How is making money off other people's backs a bad thing? I mean it's the what every working economic system ever is build upon.
I mean, I got a bunch of resources, but alone I am not capable of doing all the labor with it, so I pay a lot of people to do the labor for me.
I of course pay them less for the labor than I do earn with said labor so that I increase my resources and have my company grow.
this begs so many questions
precedent does not equal ethical soundness
where did you get the resources
why should they get paid less when they are doing the work that helps the company grow
why should you get paid more when you are not doing the same amount of work
Scarcity of resources and best allocation of skill. They get paid less because there are more people able to do that job. You get paid more because there are less people that can do what you can. Maybe the resource you bring to the table is Capital, and that has it's own value in the economy.
but again, how did you acquire the capital... is it reasonable that someone who essentially managed to stick a flag in the ground first should get to keep said ground
if i go to the grocery store and lick a cookie does it become mine
Ownership comes from the ability to protect an asset.
so if i lick the cookie and run away with it and the cops don't catch me then it's mine
Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)
Jigrah on
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it
oh, but I did. labor is a recourse that got a price, just like any else. so they get paid less because that is what we agreed upon.
I get paid more because I own the resources thanks to my power to claim them and so get to decide who gets to offer me the labor and who doesn't. if a person refuses to work for the payment I offer I will find someone else who does.
I got the resources from the previous owner. who got them from the one before him. a chain thta goes back till the first person who first claimed those resources.
Run Run Run on
0
Options
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.
As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.
the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them
it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does
what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that
well, those were barbaric times. nowadays you and me luckily live in civilized nations where the state protects our property rights.
if you don't agree with the government ... well tough shit. I agree that every form of government is in a way a form of dictatorship, but a necessary one for a peaceful human society to function. at least on a large scale.
The government protects my right to own the factory. But it also does, or at least should, protect me from being exploited, or at least unbearably exploited, by setting minimum wages and regulations for sound work conditions, and protecting me from discrimination, so that the factory owner only gets to refuse my offered labor due to my level of skill and not my skin color for example.
Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.
As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.
the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them
it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does
what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that
You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.
right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right
You get proven wrong that the government has that authority, it does.
In some countries might is only available through acts of Violence, in the United States there are other resources.
But Jigrah, government authority runs from the fact that the state has the guns
violaters are punished, etc. etc.
I agree that government authority comes from the fact that it has the guns. The same powers that give it the guns also empowers it's citizens in ways that do not require violence.
Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.
As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.
the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them
it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does
what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that
well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)
of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance
doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government
ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead
I understand your frustration and I mostly agree that it's a terrible and deliberately shady use of a law that has probably outlived it's useful life, but the fallout from Kelo is hopeful, the very public backlash has caused several states to put up bills limiting or eliminating the use of eminent domain for economic growth.
Usagi on
0
Options
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.
As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.
the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them
it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does
what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that
well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)
of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance
doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government
ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead
It is seriously the way the world has worked for a long, long time. Nation-states take the land and own it. That is why the hunter-gatherer societies aren't around anymore. We pushed them out.
Sure the way we did it was really, really shitty, but that is over now. I think discussing it is a moot point because we are not going back to a point where nobody "owns land, man" because somebody else will use their guns to take it.
Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.
As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.
the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them
it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does
what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that
well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)
of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance
doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government
ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead
I understand your frustration and I mostly agree that it's a terrible and deliberately shady use of a law that has probably outlived it's useful life, but the fallout from Kelo is hopeful, the very public backlash has caused several states to put up bills limiting or eliminating the use of eminent domain for economic growth.
usagi i was playing the devil's advocate and now i am stopping
i have no frustration
i like owning my house and would not appreciate the seminole indian tribe trying to take it back from me
itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it
you heard it here first folks
I said ownership is the ability to protect something. How the fuck do you run with that and say I support theft?
i said i went to a grocery store and licked a cookie and ran away with it and you said therefore it was mine
i stole a cookie but because i didn't get caught it's ok to you
you said
Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)
I didn't say that it was okay with me I said that at the point you had ownership because now you could protect the asset.
so you don't think it's okay but you do think it creates ownership
seriously
Well, please help me out then, how do you define ownership? In a meaningful way that has realistic application. That is the only way I have been able to define it, and has been something I have thought about a lot.
Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.
As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.
the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them
it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does
what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that
You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.
right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right
You get proven wrong that the government has that authority, it does.
In some countries might is only available through acts of Violence, in the United States there are other resources.
But Jigrah, government authority runs from the fact that the state has the guns
violaters are punished, etc. etc.
I agree that government authority comes from the fact that it has the guns. The same powers that give it the guns also empowers it's citizens in ways that do not require violence.
bingo
Government protects us and that's why we choose to live under the rule of government
at least, that's one theory on why we deal with it
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.
As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.
the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them
it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does
what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that
well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)
of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance
doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government
ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead
I understand your frustration and I mostly agree that it's a terrible and deliberately shady use of a law that has probably outlived it's useful life, but the fallout from Kelo is hopeful, the very public backlash has caused several states to put up bills limiting or eliminating the use of eminent domain for economic growth.
usagi i was playing the devil's advocate and now i am stopping
i have no frustration
i like owning my house and would not appreciate the seminole indian tribe trying to take it back from me
gotcha, no worries this is just something that fascinates me because it's a huge local issue
Usagi on
0
Options
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.
As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.
the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them
it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does
what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that
well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)
of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance
doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government
ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead
I understand your frustration and I mostly agree that it's a terrible and deliberately shady use of a law that has probably outlived it's useful life, but the fallout from Kelo is hopeful, the very public backlash has caused several states to put up bills limiting or eliminating the use of eminent domain for economic growth.
usagi i was playing the devil's advocate and now i am stopping
i have no frustration
i like owning my house and would not appreciate the seminole indian tribe trying to take it back from me
Yeah even though you were arguing with idiots it was kind of a losing battle.
Besides, didn't they fight amongst themselves all the time anyway?
I think tho that a more civilized people has the right to take away land and resources from a less civilized one if it furthers the development of the human race.
What I am saying is that the North should kick out the Texans and take their oil.
Run Run Run on
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
I think tho that a more civilized people has the right to take away land and resources from a less civilized one if it furthers the development of the human race.
What I am saying is that the North should kick out the Texans and take their oil.
I don't think that this is right so much as it is inevitable.
Hence the whole nation-states eating the hunter-gathering societies.
Posts
Well thats something i also agree with.
Though i think there should be robust legal limitations to.
And some industries are too important to be left to private corporations.
But what about the moon? Taxpayer dollars paid for the first landing there. And good luck getting anyone to recognize our dominion over the moon.
the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them
it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does
what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that
Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)
you heard it here first folks
you're probably right, Pony
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.
Then the government will use guns to take it away from you. That is kind of how it works.
Although in today's world it is getting harder to get away with taking land away from other people with guns.
oh, but I did. labor is a recourse that got a price, just like any else. so they get paid less because that is what we agreed upon.
I get paid more because I own the resources thanks to my power to claim them and so get to decide who gets to offer me the labor and who doesn't. if a person refuses to work for the payment I offer I will find someone else who does.
I got the resources from the previous owner. who got them from the one before him. a chain thta goes back till the first person who first claimed those resources.
right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right
I said ownership is the ability to protect something. How the fuck do you run with that and say I support theft?
this actually cheered me up a bit, thinking about it
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
i said i went to a grocery store and licked a cookie and ran away with it and you said therefore it was mine
i stole a cookie but because i didn't get caught it's ok to you
you said
well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)
You get proven wrong that the government has that authority, it does.
In some countries might is only available through acts of Violence, in the United States there are other resources.
of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance
doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government
ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead
I didn't say that it was okay with me I said that at the point you had ownership because now you could protect the asset.
But Jigrah, government authority runs from the fact that the state has the guns
violaters are punished, etc. etc.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
so you don't think it's okay but you do think it creates ownership
seriously
well, those were barbaric times. nowadays you and me luckily live in civilized nations where the state protects our property rights.
if you don't agree with the government ... well tough shit. I agree that every form of government is in a way a form of dictatorship, but a necessary one for a peaceful human society to function. at least on a large scale.
The government protects my right to own the factory. But it also does, or at least should, protect me from being exploited, or at least unbearably exploited, by setting minimum wages and regulations for sound work conditions, and protecting me from discrimination, so that the factory owner only gets to refuse my offered labor due to my level of skill and not my skin color for example.
I agree that government authority comes from the fact that it has the guns. The same powers that give it the guns also empowers it's citizens in ways that do not require violence.
I understand your frustration and I mostly agree that it's a terrible and deliberately shady use of a law that has probably outlived it's useful life, but the fallout from Kelo is hopeful, the very public backlash has caused several states to put up bills limiting or eliminating the use of eminent domain for economic growth.
It is seriously the way the world has worked for a long, long time. Nation-states take the land and own it. That is why the hunter-gatherer societies aren't around anymore. We pushed them out.
Sure the way we did it was really, really shitty, but that is over now. I think discussing it is a moot point because we are not going back to a point where nobody "owns land, man" because somebody else will use their guns to take it.
usagi i was playing the devil's advocate and now i am stopping
i have no frustration
i like owning my house and would not appreciate the seminole indian tribe trying to take it back from me
Well, please help me out then, how do you define ownership? In a meaningful way that has realistic application. That is the only way I have been able to define it, and has been something I have thought about a lot.
bingo
Government protects us and that's why we choose to live under the rule of government
at least, that's one theory on why we deal with it
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
gotcha, no worries this is just something that fascinates me because it's a huge local issue
Yeah even though you were arguing with idiots it was kind of a losing battle.
Besides, didn't they fight amongst themselves all the time anyway?
i am busy doing research for my novel
what is scarier, a giant squid or lots of tiny aggressive squid
I may be wrong, but if that's true it's pretty badass
What I am saying is that the North should kick out the Texans and take their oil.
the hard rock casino in fort lauderdale says no
Lots of tiny squid.
With the big one, at least you can go for its eye or something.
lots of tiny aggressive squid.... working as a team
tiny squid. billions of tiny squid. A redish carpet upon the waves.
I don't think that this is right so much as it is inevitable.
Hence the whole nation-states eating the hunter-gathering societies.