I don't know everything you done. All I know is that, above, you said that the best solution to your problem was the use of guns. If you believe you have that right, so does everyone else.
How in God's name can you claim ownership of land when you're about to demonstrate that the only right of ownership extends from violence???
Ownership, particularly corporate ownership, is necessarily violence...unless it is collective, whether it be ideologically or physically, then one person or group of persons is necessarily gaining more from a relationship than another. For example in a business as an owner you pay someone less than they are worth to your company, that's how you gain profit. As such you are necessarily violating them. Even if someone feels that they are compensated fairly, in a profitable company, the owner always makes more than the physical labor that went into the product was actually worth. They claim it to be intellectual, and that it is their product so that they should make money from it, but why? Why do you need a profit from what you make? Is there no collective goodwill for the betterment of humanity?
Not in free market capitalism. In free market capitalism the goal is to reduce every individual to monetary worth through what they benefit society. I fail to see how this could possibly work without evening the playing field for all, it makes no sense. That's the neoliberal push, the WTO, Corporate Welfare, Trickle Down Economics, Pull Yerself up by the bootstraps Reaganite America, the rollback of corporate taxes, kickbacks, etc. Not all of that is Randian, but certainly some essences of her beliefs are what inspired Reagan's handlers into making this selfish mess we have today.
Ownership, particularly corporate ownership, is necessarily violence...unless it is collective, whether it be ideologically or physically, then one person or group of persons is necessarily gaining more from a relationship than another.
Hehe. Did you say that to yourself the last time you ate?
For example in a business as an owner you pay someone less than they are worth to your company, that's how you gain profit.
No, that's how I go out of business because my competitor simply pays them what they're worth and I then have no employees.
As such you are necessarily violating them.
Does the reverse hold true for the minimum wage then, since those who make it are being paid more than what they're worth?
Even if someone feels that they are compensated fairly, in a profitable company, the owner always makes more than the physical labor that went into the product was actually worth.
Not very many companies make twice their investment per year in profit, so that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
They claim it to be intellectual, and that it is their product so that they should make money from it, but why?
For the same reason you wish to profit from your physical labor. If I task you with digging a ditch, do I have a right to withhold your payment?
Why do you need a profit from what you make?
So that I can make something else.
Is there no collective goodwill for the betterment of humanity?
Let me know when I can eat "collective goodwill".
Not in free market capitalism. In free market capitalism the goal is to reduce every individual to monetary worth through what they benefit society.
No. The goal of free market capitalism is to assign every individual's labor a value based on the perceived benefit of that labor to society.
I fail to see how this could possibly work without evening the playing field for all, it makes no sense. That's the neoliberal push, the WTO, Corporate Welfare, Trickle Down Economics, Pull Yerself up by the bootstraps Reaganite America, the rollback of corporate taxes, kickbacks, etc. Not all of that is Randian, but certainly some essences of her beliefs are what inspired Reagan's handlers into making this selfish mess we have today.
Neoliberalism, kickbacks, the WTO and corporate welfare have nothing to do with capitalism. They have everything to do with the monopoly known as government. The only thing on your list that applies to Rand is the rollback of corporate taxes, but you forgot the rollback of individual taxes as well.
You know, FFG, existentialism had its kick in the '40's and beyond, on the heels of Einsteins relativity theorem, still, Rand and Mailer came and went (though Norman is still singing a few good songs in his 80's) and if there's anything the world could have less of is religion, and its dogmatic approach to Everything.
You question Goodwill? Yes, you can eat it. I mean, really, just because you can plunk a few dollars down at the grocery store, without a thought, shouldn't allow you to forget that the good work of many people went into the contents of your grocery bag, and eventually your stomach. Nobody has to do what they do. I get the feeling you're of the ilk that prefers that there are those who would take care of you.
I mean, really, just because you can plunk a few dollars down at the grocery store, without a thought, shouldn't allow you to forget that the good work of many people went into the contents of your grocery bag, and eventually your stomach.
I didn't forget them, you did. I paid them something they value. You just tell them that you appreciate their efforts and demand the products of their labor.
Nobody has to do what they do.
I completely agree! No one has to do what they do, including them.
I get the feeling you're of the ilk that prefers that there are those who would take care of you.
That feeling would be quite wrong. No one has an obligation to take care of me.
Comments
Not in free market capitalism. In free market capitalism the goal is to reduce every individual to monetary worth through what they benefit society. I fail to see how this could possibly work without evening the playing field for all, it makes no sense. That's the neoliberal push, the WTO, Corporate Welfare, Trickle Down Economics, Pull Yerself up by the bootstraps Reaganite America, the rollback of corporate taxes, kickbacks, etc. Not all of that is Randian, but certainly some essences of her beliefs are what inspired Reagan's handlers into making this selfish mess we have today.
Hehe. Did you say that to yourself the last time you ate?
No, that's how I go out of business because my competitor simply pays them what they're worth and I then have no employees.
Does the reverse hold true for the minimum wage then, since those who make it are being paid more than what they're worth?
Not very many companies make twice their investment per year in profit, so that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
For the same reason you wish to profit from your physical labor. If I task you with digging a ditch, do I have a right to withhold your payment?
So that I can make something else.
Let me know when I can eat "collective goodwill".
No. The goal of free market capitalism is to assign every individual's labor a value based on the perceived benefit of that labor to society.
Neoliberalism, kickbacks, the WTO and corporate welfare have nothing to do with capitalism. They have everything to do with the monopoly known as government. The only thing on your list that applies to Rand is the rollback of corporate taxes, but you forgot the rollback of individual taxes as well.
You question Goodwill? Yes, you can eat it. I mean, really, just because you can plunk a few dollars down at the grocery store, without a thought, shouldn't allow you to forget that the good work of many people went into the contents of your grocery bag, and eventually your stomach. Nobody has to do what they do. I get the feeling you're of the ilk that prefers that there are those who would take care of you.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Really? I can eat goodwill? How?
I didn't forget them, you did. I paid them something they value. You just tell them that you appreciate their efforts and demand the products of their labor.
I completely agree! No one has to do what they do, including them.
That feeling would be quite wrong. No one has an obligation to take care of me.