"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[untermensche]

Putting labor towards something is investing yourself in it.

If you need no other humans than you can dictate all you want, like a writer or painter.

If you need others you have no human right to dictate over them, only a bad tradition of that immoral practice.

Because if I want somebody to mow my lawn they don't actually have to mow the lawn

You need the labor as much as the labor needs money.

You are not performing a service. You are engaging in a relationship.

In reality capitalist dictatorships exist so that those at the top can steal from all below.

A social relationship where one person steals the fruits of labor from others is immoral.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And your investment of labor is rewarded with a paycheck and benefits.

Also your idea of labor that doesn't include anyone is pretty silly. Writers need publishers or the internet to get their work out. Painters need clients and supplies made by others.

Every business ever requires consumers to purchase their goods or services. Without customers a business has nothing, so should customers be allowed to participate in business decisions since they're involved in the success of my business?

It is of course fitting that labor receive compensation.

That has nothing to do with the matter of an immoral social structure.

People have different skills and that may lead to a difference in compensation, but it certainly gives nobody the right to be a dictator.

No human has that right, despite our moral infancy that presently allows it.

So if I want somebody to mow my lawn I can't dictate that they actually mow my lawn?

 

[KeepTalking]

Thanks for the good laugh this morning. I do have history on my side. All you have for history is one example of an area that failed quickly and you have one example of a company that somewhat implements your ideas. That's no history at all. We do have history of countries trying to implement the workers paradise and totalitarian regimes going into place.

Yes, you have the history of humans moving from dictatorship in government to democracy.

You can clearly see how it can be done.

You have no excuse for defending dictatorship.

Are you forgetting your position that capitalism is the same as a dictatorship? Given that position, it seems that most of those democracies to which you refer are still actually dictatorships.

 

[untermensche]

It is of course fitting that labor receive compensation.

That has nothing to do with the matter of an immoral social structure.

People have different skills and that may lead to a difference in compensation, but it certainly gives nobody the right to be a dictator.

No human has that right, despite our moral infancy that presently allows it.

So if I want somebody to mow my lawn I can't dictate that they actually mow my lawn?

If you need labor you must pay for it.

You cannot create some structure where those at the top steal from all below.

 

[KeepTalking]

So if I want somebody to mow my lawn I can't dictate that they actually mow my lawn?

If you need labor you must pay for it.

You cannot create some structure where those at the top steal from all below.

Sure you can. History is replete with examples, see slavery.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So if I want somebody to mow my lawn I can't dictate that they actually mow my lawn?

If you need labor you must pay for it.

You cannot create some structure where those at the top steal from all below.

Of course you pay for it. You agree to giving the person $10 for mowing the lawn, but that means they mow the lawn.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, you have the history of humans moving from dictatorship in government to democracy.

You can clearly see how it can be done.

You have no excuse for defending dictatorship.

Are you forgetting your position that capitalism is the same as a dictatorship? Given that position, it seems that most of those democracies to which you refer are still actually dictatorships.

I draw distinctions between government and economic institutions.

They are actually separate things even if presently intertwined.

In government huge struggles rid humanity of dictators.

It is time humans rid themselves of the immorality of dictatorship in the workplace too.

And the dictatorial power that is most concerning is the dictatorial control of finances and planning.

This allows businesses to steal from workers and send jobs overseas.

The concern is not that in an organization there is a division of labor and some will lead while most follow.

- - - Updated - - -

If you need labor you must pay for it.

You cannot create some structure where those at the top steal from all below.

Of course you pay for it. You agree to giving the person $10 for mowing the lawn, but that means they mow the lawn.

This is not a concern.

The concern is when a tiny few at the top of some organization have total control and steal from all below.

- - - Updated - - -

If you need labor you must pay for it.

You cannot create some structure where those at the top steal from all below.

Sure you can. History is replete with examples, see slavery.

I did not mean it was impossible.

I meant it was immoral.

Paying for labor gives nobody the right to create some petty dictatorship.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Your definition of stealing is different than anybody else's definition of stealing. If one kid wants to mow my lawn for $7 and one kid wants to do it for $10 I am not stealing $3 from the one kid. There are many businesses that aren't operating at a profit, so is it immoral in that case that workers are "stealing" from the company?

 

[untermensche]

Your definition of stealing is different than anybody else's definition of stealing. If one kid wants to mow my lawn for $7 and one kid wants to do it for $10 I am not stealing $3 from the one kid. There are many businesses that aren't operating at a profit, so is it immoral in that case that workers are "stealing" from the company?

If the kid that only takes $7 does so because he will starve unless he takes it you are not stealing.

You are corrupt though. Taking advantage of dire circumstances.

If there is some operation that makes money that money belongs to all who labored for it.

And how it should be divided should not be decided by a few dictators at the top who take the most for themselves. That is theft.

Capitalist theft takes place within capitalist institutions.

Not in your backyard.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Your definition of stealing is different than anybody else's definition of stealing. If one kid wants to mow my lawn for $7 and one kid wants to do it for $10 I am not stealing $3 from the one kid. There are many businesses that aren't operating at a profit, so is it immoral in that case that workers are "stealing" from the company?

If the kid that only takes $7 does so because he will starve unless he takes it you are not stealing.

You are corrupt though. Taking advantage of dire circumstances.

If there is some operation that makes money that money belongs to all who labored for it.

And how it should be divided should not be decided by a few dictators at the top who take the most for themselves. That is theft.

Capitalist theft takes place within capitalist institutions.

Not in your backyard.

So if I know the kid that is asking for $7 to mow the lawn is needing it for food, should I morally be obligated to a) not have him mow because I am taking advantage of him b) pay him $25K for it so he can eat and be comfortable or c) Reach a mutually agreeable price of $7 that we both benefit from the trade?


Your solution is a) which makes us both worse off

 

[coloradoatheist]

And now let's add a third party

I think people will like Lemonade in in my neighborhood but I don't want to be the one selling it so for that kid I say I will pay him $7 an hour to do it but I will be everything else. I sell the lemonade for $15 an hour. And it costs me $7 an hour to get the stuff. So I make $1 an hour, the kid makes $7 and my neighbors get lemonade. Three parties mutually benefit and under your system all three parties don't do it and three parties miss out.

 

[untermensche]

If the kid that only takes $7 does so because he will starve unless he takes it you are not stealing.

You are corrupt though. Taking advantage of dire circumstances.

If there is some operation that makes money that money belongs to all who labored for it.

And how it should be divided should not be decided by a few dictators at the top who take the most for themselves. That is theft.

Capitalist theft takes place within capitalist institutions.

Not in your backyard.

So if I know the kid that is asking for $7 to mow the lawn is needing it for food, should I morally be obligated to a) not have him mow because I am taking advantage of him b) pay him $25K for it so he can eat and be comfortable or c) Reach a mutually agreeable price of $7 that we both benefit from the trade?


Your solution is a) which makes us both worse off

Your moral obligation is to put yourself in their shoes.

What would you take to mow the lawn?

 

[coloradoatheist]

So if I know the kid that is asking for $7 to mow the lawn is needing it for food, should I morally be obligated to a) not have him mow because I am taking advantage of him b) pay him $25K for it so he can eat and be comfortable or c) Reach a mutually agreeable price of $7 that we both benefit from the trade?


Your solution is a) which makes us both worse off

Your moral obligation is to put yourself in their shoes.

What would you take to mow the lawn?

I don't know that, because I am not that person. It's something both sides can agree on what it will take for them to mow the lawn.

 

[LordKiran]

And your investment of labor is rewarded with a paycheck and benefits.

Also your idea of labor that doesn't include anyone is pretty silly. Writers need publishers or the internet to get their work out. Painters need clients and supplies made by others.

Every business ever requires consumers to purchase their goods or services. Without customers a business has nothing, so should customers be allowed to participate in business decisions since they're involved in the success of my business?

It is of course fitting that labor receive compensation.

That has nothing to do with the matter of an immoral social structure. [1]

People have different skills and that may lead to a difference in compensation, but it certainly gives nobody the right to be a dictator. [2]

No human has that right, despite our moral infancy that presently allows it.[3]

1. Which has nothing to do with the topic-at-hand in the first place, so don't throw stones in glass houses.

2. Doesn't answer my question, both employee and consumer are investing something into the business with the expectation of getting something in return, so why should one be given decision-making privileges but not the other?

3. Also doesn't answer my question. You also shouldn't argue from a position of morality as it's the weakest argument you can make.

 

[untermensche]

Your moral obligation is to put yourself in their shoes.

What would you take to mow the lawn?

I don't know that, because I am not that person. It's something both sides can agree on what it will take for them to mow the lawn.

You can't know how much it would take to get you to do it?

Did you just have a stroke?

 

[LordKiran]

I don't know that, because I am not that person. It's something both sides can agree on what it will take for them to mow the lawn.

You can't know how much it would take to get you to do it?

Did you just have a stroke?

Lose the attitude, it's not called for.

 

[fromderinside]

No lawn. Lives in Mountains yano.

 

[untermensche]

It is of course fitting that labor receive compensation.

That has nothing to do with the matter of an immoral social structure. [1]

People have different skills and that may lead to a difference in compensation, but it certainly gives nobody the right to be a dictator. [2]

No human has that right, despite our moral infancy that presently allows it.[3]

1. Which has nothing to do with the topic-at-hand in the first place, so don't throw stones in glass houses.

2. Doesn't answer my question, both employee and consumer are investing something into the business with the expectation of getting something in return, so why should one be given decision-making privileges but not the other?

3. Also doesn't answer my question. You also shouldn't argue from a position of morality as it's the weakest argument you can make.

This has everything to do with that I'm talking about.

Human morality is the highest position.

If you are talking about other things, good luck with all that.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't know how much it would take to get you to do it?

Did you just have a stroke?

Lose the attitude, it's not called for.

Lose the attitude.

Children do not dictate to me.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I don't know that, because I am not that person. It's something both sides can agree on what it will take for them to mow the lawn.

You can't know how much it would take to get you to do it?

Did you just have a stroke?

I hate mowing because I'm allergic to grass so for me it would probalby be over $30 an hour for mowing grass, but for someone else it's an entirely different number.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Morality plays a point, but we are talking the difference between an agreed upon choice compared to a non agreed choice. Rape is having sex with someone who says no, but having consensual sex isn't. He's trying to say that consensual sex is rape.