 20 2022 10:33 am

    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.

    Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
    Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Caught in a Dream - caughtinadream.com
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Mon Feb 21 14:59:00 2022
    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.

    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.

    An alternative when a business starts is that the "employees" are co-entrepreneurs. That is, if I start a business, and you want to work for me, you do so accepting that there may be an uneven nature to earnings. You may not lose anything but your time, and you may never earn much. On the other hand, if it is successful, it could pay off later if the product of your labour is in high demand at a good price.



    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).

    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.

    On the banking site, agreed there is a problem there, but a lot of the decentralised options seems flawed.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Digital Man on Mon Feb 21 15:03:00 2022
    Digital Man wrote to Andre <=-

    @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
    1
    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. --


    Not according to critical race theory.

    Anyway, that is demonstrably false. All calls for racial quotas, for racial diversity, share one thing. It is about lowering the ration of whites with respect to others. ALWAYS. That literally mandates that white people are discriminated against to meet a quota. If a company has whites underrepresented, do quotas seek to increase that?

    So in practice, there is targetted discrimination, i.e., racism.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 20 23:04:00 2022
    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Sun Feb 20 23:56:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Mon Feb 21 2022 07:59 pm


    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.

    with uber you are a contractor. and i think you get liability insurance while you drive.

    most people that drive for uber like the money.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Dream Master on Mon Feb 21 18:07:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dream Master to IB Joe on Sun Feb 20 2022 07:26 pm

    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.

    Uhmmm No, that's just propaganda on your part, but thats pretty much all you do


    ... Socialist w/knife & fork seeks capitalist w/food.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Tue Feb 22 14:57:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Feb 21 2022 04:04 am

    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.

    Certaintly not those that came in yesterday.

    It was founded for "our" posterity (I'm not American, so "our" doesn't include me), but a people making a nation ,make it for
    their descendents.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Feb 22 01:29:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Feb 22 2022 07:57 pm


    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.


    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. their very ideals have been opposed and circumvented. they were very intelligent and went through a ton of bullshit. they knew how trivial popularity and 'news' taints a country.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Tue Feb 22 12:02:00 2022
    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.

    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 it happened? There are certainly enough democracies friendly to new business models. Others may be so heavily regulated that such a model as yours would be "illegal" at the moment. But I think there are enough countries where it could happen if people wanted it to. Clearly enough people don't. I think it again comes down to human nature.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Denn on Tue Feb 22 01:36:00 2022
    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?


    ... UNPRISON YOUR THINK RHINO
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to poindexter FORTRAN on Tue Feb 22 18:10:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Denn on Tue Feb 22 2022 06:36 am

    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?


    look at the prosperity of donald trump in office and his dealings with foreign entities and compare him to YOUR president.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to poindexter FORTRAN on Tue Feb 22 17:43:00 2022
    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.



    ... Despite the rising cost of living, it still remains popular!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Tue Feb 22 17:56:00 2022
    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
    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.

    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.

    ... I forgot all about the Amnesia conference. -Joe Biden.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Tue Feb 22 22:18:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to poindexter FORTRAN on Tue Feb 22 2022 10:43 pm

    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.



    he's also done more for black people, people in prison, and animals than any other president for many years.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Tue Feb 22 22:19:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to MRO on Tue Feb 22 2022 10:56 pm

    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.

    it seems like any democrat nowadays has his head in the sand.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Wed Feb 23 15:14:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Tue Feb 22 2022 06:29 am

    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.

    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.

    Humans build things for their descendants, but that idea, that a country can actually belong to you is verboten now. The US is now a "proposition state", which is defined by its administration, not the people. Hence why the government is acting against your interests, it doesn't represent the American nation, it represents vested interests who want to exploit it as a resource.

    This is true all through the West. Traitorous leaders who would have no issue replacing their citizenry, as long as they remain in power. Nations now just hollowed out shells.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Wed Feb 23 15:28:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Tue Feb 22 2022 05:02 pm

    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.

    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed Feb 23 00:50:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed Feb 23 2022 08:14 pm

    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.

    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to MRO on Wed Feb 23 02:08:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Wed Feb 23 2022 05:50 am

    this is sounding like antiwork again.

    Ellerman is known (not especially popular) in socialist, marxist, and anarchist circles.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Wed Feb 23 06:08:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Denn on Wed Feb 23 2022 03:18 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.



    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.



    ... Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Wed Feb 23 06:13:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Denn on Wed Feb 23 2022 03:19 am

    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.

    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.

    ... La Quinta is Spanish for "Next to Denny's."

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Vlk-451@VERT/MNLOUNGE to Boraxman on Wed Feb 23 07:21:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Wed Feb 23 2022 20:28:53

    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 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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Midnight Lounge :: Panama City Beach, FL (midnightlounge.online)
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to DENN on Wed Feb 23 11:12:00 2022
    Face it Biden is the weakest president in our lifetime, China and Russia see'

    Quite possibly ever.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Tact is for weenies.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dream Master@VERT/CAUGHT to MRO on Wed Feb 23 09:26:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to poindexter FORTRAN on Tue Feb 22 2022 11:10 pm

    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.

    Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
    Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Caught in a Dream - caughtinadream.com
  • From Dream Master@VERT/CAUGHT to Denn on Wed Feb 23 09:30:00 2022
    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.

    He put the Military and the working class as his priority, He exposed the corruption in washington on both sides.

    The military and working class reaped almost no benefit from his policies. His change to the tax code benefitted the upper and lower class, not the middle.

    Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
    Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Caught in a Dream - caughtinadream.com
  • From Dream Master@VERT/CAUGHT to Denn on Wed Feb 23 09:36:00 2022
    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.

    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.

    Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
    Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Caught in a Dream - caughtinadream.com
  • From Dream Master@VERT/CAUGHT to MRO on Wed Feb 23 09:37:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Denn on Wed Feb 23 2022 03:18 am

    he's also done more for black people, people in prison, and animals than any other president for many years.

    (snort) ... Come on, you're trying to be serious, right?

    Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
    Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Caught in a Dream - caughtinadream.com
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dream Master on Wed Feb 23 14:41:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dream Master to Denn on Wed Feb 23 2022 02:36 pm

    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.


    Actually I think the US is having more international crisis exploding at its face since Trump is not in office.

    Ukraine wanted to withdraw as a NATO candidate in order to comply with
    Russias' core demands (which IMO are not unreasonable) or not having NATO forces at its gates. It was the US still fanning the flames and saying that Russia could go fuck itself after Ukraine tried to get things back to normal.

    For all the talk about Trump being divisive and trashy, he didn't pour gasoline on burning fires like this. He posted mean tweets, which I suppose is at least as bad in the eyes of the public...

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Wed Feb 23 15:23:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to MRO on Wed Feb 23 2022 11:08 am


    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 them to his, but he was an outsider. an outsider, no matter how perfect will get the same treatment. he's a racist! he's rich! he's crazy!
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Wed Feb 23 15:24:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to MRO on Wed Feb 23 2022 11:13 am


    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Vlk-451 on Wed Feb 23 15:26:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Vlk-451 to Boraxman on Wed Feb 23 2022 12:21 pm

    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.


    i'm in an at will state, and it hasn't stopped unions. i've had jobs where there were unions and you had a choice to join or not. the company had to abide by the union contract which actually held me back in progression and pay.

    they're still around but they can't force you to join one.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Dream Master on Wed Feb 23 15:26:00 2022
    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.

    Who's pulling the strings on the current puppet in office?

    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 a business man. Why *wouldn't* he be allowed to continue making
    money? It's called investments and business. Capitalism.

    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.

    Why shouldn't he? Here's a question for ya: Name me a politician in Washington, DC that *DOESN'T* gain wealth in office. Here's a starting
    point for you: Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders.


    ... Bigot: Anyone who disagrees with a Liberal.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Dream Master on Wed Feb 23 15:32:00 2022
    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.

    That appears to be a false statement.

    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.

    If they are bound by UN conventions, why do almost ALL nations NOT pay their designated share?

    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?

    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.

    So..... you're contradicting yourself right here. Which is it? Policies or cartels? You said right there above that both cause it. Do you even see what you wrote?

    Looks like China might try to invade Taiwan soon.

    Oh, well.

    Yeah... Well, to a Libtard, the spread of communism is a Good Thing. Right?


    ... Bigot: Anyone who disagrees with a Liberal.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Dumas Walker on Wed Feb 23 19:15:00 2022
    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.




    ... TECHNICALITY: A liberal's view of the 2nd Amendment.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Dream Master on Wed Feb 23 19:27:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dream Master to MRO on Wed Feb 23 2022 02:26 pm

    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

    Treasonous ? Lack Luster ?
    He stood up for America on the world stage, your President Poopy Pants left hundreds if not thousands stranded in afgahnistan I call that treason.


    best. His "hard driving" and "wheeling and dealing" attitude towards foreign powers created more division throughout the world than

    Fuck the world, we're not here to please the fucking world, and we're not here to be the worlds police force like we have been since WWII.
    Trump was not a suck up like your President Poopy Pants.

    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.

    Fuck China, we need to get away from all this unequal trade bullshit and start taking care of America. China was ripping us off, Trump put his foot down on China's unequal trade practices.

    Check your facts.

    Check your facts, Oh wait you pull your facts out of your ass.

    ... Bend the facts to fit the conclusion. It's easier that way.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Dream Master on Wed Feb 23 19:29:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dream Master to Denn on Wed Feb 23 2022 02:30 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.)

    Proof?
    Oh wait it's just more of your propaganda bullshit.

    ... I forgot all about the Amnesia conference. -Joe Biden.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Dream Master on Wed Feb 23 20:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dream Master to Denn on Wed Feb 23 2022 02:36 pm

    Dream Master lives in an alternate universe.

    I live in a world of facts, not conjecture.

    But you spew the party line lies, You may live in a world of facts but you have no grasp of facts.

    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.

    and they need to quit being dependant on the USA paying for their protection, they need to man up and pay their fair share.
    The weak Presidents before Trump let them get away with far to much.

    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.

    HAHAHAHAHA Bullshit.

    Who cares about the Pope.

    It's not that I care about the pope, I care that a President embarasses the USA on the world stage, Putin see's how week he is and that has emboldened him to attack his neighbors without fear of real repercutions, He is laughing at the weak sanctions of the Biden administration.

    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.

    Like I keep saying, you live in your own little universe, his policies were strong as were his communication and negotiation skills, that led to being energy independant for the first time in many decades, He stood up to other world leaders.

    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.

    Because a lot of blood was spilled fighting for the Independance of Ukraine.
    You're right that Russia knows America will not put boots on the ground and they know Joe Biden will give them a lecture and threaten meaningless sanctions
    My bet is that if Trump were still President Putin would'nt dare anex parts of the Ukraine.
    and my guess is that soon China will take over Taiwan.
    and Joe will just stand by while it happens.

    Looks like China might try to invade Taiwan soon.

    Oh, well.

    I'll bet if you lived in Taiwan you would care.

    ... You don't have to know anything to have an opinion.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Wed Feb 23 20:09:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Denn on Wed Feb 23 2022 08:23 pm

    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

    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).

    ... .|. FJB .|. Let's Go Brandon .|. FJB .|.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Wed Feb 23 20:11:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Denn on Wed Feb 23 2022 08:24 pm

    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.

    It's also sad that they don't remove him from office, he is causing great harm to America.

    ... THE LARGE PRINT GIVETH, the small print taketh away.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Gamgee on Wed Feb 23 20:20:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Gamgee to Dream Master on Wed Feb 23 2022 08:32 pm

    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?

    DM is again wrong, we were energy independant for the first time in decades and exporting energy, so the so called oil cartell's had nothing to do with soaring fuel prices, It was only after Biden shut down the pipeline and started begging the oil cartells for oil again that prices started going up.

    ... A power so great, it can only be used for Good or Evil!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Thu Feb 24 15:16:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Wed Feb 23 2022 05:50 am

    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.

    Now that is a non-sequiter!

    I think you misunderstood my statement.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Andre on Thu Feb 24 15:17:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andre to MRO on Wed Feb 23 2022 07:08 am

    Ellerman is known (not especially popular) in socialist, marxist, and anarch circles.

    Socialists, Marxists and Anarchists also know about Ayn Rand too.

    The reason that he's not popular among these circles is because he is
    explicit about Marxism being bunk. He makes a better argument against Marxism that most Capitalists!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Vlk-451 on Thu Feb 24 15:20:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Vlk-451 to Boraxman on Wed Feb 23 2022 12:21 pm

    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.

    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to All on Wed Feb 23 23:16:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to Gamgee on Thu Feb 24 2022 01:20 am

    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.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Thu Feb 24 01:15:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to Dumas Walker on Thu Feb 24 2022 12:15 am

    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.



    now look at whats going on in the ukraine.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Thu Feb 24 01:16:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to MRO on Thu Feb 24 2022 01:09 am


    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).


    yeah they dont like him. he even called out his own guy on stage for taking money from pharm companies. trump had no filter and that's what was great about him.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Feb 24 01:19:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Vlk-451 on Thu Feb 24 2022 08:20 pm

    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.

    that sounds really shitty and i don't think it could be effective or even implimented.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Andre on Thu Feb 24 03:55:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andre to All on Thu Feb 24 2022 04:16 am

    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.

    Unfortunately, they'll probably say any discussion topic is allowed in 'General'..

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Vlk-451@VERT/DECKHVN2 to MRO on Thu Feb 24 07:24:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 24 2022 06:19 am

    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


    That's what I'm saying. Spooky cult shit.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Decker's Heaven -//- bbs.deckersheaven.com
  • From Vlk-451@VERT/MNLOUNGE to Boraxman on Thu Feb 24 05:38:00 2022
    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."

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Midnight Lounge :: Panama City Beach, FL (midnightlounge.online)
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Thu Feb 24 08:30:00 2022
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Not a valid comparison at all. Being an employee is not the same thing in any way as being a slave.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Andre on Thu Feb 24 01:42:00 2022
    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.


    ... Such a format will close the door.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Vlk-451 on Thu Feb 24 15:44:00 2022
    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to poindexter FORTRAN on Thu Feb 24 17:59:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andre on Thu Feb 24 2022 06:42 am

    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.

    ... TAXES: your money spent for things you wouldn't buy.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Denn on Thu Feb 24 21:16:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to poindexter FORTRAN on Thu Feb 24 2022 10:59 pm

    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.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Vlk-451 on Fri Feb 25 14:45:00 2022
    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 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."

    Haha! You know, some people do get into contracts like that.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Fri Feb 25 15:01:00 2022
    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.

    You are against laws?

    Not a valid comparison at all. Being an employee is not the same thing
    in any way as being a slave.

    I am referring to how changing property rights made a particular economic arrangement invalid, not equating the two. The argument simply is that economic contracts which are not valid, cannot be fulfilled, or violate ones inalienable rights, cannot be considered legally valid.

    They aren't now. We already understand that some contracts are not legally valid. There is no new legal system, or new idea brought in here. I am referring to ideas which are already long standing Western traditions.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Fri Feb 25 15:04:00 2022
    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. ---

    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?


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBSTEST to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Fri Feb 25 06:59:00 2022
    --- 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 each
    other
    out over something that you powerless nobodies have *any* impact
    over.

    Seconded.

    Thirded. I mean, I'm a socialist liberal idiot, right? I might even participate if it moved over there.


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Fri Feb 25 04:44:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri Feb 25 2022 08:04 pm

    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?

    really, i can't complain about the at will system. i've never been fired for performance or fired period unless you count when i was 18 and in a shitty first job.

    either party can end employment with no warning. as a courtesy you are expected to do 2 weeks notice but i only did that once and they just fucked me when i did that. they did however make a mistake and overpaid me.

    you can't be descriminated against by our laws, so that covers a lot.
    companies need good people, so if you're a good person you probably don't have anything to worry about.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to the doctor on Fri Feb 25 04:46:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Fri Feb 25 2022 11:59 am

    --- 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 each
    other
    out over something that you powerless nobodies have *any* impact
    over.

    Seconded.

    Thirded. I mean, I'm a socialist liberal idiot, right? I might even participate if it moved over there.

    pretty much no msg sub on dovenet has people that obey the subject. except maybe the audio one and the hobby one.

    poindexter knows this.
    he just wants an echo chamber.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Andre on Fri Feb 25 07:33:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andre to Denn on Fri Feb 25 2022 02:16 am

    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.

    I only Jump in, fact is this is the general area with many topics.
    When we state the obvious here we get people like Dream Master trying to make fairytales reality just can't be ignored.
    Seems to me there are many who post on the subjects here not just 3-4 like
    you say.

    ... Arsonists of the world, ignite!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to the doctor on Fri Feb 25 07:35:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Fri Feb 25 2022 11:59 am

    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.

    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.

    ... ELEPHANT: A mouse built to Government specs.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Denn on Fri Feb 25 09:55:00 2022
    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

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to MRO on Fri Feb 25 10:50:00 2022
    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.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Be reasonable......do it my way.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Andre on Fri Feb 25 12:16:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andre to Denn on Fri Feb 25 2022 02:55 pm

    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Arelor on Fri Feb 25 14:14:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Andre on Fri Feb 25 2022 05:16 pm

    I just sit back and eat the popcorn.

    Usually I agree. We're all fairly pecular, and sometimes interesting, characters.


    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 think it's more style than substance. Once it becomes an unfriendly argument, take it over there. Not that arguing in that way is debate, but flamewars kind of come with the software.

    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Dream Master@VERT/CAUGHT to Andre on Fri Feb 25 17:55:00 2022
    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

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Caught in a Dream - caughtinadream.com
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to DREAM MASTER on Sat Feb 26 05:38:00 2022
    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.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Do not make whisky in private, or water in public.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Dumas Walker on Sat Feb 26 06:11:15 2022
    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 used to be. In the 80s and 90s, operating systems like DOS and earlier versions of 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), lately I've been seeing more and more apps ask if you want to use your fingerprint for identification for something more secure than a password.

    People may be focusing less on security in some ways, but at the same time it seems like there is more focus on security in other ways.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From SYS64738@VERT/DIBZ to Arelor on Sat Feb 26 15:21:48 2022
    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ I got DIBZ on it! (dibz.synchro.net)
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Sat Feb 26 16:21:52 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Dumas Walker on Sat Feb 26 2022 11:11 am

    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


    I think there is more security tooling but less data confidenciality in practice.

    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to SYS64738 on Sat Feb 26 19:06:30 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: SYS64738 to Arelor on Sat Feb 26 2022 08:21 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.

    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.


    ... Don't let it fool you. It's written in BASIC.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Mewcenary@VERT/EXTRICAT to Denn on Sun Feb 27 03:50:34 2022
    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Extricate BBS - bbs.extricate.org
  • From SYS64738@VERT/DIBZ to Denn on Sun Feb 27 03:09:15 2022
    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ I got DIBZ on it! (dibz.synchro.net)
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Nightfox on Fri Feb 25 02:09:00 2022
    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.


    ... Abandon desire
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Fri Feb 25 02:18:00 2022
    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.

    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.




    ... Abandon desire
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to ARELOR on Sun Feb 27 04:48:00 2022
    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.

    Yes. Also, we worked with mainframes instead of systems that are housed on distributed systems with web access.

    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.

    This.


    * SLMR 2.1a * You are now entering a School Free Drug Zone.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Dumas Walker on Sun Feb 27 06:10:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Fri Feb 25 2022 03:50 pm

    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.



    well dovenet is pretty laid back and we go off the rails but eventually get back on them and get on topic. poindexter is guilty of the same stuff he complained about.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to SYS64738 on Sun Feb 27 06:12:56 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: SYS64738 to Arelor on Sat Feb 26 2022 08:21 pm


    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Sun Feb 27 06:13:43 2022
    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.


    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!!!!"
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Mewcenary on Sun Feb 27 06:14:36 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Mewcenary to Denn on Sun Feb 27 2022 08:50 am

    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.

    well they'll take the consultation fee and whatever and say he's got no chance in hell of winning.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to SYS64738 on Sun Feb 27 06:19:16 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: SYS64738 to Denn on Sun Feb 27 2022 08:09 am

    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.

    that's because you're a pussy and you didnt take it to the next level.

    if someone was harassing me, i'll make someone my personal hobby just out of principal.
    It wouldn't even be doing whatever to shut the guy up and i'd have no knowledge of it.

    there's tons of people i know that help eachother out.

    fucking lawyer. god don't make me laugh.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 27 06:19:54 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Fri Feb 25 2022 07:09 am

    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.

    you're as bad as anybody else and even more off topic.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Dumas Walker on Sun Feb 27 02:30:00 2022
    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.

    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!


    ... Emphasize repetitions
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sun Feb 27 05:38:00 2022
    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.

    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.

    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).

    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 example here) "that's not real Marxism" after you've pointed out every failure of that particular system known to mankind.

    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 society and technology evolves. There is also reform where some capitalist societies need it.

    I believe the latter, but many don't.

    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.
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 06:43:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Dumas Walker on Sat Feb 26 2022 11:11 am

    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Moondog on Sun Feb 27 10:21:17 2022
    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 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.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Denn on Sun Feb 27 10:42:55 2022
    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.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 27 10:46:11 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 25 2022 07:18 am

    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.

    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).

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 13:26:26 2022
    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 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


    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 27 15:56:35 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Dumas Walker on Sun Feb 27 2022 07:30 am

    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.

    did you see this in a dream? this never happened. now if you setup the computers i believe that.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Moondog on Sun Feb 27 15:58:04 2022
    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 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.

    yeah, but even then, they had their ways. they could sit outside your house and have a device that told them what keys you hit on a keyboard. or so i've heard. that was in some kevin mitnick book so maybe it was made up by the author. they can do all kinds of shit, though.

    we've never really had security. only an illusion of security.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 15:59:48 2022
    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 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

    i keep my computer on all the time. i'm worried that someday i'll turn it off and then it wont start up.

    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.


    yeah our listening devices are always on. just recently at work i was talking to someone about something and fucking ads for it was popping up everywhere. jesus christ this stuff should be illegal.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 16:01:57 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Denn on Sun Feb 27 2022 03:42 pm

    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.


    you have a problem with your memory again.

    that didn't happen.
    sampsa got mad because i brought up how he gets fired and ends up working all over the place doing other things in other countries. he was posting about this on fb when i was his friend on there. it was true.

    he was asking my friends for my personal info and they told him to fuck off.
    he should haved just asked me for it, i'd have given it.

    anyways, he didn't back it up.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 16:03:17 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 27 2022 03:46 pm


    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).

    there's a lot of that going on with resorts.
    they are actualy trying to build a training facility where it will house then and feed foreigners because a resort can't find workers. hint: they don't pay well
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Sun Feb 27 16:05:04 2022
    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 unless something serious is happening.

    The idea that everybody must be reachable 24/7 is disturbing.

    i'm wondering how far this will go unchecked. i'm also wondering if it takes snapshots with the camera to find stuff and show ads.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Mewcenary on Sun Feb 27 15:35:39 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Mewcenary to Denn on Sun Feb 27 2022 08:50 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.

    Yeah a sleezeball lawyer will take yer money laughing all the way to the bank.

    ... More Oxymoron's: Free Love, Jumbo Shrimp, Freezer Burn.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to SYS64738 on Sun Feb 27 15:38:48 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: SYS64738 to Denn on Sun Feb 27 2022 08:09 am

    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.

    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.

    ... It works better if you plug it in.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 27 15:44:54 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Fri Feb 25 2022 07:09 am

    q
    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.

    The political stuff got moved to debate and still everyone kept it going here. has nothing to do with rights at all this is where most people like to discuss things.


    ... Politics. Poly=Many; Tics= Bloodsucking parasites.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Sun Feb 27 15:53:05 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to SYS64738 on Sun Feb 27 2022 11:12 am

    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.

    Lol

    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.

    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..

    ... Limit Congress to 2 terms. 1 in Congress and 1 in Jail.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Sun Feb 27 15:59:43 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Denn on Sun Feb 27 2022 11:13 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.


    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.

    ... Those who live by the sword... kill those who don't.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 16:07:59 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Denn on Sun Feb 27 2022 03:42 pm

    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.

    I'm sure Mro won any lawsuit leveled against him for slander on a BBS.

    ... I forgot all about the Amnesia conference. -Joe Biden.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Sun Feb 27 16:12:58 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 2022 09:01 pm

    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.

    Lol go figure he had a huge brain fart.

    ... 9 out of 10 men who try camels prefer women.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Mewcenary@VERT/EXTRICAT to Arelor on Mon Feb 28 02:24:19 2022
    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 unless 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 about BBS Doors!"

    You can turn all that stuff off. But it's still there to suck people in.

    Mewcenary.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Extricate BBS - bbs.extricate.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Mewcenary on Sun Feb 27 22:12:27 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Mewcenary to Arelor on Mon Feb 28 2022 07:24 am

    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.


    Social media notifications are hell, I agree. I don't have any of that stuff installed in my job (and only) smartphone, but when I have been handled other people's phones, they are getting news updates and notifications non-stop. It is maddening.

    I myself am more worried with having people bother me with trivialities which are not worthy of my attention and wasting my time. Sure, I am willing to answer a message from the clinic's recepcionist, who is asking if I have seen his red stapler somewhere, but not in every moment and not at any given place.

    24/7 connectivity is turning social relationships into chaos, paradoxically. I may agree on friday to have a meeting with friends on saturday over Signal Messenger, and then spend friday's afternoon with the horses (with no data or phone coverage). The next morning when I move to town I will get 20 messages asking me if the meeting is still standing, because I have not answered the messages they sent me friday's afternoon asking if the meeting was still standing.

    WTF.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Feb 28 15:16:00 2022
    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.

    Doesn't really match the "you are paid what the value of your work is" narrative, does it?


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Mon Feb 28 16:05:00 2022
    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!

    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.

    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).


    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?

    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.

    Capitalism and Communism are to me, the systems in practice, not the theory. Communism is defined by the practice, not theory of Communism. Capitalism is defined by the practice, not theory, of Capitalism. An object is its manifestation, not its ideal. Ideologies (like Marxists, Free Marketeers) have a weird epistemology, the idea is a thing in itself and defined the object more than the object itself. Like saying a dog isn't really a true dog, the idealised dog is the truer dog.

    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.

    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.

    But pro-Capitalists undermine their own system by creating conditions which lead people to anti-Capitalism!

    The argument will be moot anyway because whatever system China is using will dominate, it is clearly superior and our ruling elite will adopt it in part, whether you like or not. After all, you want them to have that power, don't you? I don't believe we are in for "hard times" only, I honestly believe we are at the end of our civilisation and we are now in decline. We have been for years, but it is now becoming evident to those whose senses are somewhat duller.

    My view is simple. Only some type of revolution might save us, if you don't want one fine, but be content to sit back and enjoy the decline and chaos. Those "hard men" upturn the status quo!

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Sun Feb 27 23:48:55 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to SYS64738 on Sun Feb 27 2022 08:38 pm

    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.


    also you have to prove damage.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Sun Feb 27 23:51:04 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to MRO on Sun Feb 27 2022 08:53 pm

    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 whatever [my family however is real bad which is why i dont associate with them.], but i grew up in a world where people got what they deserved.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Sun Feb 27 23:55:48 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to MRO on Sun Feb 27 2022 08:59 pm



    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.

    my ex got into it with a police harasser person on fb and there must have been like 8 or more police officers. and i was the only one there. they were over there over facebook arguing.

    as you can expect, i mocked them. they tried to justify the visit of so many officers and vehicles that filled up both sides of the street. they said tell her this and tell her that, and i said no.

    then i said 'goodbye facebook police' and waved and shut the door on them.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Sun Feb 27 23:56:59 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 2022 09:07 pm

    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.

    i'm not a liar. so anything i've said has been true. people just dont like that it's true. i also take screenshots because i know people delete shit later. i use greenshot so it makes it easy. the problem is finding the screenshots. i get lost in the memes.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Sun Feb 27 23:58:27 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to MRO on Sun Feb 27 2022 09:12 pm



    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 have this problem. and i'm not rich, but i can adult.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Mon Feb 28 00:00:43 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Feb 28 2022 08:16 pm


    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?


    honestly after all these years and seeing his actual computing ability, i think poindexter is just a bullshit artist. i wouldn't believe any of his stories.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Mon Feb 28 05:33:04 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Denn on Mon Feb 28 2022 04:51 am

    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 me to, I can back up what I say, My guess is they're the keyboard warriors.

    ... To hell with the Prime Directive! Let's KILL SOMETHING!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Mon Feb 28 05:35:35 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Denn on Mon Feb 28 2022 04:55 am

    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.

    Only a butt hurt socalist would do that lol.

    ... Really drunk is when you cling to the floor so you don't fall off.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Mon Feb 28 05:39:17 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Denn on Mon Feb 28 2022 04:58 am

    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

    I was sued for 500,000 dollars by my drugy cousin once, he died from drug related problem months later.

    ... A power so great, it can only be used for Good or Evil!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Otto Reverse on Mon Feb 28 07:26:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Sun Feb 27 2022 10:38 am

    The 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
    That is nature. Coyotes feed on an over population of rabbits, reproduce
    like crazy because food is abundant. They over produce and deplete the
    rabbit supply, then only the healthy coyotes that can adjust to the sudden change, survive and the others die off. That die off gives the rabbit s a chance to fatten up and make more babies, then the cycle restarts.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Nightfox on Mon Feb 28 07:28:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Moondog on Sun Feb 27 2022 03:21 pm

    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

    I put my pc's in suspend/ sleep mode to save power and to save time when resuming.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Arelor on Mon Feb 28 07:36:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 2022 06:26 pm

    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


    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Mon Feb 28 07:48:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Moondog on Sun Feb 27 2022 08:58 pm

    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.

    That was government level type espionage. The NSA developed a specification called TEMPEST that layed out the guidelines in designing devices that could not be spied on through intercepting their unintentional electrical, RF,
    sounds and vibrations. When I worked at ZDS we'd get TEMPEST items come through the repair depot. If a keyboard or other item received a paint chip, it was replaced and sent back to be re-coated with RF masking metallic paint.
    The computer would sit in a double cased farraday cage, and the Syquest hard drive cartridges would be pulled at the end of shift and placed in safes. A special circuit would degauss and wipe a crt to remove any remnant images
    that could be extracted from residual charge from the phosphors that made the display.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Mon Feb 28 08:03:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Sun Feb 27 2022 08:59 pm

    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

    Recently there was concern over a popular choice of surveillance camera made
    in China "phoning home" or having a backdoor that allowed the company or possibly a government entity to access the cameras at any time. I read something similar where someone bought cheap IP cameras off of Amazon, and occasionally he'd monitor camera traffic going to IP's owned by Amazon or a partner company. The requests weren't firmware or updates. It was believed t o be used in a machine learning experiemnt where AI's were being taught
    object recognition using random pictures. The Air Force tried to teach a drone's AI how to pick out tanks from photographs, and it's recognition was 100% in the lab. They learned afterward that the AI was looking for something
    else. The days the tanks were photographed, the sky was overcast. The conclusion was tanks only come out on overcast days.

    Back on subject, imagine having Alexa or another service connected to your cameras, watching which brands you buy foods and drinks you consume, and the frequency you consume them. A criminal or government agency can look for other items of interest in your house, or derive floor plans on how to break in or enter your home with least resistance.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Mon Feb 28 11:36:00 2022
    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!

    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Moondog on Mon Feb 28 11:03:23 2022
    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've done that sometimes. For work computers, I'd sometimes put them into hibernate which basically turns it off but the OS saves the state of the programs I was running so everything will come back when I turn the PC on again. I think PCs boot fast enough these days, and I never really use sleep mode.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Dream Master@VERT/CAUGHT to Moondog on Mon Feb 28 19:16:01 2022
    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 my home-office are always on. Oh, well.

    Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
    Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Caught in a Dream - caughtinadream.com
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Dumas Walker on Tue Mar 1 09:14:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Mon Feb 28 2022 04:36 pm

    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.


    It has changed names, but there was a state funded private group called Michigan Works that had a resume wizard that would assemble a resume fromthe information you entered into their online forms.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Dream Master on Tue Mar 1 09:21:00 2022
    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 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


    Some devices have to be always on, such as file servers and system monitoring gear. My main desktop is the biggest enrgy fiend, and gets put to sleep when 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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Moondog on Tue Mar 1 10:18:02 2022
    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Vlk-451@VERT/MNLOUNGE to Andre on Tue Mar 1 17:42:35 2022
    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 all devolve into just a few of you being dicks to each other and breaking rules #1 and #2 nonstop.


    - Andre

    If they aren't gonna do it on Facebook, you have to expect them to do it here. At least this is an interface they're familiar with.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Midnight Lounge :: Panama City Beach, FL (midnightlounge.online)
  • From Vlk-451@VERT/MNLOUNGE to Dumas Walker on Tue Mar 1 17:43:31 2022
    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Midnight Lounge :: Panama City Beach, FL (midnightlounge.online)
  • From Vlk-451@VERT/MNLOUNGE to Dream Master on Tue Mar 1 17:46:52 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dream Master to Andre on Fri Feb 25 2022 22:55:15

    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

    To quote MRO from Pro-Audio, "I'm not looking to debate, it's just a general topic." or something to that effect. Call me Easy-E. Don't quote me because I ain't said shit. Or at least that's not an exact quote from MRO. Just jump areas and read that shit if you wana see what they said. You get my point.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Midnight Lounge :: Panama City Beach, FL (midnightlounge.online)
  • From Vlk-451@VERT/MNLOUNGE to SYS64738 on Tue Mar 1 17:57:50 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: SYS64738 to Arelor on Sat Feb 26 2022 20:21:48

    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.

    This reminds me of how a bunch of old 80's nad 90's media speculated a world without Laywers in the dark future, or just how many "We hate lawyers" jokes there were. DC is pretty fond of making the OJ Simpson glove joke.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Midnight Lounge :: Panama City Beach, FL (midnightlounge.online)
  • From Vlk-451@VERT/MNLOUNGE to Denn on Tue Mar 1 18:00:47 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to SYS64738 on Sun Feb 27 2022 00:06:30

    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.

    "Don't worry, the judge is a frequent shitposter on the exact same Dove-net messaging board you posted to. Only for confidentiality reasons I can not disclose thier Net Handle."

    so which one of you fuckers is it?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Midnight Lounge :: Panama City Beach, FL (midnightlounge.online)
  • From Vlk-451@VERT/MNLOUNGE to SYS64738 on Tue Mar 1 18:03:33 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: SYS64738 to Denn on Sun Feb 27 2022 08:09:15

    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.

    Do you have any articles of this from newspapers.com? What year? Im just trying to imagine the SynthPop Boom-Box Judge infringing upon your right to shitpost in parachute pants by sentancing you to 40 reps on the pilates machine.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Midnight Lounge :: Panama City Beach, FL (midnightlounge.online)
  • From Vlk-451@VERT/MNLOUNGE to poindexter FORTRAN on Tue Mar 1 18:09:00 2022
    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Midnight Lounge :: Panama City Beach, FL (midnightlounge.online)
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Nightfox on Tue Mar 1 20:19:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Moondog on Tue Mar 01 2022 03:18 pm

    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

    I prefer the shorter power up / wake time versus powering up from scratch.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Wed Mar 2 09:18:28 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Nightfox to Moondog on Tue Mar 01 2022 03:18 pm

    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.

    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.

    get a killowatt and check your stuff.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Vlk-451 on Wed Mar 2 09:22:28 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Vlk-451 to poindexter FORTRAN on Tue Mar 01 2022 11:09 pm

    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.

    people just like to complain and whine. the thing is, they are usually guilty of the same stuff they complain about.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Dumas Walker on Mon Feb 28 01:26:00 2022
    Dumas Walker wrote to ARELOR <=-

    Your old DOS machine would have no password or user account, but chances
    ere
    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.

    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.


    ... DELIVERY - CONTESTABILITY - IMPROVULENCE - UPSOAR - YESNESS
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Arelor on Mon Feb 28 01:40:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Nightfox <=-

    The idea that everybody must be reachable 24/7 is disturbing.

    Hand-in-hand with that is the immediacy/urgency effect. Kids call, get frustrated and don't understand when someone doesn't answer, then hang up without leaving a message. Then, call someone else until someone answers.

    The thought of leaving a message and waiting for a callback is foreign to them.



    ... DELIVERY - CONTESTABILITY - IMPROVULENCE - UPSOAR - YESNESS
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Mon Feb 28 01:42:00 2022
    Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

    Doesn't really match the "you are paid what the value of your work is" narrative, does it?

    No, I learned a long time ago that what you're paid doesn't jibe with the value you bring to a company - especially when working with a group of peers who are willing to share what they're paid.




    ... UNPRISON YOUR THINK RHINO
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Moondog on Tue Mar 1 05:29:00 2022
    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
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Mewcenary@VERT/EXTRICAT to poindexter FORTRAN on Wed Mar 2 11:37:15 2022
    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-floor
    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Extricate BBS - bbs.extricate.org
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to MRO on Wed Mar 2 04:16:28 2022
    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

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Wed Mar 2 13:09:34 2022
    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 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


    DO EEEET.

    but seriously get a killowat meter. it's on amazon.
    you plug it in and it records the usage.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to MRO on Wed Mar 2 06:16:02 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Wed Mar 02 2022 06:09 pm

    but seriously get a killowat meter. it's on amazon.
    you plug it in and it records the usage.

    I have one. I've used it to record power usage of my BBS PC.

    Also, the UPS power backup unit I have for my main PC shows its power usage in real time.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Dream Master@VERT/CAUGHT to poindexter FORTRAN on Wed Mar 2 06:49:08 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Moondog on Tue Mar 01 2022 10:29 am

    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.

    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.

    Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
    Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Caught in a Dream - caughtinadream.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Dream Master on Wed Mar 2 07:09:54 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dream Master to poindexter FORTRAN on Wed Mar 02 2022 11:49 am

    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.

    Funny thing, just today, my company owner sent an email to everyone saying he wants to talk about setting up a policy about this where I work. He said our general operating window is 9AM to 6PM and it's important to him and clients to know everyone's schedule. Some people where I work may come into the office anywhere between 8:30AM and noon, and I'm not sure when everyone leaves. Occasionally some of us work from home, but usually during those hours.

    Generally I like to be at work around 8AM-5PM or 8:30AM-5:30PM or so and try to be fairly consistent about that. Some people in my field say they sometimes have different times where they feel motivation to work on things, and that's fine.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to VLK-451 on Wed Mar 2 10:53:00 2022
    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.

    I believe you have to be more thick skinned for internet conversations for sure.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Yea, I'm a pacifist. Wanna make somethin' of it, bub?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Wed Mar 2 10:54:00 2022
    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.

    Yep, that is familiar. :)


    * SLMR 2.1a * "It's Ensign Polo. He's thread, Jim!"

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to poindexter FORTRAN on Wed Mar 2 17:49:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Moondog on Tue Mar 01 2022 10:29 am

    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

    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
    the upper management brags about how much off time their employees get. This contributed to their country's suicide rate and the company heads were
    looking at each other wondering how the employee's families would be blaming them.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Mewcenary on Wed Mar 2 18:00:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Mewcenary to poindexter FORTRAN on Wed Mar 02 2022 04:37 pm

    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.


    The users were opening and closing the ports, not some process running in the background. An external volume was mounted, then unmounted when done. Multi-tasking systems were not at a level where programs would try to do you
    a favor and check for updates or send telemetry without the user's
    permission. Resources were so tight, unnecessary "features" would take away from your limited instructions per second.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Wed Mar 2 18:06:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Wed Mar 02 2022 06:09 pm

    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.

    Regardless of consumption rate, I feel better when it's chatting back and
    forth with the outside world on it's own.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Dream Master on Thu Mar 3 15:18:00 2022
    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.

    I've worked with people who during the day were SLOW. But they would work overtime, and appear to put in extra hours. I did more work than they did, but because people judged you by the time you spent in the office, it led to people just working slow and doing 6 hours worth of work over 9-10 yours.

    You get what you reward, and if what you reward is simply being present, then all you'll get, is people simply being present.

    Results driven managers are better, and get better results.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Moondog on Wed Mar 2 23:37:44 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to poindexter FORTRAN on Wed Mar 02 2022 10:49 pm

    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


    there was a great documentary on the japanese bubble collapse.
    these guys that were rich as hell were forced to get these crappy jobs. one guy had a younger girlfriend who would beat his ass and support him. she would break his glasses multiple times, too. she was sort of like a host girl. that's where she parties with multiple men and gets drunk.

    he worked in the post office and every day the boss would get them all together and tell them they were pieces of shit. one guy was sick and they wouldnt let him go home. eventually he just had snot bubbles all over his face and they let him go home one hour early.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Vlk-451 on Wed Mar 2 01:29:00 2022
    Vlk-451 wrote to Dumas Walker <=-

    I thought being rude over the internet was just part of the culture.

    Bite me, Frodo.




    :)


    ... Into the impossible
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to DREAM MASTER on Thu Mar 3 11:08:00 2022
    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.

    I have had a slightly different experience in the past. My employer
    expected us to cover "core hours," but our actual working hours could
    straddle that some. So, core was 9am-3pm, meaning we could come in as
    early as 6:30am to get our 8 hours + lunch in.

    The problem here is that (1) they did not enforce the 9am, and (2) people
    who came in after 8:30am had a tendency to expect the rest of us to be available for meetings, etc., that they would set up for after our quitting time. They also expected us to be available for calls so long as they were
    in the office. Most of us came in between 7-7:30 and really didn't appreciate that.

    Those "laties" were not management people (i.e. the ones that could make performance/evaluation decisions), but were regular teammates and/or
    project managers. The ones who exhibited this behaviour were also NOT on
    call after (their) hours, unlike most of the rest of us.

    As a result, even as a non-manager, I still find myself looking down on co-workers who don't keep regular hours. That is, I did until the pandemic sent us all home. Now I don't notice it much.


    * SLMR 2.1a * The Bagginses, they steals our taglines, precioussss ....

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Thu Mar 3 10:38:00 2022
    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.


    Yes, but some laws are themselves uncivilized and/or unjust.

    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?

    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.

    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??


    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.

    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.

    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.
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Fri Mar 4 12:29:00 2022
    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.

    And those laws are ones that people shouldn't respect or uphold.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 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.

    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.

    I do think there is a way to fix things, somewhat, without having to resort to some "reset", or "revolution", or letting Marxists have any leeway (God help us if they do!). We can make things right by living by the principles that we SHOULD be living by, self-ownership, right to property, right to own the fruits of your labour, ownership over your own nation, true democracy (not the sham we have now).

    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.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Dream Master on Thu Mar 3 02:29:00 2022
    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.

    Key word, "Former". :)

    The CIO in a gig I worked for used to complain about a backlog of work, and that the parking lot was empty at 5pm.

    He'd failed to remember that his employees were union, OT was prohibited (by him) and the only incentive was to meet a minimum number of tickets. They'd knock out one more than that and start coasting, every day.

    I was used to engaged, motivated teams before that, and it was a hard transition.

    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.

    I'm always keeping an eye on job openings, and starting to notice a trend of seeing a job that looks promising, pays maybe 10-20% more than my current salary, but requires onsite 5x/week. I'm sure they're saying that in preparation for when they do go back (and probably are at least partly
    remote now) but the thought of commuting to an office 5x/week is going to
    need to pay more. :)

    Come to think of it, I can't imagine the grief HR is going to have when
    people who were hired when companies were remote start asking those people
    to come into the office on a regular schedule.

    The lack of commute and the flexibility that you mention is valuable, especially with family to take care of.





    ... Abandon desire
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Dumas Walker on Thu Mar 3 02:32:00 2022
    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. :)

    I was hired in 2016 to work at a company that had converted from mainframe
    to client/server to web apps over several decades. Had a Hybrid 365 and
    cloud backup/storage environment alongside a LTO tape system and one
    remaining AS/400 in a raised-floor server room that was 5 times too large.

    In the back room was an IBM PS/2 model 80 running OS/2, with an LTO drive,
    IBM 8514 VGA monitor and IBM 4019 laser printer - the exact rig I used at my first corporate gig in 1991. They'd kept it around to restore from backup tapes and fired it up occasionally.


    ... Abandon desire
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Moondog on Thu Mar 3 02:39:00 2022
    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.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Thu Mar 3 10:56:00 2022
    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.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Mar 4 12:52:10 2022
    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." 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.

    that's because he just made it up.

    they wouldnt hide hard work for the company.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Mar 4 20:58:00 2022
    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." 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.

    A few years ago some companies were offering new hires Iphones and tablets as an alternative to a solid benefits package. The money that is spent up front on them is way lower over time than quality healthcare. Same applies for climbing walls and fussball tables.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Mar 4 21:13:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Thu Mar 03 2022 03:56 pm

    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.

    I worked at one place where their in house program they used for request tracking was adopted for service desk use, and it put too much authority to
    the person geenrating the request. The users would not properly select the drop down items claiming if something is break/ fix, a recurring issue, a request for new hardware, or a task. Sometimes the user would be asking fro what is actually a major project requiring research, testing, developers and
    QA testing, but the system treats it like we jsut have to drive down to Best Buy or call CDW to deliver an off the shelf solution that is tuned to their expectations 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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From boraxman@VERT/PHARCYDE to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Mar 6 05:38:00 2022
    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, where 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, and 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 daily 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 are fixed, that incentive doens't fixed, so business tries to find other ways.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Sat Mar 5 18:01:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Mar 04 2022 05:52 pm

    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.

    Why wouldn't they hide work if it makes them look better? It sounds like a very unhealthy work culture and probably is. I've been lucky to work in idustries such as nuclear generation where transparency in how a process
    works results in no bullshit assessments when it comes to scheduling tasks as part of project management and it's budget.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to boraxman on Sun Mar 6 05:06:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Mar 06 2022 10:38 am

    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.


    When I worked in IT at a nuclear power plant, I was a long term contractor. The company folk had an incentive program which was point based, and the source of points was based on days operational, emergency plan drill
    response, and keeping refueling outages on schedule. Inuries also played
    intot he package. During one outgae there were a bunch of small hand
    injuries that could've easily been prevented, and when this stuff happens,
    they make everyone go to mandatory meetings to be beaten down. In one
    meeting our head of engineering asked our group who all in the room doesn't care about or incentive program. Since I wasn't covered, I was hoping I
    could leave. I think he wanted to tear into someone, and tearing into
    someone which the rules do not apply would've been wasted time.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sun Mar 6 12:34:00 2022
    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 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 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.

    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".

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Wed Mar 9 16:19:00 2022
    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.

    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?

    This question has different answers, depending on the socio-economic system you have. If we were still under Fuedalism, that would be your lord. The lord would have a legally claim over your labour (even your wife!). In my view, part of the liberation that Capitalism gave is, was that it did away with this thinking (in part).

    Lack of government control, etc, means nothing if you're not in control of what you do. You can have a Feudal system where there is no government control, but most people are just serfs. I wouldn't support such a system, even if it was a "free market". Pointless.

    In short, it is your right to work as you wish, the right to claim ownership of your work, and your right to trade the result as you wish.

    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.

    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.

    So we do need to have private property, but then, what is the appropriate patter of property rights that result from that. Does owning asset X give you positive control rights over Y? These can be defined arbitrarily. We can invent new types of property, disinvent property.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    No one owes you ANYTHING except for what they buy from you. They can only buy from you if you rightfully own what they are buying from you.

    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).

    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.

    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.

    Why do you think interest rates are so low?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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".

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    We do have Family Guy here!

    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.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Fri Mar 4 01:52:00 2022
    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.



    ... No ceremonies are necessary.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Moondog on Sat Mar 5 06:52:00 2022
    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.

    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.


    ... Do you understand who you need to become?
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From cr1mson@VERT/STEPPING to Dream Master on Wed Mar 9 14:18:11 2022
    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 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


    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.

    Sincerely,
    Jon Justvig
    Stepping Stone BBS
    telnet://steppingstonebbs.com
    http://steppingstonebbs.com

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Stepping Stone BBS - steppingstonebbs.com
  • From cr1mson@VERT/STEPPING to Moondog on Wed Mar 9 14:20:44 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Moondog to Dream Master on Tue Mar 01 2022 02:21 pm

    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.


    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.

    Sincerely,
    Jon Justvig
    Stepping Stone BBS
    telnet://steppingstonebbs.com
    http://steppingstonebbs.com

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Stepping Stone BBS - steppingstonebbs.com
  • From cr1mson@VERT/STEPPING to Vlk-451 on Wed Mar 9 14:22:37 2022
    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.

    Sincerely,
    Jon Justvig
    Stepping Stone BBS
    telnet://steppingstonebbs.com
    http://steppingstonebbs.com

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Stepping Stone BBS - steppingstonebbs.com
  • From cr1mson@VERT/STEPPING to Vlk-451 on Wed Mar 9 14:24:27 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Vlk-451 to Dumas Walker on Tue Mar 01 2022 10:43 pm

    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.


    I suppose it just depends on where you're from, what you're used to, how you respond to people and how they respond back. It's either usually really positive or downright really negative. Personally, I just take in strides as everybody has their days sometimes.

    Sincerely,
    Jon Justvig
    Stepping Stone BBS
    telnet://steppingstonebbs.com
    http://steppingstonebbs.com

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Stepping Stone BBS - steppingstonebbs.com
  • From cr1mson@VERT/STEPPING to MRO on Wed Mar 9 14:31:10 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Wed Mar 02 2022 02:18 pm

    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.

    I guess it boils down to is do you want an AC unit to keep you cool or do you want to be cheap and use a fan in your window during 103F weather.
    ---

    Sincerely,
    Jon Justvig
    Stepping Stone BBS
    telnet://steppingstonebbs.com
    http://steppingstonebbs.com
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Stepping Stone BBS - steppingstonebbs.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to cr1mson on Wed Mar 9 14:10:20 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: cr1mson to Dream Master on Wed Mar 09 2022 07:18 pm

    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.

    What do you mean by "keeping a computer"? Also not sure what you mean by electricity constantly doing a hard boot?

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to cr1mson on Wed Mar 9 18:02:54 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: cr1mson to Moondog on Wed Mar 09 2022 07:20 pm



    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.

    yeah i hate it how it reboots and then loads up some things but not everything.

    then when you need to do something when you start it up and that fucker is spinning around and you have to wait.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to cr1mson on Wed Mar 9 18:03:53 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: cr1mson to Vlk-451 on Wed Mar 09 2022 07:22 pm

    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.

    yeah but facebook is 18 years old. for some people here, facebook is older than the length of their bbs time.

    i prefer telegram.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From boraxman@VERT/PHARCYDE to poindexter FORTRAN on Thu Mar 10 15:53:00 2022
    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.

    We can't have the people deciding things now, can we? Our elite know what is best for us, and it would upset them if the population, with their different ideas would upset their plans...


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From Dream Master@VERT/CAUGHT to poindexter FORTRAN on Thu Mar 10 03:58:13 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Moondog on Sat Mar 05 2022 11:52 am

    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 remember those days when my company overshored numerous departments to India. It was definitely a cost savings methodology but it ended up costing us the historic knowledge and we ended up having to hire back onshore FTEs once the company realized the error of their ways.

    I went through 5 solid years of "ticket culture", an environment void of focus on customer needs and focused instead on hitting gamed metrics.

    Previous companies would focus their Help Desk team members and lower level SAs to statistical ticket closure. It was wrong because there was an expectation to close tickets without worrying about the quality of the closure. All too many times I'd see tickets coming back in because the work wasn't done properly and I'd have to go in, wasting my time, to unfuck problems (the SAs could've done the work right, instead making the Lead Engineer (me) do the work).

    Service suffered, and in 2015-2016, management initiated a BOLD MANAGEMENT MOVE -- hiring FTEs who gave a shit about the business.

    I hate the "it's not my problem" culture. I see it daily and it drives me crazy. My company today has something even worse: "this is my little fiefdom and you can't tell me what is wrong with it." It drives me nuts.

    Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
    Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Caught in a Dream - caughtinadream.com
  • From Dream Master@VERT/CAUGHT to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 04:02:46 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: cr1mson to Dream Master on Wed Mar 09 2022 07:18 pm

    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 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.

    Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
    Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Caught in a Dream - caughtinadream.com
  • From Dream Master@VERT/CAUGHT to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 04:05:29 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: cr1mson to Moondog on Wed Mar 09 2022 07:20 pm

    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.

    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.

    Brian Klauss <-> Dream Master
    Caught in a Dream | caughtinadream.com a Synchronet BBS

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Caught in a Dream - caughtinadream.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Dream Master on Thu Mar 10 07:39:13 2022
    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.

    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

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Mar 11 11:50:00 2022
    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?
    ...
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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"?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Lol, clearly you don't work for government.

    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 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.

    I think we are infested with parasites (both Socialist and Capitalist), who seek to obtain wealth from people without actually producing
    anything in return.

    Yup

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Makes sense.

    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?

    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 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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".

    Most people never think of the implications here, but we can see how property rights can be inverted, simply by who hires whom.

    I think people think of it all the time actually. I just don't think people see that certain aspect as "property rights".

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!

    Yup, same here (destructive social justice vice working class).

    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.

    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.
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Otto Reverse on Sat Mar 12 00:08:44 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Mar 11 2022 04:50 pm

    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.


    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.

    A lot of youngsters find themselves with a degree and a master and then realize they cannot opt for a job that grants them the same living standards that their parents, with no formation and whose job consisted in picking up potatoes from the ground, used to have.

    A potato picker here in the 60s was already finantially stable enough to have a family and everything by his 30s. The same dude now lives in his parent's basement because he cannot afford better. Heck, the degreed dude still lives in his parent's basement too.

    I believe a lot of people who has honest hard working jobs who can't afford them much look at how less prepared people lived in the close past, and then how certain other people in the present manage to live well with superfluous jobs, and feel betrayed by society's promises.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Dream Master on Fri Mar 11 01:37:00 2022
    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.

    Back in 2009 or so, my company had single-core systems with spinning drives. The company management put several utility and management tools on that
    loaded at boot, and I just got used to logging in, going to grab a cup of coffee, and coming back to a booted-up computer.

    Imagine my surprise when my new Core 2 duo, SSD-enabled system booted to the start menu before I could gather my things to go to the kitchen!




    ... Where is the center of the maze?
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Dream Master on Fri Mar 11 01:45:00 2022
    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.

    I was a telecom manager in a former life. Northern Telecom PBXes had
    redundant *everything* - memory, CPU, backplanes, and so on.

    When you did an OS upgrade, you moved all the calls into core 1, upgraded
    core 0, let core 0 take calls, them move all the calls to it and upgrade
    core 1.

    I had systems that were powered up when installed, and not powered off until the building was closed down - we're talking years here.

    With good reason. I worked on an older system at one point, and the building power was going down for longer than my UPS could last. I powered down the system, flipped the breakers and left. Came back in the morning, flipped the breaker. Nothing. Started panicking. Verified all of the power connections
    and started panicking.

    As I started making the call to my boss, I saw a light flicker on the CPU
    and heard the floppy seek - 17 minutes later.


    ... HUNGER GAMES = DYSTOPIA FOR DUMMIES
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Nightfox on Fri Mar 11 01:45:00 2022
    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.


    ... HACK THE PLANET!
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Mar 13 17:21:46 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Fri Mar 11 2022 06:45 am

    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.





    those are hardware issues.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Mon Mar 14 10:15:00 2022
    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.


    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.

    You may decide to sell yourself into slavery, and I think in the near future, some people WILL do that, though it will be called something else. It might be an arrangment where you sign up with a company which "manages your life" or something like that. Allowing people to sign away their self-ownership and self-responsibility creates a slippery slope.

    By the way, I think people who are willing to sign such contract, and consider it OK don't deserve any freedom. It makes no sense to argue that as a part of normal society, people can sign away their own self-governance and property rights, and then whinge and moan about "Communists" taking away your freedom. You've already decided its OK to pass some of your rights to others, now where just deciding what is the most optimal "practical" level.


    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.

    None of which have worked, I bet.

    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"?

    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.

    Because you are "selling your labour", you are creating this problem where we then have to value your labour seperately to the end product, and there is NO BASIS to determine the value of that except through what each party can get through negotiation.

    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.

    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.

    If the people working never surrender self-ownership or hand over their rights, then it is defensible for the onus to rest entirely on the worker for what they earn.

    Lords in the Fuedal era had to take care of their serfs, if we want the modern version of this, the obligations must remain.

    Lol, clearly you don't work for government.

    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.

    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.

    I don't think there is a spectrum, a line or a horseshoe. Some psychological features of one system may match another. For example, AnarchoCapitalists/Liberatarians argue very, very much like Marxists, using the same template of justifications and reasoning, though the systems are different (sort of). But there are other systems which are on a different axis entirely.

    I would argue my view is further from "Marxist" than yours, as I have rejected the Labour Theory of Value and the idea that there is surplus value obtained and you haven't. Capitalists and Marxists agree on these principles, they squabble over who should get these theoretical gains.

    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.

    Not relevant. The BitCoin is yours. You are selling YOUR BitCoin. There is no taxpayer funded pumping up of the bitcoin or other agencies which where forced to inflate its value.

    That BitCoin is your property because you purchased it, and you have the right to sell it. You only have the right to sell the BitCoins you own though, not someone elses. The fact it is being sold for more is irrelevant, unless someone has been made to subside its value, in which case, they may have a rightful stake.


    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.

    They do that here, and it is terrible way to conduct urban design. Australian suburbs are now designed by hundreds of different developers each doing what they want on their own block, and the result is a mess. The government and property parasites argue subdivision makes cheap housing, but it is a lie, as housing is less affordable.

    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 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 public debt dropped, but the private debt skyrocketed. People were so focused on government debt they neglected the crippling debt that we are in.

    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 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.

    If the company cannot support its wage bill, it isn't a viable enterprise. I would only support such subsidies if it is life or death, if it means the difference between you getting to hospital during a heart attack or not.

    That arrangement you described is silly, and shows the system is broken, a farce.

    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.

    If they aren't, then Canada is bucking the trend!

    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.

    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.

    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".

    Right, I think most people don't understand the implications. People see things all the time, but don't understand the implications of what they see. It is just phenomenon.

    We worked out the Earth was round by realising the implications of what a round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse actually meant. Everyone knew the shadow was round, know one thought about it. Everyone prior to Newton knew heavy things were heavy and you have to lift things (duh!) but he understood the implications of what was going on.

    People know the difference between getting paid to "build a business" and doing it yourself with a loan, but that is just noticing the shadow on the moon is round. No one realises what it MEANS.


    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.

    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.

    By your logic, abolishing slavery was an impositions on peoples rights too. Sorry, the argument just doesn't stand. A free society MUST prohibit that which takes away freedom. Freedom only exists because rights are enforced, and cannot be traded away.

    Once you accept that rights can be bargained, traded away, we are on the slope to Communism/Facsism. In all honesty, I believe that in part, this weak notion of rights that you support, where they are just circumstantial is one of the reasons that people are still looking towards Communism as an ideal. It's just a logical next step.


    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.

    Agreed. If no one wants to lend you the money, then it may be because your business proposal isn't worth lending to.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    The price of houses is just too damn high. Either the price must come down, or wages at least double.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Arelor on Tue Mar 15 07:33:00 2022
    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.

    Yup. More so for the older younger generation (did that make sense lol). The ones a few years out of university can't understand why they're not millionaires yet.

    University for everyone is part of the problem. In my country at least, trades people do quite well as there is no shortage of work and they make good money. Also, while they also have post-secondary school costs, they are much lower and so most usually have little to know debt once they hit the work force.
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Tue Mar 15 08:12:00 2022
    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.

    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.

    I don't consider an arrangement where you forfiet inalienable human rights, something worthy of being considered legally valid.

    Neither do I. But we do disagree on something you argue is a human right and I argue isn't.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 want a situation where people are paid a wage, then they should be inspected. Minimum wage should be enforced.

    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.

    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.

    No, you pay the going rate for said labour based on the available pool of potential employees.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Dilbert!

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Once you accept that rights can be bargained, traded away, we are on the

    We have to agree on whether or not they are rights first lol.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • From DaiTengu@VERT/ENSEMBLE to Otto Reverse on Tue Mar 15 11:50:07 2022
    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 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!

    DaiTengu

    ... Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ War Ensemble BBS - The sport is war, total war - warensemble.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to DaiTengu on Tue Mar 15 14:11:25 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: DaiTengu to Otto Reverse on Tue Mar 15 2022 03:50 pm


    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!


    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to DaiTengu on Tue Mar 15 14:53:14 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: DaiTengu to Otto Reverse on Tue Mar 15 2022 03:50 pm

    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.


    I don't know which sort of libertarians you deal with, but a look at the program of
    the Spanish Libertarian Party shows they concern mostly with:

    1) Taxes paid by small companies and poor self-employed individuals are abusive and
    don't reflect the fact they are small or poor.

    2) The State and Church are not properly separated in plenty of instances, which kind
    of sucks.

    3) Poor individuals have Socialized Healthcare, which is kind of collapsed. Meanwhile,
    workers from different Administrations get quality private contractors paid with
    public money.

    4) The amount of paperwork you need to do for any little thing is just insane. Specially when it is for things that are automatically granted and you still need to
    waste a whole morning queuing in the Junta or whatever.

    5) It is hard to adopt in Spain because of the above so we have a lot of orphans
    rotting in public fostering facilities instead of living with foster families.

    6) In the decade of "our body, our decision" we don't have any framework for surrogate
    childbearing.

    7) Retirement pensions are de-facto bankrupted and nobody wants to admit it.

    The old program used to be more than 200 pages long, but nobody wanted to read it. I
    guess people just wants to read short things they like rather than a detailed explanation of why something is broken and ideas for fixing it.

    As for not caring for things that don't affect you, that is kind of the point. If
    somebody likes roleplaying S&M prison rape, no morality brigade should interfere as
    long as everybody involved is in it for the fun of it. Experience shows that popular
    minorities, however, don't want to be defended when a morality brigade shows up and
    starts beating on them.... unless you belong to the party who has bought them. It is
    very hard to build a convincing defense for some pro-bisexual asociation when the
    bisexuals themselves are calling you names and telling you to eat shit and die, which
    invariably leads to a scenario in which you stop caring, and then they call you Hitler
    for not caring.

    It cuts both ways, though. I have the memory of a local MRA pleading for help in the
    media because some feminist group was campaigning for having a conference from said
    MRA cancelled. The Libertarian Party, who had no horse in that race, sent a representative who had no selfish reason to be there in order to learn about the issue
    from the MRA leaders, and was politely told to get lost. Of course, the conference was
    cancelled due to the political preassure.

    So yeah, I suppose Libertarians are selfish bastards because they refuse to walk into
    the ring and die for people who would kill them themselves if given the chance.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From DaiTengu@VERT/ENSEMBLE to MRO on Tue Mar 15 16:22:24 2022
    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 from someone else's.
    That toxic sludge I mentioned? For the majority of people who don't fish, it does very little to no harm. If the sludge makes the fish inedible, it could do great harm to someone who wants to eat the fish they catch. To a person who doesn't eat the fish, they're still free to catch and release. no harm done. So who wins? the company dumping toxic sludge, because not allowing them to do so could hurt their business?

    Heck, take it a step further, say the "toxic sludge" is actually fertilizer from some guy on a farm that grows food to feed his family. The lake is small, but years of rainwater runoff has dumped fertilizer into the lake causing toxic alge blooms that make it so the handful of other property owners on the lake can't go swimming without getting sick.

    Whose freedoms matter? That guy should have the right to grow his own food, but if the government says he can't use fertilizer because it seeps into the ground and runs off into the lake, he'll start screaming about government overreach.







    DaiTengu

    ... I used to be indecisive; now I'm not sure.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ War Ensemble BBS - The sport is war, total war - warensemble.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to DaiTengu on Tue Mar 15 20:53:09 2022
    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.

    if you had a mild case of covid you wouldnt be able to tell the difference between a cold or flu or covid.

    also factor in the psychological effect. there's people i worked with that thought they had covid when it was all in their head. we were all under a ton of stress during those times.

    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.


    you're getting a bit extreme with this.

    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

    that's actually satanism. i've never seen that explained THAT way. i think you are defining it in such a way that it's coming out as satanism.

    their harm priciple can be twisted into your definition, but it's not the same.

    you saying there's no good definition of harm might be attributed to their belief that people had common sense or the proper authorities could make a determination if needed. most of our laws are structured in such a way that they are open to interpretation.

    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 threat because they are based on having human rights, which these groups work against.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Wed Mar 16 17:18:00 2022
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 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.

    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.

    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!

    Dilbert!

    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!

    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.

    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.

    If the market doesn't crash, then Australia will continue to be undermined. A crash is the best option because we can then get back to work recovering, otherwise, we'll just see the demographic and social cost ripple through generations.

    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.

    "trading what you produce is fraudulent", no, I'm arguing that claiming you are "selling your labour" is fraudulent. If a contract claims that a trade is taking place, but that trade can never be fulfilled (because you cannot transfer your labour from one person to another), then that contract is invalid.

    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*.

    Can you please show me an employment contract which stipulates what transfer is happening from the employee to the employer?


    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.

    I think these are very different things, with very different implications. We can enumerate trading the product of labour, as there is an actual exchange, whereas exchanging labour is matter of belief and cannot be enumerated or reasoned.

    To me, it is the difference between calling someone he/him and xe/xir. It is very different.

    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).

    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).

    Marxist ideology is always there, even in the most stringently "anti-Communist" areas. There is no doubt that wages are somewhat based on what employers collectively think people "need". People state that all the time.

    We need to leave these silly Marxist ideas behind.

    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.

    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.

    The Reserve Bank of Australia quite openly states that its controls interest rates to speed up/slow spending.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed Mar 16 07:24:17 2022
    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Thumper@VERT/THEWASTE to MRO on Wed Mar 16 04:29:00 2022
    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.

    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.


    ... Internal Error: The system has been taken over by sheep at line 19960
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ -=The Wastelands BBS=- -=Since 1990=-
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Thumper on Wed Mar 16 13:36:52 2022
    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 :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Thu Mar 17 00:37:37 2022
    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Thu Mar 17 00:44:52 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Wed Mar 16 2022 11:24 am

    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.

    It is fun you mention that. Supposedly, the Spanish Socialized Healthcare system is the envy of the world too because it covers everything.

    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 :-)


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Thu Mar 17 02:27:21 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Thu Mar 17 2022 04:44 am


    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 :-)


    it's probably a psychological thing. it makes the people feel good about themselves.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Arelor on Thu Mar 17 03:02:01 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Thu Mar 17 2022 04:44 am

    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.

    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 those 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.

    For my family, we can elect to simply pay less and use the money more effectively, as we can invest the money we don't need to spend on medical. I liken it to buying an extended warranty, which is just never a good idea.

    But that's a personal decision to take care of my family. It does not benefit others.

    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 :-)

    To be fair, we American's barely know anything about the rest of the world, even our neighbors north and south.


    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Thu Mar 17 16:44:00 2022
    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. ---

    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.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Andre on Thu Mar 17 05:01:35 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Andre to Arelor on Thu Mar 17 2022 07:02 am

    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.


    What I have issue with is with some politician promising there will be welfare for everybody as long as we bend knee and pay, delivering a botched result,
    and then claiming it is a success :-)

    It would be less of a problem if they delivered a service according to what they make people pay. But I guess that if they provided good value for the buck then they would not have to force people to buy the service via taxes. At least, it would not be so hurtful.

    This sort of problem self-perpetuates, because what happens is Mr. Minister creates a service you are forced to buy, but the Village's Doctor is never in office, so the service is ultimately inoperative. People rises complaints, so Mr. Minister promises he will fix it by alloting a big budget and hiring moar manpower. So the service gets more expensive, but the problem is not fixed, because it is not a budget issue at all.

    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to MRO on Thu Mar 17 04:27:06 2022
    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 fit, Democrat's are Socialist's they're agenda driven and some are moderates some are leftist radicals.
    I would say that a lot of Republicans are not conservative either.

    ... A Mom takes 20 years to make a man of her son, another woman makes a fool of him in twenty minutes.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to Arelor on Thu Mar 17 06:21:19 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Andre on Thu Mar 17 2022 09:01 am

    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.

    That's effectively what the US has had, depending on the state you live in, for a very long time. We have expensive healthcare, and a bit of a free-for-all, but we have medical welfare for the poor.

    The system has plenty of flaws, but the excess is given to private companies instead of government incompetence and waste.

    - Andre

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Mar 17 09:08:13 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Mar 17 2022 08:44 pm

    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.

    well it's probably not scaleable to other larger countries.

    i'm not a fan of my healthcare just because i have paid so much in the past.
    it depends on the employeer.

    right now i don't pay much and i have real good coverage.
    i certainly would not want a new tax to pay for universal healthcare.

    i'd rather some existing tax be struck down and replaced. the only dude doing that was trump and he might not be back in time.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Denn on Thu Mar 17 09:10:31 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to MRO on Thu Mar 17 2022 08:27 am

    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

    i'd rather call them fucking retards but that's not politically correct.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to BORAXMAN on Thu Mar 17 17:07:00 2022
    --- 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.

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to the doctor on Thu Mar 17 11:47:46 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to BORAXMAN on Thu Mar 17 2022 09:07 pm

    I'm an American living in the UK for 21 years now. I stay here because of the NHS.

    Username checks out.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to the doctor on Fri Mar 18 00:07:30 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to BORAXMAN on Thu Mar 17 2022 09:07 pm

    --- 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.


    are you that sick that you stay in a country because of the health system?
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to MRO on Fri Mar 18 07:31:00 2022
    --- MRO wrote ---

    are you that sick that you stay in a country because of the health
    system?


    Kind of. I have type 1 diabetes. I have a friend (from back in the day
    of the Phoenix BBS scene) who also is diabetic. He's from London. He
    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.


    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to the doctor on Fri Mar 18 03:02:56 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to MRO on Fri Mar 18 2022 11:31 am

    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.

    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Greenlfc@VERT/BEERS20 to the doctor on Fri Mar 18 01:13:00 2022
    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.

    GreenLFC º e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
    Infosec / Ham / Retro º masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
    Avoids Politics on BBS º gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Fri Mar 18 16:14:00 2022
    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.

    That is the exception though, not the rule. For most waged job, the contract just assumes that everyone knows what is being sold/transferred, despite no one really being able to agree what it really is about.

    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 transfer the work at the end, all is good?

    No, these contracts ALSO assume they get to "buy you", or buy your time. That part isn't elucidated.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Arelor on Thu Mar 17 03:36:00 2022
    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.

    Yes, and they'll have disclosures for any work that was previously created. Where it gets tricky in some cases is work that's done on personal time
    while under one of those employment contracts, especially if it overlaps
    with work product.

    I'd venture that if you're paid by the hour and never work on personal projects at work or on work systems, you'd be in the clear.



    ... THE HEXAGONS OF AIM
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Andre@VERT/RDOMENTR to the doctor on Fri Mar 18 05:25:19 2022
    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

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to MRO on Fri Mar 18 11:26:00 2022
    --- 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.

    I'm glad to hear it. When I worked in Phoenix in the 1990s, the place I worked for couldn't have insurance because of *me*. It was a small
    company so I made the group too high risk.

    I understand that has been made illegal... not by Trump but by the law he
    spent about six months trying to repeal.

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to GREENLFC on Fri Mar 18 11:34:00 2022
    --- 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.

    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 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.

    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 centuries.
    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.


    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.

    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. (:

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to ANDRE on Fri Mar 18 11:37:00 2022
    --- 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



    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to ANDRE on Fri Mar 18 11:40:00 2022
    --- 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.

    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."

    You couldn't have any assets, including things like, a car. Many many
    people fall though the cracks of that system. So, yes, what I said
    is the case.

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Fri Mar 18 09:37:39 2022
    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.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to the doctor on Fri Mar 18 09:47:55 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to GREENLFC on Fri Mar 18 2022 03:34 pm

    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. (:

    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Greenlfc@VERT/BEERS20 to the doctor on Fri Mar 18 08:08:00 2022
    On 18 Mar 2022, the doctor said the following...

    --- 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.

    Forcing anyone to buy a product or support someone who won't support themselves is theft at best and extortion at worst.


    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.'"


    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.

    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.

    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.

    I, too, have health challenges, and
    removing government regulation could td> > likely harm me (my costs would go up significantly), but it's the morall td> > correct thing to do.

    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. (:

    There are more important things than a long life.

    GreenLFC º e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
    Infosec / Ham / Retro º masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
    Avoids Politics on BBS º gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to ARELOR on Fri Mar 18 15:50:00 2022
    --- 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.

    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.

    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.

    Those are all factors.

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to GREENLFC on Fri Mar 18 16:07:00 2022
    --- 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 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.

    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.

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From Thumper@VERT/THEWASTE to MRO on Fri Mar 18 04:07:00 2022
    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 :::

    We both had to get tested because our jobs and both times positive. Of course who knows....



    ... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ -=The Wastelands BBS=- -=Since 1990=-
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to the doctor on Fri Mar 18 14:17:57 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to ARELOR on Fri Mar 18 2022 07:50 pm

    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.


    Here is this,

    if a service is good, then you don't have to force people into paying for it, because they will want to purchase it.

    The very fact you need to force people to buy it suggests there is something off.

    I don't feel bad about paying for garbage collection in town (which is actually run by a private contractor paid by the town hall, which in turn passes homeowners the corresponding tax). The service just provides adequate bang for the buck. If it was an opt-in thing then most homeowners would purchase it as it currently is.

    I feel bad paying road taxes because no matter how much they bleed out of you; the roads I hapen to drive on are always in an awful state. If it was an opt-in thing, then everybody would run away screaming from the Junta and look for somebody else to keep the roads.

    Maybe the NHS provides so great bang for the buck that you would still opt-in (which is great) but then you still have the issue that one day it may degrade, and if it does, there is not switching healthcare provider. Speaking of which, the NHS originated as a charity healthcare provider.

    I am in the industry and I actually get a lot of pies thown at me because I belong to The Evil Industry everybody loves to hate. Yeah, we make a business out of health, and the main reason we do is because people is willing to pay in order to get a service instead of an empty promise of a service. It was us greedy bastards taking the absolute avalanche of patients the socialized healthcare system could not handle during the pandemic, not because the hospitals were overran, but because they don't know how to manage them. Meanwhile, our Social Security services, known for never letting people suffer and die, were failing to pay people their pensions and unemployment funds.

    Heck, we had patients who were not getting their retirement pensions and were eating from Church charity, but their health insurance company was still covering for them because they were stalling bills on people who was unable to pay due to the anti-pandemic meassures. Still the government is seen as an all-generous force and healtchare companies as bloodthirsty sharks.

    The problem is that if you suggest to switch socialized healthcare to a model similar to garbage collection you are told you want to let people suffer and die. And then the same people who is telling you this will complain that they cannot get an appointment to the socialized healthcare doctor, or can't access their retirement pension. It is Kaftka unleashed.

    None of this would be an issue if people could select which provider they want. In Spain you are forced to purchase national healthcare, and once they have your money they tell you you can go with another provider if you don't like it. The exception is public officers, which can select a private provider instead of socialized healthcare - and they always do.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to the doctor on Fri Mar 18 14:27:04 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to GREENLFC on Fri Mar 18 2022 08:07 pm

    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.


    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.

    That arrangement only works if you would opt for Comcast on your own. If not, they are just screwing you and telling you it is fine to be screwed.

    Something I always find funny is that socialized services always get away things that no corporative service ever would. If Telef¢nica did as much as to try to force people to buy subscriptions from them, people would rise up in arms (and rightly so).

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to DaiTengu on Fri Mar 18 13:27:00 2022
    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!


    Yeah, not my cup of tea either. I'm more of a classical liberal fiscal conservative.
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to ARELOR on Fri Mar 18 20:41:00 2022
    --- 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.

    It would be like saying that if that is what I was saying. I was simply
    saying that you are not forced to *use* the NHS, except in an emergency.

    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.

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Fri Mar 18 14:17:00 2022
    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.

    Right, because I (and I think most people) would argue one has the right to trade (be it labour, property, whatever).

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!

    So true.

    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 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.

    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.

    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.

    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*.

    I've seen it stipulated. It is quite common for people who develop software.

    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).

    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.

    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.

    Yup, this is where central banks artificially keep lending rates low which in turn causes higher housing prices.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    Nice! And I am envious.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    As I mentioned before, I think if the market doesn't crash, it will
    result in long term, costly social problems.

    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.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to the doctor on Fri Mar 18 21:54:47 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to MRO on Fri Mar 18 2022 03:26 pm

    I understand that has been made illegal... not by Trump but by the law he spent about six months trying to repeal.

    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Fri Mar 18 22:00:27 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to the doctor on Fri Mar 18 2022 01:47 pm

    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.


    well the insurance companies are horrible. the hospitals had zero transparency on what they charge for any procedure. then you had lawsuits.

    lawsuits are prevalent in every part of the healthcare industry.
    I worked at a company that made medical devices and there were constant lawsuits against this company. You can sue anybody at anytime.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Thumper on Fri Mar 18 22:02:00 2022
    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 :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to the doctor on Fri Mar 18 22:04:52 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to ARELOR on Sat Mar 19 2022 12:41 am

    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.


    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to MRO on Sat Mar 19 09:39:00 2022
    --- 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.

    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.

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to MRO on Sat Mar 19 09:43:00 2022
    --- 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?

    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.


    it's good that you are alive, but it's wrong.
    hitler made the trains run on time.

    Indeed. They had to get my Polish relatives to the gas chamber in time.

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to the doctor on Sat Mar 19 05:25:22 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to MRO on Sat Mar 19 2022 01:39 pm

    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.


    i know some people that cant AFFORD the accordable care act.
    they have to pay the yearly penalty.

    Those few things that are good about obamacare could have been implimented easy instead of forcing in this broken system.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to the doctor on Sat Mar 19 05:26:21 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: the doctor to MRO on Sat Mar 19 2022 01:43 pm


    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.


    you have a choice to get it or not here.

    it's wrong.

    Lots of things are not ideal.


    two wrongs don't make a right.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Sun Mar 20 17:34:00 2022
    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.

    It's better. I've had a job where I had to work later hours than what the company actually needed, because that is what the CEO wanted to see.

    It would have been more effective for me to work my hours one hour earlier, because my work coincided with production, but they wanted "visibility" over effectiveness.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Sun Mar 20 18:34:00 2022
    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 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.

    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.

    You need to understand that some minor things sound significant, and some significant things sound minor.

    Our children will see much greater changes than you realise, and in retrospect, your objection to this will seem foolish and overblown.

    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.

    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).

    I have a low tolerance for bullshit.

    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.

    True, in that regard the claim is that software you develop, they own, but that is more an exception than the rule, and the stipulation is about owning the product. They do this because you may be working on something else during "their time". However, they ALSO claim ownership of your labour. I work in a different professional capacity, and I've never seen it. It is just assumed. What I see is normative.

    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.

    A Right Wing thinktank in Australia (the Institute of Public Affairs) argued exactly this, one that is somewhat influential over the Liberal (right wing) party.

    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.

    Yup, this is where central banks artificially keep lending rates low
    which in turn causes higher housing prices.

    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.

    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.

    There are cheap places in Australia, if you like living in the middle of the desert where there are no jobs, no hope. You're better off moving overseas instead.

    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.

    Civilisation was the transition away from wandering nomads to permanent settlements. If people are moving more and more, that is a symptom of a problem, not something to just 'accept'. I wouldn't be following the example of any country/region where people are moving frequently, with the exception of founding new frontiers.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    ... "42? 7 and a half million years and all you can come up with is 42?!"
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Greenlfc on Sun Mar 20 18:38:00 2022
    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.

    I'm OK with paying taxes for good healthcare. I happen to like civilisation.


    ... Overtly resist change
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Sun Mar 20 10:24:07 2022
    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Sun Mar 20 13:15:39 2022
    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Sun Mar 20 13:16:47 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Boraxman on Sun Mar 20 2022 02:24 pm



    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 think a lot of this just ignorance. i know people that have free healthcare.

    i think in this case they are arguing that people that CAN pay for heathcare shoudn't have to(but they end up paying anyways through tons of taxes.)
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Otto Reverse@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Sun Mar 20 11:45:00 2022
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    No, I don't think I've used the term "transferred". That's yours. I said "traded". One trades their labour for pay.

    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.

    That's simply bad government.

    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.

    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 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.

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 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'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.

    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.

    Our children will see much greater changes than you realise, and in retrospect, your objection to this will seem foolish and overblown.

    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.

    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).


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Mon Mar 21 16:30:00 2022
    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.

    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?

    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 with laughter.


    The US isn't completely Libertarian because a truly Libertarian "state" would have fallen apart by now.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Mon Mar 21 16:31:00 2022
    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.

    Is that a result of theft though?


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Otto Reverse on Mon Mar 21 17:26:00 2022
    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.

    Not an argument. Capitalism was once a "pie in the sky" idea. Let the serfs work without a fuedal lord? Preposterous! Government by the people, for the people? Are you serious?

    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.

    Nobody thinks about it, yes, I know. One minute your telling me everyone understands it, now youre saying noone cares or thinks about it.

    If people actually THOUGHT about it, they might start to see cracks, but they don't want to see. They remain MILITANTLY ignorant. So now you know why I think education about these issues is pointless.

    No, I don't think I've used the term "transferred". That's yours. I
    said "traded". One trades their labour for pay.

    Trading something without transferring anything. Got it. That makes sense(?)

    That's simply bad government.

    Which is the norm in the West, and voting isn't going to change that if we keep insisting that everything is A-OK as things are.

    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).

    Good luck with that. The system is designed to keep these people out, and I speak from experience here. I've worked with people from major parties who do want to change things for the better. The system is designed to either
    1) keep them quiet
    or
    2) Not let them through in the first place.

    You are blaming people for being lazy, they aren't. People ARE trying to actively change things, but the deck is stacked against them, immensely. Both major parties are converged in many ways. There is an establishment, and it must be removed by other means, by underminings its power.

    You don't see it, but people are trying hard.

    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).

    We aren't going to become socialist anytime soon. The means of production is going to firmly remain in private hands. What we will see is a convergence between government and corporations, that is fascism.

    It is Fascism that is emerging, not Socialism.

    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.

    You are tilting at windmills here, no one is seriously arguing that a cleaner should get paid the same as a surgeon. I have known people who escaped Communism (one was shot at while swimming a river to cross the border), and spoken to them about it.

    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.

    It wouldn't lead to an exit of Capital if we demoted the role of capital and gave labour its rightful place as the owner of what it produces. You keep bringing up problems, but don't want solutions.

    This is why Capitalism is self defeating. It accumulates into a few hands, then they hold political power over us. Why allow Capitalists this power in the first place?

    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.

    Middle income, no, but basic "Working class", yes. Someone has to do these jobs 40 hours a week. Someone has to dedicate their lifes to producing things we need. If we don't need people to do these jobs, why do these jobs exist in the first place?

    Also, I don't think it impacts costs that much. I work in manufacturing, fast moving consumer goods. The portion of the price the consumer pays for the products which covers the "cost of labour" is far smaller than you think. I deal with these metrics and get to see what constitutes the cost of goods sold.
    A rise in minimum wage would increase their purchasing power leading to more economic activity.

    Lets say you pay someone an extra $5 an hour to make burgers, that cost is amortised over each burger produced in that hour. If they are busy (ie, your business is viable), this would be cents per burger.

    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.

    These are problems created by Capitalism, by allowing Capital to be the residual claimant of a nations economic activity. The solution is not to put yourself into a situation where corporations/capital have this stranglehold.

    This is why I think China is the model of the future, and the West is on its way out. China is not dumb enough to let these people host their nation hostage.

    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).

    What change? The change is to correct the exception to "Capitalist property rights" and apply the principles of Capitalism, of Lockean property rights properly and universally. We still have historical baggage that has no place in a modern democracy.

    And yes, I would fight the "great Reset", but this is a matter of power dynamics. We don't have the power to fight it, so it will come, whether we like it or not. Companies are going to voluntarily adopt these ideas (social credit will be the first), and will have the power to exclude from business with them those that don't go along.

    This is already happening. Look at B Corporation, we are almost there. B Corporation companies are one step away from only using B Corp certified suppliers, which means if you don't play along, you're excluded. Its only a small step before they start to require customer to have some level of certification or credit. Banks which want to show they are doing things for social good will use this as a way of judging who gets what loan. We're far closer than you think!

    I hope you can appreciate that this in part is why I push for this change, as an alternative which keeps our property rights, our markets intact, where we can still have private property, freedom to trade as we see fit, freedom of enterprise, freedom to earn as little or as much as we can.

    There is no way to fight the "Great Reset" without taking power away from, well, essentially the new Fascists, the Companies and organisations Lording it over us.

    I agree they will be derailed, but business will pick up where the WEF and the government failed. The true power lies in Capital, not in the State. Vaccine mandates were enforced in Australia by using Business, not by State power.

    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.

    We've done that. We deregulated in the 1980s - 2000s, we built more houses (more than ever in recent years in Australia), we created more jobs. It hasn't worked.

    I'm having to turn down MANAGERIAL positions because I can't afford to live where the new job is, even on a managers salary.

    I'm not seeing the results.

    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.

    Yeah, lets let the financial sector do what they like, lets let the property developers do what they like, that won't turn out bad, will it??

    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.

    Some yes, but that is California, its a weird place and Americans there are children.

    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.

    Hence why we need to have unions, to balance the power. If Google can do this, they have disproportionate bargaining power. Markets work when there is equal barganing power. This isn't a "market", but Capitalism isn't about markets, its about power.

    If the buyer gets to dicate terms to the seller like that, you don't have a "market".

    Again, Capitalists claim all the time that the employer is paying the worker the value of their labour. Clearly this statement is a lie.

    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.

    It isn't evil, but it is fundamentally flawed, outdated, and now a liability. We need reform. The problem is the more you talk about how the system works, the more you are damning it, exposing its flaws.

    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.

    Our problem is overcrowding, traffic and high house prices, and these are the product of the Conservative government which deliberately sought after high population growth and asset prices. I'd rather live in the "Lefty" areas of Melbourne than many other parts, at least they have culture, good coffee shops, decent schools. Our cities are better than the USA from what I can see, and I don't want to follow where the USA is heading.

    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.

    You are treating "Capitalism" and "The Government" as if they are two seprate things, at odds with each other. Very odd. From my point of view, the state is a fundamental part of the contemporary capitalist system. It is what allows Big Capital the privileges and protection it needs, ensures that tax policies benefit investors and protects people from failure (ie, too big to fail, propping up asset prices).

    People are using Capital to accumulate Capital want a system that is supportive of their activity. Money talks, and buys politicians.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Mon Mar 21 02:26:42 2022
    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to BORAXMAN on Mon Mar 21 08:35:00 2022
    --- 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?

    Sounds like captialism to me... or is Jeff Bezos out "working in a field"?

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From Greenlfc@VERT/BEERS20 to the doctor on Mon Mar 21 03:01:00 2022
    On 18 Mar 2022, the doctor said the following...

    --- 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    You would not have been denied lifesaving treatment in the US and you wouldn't get stuck on crazy waiting lists for "elective" surgeries.

    GreenLFC º e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
    Infosec / Ham / Retro º masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
    Avoids Politics on BBS º gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz
  • From Greenlfc@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Mon Mar 21 03:09:00 2022
    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.

    GreenLFC º e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
    Infosec / Ham / Retro º masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
    Avoids Politics on BBS º gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz
  • From Greenlfc@VERT/BEERS20 to Arelor on Mon Mar 21 03:14:00 2022
    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.

    GreenLFC º e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
    Infosec / Ham / Retro º masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
    Avoids Politics on BBS º gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to GREENLFC on Mon Mar 21 11:03:00 2022
    --- 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.

    So you don't want the government to do, most anything?


    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.

    There is a difference. If you want better, you can pay more.
    It's just a decision people here made to prevent people suffering because
    they couldn't afford care. If a majority of people didn't want that,
    why, they could tell their members of parlement. So far, for nearly 75
    years, that has not happened. (:

    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.

    The government is involved in things here, and I pay nothing for shots
    that cost my friend $3000 a month in the US. I have a "prescription
    charge waiver" because I have diabetes.

    You would not have been denied lifesaving treatment in the US and you wouldn't get stuck on crazy waiting lists for "elective" surgeries.

    That's nonsensical. If you had no insurance in the US, you would be denied care. If you don't have the money to pay for "elective" surguries, then
    you would have an infinite wait because they (by definition) are not
    "life saving care".

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Sat Mar 19 04:57:00 2022
    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.




    ... I'll be unstoppable when I get started.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to the doctor on Sat Mar 19 04:59:00 2022
    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.


    ... When in doubt, predict that the trend will continue.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Arelor on Sat Mar 19 05:05:00 2022
    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.

    That reminded me of the myth of engineers working long hours for equity.

    I worked at a music startup back in the first dot-com bubble. I had a family and took the ferry in from Oakland to San Francisco - beautiful commute, but limited hours. I'd get in at 7:30 and leave at 5:55 every day. I'd get home, have dinner with my family, then after 8 do any maintenance that needed to happen outside of business hours.

    The engineers would roll in around 11:00am, work until 12:30 or 1, take an hour lunch, work until 7, take a work-expensed dinner break because they
    were working so late, then put in another hour or so. Then hit the clubs for music exposure.

    The joke was on them - whoever got in first got to set the playlist for the music that played through the office. Twenty-somethings didn't get into
    Disco or New Wave. :)

    Except Depeche Mode - that went over well for some reason.




    ... When in doubt, predict that the trend will continue.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Arelor on Sat Mar 19 05:33:00 2022
    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.

    Hearing doctors complain about malpractice insurance is disheartening - it drives some doctors out of the business.

    Health care is a significant part of the US GDP, and that's a lot of
    lobbying money to ensure that our congress creates laws that preserves the status quo.

    If malpractice wasn't such a money-maker, things might change.




    ... When in doubt, predict that the trend will continue.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Mar 21 08:47:44 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to the doctor on Sat Mar 19 2022 08:59 am

    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.




    what do you mean to care for? you mean thrown into home?
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Mon Mar 21 12:48:15 2022
    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 :-)

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Arelor on Mon Mar 21 18:29:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Boraxman on Sun Mar 20 2022 02:24 pm

    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


    Socailism works at smaller population levels and it requires everyone to buy into it to work. In communes and family farms, people take care of each
    other. Once the old are too old to work, they are taken care of. Until that happens, everybody works. Eferybody has a job and is expected to do it even
    if they don't like it because it is necessary. If you slip up once in
    awhile, it's ok because others will pick up the slack, but if you're dead weight or refuse to work, there's no place for you. I think the psuedo educated liberals forget about the down side. Society had to be structured
    so that jobs get filled regardless what the individual wants. Individual rights are over ruled by social responsibilities.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Tue Mar 22 15:58:00 2022
    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 :::

    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 is, even Marxism seems erudite in comparison.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Greenlfc on Tue Mar 22 16:08:00 2022
    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, but I haven't met one person who was robbed at gunpoint, let alont robbed at gunpoint to extract taxes.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to poindexter FORTRAN on Tue Mar 22 16:10:00 2022
    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.

    Yes, you would be self-employed, and simply sell the end product. The contract would be "I will purchase X for $Y delivered by date Z".

    However, employment contracts (even those which state that what you work on will belong to the company), are like "blank cheques", where your using your cheque book and your employer gets to decide what to extract on a whim. Not something worthy of being called a contract of trade.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Tue Mar 22 16:15:00 2022
    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 :-)

    Or it could be that American's aren't that stupid to buy into Libertarianism (although they seem to lean towards it more than others).

    I do like how Libertarians think they can sit at the adults table with their juvenile 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 on the box, would still be a nightmare. At least Communism can sound good in theory.

    The blovating and hyperventilatoin about the "state" and "state oppression" is from another universe.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to the doctor on Tue Mar 22 16:20:00 2022
    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 factory
    a
    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.

    Here is a comment by Julian Assange.

    It has been frequently noted that many corporations exceed nation
    states in GDP. It has been less frequently noted that some also
    exceed them in population (employees). But it is odd that the
    comparison hasn't been taken further. Since so many live in the
    state of the corporation, let us take the comparison seriously and
    ask the following question. What kind of states are giant
    corporations? In comparing countries, after the easy observations
    of population size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of
    government, the major power groupings and the civic freedoms
    available to their populations. The corporation as a nation state
    has the following properties:

    - Suffrage (the right to vote) does not exist except for land
    holders (share holders) and even there voting power is in
    proportion to land ownership.
    - All executive power flows from a central committee.
    - Female representation is almost unknown.
    - There is no division of powers.
    - There is no fourth estate.
    - There are no juries and innocence is not presumed.
    - Failure to submit to any order can result in instant exile.
    - There is no freedom of speech.
    - There is no right of association.
    - Love is forbidden without state approval.
    - The economy is centrally planned.
    - There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic
    communication.
    - The society is heavily regulated and this regulation is enforced,
    to the degree many employees are told when, where and how many
    times a day they can goto the toilet.
    - There is almost no transparency and something like the FOIA
    unimaginable.
    - The state has one party. Opposition groups (unions) are banned,
    surveilled or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.

    These large multinationals, despite having a GDP and population
    comparable to Belgium, Denmark or New Zealand have nothing like
    their quality of civic freedoms. Internally they mirror the most
    pernicious aspects of the 1960s Soviet. This even more striking
    when the civilising laws of region the company operates in are
    weak (e.g West Pupua or South Korea). There one can see the
    behavior of these new states clearly, unobscured by their
    surroundings. If small business and non-profits are eliminated
    from the US, then what's left? Some kind of federation of
    Communist states. A United Soviet of America.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Mar 22 02:28:56 2022
    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?
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Tue Mar 22 02:30:46 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Tue Mar 22 2022 08:08 pm

    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Thumper@VERT/THEWASTE to MRO on Mon Mar 21 04:22:00 2022
    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 :::

    I saw it and heard the same thing. We've also tested positive more than the two times but the other times we had absolutely no symptoms. Not sure about those tests....



    ... I only touch base with reality on an as-needed basis!
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ -=The Wastelands BBS=- -=Since 1990=-
  • From Greenlfc@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Tue Mar 22 07:39:00 2022
    On 22 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...

    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.

    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.

    GreenLFC º e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
    Infosec / Ham / Retro º masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
    Avoids Politics on BBS º gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz
  • From Moejj@VERT/AMIGAC to Boraxman on Tue Mar 22 08:34:46 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jan 20 2022 22:53:29


    If anyone wants to earn more than minimum wage, needs to learn a trade to support pay better than minimum wage. That isn't the responsibility of anyone but the individual.

    I used to earn minimum wage. I didn't like it. Did I whine, cry, demand more money for jobs anyone without skill or education could do? No. Of course not. I went to a trade school. I haven't earned minimum wage since.

    Went back to school, got my Master's degree. Now I make six figures.

    My wage, my responsibility.

    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Amiga City - The BBS for the Amiga - more than 4,000+ files
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Moejj on Tue Mar 22 09:26:04 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Moejj to Boraxman on Tue Mar 22 2022 12:34 pm

    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.

    In order to say something is "minimum" though, I'd think you'd have to define what it's minimum for? One thing I've wondered is whether minimum wage was supposed to be a minimum for being able to support oneself and pay their bills etc., which would imply that yes, it was meant as a minimum living wage.

    I just did a search, and this page says a minimum wage "should provide enough income to afford a living wage":
    https://bit.ly/3ul0Uv3
    Full link: https://www.thebalance.com/us-minimum-wage-what-it-is-history-and-who-must-comp ly-3306209

    Other than a living wage, for what purpose is a minimum wage meant to be minimum for?

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Tue Mar 22 15:32:34 2022
    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 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.

    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.



    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Tue Mar 22 15:49:16 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to the doctor on Tue Mar 22 2022 08:20 pm

    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, o
    will defend, get shot and injured, one will grind in the factory
    a
    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.


    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.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Tue Mar 22 15:52:26 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Tue Mar 22 2022 08:15 pm

    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.


    Honestly, I think it is pretentious to accuse anybody of not having their feet on the
    ground while also promoting a Primo de Rivera style economy which has been tried,
    and crashed because they had to force people into it since nobody wanted to be in
    outside of a very small number of industrial sectors.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Tue Mar 22 16:08:33 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Tue Mar 22 2022 06:28 am

    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.

    Insurance companies in Spain are comparatively powerful, so they keep prices in check
    because they won't deal with hospitals who don't agree with prices they are willing to
    pay. They prefer to load sick people in a plane and have them treated elsewhere if
    they don't get a sane deal. Medication for Chronical diseases still goes bonkers
    sometimes because the government is their biggest customer, and the government does
    not care enough to negotiate sane deals since they are paying with Manuel's and Carmen's money.

    This kind of ties with what I have been defending since the begining, which is that
    letting people have the ability to choose their providers and opt-out of the bad ones
    is paramount, or else you will have stinky situations.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Tue Mar 22 16:17:27 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Nightfox to Moejj on Tue Mar 22 2022 01:26 pm

    Other than a living wage, for what purpose is a minimum wage meant to be minimum fo

    Nightfox

    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.

    In Spain, wages per sector hit their lowest at points agreed by both the Unions and
    Employer Asociations. This is the reason why an industrial worker or a secretary will
    have the minimum wage he may earn dictated by non-government forces. It is a bit
    better than the alternative but it has the issue that the collective of Unions deciding how much people makes represent less than 20% of the workforce (and are often
    quite content to trash workers from certain sectors if it fits them).


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Tue Mar 22 16:11:00 2022
    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.

    I guarantee you the interval between robberies in the USA is *FAR* less
    than 1.7 minutes.

    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.

    So...... "walking to the car" is a good defense for fending off robbers?
    Good to know.
    <BOGGLE>



    ... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Tue Mar 22 16:13:00 2022
    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


    ... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to GREENLFC on Wed Mar 23 05:35:00 2022
    You preach anarchy.

    --- 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.

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Wed Mar 23 16:17:00 2022
    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?

    $500? I hear conflicting things about the healthcare system there, some says its OK, but whenever I heard actual details, they're mortifying.


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Greenlfc on Wed Mar 23 16:20:00 2022
    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.

    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.

    The fact that force is used is not an argument. It is impractical to have a society where there isn't force backing laws. And we must have laws to have civilisation.

    The very existence of property relies on "men with guns". So unless you are against property, you yourself need the "men with guns".

    If you don't want the threat of force, you much choose total anarchy, law ofthe jungle, but that is WORSE.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Wed Mar 23 16:23:00 2022
    Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

    @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
    civilisa
    tion.

    You can't have civilization without manners and morals. Robbing your
    fe
    llow
    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
    gunp
    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.

    As I responded before, ALL property, ALL laws must be backed by force. If you owe money, or are leasing a property, force must be used to ensure you keep your end of the contract. Without force, I would just stop paying my mortgage tomorrow. It is only through the threat of force that I keep paying.

    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?


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Wed Mar 23 16:35:00 2022
    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.

    I find these ideologies somewhat worrying, because people who hold them presume to know a final, end state of humanity, and people who believe they have a final solution, who have it worked out, are potentially the most dangerous.

    I'm vaguely aware of Anarcho-Syndicalism, it is probably the most palatable of the three, but the idea that people should live in a system of their own choosing is a little foolish. We are all born into a particular society, and either everyone migrates constantly, or we just accept what we are born into, and seek to make changes with the consent and support of as many people as possible. However, "forcing" people is always going to be a feature of any system. It is idealistic to believe that you can have a totally cooperative society, without coercion. Such a thing is utopian.

    We must learn to accept a degree of coercion, but keep it minimal. Seeking a state where there is none is likely to be more destructive than the coercion itself.

    The Quasi-Fascist nature of Communism, and the problem with Fascism (and with Libertarian/Propertarianism), comes from a moral framework which claims to have a solution.


    This is the belief that somewhere, in the past or in the future, in
    divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker, in the
    pronouncements of history or science, or in the simple heart of an
    uncorrupted good man, there is a final solution.
    ƒ€” Isaiah Berlin, from Two Concepts of Liberty (1969)

    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 moral, 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.


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Greenlfc on Wed Mar 23 16:39:00 2022
    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.

    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...

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Gamgee on Wed Mar 23 16:41:00 2022
    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

    The American system must be more "socialised" than the Australian one, for it to be worse.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Wed Mar 23 03:59:13 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Tue Mar 22 2022 08:08 pm

    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.

    well it might happen quit frequently, though. i didnt say it was the only solution. people are not dying with no treatment is what i'm getting at.
    there's several ways to approach treatment in the usa. people from other countries don't understand our country the same way we do not understand yours.

    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.


    well in the usa you can buy drugs from another country. i wouldnt try narcotics but i bought drugs with a perscription from india before at a huge discount. now the post office made me go there and pick it up and the lady at the counter was spinning it around looking at it. it said on the outside it was perscription medication. it's none of her business nor the us post office's business to verify that.

    i also get my contact lenses from canada. i dont use a perscription because i know what i need. and eye doctors can fuck off.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Wed Mar 23 04:04:46 2022
    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to the doctor on Wed Mar 23 04:05:11 2022
    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed Mar 23 04:09:49 2022
    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed Mar 23 04:14:02 2022
    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Wed Mar 23 05:34:09 2022
    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 anymore 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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Wed Mar 23 05:50:26 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:35 pm

    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.

    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Wed Mar 23 06:06:23 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: MRO to Arelor on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:04 am

    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.

    Minimum wage seems common in countries with capital based socialism. I agree it tends to be a selling point more than a regulation that kicks into action frequently.

    My hipothesis is that the reason why minimum wage jobs are not very common is because they force employers to pay more than they are willing for certain tasks. If you think tax X is worth 2
    bucks, you are not going to pay 3 just because some Minister has told you it is worth 3.

    The theory behind minimum wages is that if you are paying 2 bucks for the task, a min cost of 3 will turn most tasks worth 2 bucks into 3 bucks tasks. The problem is a lot of employers would
    rather restructure the firm and get rid of the employee (or cease performing the task at all) rather than get the job done for more money that they think it is worth. In practice this means
    that instead of finding people being paid 3 bucks for doing something worth 2, you find an engineer getting 9999999 for doing four million tasks with a robot. And an unemployment queue five
    miles long.

    Seriously, a friend of mine did automation plans in asia, and a chief reason why they could not roll lots of automation plans in China was because chinesse workers were cheaper and more
    reliable than machines.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to MRO on Wed Mar 23 11:36:00 2022
    --- 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.

    As am I, and I usually do that, however, it seemed a long post to quote
    (and scroll though) for a one line reply.

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From Greenlfc@VERT/BEERS20 to the doctor on Wed Mar 23 06:15:00 2022
    On 23 Mar 2022, the doctor said the following...

    You preach anarchy.
    `
    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.

    GreenLFC º e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
    Infosec / Ham / Retro º masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
    Avoids Politics on BBS º gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz
  • From Greenlfc@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Wed Mar 23 06:18:00 2022
    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 º e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
    Infosec / Ham / Retro º masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
    Avoids Politics on BBS º gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz
  • From Greenlfc@VERT/BEERS20 to Boraxman on Wed Mar 23 06:23:00 2022
    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.

    GreenLFC º e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
    Infosec / Ham / Retro º masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
    Avoids Politics on BBS º gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Wed Mar 23 10:42:00 2022
    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...

    I think MRO missed the /sarcasm here... LOL

    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.

    It's not like that anymore. usa sold itself out. jobs went to
    india and china.

    Some did. Not all.

    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.

    So..... do you think there's any relationship between not handling your finances well and not being able to buy a house?

    Yup.


    ... A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to the doctor on Wed Mar 23 10:44:00 2022
    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.

    Doesn't matter. Top-posting is always the wrong choice.


    ... Something will have to be done, something irresponsible.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Gamgee on Wed Mar 23 10:02:58 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    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?

    Yup.

    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.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to GREENLFC on Wed Mar 23 18:47:00 2022
    --- 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.

    I see. Well, we're unlikely to have a meeting of minds here, then. (:


    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to GAMGEE on Wed Mar 23 19:11:00 2022
    --- GAMGEE wrote ---
    the doctor wrote to MRO <=-

    Doesn't matter. Top-posting is always the wrong choice.


    I feel dirty.


    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to the doctor on Wed Mar 23 15:57:00 2022
    the doctor wrote to GAMGEE <=-

    Doesn't matter. Top-posting is always the wrong choice.

    I feel dirty.

    Haha! That actually made me LOL for real. :-)

    Thanks for not being easily offended, like so many.

    All good, cheers.



    ... If it weren't for Edison we'd be using computers by candlelight
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Wed Mar 23 16:14:00 2022
    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.

    As far as jobs, companies these days seem to change their plans
    all the time.

    That depends greatly on the industry. The company I work for does NOT
    do that.

    They'll start new projects and cancel projects all
    the time, resulting in layoffs.

    Not all industries have "projects" that change.

    There's no such thing as company loyalty anymore -

    I have to STRONGLY disagree with that statement. I am very loyal
    to mine, and would have a hard time picturing a scenario where I
    would want to leave it.

    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.

    Again that's not always true in all industries. I am CERTAIN that
    my company would not let me go unless I gave them good reason to do
    so. It's virtually unheard of for an employee to leave for something
    else. It's a multi-billion dollar company, in a very specialized
    industry, and some of the employees (like me) are so highly trained
    and specialized that they would not like to lose us. The industry
    I speak of is the cancer-treatment world, specifically radiation
    therapy. I maintain linear accelerator machines that produce the
    radiation. They've invested a LOT of money and time in me, and
    quite honestly I would be hard to replace. I'll be here until I
    retire, no doubt. My whole point here is that I didn't arrive in
    this place by accident, I worked hard and made moves to get what
    I wanted. Sometimes folks should think about doing that if they
    are not happy or are not getting what they need.



    ... FIGHT BACK! ... Fill out your tax forms with Roman numerals.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Thu Mar 24 16:10:00 2022
    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. ---

    Karl Deninger from the Market-Ticker website talks about this, how it is odd that you are "forced" into purchasing a product, without being able to know the price.

    Complications means there is additional beaurocracy which means additional cost.

    In Australia, there is a public system, but if you want private insurace, you pay for that yourself. It can be expensive, I'm paying about $400 AUD a month for a family of four, but it doesn't cover much in the way of dental. I'm not sure its worth it really. The government doesn't want people to rely on the public system, to take private health insurance, but its hard to justify the cost, especially when you're younger.


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Thu Mar 24 16:16:00 2022
    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. ---

    I did get an inheritance as well, which helped a lot to buy effectively one of the few affordable properties left. In the 4 years since I've bought it, the price of my house according to market data has increased nearly $200K. I don't know how younger people can possible keep up.

    It wasn't just the USA which sold itself out, we all did. Offshoring jobs was a foolish move, a false economy. We got "cheap goods", but at the cost of manufacturing, and perhaps, as we may find out soon, the cost of our nations itself as the country which got rich off us giving them our manuacturing base turns on us and seeks to dominate us.

    Contrary to what some people say, I think we need more economic Nationalism. I had hopes the USA would head toward that direction with Trump, and with Bannon influencing him, but not much happened in that regard.

    I'm all for economic freedom, but not if people are going to use that freedom to white-ant their own nation.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Thu Mar 24 16:23:00 2022
    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 rent
    any
    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 threat 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 and 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 what *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 taxation is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property and it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in order 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.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Thu Mar 24 16:27:00 2022
    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.

    I don't agree that taxation is theft, that argument is claimed by its adherents to be logically consistent, but it isn't. However, I do agree that if the state abuses taxation, then it becomes illegitimate, or more specifically, it becomes morally justifiable to oppose taxation regimes which become tyrannical, harmful or pathological.

    But the issue is how taxation is used, not whether it exists or not. Here the "tax is theft" types fail, because they want to undo the benefits of a state, and in place, offer an untested, untried system based on dubious theory with no real historical precedent or observational evidence to back it up.

    "Tax is theft" is also quite dogmatic, and reveals a philosophy contrary to Western ideals.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Greenlfc on Thu Mar 24 16:36:00 2022
    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.

    That is according to YOUR morals, and YOUR values. According to mine, my view of property rights, autonomy and my morals and values, the state has a right to make a property claim from citizens in a quid-pro-quo where functional civilisation is offered in return.

    For you to argue that your morals are right, and mine are wrong, you would need to provide some objective basis for that judgement, and none exists. There is no objective way to categorise one set of morals as "true" and one as "false". Your view and mine are EQUAL in that they are both proposed frameworks of rights.

    There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.

    Modern Western civilisation is based on the premise that we own ourselves, and that we are able to adapt our values, our framework as we develop our philosophy and understanding, and respond to learned experience. Simply claiming a specific set of morals as true, and others as false, is dogmatism, dogmatism which in other ideological systems, has led to tyranny.

    We don't do that. Our success is because we allow a marketplace of ideas, and recognise that morals are not absolute, but instead subservient to our needs our situation. We change them, there is no absolute right or wrong. It is incumbent upon us to sell our ideas, to argue how our moral framework is better.

    It is for this reason I find Liberatarianism actually a tyranny in disguise. Hans Herman Hoppe represents the end result, the 'telos' of this style of thinking, a justification for exclusion, disposession, pogroms and murder.

    Again, a system which claims that property is theft, or that your empty land you own is theft, is also an equally valid system.

    You may argue for the merits of yours, how it improves human dignity, quality of life, but you cannot a-priori simply state it is true.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Greenlfc on Thu Mar 24 16:40:00 2022
    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.

    Urbanisation isn't necessarily a bad thing. All around the world people are seeking to move to cities.

    By the way, looking at a graph of US debt in the 20th century, Federal debt drops from the WWII period to the 80s, when it starts to increase, and local debt remains somewhat constant, with a low point soon after WWII (to be expected).

    I can say a similar thing is true for Australia. Building things on debt isn't a necessarily bad thing either. You need to borrow to build, ask anyone who has build or bought their own house.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Thu Mar 24 16:54:00 2022
    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.

    Minimum wage is made into an issue by some Right Wing "Conservative" types, but it really isn't the issue here in Australia people think it is, and our minimum wage is higher than the US.

    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.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Gamgee on Thu Mar 24 16:56:00 2022
    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.


    In Australia, its that bad everywhere, except in the middle of nowhere.


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Dr. What@VERT/CFBBS to Nightfox on Thu Mar 24 05:24:00 2022
    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.

    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.

    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.


    ... I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with you!
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From Dr. What@VERT/CFBBS to Boraxman on Thu Mar 24 05:24:00 2022
    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

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Mar 24 05:54:30 2022
    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Thu Mar 24 06:31:11 2022
    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.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Dr. What on Thu Mar 24 05:15:40 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dr. What to Nightfox on Thu Mar 24 2022 09:24 am

    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.

    Wrong! Government jobs seem to be for life.

    ... Criminal lawyer. Isn't that redundant?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Dr. What on Thu Mar 24 05:18:40 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dr. What to Nightfox on Thu Mar 24 2022 09:24 am

    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.

    Makes sense, though where I am, they've been building new houses and apartments all over the place for the past several years. Some new houses have been sold before they're even finished being built. And new apartment complexes look like people have moved into many of the units right when they're done being built. I have heard of an 'urban growth boundary' in my area though, which probably isn't helping.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Thu Mar 24 07:36:52 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Thu Mar 24 2022 08:40 pm

    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Thu Mar 24 08:07:07 2022
    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.


    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.



    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Thu Mar 24 08:18:51 2022
    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 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.

    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 often get into houses while their owners are out on vacation and then won't let them in. Many people who can actually afford rent move into a house and then refuse 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 your property claims, this is, you pay a group of tough guys who move in and one way 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

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dr. What on Thu Mar 24 08:24:01 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dr. What to Boraxman on Thu Mar 24 2022 09:24 am

    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

    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Thu Mar 24 10:08:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Thu Mar 24 2022 08:23 pm

    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 rent
    any
    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.



    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

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Arelor on Thu Mar 24 10:16:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to Boraxman on Thu Mar 24 2022 12:18 pm

    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


    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Dr. What on Fri Mar 25 16:21:00 2022
    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".

    Tell me then, how do you determine, objectively, outside of an individuals subjective valation, what is right and what is wrong?



    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Fri Mar 25 16:23:00 2022
    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. ---

    I haven't been, but my wife was there for a year, and she says tipping, if not mandatory, is expected. The workers are reliant on tips. Sometimes it is on the bill. I saw this in Europe as well. In Australia, we generally don't, unless there is an exception (or your rich). I do tip taxi drivers, but for a meal, a coffee, no, very rarely.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 16:41:00 2022
    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.

    The population does have a say in democracies, in societies which recognise a right to self-ownership and self-governance. I do concur with critiques that we have now does not match this ideal, but that idea is sound. Modern Liberal 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, governing ourselves. This is a preferable form of governance than autocracy.

    The states claims are legitimate because we believe them to be so. That is the 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 legitimate, 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 not believe the state to be legitimate, then so be it, it is no longer legitimate. It could force itself, but then it would be a tyranny. A state which takes our money under the pretext of providing basic social service sand uses it to keep up discriminatory policies, etc, would, should, according to Western values, be considered illegitimate.

    This is the flaw in Libertarian reasoning. It proposes that an axiom alone can render a state legitimate, which is closer to how tyrannies operate (adopt our 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. There is no "natural" state of property rights. The moment you accept that someone 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 are now, with a claim that the management of property is legitimate, and the entity deciding so, enforcing that, is legitimate.

    Now, if your claim was the state is usurping its power, abusing the system, is failing to uphold the ideals that modern Western civlised culture is based of, and that those in power should be replaced, by means of revolution with those who CAN uphold those ideals, then that is a claim I can agree with. But what people want to do, is use this problem as a means of sneaking in their own ideal

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 16:47:00 2022
    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.

    Some people in Australia, generally the fiscally illiterate mainstream "right wing" codgers, say debt is bad. Period. Oddly, they are silent on the massive private debt we have.

    The Liberal party play to this demographic, and seek to pay off debt, but in doing so, cut back spending creating infrastructure debt. Things we need don't get build because they want the metrics to look good.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 16:58:00 2022
    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.

    It is not my proposition, it is a description of reality. Property can only come from an authority to back it up. If you want to challenge this statement, then offer a means by which you can make someone a trespasser on land you own, without an authority to enforce it and without forcing the idea that you CAN have that land as your property onto all.

    Property is not a natural right, it is a social consensus. You have property because *I* recognise that it is your property, and everyone else does (and has to). Without us recognising your claim, you have no right to property.

    Do you have a means by which everyone will universally recognise all the same property claims voluntarily, without any deviation?

    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 keep the state in check, INCLUDING an armed population. You cannot have freedom if you are not willing to oppose the state. Opposing the state is very legitimate when it needs to be opposed and I think there are cases in the West where this 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?


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Fri Mar 25 17:02:00 2022
    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


    I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permanently, you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them). If people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Dr. What@VERT/CFBBS to Denn on Fri Mar 25 04:34:00 2022
    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.

    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 now we are getting into the whole "4th branch of gov't - The Bureaucracy" discussion.


    ... Plastic explosives will be appropriate later in the week.
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From Dr. What@VERT/CFBBS to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 04:34:00 2022
    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.

    Ya, "Progressive" wasn't really the term I was looking for. But I can't remember what the correct philosophical term was. "Deconstructionalist" wasn't quite it either.

    I'm sort of like what Gandalf said "A worthy man, but his memory is like a lumber-room: thing wanted always buried."

    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.

    Which is what always happens with these types of philosophies: they ignore reality and human nature, and end up failing badly. Yet the "intellectuals" keep pushing them.


    ... A dry sense of humor is better than slobbering everywhere
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From Dr. What@VERT/CFBBS to MRO on Fri Mar 25 04:34:00 2022
    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.


    ... Memories of you remind me of you.
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From Dr. What@VERT/CFBBS to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 04:34:00 2022
    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".


    ... A bird in the hand is better than one overhead!
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Dr. What on Fri Mar 25 04:54:54 2022
    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 work.
    the ones that do work usually screw over the tax payers.

    ... Arsonists of the world, ignite!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Dr. What on Fri Mar 25 11:18:24 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Dr. What to MRO on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:34 am

    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.

    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.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Fri Mar 25 14:52:53 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:41 pm

    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

    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 :-)

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Fri Mar 25 14:56:04 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:58 pm

    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.


    Ok, I think you got it. Great as far as I am concerned.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Boraxman on Fri Mar 25 15:44:43 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:58 pm

    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dr. What on Fri Mar 25 15:50:40 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Dr. What to MRO on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:34 am

    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.



    Here they may add a % for the extra services, but not call it "tip", in case of special events and the like.

    We don't tip much in Spain. Tips are reserved for outstanding work only. Waiters here are better paid than in places with tip culture because tips don't enter the equation at all.

    Which makes getting a tip at all at any service so much more special.

    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.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Denn on Fri Mar 25 15:59:36 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Denn to Dr. What on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:54 am

    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.


    I am very bitter with this subject.

    There is a meaningful number of public servants who work a lot but acomplish nothing. The FDA-like types are among the worst because they will visit your business, tell you to spend a load of money in licenses and certifications, and when they leave... the business is no safer than before. At all.

    Then there are the ones who work in departments which are actually useful (such as water distribution) but most often there is only one guy doing all the work while five others are playing minesweeper at their workstations.


    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 14:47:48 2022
    Re: The stay home and not wor
    By: Arelor to Dr. What on Fri Mar 25 2022 07:50 pm

    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.

    I feel like if they really need that additional money to stay in business, they might as well just charge more for their food & beverages up front. Then it wouldn't really seem like bait-and-switch pricing where you need to add a bit more in later.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Sat Mar 26 16:55:00 2022
    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 :-)

    It would be a tautology if we said that property exists due to an authority which makes it real, but that authority only exists because of property rights.

    A state can come to exist without prior property rights, but the other way around cannot happen. Hence no tautology.

    Regarding morality, I would agree that our current state, our current democracy of fundamentally broken. When Big Tech is able to cancel people, deny them access to the public square, when there is "Cancel Culture", declaration of hate-speech, it is not conducive to free and open discussion. When Australia was having the referendum on gay marriage, people are arguing that those against it shouldn't be allowed to argue their case because it was hateful and would cause distress.

    It isn't enough to have politicians which represent the will of the people, you need to have free and open discussion, where people can express their ideas.

    But the solution to this is to demand freedom of speech, demand representation, demand a return to those values we claim to hold (and really don't anymore). You can only have this if you deny people the right to silence others, to censure them, or just economically cut them off.

    But if what you want is moral absolutism, you have to state how this is done. What absolute values are we going to abide by? What authority is going to determine what is property and what is not property?


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Sat Mar 26 17:27:00 2022
    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.

    OK, I understand that. To recap, my objection initially was to the statement "taxation is theft". I am quite precise with my language, and one thing I don't like is sloppy use of terms. For example, it drives me up the wall when people use the term "literally" as emphasis. Like people who say "this literally drives me up the wall". No, it doesn't.

    Anyway, the issue with that statement is that property rights are decided by an authority. That does not have to be a nation state, it could be the Neighbourhood Junta. It could be the tribe, the family, it doesn't matter. What is required is that those within that jurisdiction abide, and have to abide. That system will determine what is, and what isn't, property. The definition of theft falls within that framework. People within that system still have to accept that people can own land, and that the town hall can rent it. Another system, which may be "anarchist" may not allow excess land ownership, another system may privatise ALl land, another system may not allow ownership of land, but you can only rent it from the "state" which could be run by a peoples council, i.e., you pay for ongoing monopolisation of the use of some land. One system could argue that the last one I described is 'stealing' by extracting rent, but its not stealing according to their legal framework.

    Lastly, I'm using the term 'state' and 'government' in the broadest possible sense, which is why I later just used 'state like system'. Really, the 'state like syste' could just even be tradition, but that would only work on a small, tribal scale. Nevertheless, it would need codes, laws, judiciary. There would need to be a way to agree on what is property. The confusion comes because people usually put forward rhetoric against the state, and government, but don't really elucidate the replacement, making people think they are anarchists. Some Libertarians ARE anarchists (Anarcho-Capitalists), and that philosophy is utterly confusing.

    As I said, I do not disagree with critiques of our current state, our current government, if its moral bankruptcy. I am not going to stand in the way of anyone attacking our "elite", our "elite" deserve to be treated as enemies of the people. But by the same token, people don't want to tear everything apart, or leave a power vaccuum for corporations to fill, so we need to balance speech criticising the system with solid replacements.

    For any system to scale, it is going to need some type of governing entity, which will have to use some framework to create a system of laws and property rights. Without that, we have nothing.

    So unless we are able to descale our societies down to small communes, the cry "taxation is theft" is pointless.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Dr. What on Sat Mar 26 17:45:00 2022
    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".

    And you are the expert who is going to decide? Who then? Who is going to determine what is property and not?

    I don't appreciate people making suggestions I'm a fascist, simply because they are unable to answer.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Dr. What@VERT/CFBBS to MRO on Sat Mar 26 14:31:00 2022
    MRO wrote to Dr. What <=-

    in the uk or the united states?

    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.

    I've seen a wider range of tipping recently.

    Usually, though, it's a at-customer's-discretion tip of x% of the bill (but if the service is really bad, no tip or a tiny tip - like 2 cents).

    Some other places have started to "push" the tip jar a little more heavily. I saw this before the scamdemic, where some places (like little coffee shops) made a little contest with 2 jars and the customer "votes" for one of the options by putting money into the option he likes best.

    But I've seen the tip jar next to the cash register far more often in the last year.

    But the only time that I've seen a tip "mandated" was in restaurants when we had an abnormally large group.


    ... Scaldophobia: Fear the toilet will flush while showering.
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Sat Mar 26 21:12:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Fri Mar 25 2022 09:02 pm

    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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to MOONDOG on Sun Mar 27 07:01:00 2022
    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.

    Indentured servatude. The debt was usually the cost of passage to the new world. The agreement usually included a clause that, if the servant broke
    the terms of the agreement (tried to leave before the debt was worked off,
    as an example), the person they had the agreement with could hold them as a servant indefinantly.

    There were some cases that were tried in court. One, in the late 1600's in Virgina, was noteworthy because the agreement holder was black (and a
    former servant), while the debtors were European and one black.

    The debtors claimed that they left the agreement holder because he was the
    one not honoring the agreement (their release time had passed, I think), and they found another farmer who would. The argreement holder lost the original case but, on the appeal, the black debtor was forced to go back to the
    original agreement holder.

    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.


    * SLMR 2.1a * He's as sharp as a marble.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Dumas Walker on Sun Mar 27 12:39:33 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Dumas Walker to MOONDOG on Sun Mar 27 2022 11:01 am

    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.


    they would also do stuff where they said they had cost the owner money but damaging equipment or whatever, and then tack on years.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Ogg@VERT/CAPCITY2 to Moondog on Sun Mar 27 11:59:00 2022
    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?

    --- OpenXP 5.0.51
    * Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Mon Mar 28 16:03:00 2022
    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.

    Slavery has also been based on a voluntary agreement too. Some schools of libertarian thought allow this as a valid contract. Should we allow voluntary 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 model which involves exactly this. They wouldn't call it slavery, it would have some "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, restructure 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 thing 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?


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Ogg on Mon Mar 28 10:09:00 2022
    Re: The stay home and not
    By: Ogg to Moondog on Sun Mar 27 2022 03:59 pm

    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?

    The city government

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to MRO on Mon Mar 28 11:44:00 2022
    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.

    The debt owner in the case in question did not sound real honest, so he may have been one that did that. It was definately not always the servant's
    fault.


    * SLMR 2.1a * I HATE call waitinNO CARRIER

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Boraxman on Mon Mar 28 10:16:00 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to Moondog on Mon Mar 28 2022 08:03 pm

    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?



    Voluntary servitude exists. Terms for employment at most companies would probably qualify since the servitude is based on compensation for time
    served.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Ogg@VERT/CAPCITY2 to Moondog on Mon Mar 28 15:59:00 2022
    Hello Moondog!

    ** On Monday 28.03.22 - 14:09, Moondog wrote to Ogg:

    My next door neighbors have a second home in Italy. [...]

    The main office was under renovation,so they
    commandeered the house. [...]

    WHO did the commandeering? The neighbours? The gov't?

    The city government

    Sounds like there may have been a delinquency in paying
    property taxes or something?

    Did the gov't just swoop in without trying to reach the owners?

    The gov't here in Canada usually swoops in and forces
    forclosure or sale on a property when an unreasonable amount of
    time has passed with unpaid taxes.


    --- OpenXP 5.0.51
    * Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
    þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From the doctor@VERT/QBBS to GAMGEE on Tue Mar 29 16:26:00 2022
    --- 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.


    I'm glad you liked it. I'm tired of the always offended people... and
    I've had enough of eternal september...

    ---
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."


    ---
    * TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Moondog on Wed Mar 30 16:05:00 2022
    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.


    I should point out that 'voluntary servitude' is a broad term, which can encompass contracts where one person agrees on some standing order, to produce and sell a particular number of units, or provide a particular service, on an ongoing basis. This isn't servitide as commonly defined, but it could be considered servitude by some broad application of the definition.

    Slavery ownership is the passing of *onesself* as the object. This too can be done voluntarily, but is slavery, as the person becomes the property of someone else.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to the doctor on Wed Mar 30 02:34:00 2022
    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...

    Eternal September was always like working semester rush at the University bookstore. When the dust settled and all of the wonks went back to their studies, greek rush, etc., you'd be left with one or two people who really
    got it, and they'd hang around.


    ... They'll start going ripe on us pretty soon.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From nostalia@VERT/TECHRONO to Dream Master on Mon Jun 6 14:30:56 2022
    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

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Techrono BBS - techrono.synchro.net
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MINDS3 to nostalia on Tue Jun 7 17:28:40 2022
    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?


    - 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.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to nostalia on Tue Jun 7 03:22:00 2022
    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?

    I used to rely on the slow boot-up time of my Dell D630, with a spinning
    drive and a ton of work-related management, inventory and security tools for
    a chance to walk to the kitchen and get a cup of coffee. By the time I
    walked to the kitchen, got the coffee, said hi to a few people and walked back, it had finished booting.

    SSDs took that valuable time from me!


    ... All those updates, and still imperfect!
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Tue Jun 7 03:25:00 2022
    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.




    ... All those updates, and still imperfect!
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From nostalia@VERT/TECHRONO to poindexter FORTRAN on Wed Jun 8 16:17:46 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to nostalia on Tue Jun 07 2022 07:22 am

    SSDs took that valuable time from me!
    Ya.. darn the new tech making things so fast!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Techrono BBS - techrono.synchro.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Jun 9 01:05:48 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to nostalia on Tue Jun 07 2022 09:28 pm

    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


    i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MINDS3 to poindexter FORTRAN on Thu Jun 9 17:04:37 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Tue Jun 07 2022 07:25 am

    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.




    Tempting. I just swapped out the drive only a month or two ago, so not required.

    Besides, this laptop takes IDE drives, not SATA.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MINDS3 to MRO on Thu Jun 9 17:05:36 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Jun 09 2022 05:05 am

    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 hate leaving stuff on unecessarily.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Thu Jun 9 02:42:29 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Jun 09 2022 05:05 am

    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

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Thu Jun 9 03:29:41 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jun 09 2022 09:05 pm

    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.

    i'm just afriad of losing resources that cant be gained unless i reboot.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Thu Jun 9 03:30:42 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Thu Jun 09 2022 06:42 am

    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
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Thu Jun 9 11:50:54 2022
    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 the chances of getting RAM corruption because you left it on for long get astronomically low anyway.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Arelor on Thu Jun 9 13:03:40 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Thu Jun 09 2022 03:50 pm

    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

    no there are actual different grades of electronics and military is one spec.

    my memory i put in myself.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MINDS3 to Arelor on Fri Jun 10 16:27:35 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: Arelor to MRO on Thu Jun 09 2022 06:42 am

    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

    Very unlikely that such an error would cause a problem. I did use a computer which had dodgy RAM, and that could cause the occasional crash or corruption, but even then it was usable.

    I switch it off for power saving, and because it is less wear and tear on the hard drives if they aren't spinning. My rule of thumb is if I' not going to be using the computer for more than 30-60 minutes or more, I switch it off, otherwise if I'm just walking away for a bit, and will be back, I'll leave it running.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Boraxman on Thu Jun 9 04:38:00 2022
    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?
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MINDS3 to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat Jun 11 08:26:07 2022
    Re: Re: The stay home and not
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Thu Jun 09 2022 08:38 am

    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?

    It is the best laptop keyboard. I've been spoiled. Using other laptops is just painful in comparison.

    The HDD speed is fine. Bootup is sluggish compared to my desktop but hibernating solves that problem. Most other programs I use are light, so it really doesn't make that much of a difference at all.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org