The amount of repair/ service jobs will not offset the jobs lost. In the case of an automated kitchen unit in a fast food place, it might be complicate d enough, yet be might be modular that all the field tech does is swap out
the module and take it back to the shop rather than spend the premium service time onsite working on it. Imagine a truck pulling up to McDonalds, and set of skids or arm comes out of the trailer and pulls the entire kitchen module out a hole in the wall. Other than having a driver with basic troubleshooting skills, you require less field techs if the majority of large problems can be taken back to the shop. Some parts of the module may
require a dedicated "clean" area to service versus what can be done in the kitchen.
That's why UBI has been discussed in order to maintain the consumer
based economy. It's more profitable for the largest corporations to pay far higher taxes than it is to employ a human workforce. This will be a phased process over the next 20-30 years, but it'll happen during most
of our lifetimes.
As machines become more reliable, smarter and cheaper to run/produce,
the human workforce will dwindle -- this is the model for the "New
Future" and there's no stopping it.
The problem with the UBI is that it skirts around the core issue, which
is that human beings get paid a wage, and the "owner" of the means of production is the residual claimaint, that is, in a lassez faire
system, the recipient of the product of a productive activities after liabilities are accounted for. In short, the current Capitalist model CANNOT work. We would need to socialise to some degree the means of production, which would meet stiff resistance, as those owning the machines, will want to continue to claim the right to own what the machines produced.
Anytime you have a society where human beings become "redundant", you
must ask serious questions as to the fundamental workings of your
society. Human beings never become obsolete.
Capitalism served its purpose, it got is here. But it can't get us any further.
On 08-04-20 23:14, Moondog wrote to Andeddu <=-
sounds too de-humanizing. Imagine what will be done with people who
are square pegs in a system with round holes, and may be borderline autistic or suffer ADHD or other chemical or emotional disorders? Do
they get euthanized? Are they aborted after showing signs they might
be "out of spec?" Or if it's possible ,do we alter their genes not
only to fit in, but to also go further and tweak their DNA to fit a required role? Could that tweaking include dumbing someone down to be more content in a menial job?
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
That's why UBI has been discussed in order to maintain the consumer
based economy. It's more profitable for the largest corporations to pay far higher taxes than it is to employ a human workforce. This will be a phased process over the next 20-30 years, but it'll happen during most
of our lifetimes.
As machines become more reliable, smarter and cheaper to run/produce,
the human workforce will dwindle -- this is the model for the "New
Future" and there's no stopping it.
The problem with the UBI is that it skirts around the core issue, which
is that human beings get paid a wage, and the "owner" of the means of production is the residual claimaint, that is, in a lassez faire
system, the recipient of the product of a productive activities after liabilities are accounted for. In short, the current Capitalist model CANNOT work. We would need to socialise to some degree the means of production, which would meet stiff resistance, as those owning the machines, will want to continue to claim the right to own what the machines produced.
I cannot agree more on this. The current economic system exploits wage labor to be able to continuously produce stuff. That's why I was
writing prior that it's an ouroboros. Kill the wage labor and you kill that system. As Dennisk have said, the only way out of this is by socializing the means of production (some might even say communize), though I also think that the current powers-that-be would cling to the current system as if their lives depend on it, institutionalizing UBI
is one such thing (serious practical questions abound this utopic
idea). And of course, what's ahead is but their own obliteration.
Anytime you have a society where human beings become "redundant", you
must ask serious questions as to the fundamental workings of your
society. Human beings never become obsolete.
Capitalism served its purpose, it got is here. But it can't get us any further.
I agree. Man is a fundamental aspect of a socioeconomic system, remove
man and you might as well have no society.
The problem with the UBI is that it skirts around the core issue, which is that human beings get paid a wage, and the "owner" of the means of production is the residual claimaint, that is, in a lassez faire system, the recipient of the product of a productive activities after liabilities are accounted for. In short, the current Capitalist model CANNOT work. We would need to socialise to some degree the means of production, which would meet stiff resistance, as those owning the machines, will want to continue to claim the right to own what the machines produced.
Anytime you have a society where human beings become "redundant", you must ask serious questions as to the fundamental workings of your society. Human beings never become obsolete.
Talk of social engineering people away from individualism freaks me out. Taking away our families and making us "citizens of the system" sounds too de-humanizing. Imagine what will be done with people who are square pegs in a system with round holes, and may be borderline autistic or suffer ADHD or other chemical or emotional disorders? Do they get euthanized? Are they aborted after showing signs they might be "out of spec?" Or if it's possible ,do we alter their genes not only to fit in, but to also go further and tweak their DNA to fit a required role? Could that tweaking include dumbing
someone down to be more content in a menial job?
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
That's why UBI has been discussed in order to maintain the consumer
based economy. It's more profitable for the largest corporations to pay far higher taxes than it is to employ a human workforce. This will be a phased process over the next 20-30 years, but it'll happen during most
of our lifetimes.
As machines become more reliable, smarter and cheaper to run/produce,
the human workforce will dwindle -- this is the model for the "New
Future" and there's no stopping it.
The problem with the UBI is that it skirts around the core issue, which
is that human beings get paid a wage, and the "owner" of the means of production is the residual claimaint, that is, in a lassez faire
system, the recipient of the product of a productive activities after liabilities are accounted for. In short, the current Capitalist model CANNOT work. We would need to socialise to some degree the means of production, which would meet stiff resistance, as those owning the machines, will want to continue to claim the right to own what the machines produced.
I cannot agree more on this. The current economic system exploits wage labor to be able to continuously produce stuff. That's why I was
writing prior that it's an ouroboros. Kill the wage labor and you kill that system. As Dennisk have said, the only way out of this is by socializing the means of production (some might even say communize), though I also think that the current powers-that-be would cling to the current system as if their lives depend on it, institutionalizing UBI
is one such thing (serious practical questions abound this utopic
idea). And of course, what's ahead is but their own obliteration.
The problem with wage labour is that it denies labour its rightful
claim to product. Ironically, this is in contradiction to the
Capitalist ethos of the labour theory or property. In our system,
there is this sleight of hand, where owning "the means of production"
is also taken to include with it, an automatic property right over what labour produces with that means. The employment contract supposedly
means that labour rescinds its right to property, but this doesn't have any real strong philosophical basis.
This is in part why there is confusion about where to go from here. Because only a few people own the "means of production", as human
beings are pushed out of the productive process, all wealth goes to the fewer and fewer remaining. I don't think Marxism is the answer, but
the problem is, if we just increase taxation and restribute that as a
UBI, its is very easy for that to be argued against, to be framed as
theft or unjust.
But what happens in a situation where NO ONE labours? Or very few do?
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it needs to involve a re-evaluation of property rights. I think in part we need partial socialisation, and this could be done by changing company law. You are still entitled to the product of your labour, but a company become a
joint venture between its members, and the nation. Labourers (this includes management) within the company is still entitled to the
product of their labour, but as part of the joint venture, automation
is also legally acting as a proxy of the nations labour. Automation
being the product of the labour and creativity of the nation. Because automation now has a legal claim, as it represents labour-input from
the nation/society, that share of the profit can be claimed by society, and is redistributed as such.
It's only a half-fleshed out idea, making automation effectively the equivalent of labour, when it itself doesn't have responsibility or
agency is a conundrum, and also because that automation is purchased is difficult. But I think a case could be made, if having a company meant agreement to this partial socialisation as a condition of having the
right to operate a company.
Anytime you have a society where human beings become "redundant", you
must ask serious questions as to the fundamental workings of your
society. Human beings never become obsolete.
Capitalism served its purpose, it got is here. But it can't get us any further.
I agree. Man is a fundamental aspect of a socioeconomic system, remove
man and you might as well have no society.
You would just have machines whirring away, dutifully ticking away with
no purpose. Human wellbeing is the only true good purpose of economic activity.
On 08-05-20 15:02, Warpslide wrote to Vk3jed <=-
long way to go). Being 2 - 3 decades ahead of my time definitely hasn't m anything easier!
This hits very close to home, well said.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really something that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down system from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not having private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read enough on that to say anything substantial.
I support an ownership economy, and I think moving away from a system where you own production by owning Capital and towards one where labour owns what is produces an
is self governing is the way to go. I believe the idea of "employment" needs to be abolished and replaced with a system of property rights where anyone working is
considered to be a joint-owner of the production process and the liabilities and product that arise from that.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really something that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down syste
from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not having private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read enough on that to say
anything substantial.
In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production, or assets that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does no
mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make yourself.
I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own means of production. If you have money, and that money goes towards an organisation which is engag
in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You don't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.
The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of production. We should end that I think.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
One of the fundamental problems with the UBI is that is supposed that it is desirable to automate away everything. It is good to automate menial jobs, dangerous ones, repetitive ones, but all of them? I think psychologically, having a population which only "exists" and doesn't work for itself would be disasterous.
Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:26 am
Moondog wrote to Andeddu <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Andeddu to Moondog on Wed Aug 05 2020 05:21 pm
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Moondog to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 11:14 pm
Talk of social engineering people away from individualism freaks me ou Taking away our families and making us "citizens of the system" sounds de-humanizing. Imagine what will be done with people who are square p a system with round holes, and may be borderline autistic or suffer AD other chemical or emotional disorders? Do they get euthanized? Are t aborted after showing signs they might be "out of spec?" Or if it's possible ,do we alter their genes not only to fit in, but to also go f and tweak their DNA to fit a required role? Could that tweaking inclu dumbing
someone down to be more content in a menial job?
I don't know what would happen to the first-generation of people survivin transition into a benevolant scientific dictatorship, such as the one des in BNW. You have to remember that the children of the future may well be "designer babies" constructed to fit a pre-designated role in society. In you had Alphas and Betas (representing the middle and upper echelons of society) and the Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons representing the lower-end o heirachy. It's a top-down administrative structure where all citizens hav signed a metaphorical social contract to fulfil their role in society unt death whereupon they are cremated by the World State and reused as phospe for plant fertilizer.
It's a sterile world where everyone is a mere tool of the state. There ar uprisings as the administrators meet the needs of the citizens... and all historical information relating to the "old world" is hidden away under l and key.
Well said. If any "anomalies" that weren't designed in or filtered out manifest themselves, that person can be aborted at any age to save the "purity" of the system and state.
I still wonder if even in that type of system if one could eliminate corruption. The Alphas on top would be most suspect, due to they observe and administer everything, but even at lower levels someone may figure out how to game the system or accidentally come into awareness there is more to the system than existence.
One of the fundamental problems with the UBI is that is supposed that it is desirable to automate away everything. It is good to automate menial jobs, dangerous ones, repetitive ones, but all of them? I think psychologically, having a population which only "exists" and doesn't work for itself would be disasterous.
Human beings need for their own wellbeing, to go through a process where eff and power is exerted to maintain oneself.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead
of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land
provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really something that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down system from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not having private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read enough on that to say anything substantial.
In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production,
or assets that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does not mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make yourself.
I see. Yeah, I should do more reading on this. It's really quite interesting to dive into the idea of property and what it means to own something. Like, for example, what you just mentioned and I'm seeing an argument to be made with how everything that man produced can be
treated as means to production, that man being a product of society
cannot really categorically privately own something. But still, I think
my argument would fall flat and hollow as I haven't done enough reading
in it to say anything more substantial on it.
I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own
means of production. If you have money, and that money goes towards an organisation which is engaging in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You don't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.
Yes, that is true.
The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of production. We should end that I think.
I agree.
Underminer wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:26 am
One of the fundamental problems with the UBI is that is supposed that it is desirable to automate away everything. It is good to automate menial jobs, dangerous ones, repetitive ones, but all of them? I think psychologically, having a population which only "exists" and doesn't work for itself would be disasterous.
I understand your concern, but there's a difference between automating away work, and automating away all tasks. It is desirable to automate
away jobs and required work in order to allow us to "work" at things
which are interesting to us, or present opportunities for self
betterment, but are not things others would ever supplement or
reimburse us for.
Case in point, we're discussing this on a platform that exists only as
a hobby within a mostly nostalgic community. Building these systems and networks is something that we gain a sense of accomplishment for, leave
us fealing fullfilled, and are a creative and productive enterprise,
but you'd never be able to do it as a "Job."
TL;DR: Automation and UBI can mean the end of jobs and employment, but that's not the same as an end to human efforts and energy expenditure.
Atroxi wrote to Arelor <=-
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Atroxi on
Thu Aug 06 2020 09:35 pm
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't reallys
omething that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down syste
from days gone past. Maybe it is high time toh
rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not
aving private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read
enough on that to say
anything substantial.
In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production, or
asse
ts that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does no
mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make
yourself.
I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own means of
p
roduction. If you have money, and that money goes towards an
organisation which is engag
in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You
don
't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.
The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of
producti
on. We should end that I think.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
The problem I have with this argument is that everything is a means of production.
Your beloved donkey is only a pet until somebody realizes you can train him to work, now he is a means of production and can be socialized.
Same with garden maintenance machines and notebooks.
So once you declare that means of production are fair game, you open yourself to have your donkey taken and then get none of the potatoes he produces because the pwoers that be thing somebody else needs them more than you do.
Yeah, this is the reason why I think state socialism is a bit iffy as
it's primary method of getting people to do anything is to coerce them. The donkey that serve as your pet and doesn't serve towards the means
of production is suddenly being taken from you regardless whether or
not you want the state to do so. Mutual agreement toward common goals
are better motivators of human action rather than anything mandated.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 09:45 am
I support an ownership economy, and I think moving away from a system whey
ou own production by owning Capital and towards one where labour owns what is produces anneeds
is self governing is the way to go. I believe the idea of "employment"
to be abolished and replaced with a system of property rights where anyone working is
considered to be a joint-owner of the production process and the liabilit
and product that arise from that.
I think we have already covered that elsewhere.
The idea of employment is that it allows people to join up and do things that they could not do separate. In its most crude form: Jack owns a shovel and Amy knows about potatoes. Amy can't really grow potatoes without a shovel, so he asks Jack for help. Jack lends the means of production (shovel) to Amy in exchange of a part of the production. Since Amy can't grow potatoes without help, she agrees and both Jack and Amy benefit.
You are describing renting a shovel. Amy grows the potatoes, Jack if a fact supplier. The shovel is equipment, not the "means of production" as the sho does nothing without labour.
What seems to bother a lot of people now is that Jack gets to keep 90 potatoes for each one Amy does, but that is because Jack is providing vehicles, distribution channels, marketing, etc etc etc and maintaining all of that, which is an effort and deployment of resources that dwarfs the ones of any individual employee. That is prety much the reason why many writers sell the rights of their works for a pittance. Jack has the actualy ability, skills and resources to market your books and find readers. The only thing Amy does is writing awesome books.
The problem here is you are making a leap from being a factor supplier (providing equipment) and labourer (maintaining channels, marketing), to "owning the means of production". Why does Jack get to keep the product? I it an inherit property right of the equipment or owning a firm? No. It is because Jack hired Amy. Lets say that Amy hired/rented Jack, and Jacks equipment, then Amy would be the "owner of the means of production" and Jack would be an employee. Yet the exact same factual production proces, labour input quantity and process remains. In fact, Amy and Jack could change the contracts, and the "means of production" changes hands, without any property rights being transferred. It is not a property right that determines who ow the production process, its who gets to hire whom.
When you declare that any firm is to be a join venture built on egalitarian grounds you are trying to make people with different levels of skill have more or less the same say in the firm's matters, which does not fly in real life. If there is only a dude who knows how to gow potatoes and everybody else in the firm only knows how to dig holes, the potato-engineer has all the control of the firm in practice.
That is irrelevant. And it does fly, that is how democracy works. We all g a vote because we are all citizens. We accept it in this scenario. We acce it elsewhere. And we also accept it in companies. Shareholders vote, do th not?
You are approaching this wrong. It is TYPICAL for people to have a right ov their own engagements. Employment creates an EXCEPTION, and an odd one at that.
Control over the firm in practice is a management responsibiliy. There is a distinction between being a joint member, and a manager. It is common for people to own a company, but someone else does the day to day management. D the Board of Directors always own the company? No. Neither does a Managing Director or even a CEO.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
I'll just say "means of production" is the firm, the entity engaging in the productive activity, the pattern of contracts that drives things. It isn't t actual physical assets, although it is easy to believe it is (and many Socialists probably think it is too). It is possible to own a business, yet not own the building or any of the equipment. You still own the "means of production", because of how the contracts are arranged. It is possible to o the building AND equipment, yet not own the means of production, because you just rent them out.
It is incorrect to believe that ownership of physical assets is what constitutes owning the "means of production" (many Socialist are confused on this too).
So no, there is no basis for appropriating someones assets.
What should be partly socialised is the nature of the contracts, not the act physical assets (or capital used).
That is true. I'm building a BBS as a hobby, have programmed, done writing, volunteered for a charty and made Doom and Quake levels. If I didn't need t work, I would live a productive and fulfilled live, more so that if I had to work in the type of jobs I'm most likely to work in (jobs which can't be automated, but the way).
But I suspect I'm in a minority here though, most people don't seem so inclined.
I have been doing some work today with underqualified people that is pretty much
non-automatable at this point.
I think the point where Skynet takes over manufacturing and serving is so ahead of
time that we will see the fall of the western civilitation before that happens.
There is a danger that we will end up accepting a form of Socialist Totalitarianism, where a managerial elite get to decide who gets what, who is cut out. I support the idea, we must be careful of the wolves in sheeps clothing, and assume by default that people are acting in their self interest and essentially are doing things for their own power.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 07 2020 10:41 am
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 09:45 am
I support an ownership economy, and I think moving away from a system whey
ou own production by owning Capital and towards one where labour owns what is produces anneeds
is self governing is the way to go. I believe the idea of "employment"
to be abolished and replaced with a system of property rights where anyone working is
considered to be a joint-owner of the production process and the liabilit
and product that arise from that.
I think we have already covered that elsewhere.
The idea of employment is that it allows people to join up and do things that they could not do separate. In its most crude form: Jack owns a shovel and Amy knows about potatoes. Amy can't really grow potatoes without a shovel, so he asks Jack for help. Jack lends the means of production (shovel) to Amy in exchange of a part of the production. Since Amy can't grow potatoes without help, she agrees and both Jack and Amy benefit.
You are describing renting a shovel. Amy grows the potatoes, Jack if a fact supplier. The shovel is equipment, not the "means of production" as the sho does nothing without labour.
What seems to bother a lot of people now is that Jack gets to keep 90 potatoes for each one Amy does, but that is because Jack is providing vehicles, distribution channels, marketing, etc etc etc and maintaining all of that, which is an effort and deployment of resources that dwarfs the ones of any individual employee. That is prety much the reason why many writers sell the rights of their works for a pittance. Jack has the actualy ability, skills and resources to market your books and find readers. The only thing Amy does is writing awesome books.
The problem here is you are making a leap from being a factor supplier (providing equipment) and labourer (maintaining channels, marketing), to "owning the means of production". Why does Jack get to keep the product? I it an inherit property right of the equipment or owning a firm? No. It is because Jack hired Amy. Lets say that Amy hired/rented Jack, and Jacks equipment, then Amy would be the "owner of the means of production" and Jack would be an employee. Yet the exact same factual production proces, labour input quantity and process remains. In fact, Amy and Jack could change the contracts, and the "means of production" changes hands, without any property rights being transferred. It is not a property right that determines who ow the production process, its who gets to hire whom.
When you declare that any firm is to be a join venture built on egalitarian grounds you are trying to make people with different levels of skill have more or less the same say in the firm's matters, which does not fly in real life. If there is only a dude who knows how to gow potatoes and everybody else in the firm only knows how to dig holes, the potato-engineer has all the control of the firm in practice.
That is irrelevant. And it does fly, that is how democracy works. We all g a vote because we are all citizens. We accept it in this scenario. We acce it elsewhere. And we also accept it in companies. Shareholders vote, do th not?
You are approaching this wrong. It is TYPICAL for people to have a right ov their own engagements. Employment creates an EXCEPTION, and an odd one at that.
Control over the firm in practice is a management responsibiliy. There is a distinction between being a joint member, and a manager. It is common for people to own a company, but someone else does the day to day management. D the Board of Directors always own the company? No. Neither does a Managing Director or even a CEO.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Providing shovels is not free. Marxist propaganda used to be that Capitalists did no work and therefore where stealing the work of
employees for free, which is not the case in my opinion. If you own a factory you need to be able to maintain it and find customers and employees for it. That is work you have to do. If you are filthy rich
you can employ agents to do it for you, but looking for good agents is also a job to do. Not to mention that taking risks is not for free
either.
I don't buy the idea that you are suspending your rights by becoming an employee either.
Modern democracies are not egalitarian. Politicians are going to listen more to certain groups than to others. Even in organizations that are supposedly horizontal, leaders emerge, as do conflicts of interest. Who
is Trump going to pay more attention to: the CEO of an OIL company, or Gandma Smith?
I have been in horizontal orgs where some people was so powerful that
he could get the whole group to do what he wanted by threatening to
leave the group. The vote of one of these guys weights much more than
what the papers say. People who is non-expendable or less-expendable is bound to amass more power than the rest no matter what your papers say.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:09 am
I'll just say "means of production" is the firm, the entity engaging in the productive activity, the pattern of contracts that drives things. It isn't t actual physical assets, although it is easy to believe it is (and many Socialists probably think it is too). It is possible to own a business, yet not own the building or any of the equipment. You still own the "means of production", because of how the contracts are arranged. It is possible to o the building AND equipment, yet not own the means of production, because you just rent them out.
It is incorrect to believe that ownership of physical assets is what constitutes owning the "means of production" (many Socialist are confused on this too).
So no, there is no basis for appropriating someones assets.
What should be partly socialised is the nature of the contracts, not the act physical assets (or capital used).
At this point it is semantics.
If the Socialist government, Union, Mob or whatever it may be called,
is the one who decides how an asset is used and under which conditions, they have seized it in practice regardless of who keeps ownership of it
in theory.
If the factory is yours but the Anarcho-syndicalists force you to adapt
to a certain set of contracts and distribution channels, lend it under their conditions, to the people they say you must, then you have no control over the factory at all and hence you don't own the phisical media. So yup the assets have been stolen for all effects and purposes.
7S
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Underminer on Fri Aug 07 2020 08:33 pm
That is true. I'm building a BBS as a hobby, have programmed, done writing, volunteered for a charty and made Doom and Quake levels. If I didn't need t work, I would live a productive and fulfilled live, more so that if I had to work in the type of jobs I'm most likely to work in (jobs which can't be automated, but the way).
But I suspect I'm in a minority here though, most people don't seem so inclined.
Sorry to be a waterparties here, but the core problem there is that building Doom and Quake levels for hobby puts no food on your table or
on somebody else's table in any economic system.
Work is not the invention of any economic system. If there was no
economic system at all (ie no trade or exchange) you'd have to harvest, collect and hunt . You'd have no time to make Doom levels.
You can make Doom levels because there is an economic system built so there is efficient resource distribution, but that does not sustain if
a huge part of the population turns to leissure activities.
Now, if automation turned the value of worth to zero, then yes, you'd
have a productive life of Doom level making because work would be free
for everybody.
Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 08:04 pm
Human beings need for their own wellbeing, to go through a process where and power is exerted to maintain oneself.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.
People moved out of necessity. The Inuit live where they do because they we forced out of nicer areas.
There are exceptions where some have less a choice to move and adapt, however a common thread in this is they retain a level of automony and social order to allow them to flourish in less than favorable
conditions. From how things are portrayed in dystopian futures, the individuals automony is commonly surrendered as a means to maintain the state.
Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I see. Yeah, I should do more reading on this. It's really quite interesting to dive into the idea of property and what it means to own something. Like, for example, what you just mentioned and I'm seeing an argument to be made with how everything that man produced can be
treated as means to production, that man being a product of society
cannot really categorically privately own something. But still, I think
my argument would fall flat and hollow as I haven't done enough reading
in it to say anything more substantial on it.
A lot of people fail to draw the distinction between physical property
and contracts. You may hear the phrase "I own factory", but really,
there are two distinct elements, the ownership of the physical factory, and owning the patterns of contracts which form the firm which use the factory. We have to be sure to keep the two separate.
Our model of production says that capital inputs resources and labour
to produce a product, and as a result capital is the claimant of that
at the end of the process. In reality, labour inputs resources and capital to produce a product. Labour owns the end product, but labour
is also responsible for the liabilities (paying for inputs, use of the factory if it not owned by the labour organisation, paying returns to capital).
Capital owners will therefore be able to make money, allowing labour to use their resources at whatever agreed upon price. However a contract which says that Capital is conducting the labour would be invalid.
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Arelor <=-
The problem I have with this argument is that everything is a means of production.
Your beloved donkey is only a pet until somebody realizes you can train him to work, now he is a means of production and can be socialized.
Same with garden maintenance machines and notebooks.
So once you declare that means of production are fair game, you open yourself to have your donkey taken and then get none of the potatoes he produces because the pwoers that be thing somebody else needs them more than you do.
Yeah, this is the reason why I think state socialism is a bit iffy as
it's primary method of getting people to do anything is to coerce them. The donkey that serve as your pet and doesn't serve towards the means
of production is suddenly being taken from you regardless whether or
not you want the state to do so. Mutual agreement toward common goals
are better motivators of human action rather than anything mandated.
This is why college Marxists shouldn't be making decisions. Marxist Socialism also, like Capitalism, alienates labour from its rightful property right. Marxists get confused between owning the factory
itself, and owning the patter of contracts which defines the firm.
Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive ownership of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The first role is that of landlord or owner of
equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The second role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically run organisation which you may even manage, p
rent to YOU.
The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the two, and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own personal assets.
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Atroxi on Sat Aug 08 2020 10:06 pm
Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive ownership of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The first role is that of landlord or owner of
equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The second role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically run organisation which you may even manage
rent to YOU.
The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the two, and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own personal assets.
That argument is confussing.
If you say the contracts involving the means of production must be socialized, you claim for the socialization of the contract between the guy that leases the factory and the
people who uses the factory.
If not the case, your horizontal organization would not be horizontal anymore since the person owning the assets is automatically more powerful than the other members of the workforce. "If y
don't aprove this rule I am withdrawing my assets." Sure, you cn move the business out of the current location, but that is usually such a hassle that the owner of the assets is not on equal
foot with the other people, by a large margin.
--
gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es
Well said. If any "anomalies" that weren't designed in or filtered out manifest
themselves, that person can be aborted at any age to save the "purity" of the system and state.
I still wonder if even in that type of system if one could eliminate corruption. The Alphas on top would be most suspect, due to they observe and administer everything, but even at lower levels someone may figure out how to game the system or accidentally come into awareness there is more to the
system than existence.
I understand your concern, but there's a difference between automating away work, and automating away all tasks. It is desirable to automate away jobs and required work in order to allow us to "work" at things which are interesting to us, or present opportunities for self betterment, but are not things others would ever supplement or reimburse us for.
If you are selling labour, why do they pay by the hour? Why are there minim hours? Why can they claim that anything you do is there?
You NEVER have legal possession of the work you do when employed. No employment contract states what you claim. Companies clearly talk about hav labour.
I would like to see you in a court, try to claim that at any point, the prod of your labour is something you have some ownership of.
You rent yourself as a person to the company. That is why they say they HIR you. Hire is a synonym for rent. Economically, the company pays for you th same way they pay for equipment they rent.
1) Initiation of property rights for new objects/services are determined by labour. When a new object enters the economy, the labour is the rightful ow and ALSO responsible for liabilites (ie, paying for the equipment, resource, etc used). A contract which claims that labour cannot be the rightful owner should be considered as invalid, just as one which claims you are my slave i not valid.
So when object X is created, the labour that created object X (including management, sales people etc) is the owner, and disposes of it by sale. The are also responsible for paying the factor suppliers (ie, paying for rent, inputs, paying interest on loans, etc).
2) Property rights are transferred through voluntary sale.
I get that. But hell, how many thousands, tens of thousands, hell, hundreds thousands of people have been screwed over by our CURRENT system? Do you th that at the moment, businesses don't fall apart, go broke, and cause harm to people through mismanagement? Are there not already millions exploited an ripped off? People who have committed suicide because their jobs were lots benefit a tiny proportion of people? I don't see what we have now as great, even functional.
It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There never was.
self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same
task.
You are paying for the service.
It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm
It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.
Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There nev
was.
Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..
There is a lot of confusion about these issues because of sloppy use of terms such as "hired" and "employed" and "contracted
leading people to believe that two different things are the same. When you "hire" a plumber, it is a very different economi
arrangement than when you are a manager at Walmart and you hire a cashier.
I don't know much about write for hire, and can't find much about it, but it seems to me that you are self-employed, and you
agree to a contract to produce a piece of work. From what I can tell, you don't actually get a job WITH the publisher, you
a job to do work FOR the publisher.
Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no conflict if you are contracting with someone to produce a piece of work. This is stil
very atypical and not representative of an employment contract.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.
OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.
But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Tue Aug 11 2020 09:47 am
Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.
OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.
But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.
Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in
a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output
over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's
there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign
the contract.
No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by
the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's
never been any pretense otherwise.
Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.
Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's never been any pretense otherwise.
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company wo claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.
Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are
stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.
You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over it? I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "work hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the monetary proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the story is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.
Nightfox wrote to Andeddu <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Tue Aug 11 2020 04:38 pm
Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.
I think there have been some companies that have specified that even employees' creations in their off hours could be considered company property. There was a movie that came out in 1999 called Pirates of Silicon valley, which was about Bill Gates & Steve Jobs and the
beginnings of Microsoft & Apple. Steve Wozniak worked with Steve Jobs
in the early days of Apple, and there was a scene in the movie where
Steve Wozniak had to go to his then-current employer (Hewlett-Packard)
to tell his manager about the computer he was designing, but his
manager didn't understand why people would want a computer at home,
which allowed him and Steve Jobs to sell the computer themselves. I'm
not sure how accurate that part was though, as I'm sure they made some mistakes in that movie.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that
you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company
buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep
changing what employment actually buys.
You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over i
I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "w
hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the moneta
proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the st
is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.
Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal
software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I
worked during work hours, the company could claim it.
This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually
their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the
principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For
example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could as
you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from
and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not
recognise the contractual agreement as valid.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-c
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm
If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the companywould claim it as theirs.
How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the
ompany claim that during "work hours', all thatwh
you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?
This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows
at "employment" actually is. Is the companyspecif
buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What
ically is the transaction here? You can't keepproj
changing what employment actually buys.
You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said
ect, so why wouldn't they have ownership over ipr
I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone
oduced a multi-million dollar product during "wthe
hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of
company who thereafter retained all the monetaw
proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people
ould still sign it. I guess the moral of the stha
is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not
ve a claim to the fruits of your own labour.warn
Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was
ed about this when I was working on a personalit
software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do
during work hours). I was warned that if Icontract
worked during work hours, the company could claim it.
This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the
is written such that your labour is actuallyimp
their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically
ossible, and is contradictory to even thenot
principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is
automatically valid and enforceable. Forequ
example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my
ipment being my responsibility , and I could asc
you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which
learly stipulated I was purchasing labour fromN
and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law?
o. And the reason is because they would not
recognise the contractual agreement as valid.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Obviously, if they are paying you to accomplish task X during a certain time frame and you use that time for hobbies, things are going to get ugly.
Your labor becomes "theirs" because they purchased it.
Your employer can't hire you to shoot somebody dead for no reason
because the firm has not moral or legal grounds to do it itself as a juridic person.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.
Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).
It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.
Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.
IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.
You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow, SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).
You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no
Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I worked during work hours, the company could claim it.
This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could ask you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from you and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not recognise the contractual agreement as valid.
Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.
Lets say you worked on your own equipment, a battery powered laptop of yours they would still make that claim.
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm
You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint
and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds
responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow,
SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person
(criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).
You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job
requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL
your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no
There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other types of responsibility, at least in the Western
culture and Western jurisdictions.
If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds.
Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good reason. This applies whether you
are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.
Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp lots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held
responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but then Necrocomp can
sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his negligence).
The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour" (Whatever paradigm you choose to try and explain what i
is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did this".
Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck rental can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truck
temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour can't. You cannot separate yourself from the labo
you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your action. Having a contract which claims that happen
doesn't mean it did.
This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a statement of fact, or must be enforced. The
contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then legally, the economic and political system must
consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened. If I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signed
contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange happened. It is not possible for me to transfer
to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine though, a legal system which claims that London
Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally claim tolls from people who crossed it!
Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that labour was transferred. It is not valid because it i
cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can actually transfer labour or time to someone else, only
the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.
There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being responsible for what they perform. Nor can an employment
contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can be responsible for creating new property, and we
accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are assigned to the human (or humans) which created the
property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food is still yours. The property right is attached t
the human, not to the equipment.
Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves a particular organisation of society, which is
culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly only apply to labour!), but they are nevertheless
covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to change our legal/economic system to correctly
initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with the persons which, through their agency/labour,
created the property.
... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
Companies will make the claim if there is no conflict of interest. This is the basis of them claiming they paid for it. But we have to establish, what it EXACTLY, they are buying?
Note, this doesn't happen elsewhere. If you are paying a plumber to fix you toilet, and they take a call while working to help someone else, you cannot claim what he did as part of YOUR property, because he was on 'your time'. doesn't work that way. Yet at work, we just accept it.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 95:58:51 |
| Calls: | 287 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 5,605 |
| Messages: | 226,625 |