Political Twelve Monkeys

[213374U]

Make up your minds comrades either you worry about the worker or capitalist profits.

Not so much to do with profit as with the breakeven point.

 

I'd expect a self-proclaimed "entrepreneur" to have a better grasp on micro.

[213374U]

Huh?

I have a very good grasp on economic both micro and macro as proven by my success in business.

I just pointed out that if the employees are not happy with working for an employer then they are free to work on their own account and as I wrote calculate which is more profitable for them. 

I firmly believe that everyone should choose the best option for themselves.

You either agree with Ben that employers are "stealing" the work of the employees or you don't.

If you do then why are you concerned about the capitalist profits and if you don't then what is the point of your post other than a blind attack on me?

 

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before.

 

But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not.

Edited November 16, 2017 by 213374U

[213374U]

Cool story bro. Maybe once you're done sucking yourself off, you can explain what any of that has to do with your suggestion that anyone who doesn't fancy working for others, is free to become self-employed.

[Malcador]

Trump admin. to reverse ban on elephant trophies from Africa.

 

America First...

I am sure the information that the hunt helps the species won't be bought.

[Guard Dog]

 

Trump admin. to reverse ban on elephant trophies from Africa.

 

America First...

I am sure the information that the hunt helps the species won't be bought.

 

I have a real personal problem with hunting for reasons other than consumption. But that's me. These hunts take place in other countries in accordance with their laws. It is not the US governments business to tell citizens they can't go to a place they are welcome to do an activity that is legal. And this ban was yet another example of an intrusive nanny state sticking it's nose where it does not belong. If you want the hunts banned you really should be talking to the governments that not only allow but encourage them.

 

As distasteful as I find the activity, free people should be left alone to pursue their interests as long as they are legal where they pursue them.

[Elerond]

 

 

Trump admin. to reverse ban on elephant trophies from Africa.

 

America First...

I am sure the information that the hunt helps the species won't be bought.

 

I have a real personal problem with hunting for reasons other than consumption. But that's me. These hunts take place in other countries in accordance with their laws. It is not the US governments business to tell citizens they can't go to a place they are welcome to do an activity that is legal. And this ban was yet another example of an intrusive nanny state sticking it's nose where it does not belong. If you want the hunts banned you really should be talking to the governments that not only allow but encourage them.

 

As distasteful as I find the activity, free people should be left alone to pursue their interests as long as they are legal where they pursue them.

 

 

So government should not ban importing goods that are attained legally in some other country which has questionable laws, even if it something like for example drugs and slaves? 

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Elerond

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

I'd expect a self-proclaimed "entrepreneur" to have a better grasp on micro.

 

 

Huh?

I have a very good grasp on economic both micro and macro as proven by my success in business.

 

 

[citation needed]

[Malcador]

 

 

Trump admin. to reverse ban on elephant trophies from Africa.

 

America First...

I am sure the information that the hunt helps the species won't be bought.

I have a real personal problem with hunting for reasons other than consumption. But that's me. These hunts take place in other countries in accordance with their laws. It is not the US governments business to tell citizens they can't go to a place they are welcome to do an activity that is legal. And this ban was yet another example of an intrusive nanny state sticking it's nose where it does not belong. If you want the hunts banned you really should be talking to the governments that not only allow but encourage them.

 

As distasteful as I find the activity, free people should be left alone to pursue their interests as long as they are legal where they pursue them.

Well it is part of a global effort to prevent needless killing of animals. You pressure the governments that allow this nonsense that way.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Trump admin. to reverse ban on elephant trophies from Africa.

 

America First...

I am sure the information that the hunt helps the species won't be bought.

I have a real personal problem with hunting for reasons other than consumption. But that's me. These hunts take place in other countries in accordance with their laws. It is not the US governments business to tell citizens they can't go to a place they are welcome to do an activity that is legal. And this ban was yet another example of an intrusive nanny state sticking it's nose where it does not belong. If you want the hunts banned you really should be talking to the governments that not only allow but encourage them.

 

As distasteful as I find the activity, free people should be left alone to pursue their interests as long as they are legal where they pursue them.

Well it is part of a global effort to prevent needless killing of animals. You pressure the governments that allow this nonsense that way.

 

What other countries do is no business of ours. A sentiment I believe I have heard you champion a time or two.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

Huh?

I have a very good grasp on economic both micro and macro as proven by my success in business.

I just pointed out that if the employees are not happy with working for an employer then they are free to work on their own account and as I wrote calculate which is more profitable for them.

I firmly believe that everyone should choose the best option for themselves.

You either agree with Ben that employers are "stealing" the work of the employees or you don't.

If you do then why are you concerned about the capitalist profits and if you don't then what is the point of your post other than a blind attack on me?

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before.

 

But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not.

Since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with capital, who invest his capital and bears all the risk, gives the tools, materials etc. and handles all the other costs, and you have a guy who bears no risks and only contributes his time and skill. But to Ben and you the former one is a thief. Go figure

since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with labour power, who has no choice but to sell this labour power, who tries to provide for a family (food stamps don’t buy diapers), who gives the majority of his wake time and certainly his energy into producing capital with his labour power; and you have a guy who takes said capital. But to Guard Dog and you the latter one isn’t a thief. Go figure Edited November 16, 2017 by Ben No.3

[smjjames]

 

 

 

 

Trump admin. to reverse ban on elephant trophies from Africa.

America First...

 

I am sure the information that the hunt helps the species won't be bought.

I have a real personal problem with hunting for reasons other than consumption. But that's me. These hunts take place in other countries in accordance with their laws. It is not the US governments business to tell citizens they can't go to a place they are welcome to do an activity that is legal. And this ban was yet another example of an intrusive nanny state sticking it's nose where it does not belong. If you want the hunts banned you really should be talking to the governments that not only allow but encourage them.

As distasteful as I find the activity, free people should be left alone to pursue their interests as long as they are legal where they pursue them.

Well it is part of a global effort to prevent needless killing of animals. You pressure the governments that allow this nonsense that way.

What other countries do is no business of ours. A sentiment I believe I have heard you champion a time or two.

Until it happens to affect things that just happen to be in the interests of the US or are things that interest the libertarian politician.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

Trump admin. to reverse ban on elephant trophies from Africa.

America First...

I am sure the information that the hunt helps the species won't be bought.

I have a real personal problem with hunting for reasons other than consumption. But that's me. These hunts take place in other countries in accordance with their laws. It is not the US governments business to tell citizens they can't go to a place they are welcome to do an activity that is legal. And this ban was yet another example of an intrusive nanny state sticking it's nose where it does not belong. If you want the hunts banned you really should be talking to the governments that not only allow but encourage them.

As distasteful as I find the activity, free people should be left alone to pursue their interests as long as they are legal where they pursue them.

Well it is part of a global effort to prevent needless killing of animals. You pressure the governments that allow this nonsense that way.

What other countries do is no business of ours. A sentiment I believe I have heard you champion a time or two.

Until it happens to affect things that just happen to be in the interests of the US or are things that interest the libertarian politician.

 

I think the libertarian politician would understand the interests of the United States, except for treaties and agreements were are currently in, end at the edge of the water or Canadian border. A significant difference between the LP and two major parties. You know this is now the second comment you have made that makes me thing you have no clue just what the LP is or the philosophy is all about. Perhaps you should read into it a bit. And I say that in a completely non-hostile way. 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Huh?

I have a very good grasp on economic both micro and macro as proven by my success in business.

I just pointed out that if the employees are not happy with working for an employer then they are free to work on their own account and as I wrote calculate which is more profitable for them.

I firmly believe that everyone should choose the best option for themselves.

You either agree with Ben that employers are "stealing" the work of the employees or you don't.

If you do then why are you concerned about the capitalist profits and if you don't then what is the point of your post other than a blind attack on me?

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before.

 

But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not.

Since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with capital, who invest his capital and bears all the risk, gives the tools, materials etc. and handles all the other costs, and you have a guy who bears no risks and only contributes his time and skill. But to Ben and you the former one is a thief. Go figure

since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with labour power, who has no choice but to sell this labour power, who tries to provide for a family (food stamps don’t buy diapers), who gives the majority of his wake time and certainly his energy into producing capital with his labour power; and you have a guy who takes said capital. But to Guard Dog and you the latter one isn’t a thief. Go figure

 

Ben, what makes a sales transaction not a robbery? Consent. What makes sex not a rape? Consent. What makes employment not slavery? Consent. If the employee feels he's getting a bad deal from the employer then the employee is free to go sell his labor to someone else. He's also free to organize with the other employees and bargain collectively with the employer. If I can't find enough miners to dig up my coal for the wages I'm offering then I have two choices: offer higher wages or pick up a shovel. Employment is an agreement both sides enter into freely and can leave freely.

 

Buy the way, you were not free to quit or even choose your job or place of employment in the places where real communism was practiced.  

[smjjames]

Doesn't help when the most visible representatives of Libertarianism (Ron and Rand Paul) are kind of on the fringes of Libertarianism.

 

The Libertarian candidate last year seemed okayish at first (at least not as extreme as Rand and Ron Paul, who are really the only Libertarian politicians I know of), until he started making a fool of himself in a way that probably embarrassed libertarians as well.

[Guard Dog]

The LP, much like every other political party, is not monolithic. There are many different factions. I can sum it all up fairly well by saying there are two schools of thought: The big L libertarians and the little L libertarians. The big L's are the Harry Browne "burn this b---h down" wing. They want maximum freedom, the complete disassembly of everything the federal and state governments are doing that is immoral and unconstitutional and they want it now! These are the ones you see shouting that Gary Johnson wasn't libertarian enough. They are the ideological purists who insist all other schools of thought are oppressive and must be disregarded. This was the group that had run the party from it's inception in 1972 up until about 2004.

 

Since then the majority (myself included) have favored the little L faction. While we may agree on the ends of the big L we do not agree on the means. The problems of overwhelming debt, insurmountable spending deficits, intrusions by the state into our lives that are neither moral or constitutional did not spring up over night and won't be solved overnight. And there is nothing wrong with making common cause and running candidates that mostly agree with us like Gary Johnson. Yep, he was not perfect. The other alternative was John Macafee who was a whole other mess of big L trouble. It seems we run two kinds of candidates. The good ones no one has ever heard of and the unsuitable ones no one will vote for..

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

Huh?

I have a very good grasp on economic both micro and macro as proven by my success in business.

I just pointed out that if the employees are not happy with working for an employer then they are free to work on their own account and as I wrote calculate which is more profitable for them.

I firmly believe that everyone should choose the best option for themselves.

You either agree with Ben that employers are "stealing" the work of the employees or you don't.

If you do then why are you concerned about the capitalist profits and if you don't then what is the point of your post other than a blind attack on me?

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before.

 

But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not.

Since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with capital, who invest his capital and bears all the risk, gives the tools, materials etc. and handles all the other costs, and you have a guy who bears no risks and only contributes his time and skill. But to Ben and you the former one is a thief. Go figure

since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with labour power, who has no choice but to sell this labour power, who tries to provide for a family (food stamps don’t buy diapers), who gives the majority of his wake time and certainly his energy into producing capital with his labour power; and you have a guy who takes said capital. But to Guard Dog and you the latter one isn’t a thief. Go figure

Ben, what makes a sales transaction not a robbery? Consent. What makes sex not a rape? Consent. What makes employment not slavery? Consent. If the employee feels he's getting a bad deal from the employer then the employee is free to go sell his labor to someone else. He's also free to organize with the other employees and bargain collectively with the employer. If I can't find enough miners to dig up my coal for the wages I'm offering then I have two choices: offer higher wages or pick up a shovel. Employment is an agreement both sides enter into freely and can leave freely.

 

Buy the way, you were not free to quit or even choose your job or place of employment in the places where real communism was practiced.

You’re freedom is not free at all. If I’m poor, I merely have the choice of who I will beg to rob me. If I am rich, I merely have the choice of which tools to use to stay rich. Either way, it is for both a largely pointless endeavour in a quest to lead a life they never had a choice to. Whether you have nothing, little or much, the capitalist system makes you a servant of your material conditions. Essentially, a live defined by fear and alienation from your work, your surroundings, your friends, your life, yourself.

 

I am fully aware of the shortcomings and disasters caused by the communist regimes of the past. I am sure you are too. But tell me Guard Dog, how much time have you spend exploring the shortcomings and disasters caused by capitalism? Genuine question, how do you respond to the philosophical worries that one might have about the capitalist system? What do you tell the student who visits a school that teaches him how to pass test and a university that teaches him how to get a degree when he tries to get a grasp on the world and hasn’t learned a thing in his life?

Edited November 16, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

Huh?

I have a very good grasp on economic both micro and macro as proven by my success in business.

I just pointed out that if the employees are not happy with working for an employer then they are free to work on their own account and as I wrote calculate which is more profitable for them.

I firmly believe that everyone should choose the best option for themselves.

You either agree with Ben that employers are "stealing" the work of the employees or you don't.

If you do then why are you concerned about the capitalist profits and if you don't then what is the point of your post other than a blind attack on me?

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before.

 

But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not.

Since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with capital, who invest his capital and bears all the risk, gives the tools, materials etc. and handles all the other costs, and you have a guy who bears no risks and only contributes his time and skill. But to Ben and you the former one is a thief. Go figure

since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with labour power, who has no choice but to sell this labour power, who tries to provide for a family (food stamps don’t buy diapers), who gives the majority of his wake time and certainly his energy into producing capital with his labour power; and you have a guy who takes said capital. But to Guard Dog and you the latter one isn’t a thief. Go figure

Ben, what makes a sales transaction not a robbery? Consent. What makes sex not a rape? Consent. What makes employment not slavery? Consent. If the employee feels he's getting a bad deal from the employer then the employee is free to go sell his labor to someone else. He's also free to organize with the other employees and bargain collectively with the employer. If I can't find enough miners to dig up my coal for the wages I'm offering then I have two choices: offer higher wages or pick up a shovel. Employment is an agreement both sides enter into freely and can leave freely.

 

Buy the way, you were not free to quit or even choose your job or place of employment in the places where real communism was practiced.

You’re freedom is not free at all. If I’m poor, I merely have the choice of who I will beg to rob me. If I am rich, I merely have the choice of which tools to use to stay rich. Either way, it is for both a largely pointless endeavour in a quest to lead a life they never had a choice to. Whether you have nothing, little or much, the capitalist system makes you a servant of your material conditions. Essentially,

 

I am fully aware of the shortcomings and disasters caused by the communist regimes of the past. I am sure you are too. But tell me Guard Dog, how much time have you spend exploring the shortcomings and disasters caused by capitalism?

 

Yep. Capitalism is the worst system in the world. Except for all the others. But you know what it does offer? A path to success that allows even the poorest to climb the ladder to success. I know because I see a guy who did it every day in the mirror.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

 

Trump admin. to reverse ban on elephant trophies from Africa.

 

America First...

I am sure the information that the hunt helps the species won't be bought.

I have a real personal problem with hunting for reasons other than consumption. But that's me. These hunts take place in other countries in accordance with their laws. It is not the US governments business to tell citizens they can't go to a place they are welcome to do an activity that is legal. And this ban was yet another example of an intrusive nanny state sticking it's nose where it does not belong. If you want the hunts banned you really should be talking to the governments that not only allow but encourage them.

 

As distasteful as I find the activity, free people should be left alone to pursue their interests as long as they are legal where they pursue them.

Well it is part of a global effort to prevent needless killing of animals. You pressure the governments that allow this nonsense that way.

What other countries do is no business of ours. A sentiment I believe I have heard you champion a time or two.

Depends on what they do and is their citizens alone. This particular item is not worth draping in the flag of liberties or what have you given it's probably due to his sons going on these trip, heh.

[smjjames]

The LP, much like every other political party, is not monolithic. There are many different factions. I can sum it all up fairly well by saying there are two schools of thought: The big L libertarians and the little L libertarians. The big L's are the Harry Browne "burn this b---h down" wing. They want maximum freedom, the complete disassembly of everything the federal and state governments are doing that is immoral and unconstitutional and they want it now! These are the ones you see shouting that Gary Johnson wasn't libertarian enough. They are the ideological purists who insist all other schools of thought are oppressive and must be disregarded. This was the group that had run the party from it's inception in 1972 up until about 2004.

 

Since then the majority (myself included) have favored the little L faction. While we may agree on the ends of the big L we do not agree on the means. The problems of overwhelming debt, insurmountable spending deficits, intrusions by the state into our lives that are neither moral or constitutional did not spring up over night and won't be solved overnight. And there is nothing wrong with making common cause and running candidates that mostly agree with us like Gary Johnson. Yep, he was not perfect. The other alternative was John Macafee who was a whole other mess of big L trouble. It seems we run two kinds of candidates. The good ones no one has ever heard of and the unsuitable ones no one will vote for..

Which one would you put Ron and Rand Paul in? They're sort of the Ayn Rand type Libertarian I believe. I know it's not monolithic, but it can be hard to tell where other libertarians stand when all you see is the crazy.

[213374U]

Ben, what makes a sales transaction not a robbery? Consent. What makes sex not a rape? Consent. What makes employment not slavery? Consent. If the employee feels he's getting a bad deal from the employer then the employee is free to go sell his labor to someone else. He's also free to organize with the other employees and bargain collectively with the employer. If I can't find enough miners to dig up my coal for the wages I'm offering then I have two choices: offer higher wages or pick up a shovel. Employment is an agreement both sides enter into freely and can leave freely.

 

Buy the way, you were not free to quit or even choose your job or place of employment in the places where real communism was practiced.

 

What is so hard to understand about the fact that jobs demand is strongly inelastic? You cannot survive without income, and if you have no capital, you cannot have an income without work. So you're not "free" to choose whether to sell your labor or not. You must sell it, at whatever price the market is willing to pay for it.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Huh?

I have a very good grasp on economic both micro and macro as proven by my success in business.

I just pointed out that if the employees are not happy with working for an employer then they are free to work on their own account and as I wrote calculate which is more profitable for them.

I firmly believe that everyone should choose the best option for themselves.

You either agree with Ben that employers are "stealing" the work of the employees or you don't.

If you do then why are you concerned about the capitalist profits and if you don't then what is the point of your post other than a blind attack on me?

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before.

 

But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not.

Since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with capital, who invest his capital and bears all the risk, gives the tools, materials etc. and handles all the other costs, and you have a guy who bears no risks and only contributes his time and skill. But to Ben and you the former one is a thief. Go figure

since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with labour power, who has no choice but to sell this labour power, who tries to provide for a family (food stamps don’t buy diapers), who gives the majority of his wake time and certainly his energy into producing capital with his labour power; and you have a guy who takes said capital. But to Guard Dog and you the latter one isn’t a thief. Go figure

Ben, what makes a sales transaction not a robbery? Consent. What makes sex not a rape? Consent. What makes employment not slavery? Consent. If the employee feels he's getting a bad deal from the employer then the employee is free to go sell his labor to someone else. He's also free to organize with the other employees and bargain collectively with the employer. If I can't find enough miners to dig up my coal for the wages I'm offering then I have two choices: offer higher wages or pick up a shovel. Employment is an agreement both sides enter into freely and can leave freely.

 

Buy the way, you were not free to quit or even choose your job or place of employment in the places where real communism was practiced.

You’re freedom is not free at all. If I’m poor, I merely have the choice of who I will beg to rob me. If I am rich, I merely have the choice of which tools to use to stay rich. Either way, it is for both a largely pointless endeavour in a quest to lead a life they never had a choice to. Whether you have nothing, little or much, the capitalist system makes you a servant of your material conditions. Essentially,

 

I am fully aware of the shortcomings and disasters caused by the communist regimes of the past. I am sure you are too. But tell me Guard Dog, how much time have you spend exploring the shortcomings and disasters caused by capitalism?

Yep. Capitalism is the worst system in the world. Except for all the others. But you know what it does offer? A path to success that allows even the poorest to climb the ladder to success. I know because I see a guy who did it every day in the mirror.

the proof of how good a system is is the one guy out of a thousand who, against all odds and (let’s be honest) largely due to luck (not that I don’t trust your skill, work ethic, or talent; but I do believe that amongst the many poor of America there have to be more people like you who remain poor) who used what he gained to isolate himself from said system as far away as possible to him somewhere on a lonely farm?

[Gfted1]

Are multiple failures of a system proof of a good system?

[213374U]

Yep. Capitalism is the worst system in the world. Except for all the others. But you know what it does offer? A path to success that allows even the poorest to climb the ladder to success. I know because I see a guy who did it every day in the mirror.

A broken clock is also right twice a day. I'm really happy for you, but the "rags to riches" idea has been proven to be mostly a (rather useful) myth.

[smjjames]

Are multiple failures of a system proof of a good system?

I don't think there has ever been a system that is 100% failure proof.

[Malcador]

Are multiple failures of a system proof of a good system?

If it has one less than the next best, then yes