|
Somfin posted:He will never resolve the cognitive dissonance between "a business requires workers to succeed" and "workers are not responsible for business succeeding" and that will never stop being hilarious There's another, amazingly hilarious dissonance in his argumentation against LTV that I've been planning on bringing up, because it's directly relevant to the argument, and I'm sure some of the rest of you have noticed it as well. But yeah. He's in a completely untenable position with his quantum state of the worker, so I'm guessing he's either going to declare victory and move on, of link some more mises-related stuff in an attempt to cargo-cult source his way out of it. Unless he hopes that he can just ignore it and move on, in which case... lol. Fat loving chance.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
Weatherman posted:Dude's as dense as zaurg was and has much the same MO. Deflect, deflect, deflect, and when the thread has him pinned down on something, disappear for a while before returning with a brand new Issue #1, in which everything that was posted before is ignored and new and even lovely characters are introduced. Ah, the ROM SPACEKNIGHT reboot strategy
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Somfin posted:He will never resolve the cognitive dissonance between "a business requires workers to succeed" and "workers are not responsible for business succeeding" and that will never stop being hilarious Honestly, from his perspective it's not a contradiction. When you start from the assumption that labor is a totally fluid (and abstract) market, it's pretty easy to see how he gets there. The way he looks at it is that workers are replaceable and interchangable. If the business didn't have those specific workers, the owner would just hire different ones to do the work. That means that the workers are just... randomly selected. They don't deserve any of the profits because the only reason they're working for the company is dumb luck, nothing else. On the flip side, if the business fails then the workers will just go work for some other company, no harm done, while the boss looses all their money and dies in poverty. Since the owner is taking all the risk, it's right for them to reap all the rewards. It's a bad starting axiom, but it is internally consistent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Karia posted:Honestly, from his perspective it's not a contradiction. When you start from the assumption that labor is a totally fluid (and abstract) market, it's pretty easy to see how he gets there. It still falls down though; workers can be as interchangeable as you like, but the workers you assemble still by definition generate all of the labour that produces the profit that he claims has nothing to do with the workers while being reliant on them. E: I suppose if you're willing to say that you could manage to get labour without people being involved... Somfin fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It still falls down though; workers can be as interchangeable as you like, but the workers you assemble still by definition generate all of the labour that produces the profit that he claims has nothing to do with the workers. They generate the profit, but that's different than creating value for Jrod. Remember, he's defining value as marginal utility: how much additional money the company makes because of each employee. The difference between the owner and the other workers is that if one of the employees wasn't there, the company would just hire somebody else: zero change in profits. (Gotta be careful about the marginal utility of the employee versus the employment position.) But if the owner wasn't there, then the company wouldn't exist at all. I feel like I'm twisting myself into circles to explain this. I don't like it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
I remember hearing something somewhere about competing theories of value, with the marxist one obviously being that value is imparted into an object when the worker labours on it. But there was a competing big brain liberal idea written by someone I can't remember which was that value is imparted when someone buys the object. Which fed into the competing philosophical ideas about value being a thing workers make or the moneyed classes bestow upon them. If you believe workers are an undifferentiated barely sapient mass which can only achieve anything under the direction of a big brain randroid then it's not a huge leap to suggest that value does not exist without the direction of the capitalist, that all value stems from them and their participation and leadership of the masses. That even if workers do all the work, that they are doing it for the capitalist is what makes it valuable, they would just wander around in circles clubbing each other with their tools otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
Karia posted:They generate the profit, but that's different than creating value for Jrod. Remember, he's defining value as marginal utility: how much additional money the company makes because of each employee. The difference between the owner and the other workers is that if one of the employees wasn't there, the company would just hire somebody else: zero change in profits. (Gotta be careful about the marginal utility of the employee versus the employment position.) But if the owner wasn't there, then the company wouldn't exist at all. If we were talking about the generation of value, I'd agree that he's wrong but at least coherent, but we were explicitly arguing about generation of profit, which he claimed is 100% divorced from the workers. I've now challenged him on multiple occasions to either define the thing within a business that does generate profit, or to start a profitable business with no workers if they're not necessary. Like, this is straight up the joke from the underpants gnomes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I'm not sure that I have much to add to the excellent historical posting (thank you) other than: I genuinely never thought that I would say this, but the anti-semitic turn in this thread is really getting to me; I just caught up the last few hundred posts. I haven't thought about this in decades, but I'm suddenly having flashbacks to my grandad, now age 98, telling me about aunts, uncles and cousins of his who stayed in continental Europe (back then, they were all surname Ackerman) and never made it out. I try to focus on the economic stuff, but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't really verschimmelt right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
Notice how the NAP in practice only protects the wealthy and powerful. A 2-cent tax in billionaires in a democracy is the new slavery, but if you're a Jew in a fascist country well if you don't give up all your money and property and then somehow illegally emigrate well really with your lack of personal responsibility you've brought this on yourself, into the camps with you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
here lies j. realtalk "culture fit" polymathy rodefeld, prince of princes: look on my words, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
 Also this https://youtu.be/muHg86Mys7I Filipino fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 06:20
|
|
|
Rushputin posted:Sup, mein Freund. Serwus! Jo, ganz genau. Du hasst es besser gesacht. Danke. (I basically just said hey and agreed, for non-German speakers.) Anyway, not to turn this into German politics chat, but where the hell are you???? I'm in the USA now, but I know my whole family would be up in arms, like, literal arms, if someone complained about that. And we're talking rural Bavaria. Is someone an Ossie? You can be honest. Also, I'm guessing that cat ain't even a polymath. And he will never reply to that super detailed post I made. Coward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
Every law you make is enforced by the government pointing a gun at our heads. If you do not comply with any law eventually men will come and kidnap you and lock you in a cage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Filipino posted:Every law you make is enforced by the government pointing a gun at our heads. If you do not comply with any law eventually men will come and kidnap you and lock you in a cage. Gosh you're a lovely poster. Off to a stellar start, you are. Alternatively: Whose lovely rereg are you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
1 jpeg artefact = 1 truthfulness
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:28
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:Gosh you're a lovely poster. Off to a stellar start, you are. Alternatively: Whose lovely rereg are you? Nice argument. You've really swayed me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
Unless you're planning to kill everyone else, you will, I'm afraid, be subject to the whims of others at some point in your life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
Filipino posted:Nice argument. You've really swayed me. *the sound of two sopping wet butt cheeks slapping together as foamy diarrhea erupts between them*
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:His porn tastes
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Unless you're planning to kill everyone else, you will, I'm afraid, be subject to the whims of others at some point in your life. That doesnt make it moral for someone to hold a gun to my head and demand I comply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:42
|
|
|
I actually like anarchists, but I like anarchists because the ones I'm more familiar with are actually extremely concerned with social issues and their entire critique is formulated around the problems with how a society is and should be structured. "I don't care about society you just can't tell me what to do government dad" is a pretty weak effort to be associating with the term tbh. Filipino posted:That doesnt make it moral for someone to hold a gun to my head and demand I comply. I mean it kinda does if the alternative is nature killing you with other lethal things. Which is why the "I don't care about society" idea is extremely silly! And why decent anarchists absolutely have answers for how people will sustain themselves well without states or bosses tell them what to do. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:43
|
|
|
You caught me. That's my kink. Your mom and I do that on the reg. You got an actual argument like a big boy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:43
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:You caught me. That's my kink. Your mom and I do that on the reg. Nothing as substantial as what you've put forward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:47
|
|
|
Filipino posted:Nothing as substantial as what you've put forward. No, seriously. Do you have an actual point? Make one so someone could even try to debate it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:No, seriously. Do you have an actual point? I'd like to talk about this video. https://youtu.be/muHg86Mys7I
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
Ok watching it, point 1. Self ownership as presented denies the existence of a society, presuming the concept of "ownership" as being "has exclusive rights to decide the use of" because when multiple people coexist in a society this necessitates a sort of mutual collective ownership of their shared lives, because the alternative is everyone proclaiming they are totally independent of everyone else which flat out isn't how any society has worked ever and clearly cannot work as long as people require access to the same spaces and resources.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Ok watching it, point 1. Self ownership as presented denies the existence of a society, presuming the concept of "ownership" as being "has exclusive rights to decide the use of" because when multiple people coexist in a society this necessitates a sort of mutual collective ownership of their shared lives, because the alternative is everyone proclaiming they are totally independent of everyone else which flat out isn't how any society has worked ever and clearly cannot work as long as people require access to the same spaces and resources. So your saying you dont own yourself? "Society does"? You also say "society has never worked that way." Well Marxism has never worked anywhere. Filipino fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:11
|
|
|
Filipino posted:So your saying you dont own yourself? "Society does"? You are definitely owning yourself right now, if that helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
Point 2. Timecube. Point 3. People exchange property all the time without both being better off, a key factor of capitalism is that the one with more property can dictate terms to one with less. I for example exchange my time for less than its value when I go to work because I don't have any method of making my employer pay me what I am worth, my employer takes that portion of my labour he skims off the top and does whatever he wants with it. This is the nature of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Point 2. Timecube. You voluntarily consent to go to work. If you don't think you should then don't go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
Filipino posted:So your saying you dont own yourself? "Society does"? Clearly I do not own myself, no. I do not have exclusive right to decide what I do with myself, I live in a society that places clear limits on what I can do with myself, and unless I kill everybody else, this would always be true, because as long as I live around other people I would be limited by their needs, I cannot, I trust even under your ideal vision of society, wander into their home and take a big poo poo in their bed. We would have to come to some mutual understanding whereby we agree not to do that, placing limits on our ownership of ourselves and placing both our lives under the "ownership" of a collective value structure. Filipino posted:You voluntarily consent to go to work. If you don't think you should then don't go. No I do not! Because the capitalists have a monopoly on the supply of food and water and shelter and if I don't go to work they will take those from me! This is initiating force.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You are definitely owning yourself right now, if that helps. Me: Your honor I object, he's merely using personal attacks. Judge: Is he posting on a dead gay comedy forum? Me: Yes your honor, I admit he is. Judge: Objection overruled!.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Clearly I do not own myself, no. I do not have exclusive right to decide what I do with myself, I live in a society that places clear limits on what I can do with myself, and unless I kill everybody else, this would always be true, because as long as I live around other people I would be limited by their needs, I cannot, I trust even under your ideal vision of society, wander into their home and take a big poo poo in their bed. We would have to come to some mutual understanding whereby we agree not to do that, placing limits on our ownership of ourselves and placing both our lives under the "ownership" of a collective value . Obviously if you broke into someone elses house and shat on their property you would be violating their human rights. Self ownership does not mean you have the right to infringe on the rights of others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:26
|
|
|
Filipino posted:You voluntarily consent to go to work. If you don't think you should then don't go. There are no factors or reasons to work other than you want to or not. If only the state wasn't there to defend people's property rights, I could claim some land as my own, claim materials as my own, and become self-sufficient. And if some other free man decided that my stuff was his stuff, we could fight over it. This is a better society because of Philosophical reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
You can apply to other jobs. That is freedom. Dont be obtuse. You realize you are free to work where you like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:28
|
|
|
Filipino posted:Obviously if you broke into someone elses house and shat on their property you would be violating their human rights. Self ownership does not mean you have the right to infringe on the rights of others. Who decided that was their house? Maybe I want it to be my house. So now it's mine. And I will kill the previous tenant and any one else that objects, thankfully there is no State to stop me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:28
|
|
|
Filipino posted:You can apply to other jobs. That is freedom. Dont be obtuse. You realize you are free to work where you like. It's as simple as that. You can just get a job anywhere, and people HAVE to give the job to you. There's no situation in which you are denied every job or that you don't have the material support to be able to get another job. Real, physical things don't matter in the world of philosophy!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:29
|
|
|
Filipino posted:Obviously if you broke into someone elses house and shat on their property you would be violating their human rights. Self ownership does not mean you have the right to infringe on the rights of others. Ah well now that gets tricky doesn't it, because our rights come into conflict, you see. I might really like making GBS threads on their bed, why does their right to not have a shat bed trump my right to enjoy making GBS threads? Or, perhaps, if you'd prefer a more important example, does my right to say, hoard ownership of a big pile of food I don't eat, trump their right to not starve to death? What about my right to create market scarcity by buying up houses and preventing people from living in them so that I can drive the rents up? I've got lots of rights that some people might suggest are at odds with what you might call other people's human rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
woozy pawsies posted:Who decided that was their house? Maybe I want it to be my house. So now it's mine. And I will kill the previous tenant and any one else that objects, thankfully there is no State to stop me. Community is a good thing. I expect people in a free society would join together and have eachothers backs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:32
|
|