Deznal227 · Commenter of the Month · OP · 1 points ·
I'd argue it started in our caveman days where the biggest club meant you could just beat anyone up and take their things. But the one thing it couldn't do is protect you against a 1v1 with a tiger. But the people you spent beating up Could have helped you. So the big club guys just died out while the guys who co operate survived.

This of course is a bs theory since we were social animals long before we were cavemen.

What if the people you pay to protect your food decide to just kill you and take your food instead of protecting you from other food stealers. It's obvious to me that this theory is also bs because we don't protect things to get paid we do it to survive. It didn't come about by some rich mesapotemian who wanted to protect his stuff it came about from hundreds of people who wanted to NOT DIE.

Protecting you from food thieves isn't just a job for those people it's vital to their survival because they have things they don't want stolen too. If they don't protect you, you won't protect them. If you don't protect them they will just turn on you and steal your food no matter how much you want to pay them to spare your life.

So naturally I think the reason why you shouldn't try to steal from someone is because it's in your best interest not to. You can try and do it but you will be an outcast to everyone you know and that will make it hard to stay alive in the long term. So if evolution is to be believed we naturally prefer to not harm others because harm to others now means greater harm to us later.

In my view we are already living in an anarchists society, we just pretend we don't. For instance if I entered your house and decided to live there you'd probably call the authorities to get me out. But what if I by some chance manage to defeat them. Then of course the military will have to get involved. But if I turn out to be super human and defeat them too then what will be the next course of action? Nothing I would just live in your house because there are no more people to tell me that I can't.

Realistically I would have been shot the minute I resisted to leave the house. But my point is that these rules are only rules as long as someone can enforce them. Yet I feel people think these rules as something other than that. If the authorities on the other hand decided to do what I do they really would have no trouble at all. The reason they don't do what I do again has to do with the gains and losses. Sure they might have gained your house but now they have an angry populas who don't like the thought of their houses getting taken away from them.

So in essence they can do whatever they want, they just don't because the consequences outweigh the rewards.

To get back to the main point, i agree that we need things like property where you can go and do your thing. I just disagree that the houses we live in should be classified the same as our workplaces even if much of the reason for it overlap. A house is just for you and your family a workplace is for many people who's wishes have to be heard (heard, not necessarily realized, I've had people take that to mean that every absurd wish has to be fulfilled). And I refuse to believe that the best course of action is to let 1 person own a workplace completely for the simple reason that he either inherited it or bought it.

Deznal227 · Commenter of the Month · OP · 1 points ·
"who pays in cases of tax fraud" the owners shall come to the decision on their own I don't really think that I personally should tell people how to handle problems inside their own company.

"most slaves are happy with their slavery" idk why you brought up slavery into this but it's not a good argument. Also I don't really know how getting paid in shares works but I'm guessing it's not the same deal as I'm offering so I don't think it applies much.

I thought I said that there will be someone at the top, he just won't get to steal surplus value. The work employers do will still be done. The difference will be is that they can't use their employer status to get obscenely rich and if they aren't particularly good at their job they can get replaced.

If someone doesn't work and expects to get paid he will have a really bad experience. The owning part is not exactly the same way we own things under our current system. Working is a condition for owning.

That last bit is a disaster scenario where people forget that working together always beats working alone. Sure you can try and enter my house, but my neighbours with guns would much rather you didn't violate me in that way because that would imply that they too can meet the same fate. So they have an interest in making sure that the people who live in my house are me and the people I choose to let in.

Also this just boils down to if we get rid of property rights the world will collapse. Which is a very unimaginative take to have because it implies that there are no other alternatives to the system we have right now when there are countless of them.

Deznal227 · Commenter of the Month · OP · 1 points ·
Here is an alternative to your analogy. Instead of being a kulak, why don't you collectively own the orchard. Collectively pay for the resources and collectively share the risk of it getting destroyed. You can convince the people to pay for the insurance and the property tax if they own it with you.

Would I support being paid less if the company is not making profit? If I get to collectively own it then yes, I would. If I owned it I would know that the reason I'm not getting money is that there is no money to get not because someone wants to buy a better car.

I don't think employers should get paid 0, I think they shouldn't exist. They should be replaced with managerial positions filled by workers who get paid the amount they agree upon with the rest of the workers.

Everyone should be an owner, abolish the class system.

Deznal227 · Commenter of the Month · OP · 2 points ·
Yeah no I understand what you are getting at, I just disagree. I'm not really interested in doing hard math to figure out the exact number someone is worth, nor do I believe that is the best way to go about it.

The problem I see is not with figuring out exactly how much someone is worth but rather that someone gets way more than they put in. Like Tim Cook and apple stakeholders.

Let's get back to the thing you said "you can not reduce them to a number" meaning you can't completely figure out how much someone really contribute to the company. Why is it that the money you can't really attribute to the sales person have to go to the owner of the company.

I'd happily accept the market offering if the boss let's us decide what to do with the money he gets from us. Right now with our current contracts we don't have that option, we get the salary and he gets the profits. Our pay is more or less static his can grow or rise depending on company performance, why not lock his salary to be more a less of a ballpark of what owners make and just collectively decide what to do with any money he makes over that limit.

All I understand from you is "we can't figure out exactly how much employees are worth therefore we should just let the owner have all the profit". Again I'd accept this but the fact that businesses owners get paid way more than employees can only mean 2 things. They either add absurdly more value to the business than the employees or they are stealing from their employees. I personally think its the latter.

Deznal227 · Commenter of the Month · OP · 1 points ·
Essentially the more units the sales person sells the higher his pay right?

Deznal227 · Commenter of the Month · OP · 2 points ·
Could you elaborate on the steel mill IT guy analogy. If I understand correctly you meant to say "imagine the salary of the IT guy depending on the amount of money the steel mil made".

Deznal227 · Commenter of the Month · 1 points ·
I really would like to know what type of meme you think this is.

Deznal227 · Commenter of the Month · OP · 2 points ·
What OP is saying is that in order for a business to make money they need to pay you less than you are worth to them. That is what profit is, the difference between the price you sold the commodity for and the price you paid to get it. It is the same thing with employees, the value they add to your business must be less than the value you give them via salary otherwise you wouldn't make much money.

This still happens even if you show up 15 minutes late or leave 15 minutes early because at the end of the day you still have worked 7 full hours in which your employer made profit on your labor. Aka surplus value.

Of course I don't reserve the right to redefine what I worth. If I made a 15 dollar commodity I'm worth 15 dollars. But since I have a boss who can decide what he wants to pay me, he can choose to pay me 10 and pocket the difference / surplus value / profit.

I'm not asking for much, I'm just asking for my 5 dollars.

Deznal227 · Commenter of the Month · 16 points ·
Oh no, why did the footage cut off. Oh no why isn't he on suicide watch.

Deznal227 · Commenter of the Month · 13 points ·
I get it.

Don't you ever listen to the white man's lies.

Joined 2 years ago (2016-11-01 16:26:52).
Has 42,762 Karma.
Created 1,031 posts.
Wrote 970 comments.

Achievements Info

Hardcore Poster 09.08.2019

Karma Hunter 06.07.2019

Commenter of the Month 31.03.2017

Silver Club 01.06.2019

Experienced 31.05.2019

2-Year Club 01.11.2018

Poster 18.07.2017

Commenter 20.06.2017

Commenter of the Day x5 25.02.2017

1-Year Club 01.11.2017

Bronze Club 21.03.2017

Casual Poster 20.03.2017

Verified 15.02.2017

Casual Commenter 12.01.2017