Libertarian Economic Logic (chart attached)
This... Just this. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
On September 16, 2019 9:48:23 PM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=taxation+is+theft
Taking most of the surplus value created by my labor is theft fuck you very much. -- Rr Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. If my brevity bothers you, you're tsol.
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:42:49 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On September 16, 2019 9:48:23 PM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=taxation+is+theft
Taking most of the surplus value created by my labor is theft fuck you very much.
the 'surplus value' is taken by govcorp. So it's all taxation. This is a basic fact of political economy that both commie scum (you), conservatives and fake 'libertarians' ignore. 'intellectual property' (Hey Jim B!), regulations, inflation, and all the rest of privileges that 'business men' have are just different forms of taxation paid by consumers.
On 2019-09-18 09:42, Razer wrote:
Taking most of the surplus value created by my labor is theft fuck you very much.
Nuts The proportion of GDP that goes to profits is about ten percent. And they earn it. Suppose someone plants trees, and they grow for thirty years, and he or his sons harvest them. Should he not get a return for saving, tying up his capital, and waiting? The alternative to people saving, investing and creating capital for return on capital is that the party creates capital by confiscating from the peasants, and tens of millions of peasants starve. Profits are the return on capital, and the return on entrepreneurship. The alternative to entrepreneurship is the party tells you what to produce, and what you may consume, and we have seen how that works out. The capitalist creates capital, and organizes production and distribution. When the party does it, you wind up with not much being produced, and what gets produced mostly stuff for the military.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:08:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-18 09:42, Razer wrote:
Taking most of the surplus value created by my labor is theft fuck you very much.
Nuts
The proportion of GDP that goes to profits is about ten percent.
And they earn it.
OK - so here's some very funny background check on her majesty the cunt james donald https://jim.com/confess.com "confessions of an 'ex' commie" - of course, fascist cunt james donald is not an EX commie. Not 'ex' at all. He used to be the worst kind of left wing totalitarian scum, a 'troskyte', and now he's a child murdering americunt with a mouth full of trump's cock. He used to be a left wing commie and now he's a right wing commie. bottom line, whatever this worthless piece of 'human' shit says about 'capitalism' is the worst kind of anti-free-market, pro-wall-street propaganda one can imagine. And again, I'll point out that only two people on this list have hysterically parroted 9/11 pentagon propaganda. The commie tazer, and the 'ex' commie cunt james donald.
On September 18, 2019 12:26:52 AM UTC, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:08:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-18 09:42, Razer wrote:
Taking most of the surplus value created by my labor is theft fuck you very much.
Nuts
The proportion of GDP that goes to profits is about ten percent.
And they earn it.
OK - so here's some very funny background check on her majesty the cunt james donald
Jim, you cowardly little slime, you've taken the link down! I didn't really want to read it anyway, just as I don't want to read any of your batshit diatribes, so I haven't hunted for it. Nuts!
"confessions of an 'ex' commie" - of course, fascist cunt james donald is not an EX commie. Not 'ex' at all. He used to be the worst kind of left wing totalitarian scum, a 'troskyte', and now he's a child murdering americunt with a mouth full of trump's cock. He used to be a left wing commie and now he's a right wing commie.
bottom line, whatever this worthless piece of 'human' shit says about 'capitalism' is the worst kind of anti-free-market, pro-wall-street propaganda one can imagine.
And again, I'll point out that only two people on this list have hysterically parroted 9/11 pentagon propaganda. The commie tazer, and the 'ex' commie cunt james donald.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 05:08:34 +0000 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On September 18, 2019 12:26:52 AM UTC, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:08:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-18 09:42, Razer wrote:
Taking most of the surplus value created by my labor is theft fuck you very much.
Nuts
The proportion of GDP that goes to profits is about ten percent.
And they earn it.
OK - so here's some very funny background check on her majesty the cunt james donald
Jim, you cowardly little slime, you've taken the link down!
MWHAHAHA - hilarious!!! And it can't be found at archive.org either. In other words, archive.org sucks. But guess what. There was a copy in my browser's cache. =) ---- To Home page Confessions of an ex commie By James A. Donald jamesd@echeque.com When I was about 13, 14, 15, I felt very oppressed, and I read a lot of stuff about participatory democracy. I became very keen on participatory democracy. I realized that there would be a problem deciding who was to participate on what, but I figured that such trivial details could be taken care of after the revolution, and I joined a radical leftist group at the age of 15. They were Spartacists. Spartacists are a kind of Trotskyite, and Trotkyites are a kind of communist and there are innumerable obscure little trot factions. The communists have a saying. “Two trots, three factions.” This particular faction of the trots was very keen on participatory democracy at that time, as were the left, and progressive forces generally at that time. I soon saw that the sparts' modus operandi was entryism. They would join much larger organizations, organizations whose goals, motivations, and members they despised, and then take over that organization and use its funds, assets, and membership list for their own purposes, rather than for the original purposes of the organization. It rapidly became obvious to me that if a large organization was genuinely practicing participatory democracy it could easily be taken over by a small well organized minority, and the only participatory organizations that could resist the sparts were those that were already dominated by a small, well entrenched, minority. Usually a hostile, suspicious and somewhat paranoid minority, a minority that tended to go on witch hunts for sparts from time to time, and check under the bed for sparts before going to sleep at night. I became disillusioned with the sparts, and disillusioned by participatory democracy – and none too keen on representative democracy either. But I still believed that it could be made to work, that one could run society and the economy and socialism in truly democratic fashion, but I realized that it might not be quite as easy, or quite as democratic, as I had hoped. At the age of seventeen I joined both the anarcho socialists and the Maoists – mostly because these were the two groups most hated by the trots. (Some years later I learnt that the main point of disagreement between Stalin and Trotsky was that Trotsky felt that Stalin was reluctant to murder enough people, and reluctant to stamp out freedom with the sort of savage vigor that Trotsky delighted in. This did not surprise me in the slightest.) Mostly I was active with the Maoists. The leaders of the Maoists were full of faith, zeal, and certainty. Each one's strength was as the strength of ten, because his heart was pure. The anarcho socialist leader suffered from uncertainty, doubt, complexity, and participatory democracy. I will tell you more of the anarcho socialists later, but first, the Maoists: In my second year at university, the leadership group of the Maoists was taken by the Chinese government on a tour of China. Now in those days “foreign friends” who toured China usually reported that they had a really great time and that China was full collectives full of happy, free and prosperous workers all equal, all working for pure love of the common good, and all filled with holy zeal for the glorious word of Chairman Mao. Somehow my friends missed out on the Potemkin village tour and got the reality tour instead. Or perhaps it is merely that the foreign friends who write those glowing reports are those who are best at closing their eyes. When they returned they were changed men. When someone asked them about their trip they would be vague and quiet, and when they finally got around to answering they would change the subject and would not look you in the eye. They would still tell you that China was a glorious workers paradise, but they no longer appeared to be listening to their own words, as if perhaps they could not bear to hear the words that they recited. Most of them continued to work full time for the revolution, but they were no longer strong and full of faith, but weak, guilty, furtive, and a little ashamed. Gradually, most of the members of the Maoist group dropped out, as did I. So now I engaged in most of my political activism with the chronically disorganized anarcho socialists. The leader of the anarcho socialists genuinely believed in participatory democracy, and as result nothing got done. We would sometimes discuss how anarcho socialism would work, and I noticed that most of us had not the faintest idea, and those that did have an idea had ideas that sounded disturbingly like the ideas that my Maoist friends had before their trip to China. My anarchist group had no literature on Catalonia. The leader, when discussing anarcho socialism, never mentioned Catalonia. Sometimes, when interacting with other anarcho socialist groups, I would see literature on the glorious anarcho socialist society created in Catalonia for a short time. Our leader tended to treat such literature as if was either invisible or coated with radioactive waste. Not that he ever said anything that suggested that Catalonia had ever fallen short of being the perfect anarchist utopia and simultaneously the perfect socialist utopia, but he appeared somewhat uncomfortable with the word “Catalonia”. Indeed he appeared incapable of speaking that word. Reading the Catalonia literature, I noticed something that disturbed me a little. The consolidation into larger economic units seemed curiously uniform and swift. If it was voluntary, if people themselves decided where they would work and what work they would do, you would expect the small workshops to gradually merge one by one, each merger separately negotiated. An even more disturbing feature was the total silence from the gloriously liberated workers of Catalonia, a silence strongly reminiscent of that which I had noticed earlier from the gloriously liberated workers of Mao's China. The glowing reports of how well the Anarchist communes worked and how free they were all came from foreigners, who had been given something that disturbingly resembled the official tours given to foreign friends in Mao's China, or they came from people who sounded suspiciously like rulers. How come an anarchist society was capable of giving people something that curiously resembles an official tour? How come free people were so utterly silent? So I stopped reading stuff about Catalonia. In one part of my mind I believed that Catalonia showed that freedom and socialism went together like ham and eggs. In another part of my mind I suspected that if I read too much about Catalonia I would suffer the same sad transformation as my Maoist friends had suffered. But this mental conflict disturbed me, and I started thinking about property rights. Imagine a society where you were given everything you needed free of charge, and gold was worthless or of little use. Imagine a society where you worked for the common good without compensation for specific work. Is this not the same thing as a society where someone else decides what you need, and someone else decides what you do? And is such a society not the same thing as a slave state? Obviously, freedom is the choice to do what you want to do, not doing what the group thinks is good for the group. Selfishness may not be a virtue, but if selfishness is forbidden, then you are not free. And in order be free to do what you want to do you need space to do it in, and things to do it with. Property is simply those things that one is free to use or misuse as one pleases, wisely or unwisely, without asking permission. Thus freedom and property rights are inseparable. And not only does my property make me more free, but other people's property also makes me more free, provided it is not all owned by a single entity. Freedom of the press is merely the property right of the guy who owns the press to print what he pleases, and my property right to buy what he prints, or not, as I please. Any system where I am free to see or read what I please, and the publisher is free to publish what he pleases, is a system where someone like Stephen Spielberg will probably make a billion dollars. If I cannot choose who I pay or not pay, then the publisher has no reason to publish what I am interested in, or he else is not free to publish what he wishes. Any system where someone like Stephen Spielberg is free to make a billion dollars will necessarily be very similar to capitalism. Imagine a society where all the printing presses and bulletin board systems were owned by the government and run by a single bureaucracy charged with ensuring that all views were given “fair” hearing, and all news was “fair” and “properly balanced”. Clearly this would be most unfree, and it is also likely that in practice certain views would not given any hearing, and that certain true facts would be deemed to be inherently misleading and unbalanced. And even if it was all perfectly fair and balanced, it would still deny me the opportunity to be unfair and unbalanced. So I gradually came to realize that the failures of socialism were not accidents, but rather an inherent consequence of socialism. Without private property there is no room for any freedom whatsoever. So I gradually dropped out from the anarcho socialists, but I continued to support the struggles of the oppressed peoples of the world against the evils of US imperialism. It seemed to me then that there was a choice between liberty and equal economic outcomes, and that those that were poor and oppressed were right to prefer equal economic outcomes to liberty and an empty belly. It was obvious to me that when multinational corporations sought to spread capitalism around the world, it was not because they wished the workers have more choices on how to make a living. I had come to realize that you could not have equal economic outcomes and liberty both, but it is plain that you can have both slavery and gross inequality, and plain that in much of the world there was plenty of that. Like all good progressive folk of that time (1976) I supported the heroic struggle of the Cambodian people under the leadership of Pol Pot against the evils of US imperialism. But those Cambodian refugees just kept on coming, and their tales of horror continued. Eventually I woke up. I saw the truth. There is no conflict between liberty and equality: If you hope to obtain equality by redistribution of wealth, you will need masters to allocate the goodies, to avoid a free for all, and some will be masters, and the rest subjects. The more redistribution, the more inequality you have in favor of those managing the redistribution, and against those looked after by their betters. For example when the government intervenes to secure “Employee rights” you wind up with an empowered human resources department, not empowered employees. Inequality cannot be remedied by concentrated and centralized power, the greater such power, the greater the injustice. And power can only be dispersed if many particular people have complete authority over many particular separate things, in other words, if everything is privately owned. Liberty is property rights. Liberty is diminished in direct proportion as property rights are violated. This document is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
But guess what. There was a copy in my browser's cache. =)
Information wants to be free. It's fair game to disagree (as vehemently as you choose) with someone's current position - but perhaps we should thank folks for being open with the world when they admit to at least part of their journey - gratitude for openness might go a little further to encouraging folks to be open, rather than harsh finger pointing for views held years ago. Of course if views held years ago are still held, and you disagree, of course you must disagree, we'd expect nothing less. But, some hope that a little generosity with gratitude for folks who try to be open and up front and live a higher standard for themselves (no matter how much you might disagree), just might have a tendency to encourage others to also engage in a more open public journey in the hope that their journey might shorten the journey of others... So a moment of gratitude here for your openness James - it's requires a little something to open up about your path to get where you are now, and no matter how much we might disagree, some respect the will to share ones journey with others. So thanks. Create your world,
On September 18, 2019 5:19:15 AM UTC, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 05:08:34 +0000 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On September 18, 2019 12:26:52 AM UTC, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:08:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-18 09:42, Razer wrote:
Taking most of the surplus value created by my labor is theft
fuck
you very much.
Nuts
The proportion of GDP that goes to profits is about ten percent.
And they earn it.
OK - so here's some very funny background check on her majesty the cunt james donald
Jim, you cowardly little slime, you've taken the link down!
MWHAHAHA - hilarious!!! And it can't be found at archive.org either. In other words, archive.org sucks.
But guess what. There was a copy in my browser's cache. =)
----
To Home page Confessions of an ex commie By James A. Donald
jamesd@echeque.com
When I was about 13, 14, 15, I felt very oppressed, and I read a lot of
[ Big Snip ] Nuts to you, Jim! I knew I'd regret reading that inane meandering load of shit, though thank you Juan for saving it for posterity from Jim's inept attempt at a purge.
On 2019-09-18 15:08, John Newman wrote:
On September 18, 2019 12:26:52 AM UTC, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:08:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-18 09:42, Razer wrote:
Taking most of the surplus value created by my labor is theft fuck you very much.
Nuts
The proportion of GDP that goes to profits is about ten percent.
And they earn it.
OK - so here's some very funny background check on her majesty the cunt james donald
Jim, you cowardly little slime, you've taken the link down! I didn't really want to read it anyway, just as I don't want to read any of your batshit diatribes, so I haven't hunted for it.
Nuts!
The commie's link to my paper is of course incorrect. The correct link is, and always has been: https://jim.com/confess.htm
On 2019-09-18 10:26, Punk wrote:
And again, I'll point out that only two people on this list have hysterically parroted 9/11 pentagon propaganda. The commie tazer, and the 'ex' commie cunt james donald.
And as I pointed out last time, it is not the Pentagon that has funny stuff connected to 9/11, but the FBI who turned a blind eye to the terrorists. Troofers blame all sorts of people, but somehow never Mueller, and never the FBI. They are FBI shills.
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 04:43:11 PM PDT, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: On September 16, 2019 9:48:23 PM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=taxation+is+theft
Taking most of the surplus value created by my labor is theft fuck you very much.
"Surplus value" is a phony, fictitious concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value that originated in the mid-1800's, when it was individual physical labor which "made" most products. Then came the Industrial Revolution, when products began to be made mostly, and eventually almost completely, by machines (and later, even robots). These days, products are manufactured virtually entirely by machine, and that includes automatically packing them into sales packaging. "Surplus value" is best seen as phony when you consider one extreme limit, you can imagine when a caretaker comes in to the factory in the morning, turns on the lights, and the machines make the products. That factory makes a 'profit', of course, the difference in the sales price of the product, and the parts and electricity used to put them together. "Workers" want to think they they 'created' the products that the machines and robots actually created. They want what they call "profit", which is actually mostly the responsibility of hundreds of machines. In reality, the cost of those products generally includes raw materials (including pre-assembled parts), and the machines which build the product. (Machines which must be purchased from other companies.) The actual value added by the fewer remaining workers is becoming tiny. AS IT SHOULD! It is this gradual change in reduction in individual, physical effort which gradually makes products cost much less, as a proportion of typical people's incomes. If you doubt this, would you rather have been "poor" in 1960, or "poor" in 2019? Today, "poor" means you can't afford a new 60-inch-plus TV every couple of years. Somebody I know just bought a 50-inch RCA TV for $230, from Walmart. In case you think the idea of a near-worker-less factory is fiction, one was actually built in Hillsboro Oregon in about 1986, to make printers. Sure, there were some workers: They opened boxes of piece-parts and poured them into bins that the robots could reach. And the human workers physically boxed the printers, presumably because that was a job that could not yet have been automated. I believe that factory still exists, it makes ink cartridges now. (Unless this is another such Epson factory.) https://apm.activecommunities.com/hillsborooregonparks/Activity_Search/epson... Put simply, workers want to believe that they are entitled to a percentage, hopefully constant, of what they calculate as being the "profit" on building products. That might have seemed true in 1850, but the idea must have been dying by 1950, and we should hope that by 2019 it is thoroughly dead. We should all be thankful that we don't live the way people lived in 1950, and certainly not in 1850. Jim Bell
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 03:00:58 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Surplus value" is a phony, fictitious concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value that originated in the mid-1800's, when it was individual physical labor which "made" most products.
wow - cosmic level of economic ignorance on display.
Then came the Industrial Revolution, when products began to be made mostly, and eventually almost completely, by machines (and later, even robots).
everything is made by 'labor' - oh wait, you think that machines magically create and operate themselves?
"Workers" want to think they they 'created' the products that the machines and robots actually created.
dude, 'workers' created the machines and robots.
They want what they call "profit", which is actually mostly the responsibility of hundreds of machines.
.... this was would be hilarious except for the fact that it's pathetic. rest of garbage ignored. Dude get a couple of books. One on political philosophy, the other on economics.
On 9/17/19, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
Dude get a couple of books. One on political philosophy, the other on economics.
If you actually bothered to list your books, people might actually bother to pick them up and read them. So what exactly is your top 5 reading list of books for people to read?
rest of garbage ignored.
Otherwise, yes, that's what many of your potential readers are likely to do.
On September 18, 2019 5:18:08 AM UTC, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/17/19, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
Dude get a couple of books. One on political philosophy, the other on economics.
If you actually bothered to list your books, people might actually bother to pick them up and read them.
So what exactly is your top 5 reading list of books for people to read?
I'd be interested in this list. I haven't read Bakunin or Kropotkin since .... high school?
rest of garbage ignored.
Otherwise, yes, that's what many of your potential readers are likely to do.
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 08:19:27 PM PDT, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 03:00:58 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Surplus value" is a phony, fictitious concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value that originated in the mid-1800's, when it was individual physical labor which "made" most products.
> wow - cosmic level of economic ignorance on display. Here, I notice that while you disagree with what I said, you made that clear, nevertheless you didn't disprove what I said, or even provide a cogent argument.
Then came the Industrial Revolution, when products began to be made mostly, and eventually almost completely, by machines (and later, even robots).
everything is made by 'labor' - oh wait, you think that machines magically create and operate themselves?) a
"made by (human) labor" doesn't QUANTIFY it, as a proportion of the total value. Today, humans do very little 'labor' in making modern products. What you (and others who push the "surplus value" nonsense) are trying to come to a quantitative conclusion (the workers are entitled to a large fraction of the 'surplus value' regardless of the quantity of their input) without any sort of quantitative analysis.
"Workers" want to think they they 'created' the products that the machines and robots actually created.
dude, 'workers' created the machines and robots.
Are you suggesting that 'the workers' who made the machine are somehow entitled to a high proportion of the 'value' represented by the products the machine is producing? Rather than merely being compensated for their time and effort?
They want what they call "profit", which is actually mostly the responsibility of hundreds of machines.
.... this was would be hilarious except for the fact that it's pathetic.
Again, you clearly DISAGREE with what I said, but you've said nothing to DISPROVE it, no even provide a credible argument why you think I'm wrong. Jim Bell
On September 18, 2019 1:24:19 PM PDT, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that 'the workers' who made the machine are somehow entitled to a high proportion of the 'value' represented by the products the machine is producing? Rather than merely being compensated for their time and effort?
Exactly. Workers don't need the boss. The boss needs them. The guy who shuffles papers for ConAgra should be sleeping in a cardboard box by the fields and the workers should be in 'the house on the hill'. Absolutely. -- Rr
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019, 01:54:28 PM PDT, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: On September 18, 2019 1:24:19 PM PDT, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that 'the workers' who made the machine are somehow entitled to a high proportion of the 'value' represented by the products the machine is producing? Rather than merely being compensated for their time and effort?
Exactly. Workers don't need the boss. The boss needs them. The guy who shuffles papers for ConAgra should be sleeping in a cardboard box by the fields and the workers should be in 'the house on the hill'. Absolutely.
That's just nuts. The machine that makes the products was PURCHASED by management, the raw materials were PURCHASED by management, the electricity which runs the machine was PURCHASED by management, all using money that was INVESTED by sources of capital. The buyer of the machine, the management, paid the seller of the machine, the whole and complete amount that the seller of that machine ever expected to get for it. The transaction was completed then and there. The buyer of the machine does not owe the seller anything, on a continuing basis. Jim Bell
On 2019-09-19 06:54, Razer wrote:
Exactly. Workers don't need the boss.
You are not going to build the Trump tower, except one man has the vision, the knowledge, and the skills, and a thousand people give effect to his vision. If you had a thousand people making it up as they go along, they would have a thousand different visions, and nine hundred and ninety of those visions would be unworkable crap. In practice, in socialism one vision, the party's vision, is necessarily imposed on everyone and everything. But the world is too vast, the party unavoidably overlooks stuff. Pharoah commands bricks to be made, and there is no straw.
On 2019-09-19 06:54, Razer wrote:
Exactly. Workers don't need the boss. The boss needs them
Do you know how to make a pencil? Could you make a pencil without the boss providing the tools, the materials, and the direction on how to use those tools and materials. Let us see your pencil.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 03:55:12PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-19 06:54, Razer wrote:
Exactly. Workers don't need the boss. The boss needs them
Do you know how to make a pencil?
Could you make a pencil without the boss providing the tools, the materials, and the direction on how to use those tools and materials.
Let us see your pencil.
There's a problem with this boss vs workers dialectic - it's a bit of a straw man. There are axes of competency - IQ, creativity, physical adroitness, physical strength, physical stamina, mental stamina (the ability to maintain focus on one concept/problem for an extended duration), empathy (actually measurable, quite extensively measured and studied, and one of the highest factors in a child correlating to IQ in later life, with IQ being a primary determinant of most else), etc. The boss/worker dichotomy is problematically restrictive to a useful conversation. The free libre and open source software movement has demonstrated definitively in this world a relative abundance of mentally competent humans willing (food, clothing and housing assumed) to dedicate inordinate hours to the creation and improvement of FLOSS software, to be made freely available for any and all. The boss/worker dichotomy appears to have something of a poverty consciousness element to it, as though we have a paucity of "bosses" and/or a paucity of humans willing to invent, construct and/ or operate machinery to create things that other humans want. As we well know, the radio was going to be the end of concerts, the TV was going to be the end of cinema, telephone the end of writing letters, cassette tapes the end of the music industry, CDs the end of the music industry, DVDs the end of the movie industry, and the Internet the end of all global production of entertainment. The end of the world is so just around the corner, always. Now, I neither know how to make a pencil, nor am particularly inclined to learn, though I am a bit of an information junkie and would gladly download and store forever, instructions for making pencils, and further instructions for making the machines that make pencils, and those for the machines to make the machines etc. Photocopying was going to be the end of books, yet we have more books, music, movies and other "creative products" produced on a yearly basis than the entire world used to see in a decade. And the internet is the abundance of the duplication of information, for the marginal cost of the electricity to do so. This is fantastic! The next step after 1) photocopiers, 2) the internet for information copying, is 3) molecular copies, where you simply pour in your molecular 'toner', plug in your USB design files and press the big green PRINT button. We are seeing more and more abundance, and more and more time available for creative pursuits rather than picking cotton or oiling the loom. A possible misnomer here is merely that once a sufficiently motivated individual (or group) creates the first of something, be it a car, radio, or 3D printer, dozens of other folks have this odd tendency to pick up the idea and run with it. And certain folk equally rapidly try to lock it all down with completely artificial and suppressive constructs such as patents and copy"rights". Richard Stallman (RMS) attempted with the GPL (Gnu General Public License) to hack the existing copyright statute laws to "reduce the 'rights' claimed around copyright law to the minimum necessary to maximally engender promulgation of more free software". Many argue over the details, but the results of the GPL speak for themselves (notwithstanding grumblings from the *BSDs and the impetulant Android exercise). The genie of FLOSS cannot be put back in the bottle of "patents and exclusively proprietary software". The genies of the radio, tv, photocopier, internet, 3d printers, and in the future molecular copiers (the "Star Trek economy"), are out of the bottle. Sufficiently motivated folks WILL build each of these things from first principles. And we need no bosses to do so. And then we will give away the results, and the world shall experience increasing layers of abundance in all areas. This is in the nature of some humans.
On September 18, 2019 10:55:12 PM PDT, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-19 06:54, Razer wrote:
Exactly. Workers don't need the boss. The boss needs them
Do you know how to make a pencil?
Yes. I also know how to make a piece of charcoal, OR sintered graphite wrapped in wood pulp, painted yellow, with a little metal band and a pice of rubber on top.
Could you make a pencil without the boss providing the tools, the materials, and the direction on how to use those tools and materials.
Why do you think a boss has to provide tools, materials, OR directions? Most bosses have ZERO idea how the technology behind their business works, or do... sell out.... and let the money-sucking leeches take over. For instance Seagate's founder Al Shugart was one of the people who figured out how to make a hard disk drive... Later, the engineers at Seagate were literally incompetent and they ended up calling in the people who were, in the beginning, hobbyists who found something they could make some money from, to figure out how to make some badly designed drive work. The same is true industry-wide. The boss's, AND Managment's job is to figure out how to skim from MY KNOWLEDGE of how to make the pencil, and rip off my labor. In Seagate's case they simply stopped designing drives and bought other people's designs, from small shops, where the people still had some love for what they were doing, and the 'boss' had a tangible part in the process of making that disk drive. Ps. Adam Smith didn't know shit about pins, either. But he DID know the boss was useless scum. "Our merchants and master manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods, both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits ; they are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains; they complain only of those of other people."
Let us see your pencil.
Suck my engorged cock. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
On 2019-09-20 03:31, Razer wrote:
Do you know how to make a pencil?
Yes. I also know how to make a piece of charcoal, OR sintered graphite wrapped in wood pulp, painted yellow, with a little metal band and a pice of rubber on top.
Nuts. I don't believe you. You cannot make a pencil, except a boss tells you, and provides the tools and materials. Notice that the grain in a good pencil is aligned. It is not just wood pulp. How do you manage that? We saw Ivan the troll make a gun. I tried to follow along, and it is not easy. Let's see you make a pencil.
On September 19, 2019 12:57:06 PM PDT, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-20 03:31, Razer wrote:
Do you know how to make a pencil?
Yes. I also know how to make a piece of charcoal, OR sintered graphite wrapped in wood pulp, painted yellow, with a little metal band and a pice of rubber on top.
Nuts.
I don't believe you. You cannot make a pencil, except a boss tells you, and provides the tools and materials.
I could make a pencil. Absolutely. But first I would NEED one. It also may not look like the one a pin factory makes, but I could make one.
Notice that the grain in a good pencil is aligned. It is not just wood
pulp. How do you manage that?
Its super-thin veneer rolled around a graphite slug. But it doesn't have to be exactly that construction to be a pencil. Bye stupid.
We saw Ivan the troll make a gun. I tried to follow along, and it is not easy. Let's see you make a pencil.
-- Rr Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please don't excuse my brevity. Fuck you either way.
On 2019-09-19 06:54, Razer wrote:
Exactly. Workers don't need the boss.
Let me tell you a story about NASA. The Nazis kidnapped Wernher von Braun from the rocket club, and put him in charge of building rockets. Then the Americans kidnapped Wernher von Braun from the Nazis and gave him to what became NASA, and NASA asked him how to build rockets. And NASA built rockets, but their rockets *still* did not work. So, they put him in charge, and *then* their rockets worked. And eventually he retired, and then their rockets gradually stopped working. Rockets stagnated and declined, until Musk started building rockets. Similarly everything electronic contains transistors. Shockley wrote the book on transistors, and I suppose everyone in the business read the book, but somehow, in practice, every transistor everywhere in the world is built by an engineer who learned how to build transistors working under an engineer who learned how to build transistors working under .... an engineer who learned how to build transistors working in Shockley's company under Shockley. You cannot even make a pencil, unless the boss provides you with tools and materials and tells you how to use those tools and materials. You can no more make a pencil than you can make a rocket.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 04:08:09PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-19 06:54, Razer wrote:
Exactly. Workers don't need the boss.
Let me tell you a story about NASA.
The Nazis kidnapped Wernher von Braun from the rocket club, and put him in charge of building rockets.
Then the Americans kidnapped Wernher von Braun from the Nazis and gave him to what became NASA, and NASA asked him how to build rockets. And NASA built rockets, but their rockets *still* did not work.
So, they put him in charge, and *then* their rockets worked.
And eventually he retired, and then their rockets gradually stopped working. Rockets stagnated and declined, until Musk started building rockets.
Similarly everything electronic contains transistors. Shockley wrote the book on transistors, and I suppose everyone in the business read the book, but somehow, in practice, every transistor everywhere in the world is built by an engineer who learned how to build transistors working under an engineer who learned how to build transistors working under .... an engineer who learned how to build transistors working in Shockley's company under Shockley.
You cannot even make a pencil, unless the boss provides you with tools and materials and tells you how to use those tools and materials. You can no more make a pencil than you can make a rocket.
Certain individuals demonstrate exceptional characteristics in areas (IQ, creativity, grokking of thermal and fluid dynamics, etc). It is wise for a group (community, nation), to facilitate those individuals to express their creativity/capacity in this world. BUT, this is -no- argument for the institution of coercive government usurping the rights and freedoms of people generally, by force and threats of guns and imprisonment under the guise of the authority of "statute law"! I.e., watch those false dichotomies, don't want 'em to bite us in the arse now...
On September 18, 2019 11:08:09 PM PDT, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-19 06:54, Razer wrote:
Exactly. Workers don't need the boss.
Let me tell you a story about NASA.
The Nazis kidnapped Wernher von Braun from the rocket club, and put him
[SNIP] He wasn't "Kidnapped", and my father, who worked with him at NASA Huntsville, verified that. He did quite nicely for himself economically and was immune from ANY criticism by fellow employees. My father had a 'meeting' with the "guys in suits" about his habit of drawing caricatures of Nazi Von Braun and leaving them on his desk. They told him: [quote] "You will do NOTHING to embarrass Doctor Von Braun. He is a GUEST of the US government. Do you understand Colonel (X)?" [/quote] Now fuck and die Nazi. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
On 2019-09-20 03:41, Razer wrote:
[Wernher von Brau] wasn't "Kidnapped", and my father, who worked with him at NASA Huntsville, verified that.
He did quite nicely for himself economically and was immune from ANY criticism by fellow employees.
My father had a 'meeting' with the "guys in suits" about his habit of drawing caricatures of Nazi Von Braun and leaving them on his desk.
They told him:
[quote]
"You will do NOTHING to embarrass Doctor Von Braun. He is a GUEST of the US government. Do you understand Colonel (X)?"
That was after they put him in charge. And before they put him in charge, before he was a guest, back when he was prisoner, their rockets did not work, even though he as helpful as he could be without taking charge.
Shockley told people how to build transistors, and Wernher von Braun told people how to build rockets. But that did not work. They had to be in a position where people had to listen to them *respectfully*. And that is why NASA, in the end, had to tell people to treat Wernher von Braun respectfully. They tried it the other way, and failed.
Socialism is a bad idea because NASA telling Musk how to build rockets does not work. Socialism is a bad idea because the family court running a family does not work. Capitalism is a good idea because the dad running the family works, and Musk telling engineers how to build a rocket does work.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:17:46 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Socialism is a bad idea because NASA telling Musk how to build rockets does not work.
musk is such a worthless piece of fascist shit that EVEN the FAKE LIBERTARIANS at reason.com don't like him https://reason.com/2016/04/28/elon-musk-crony-capitalist https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/elon-musk-is-the-cosmo-kram... https://fee.org/articles/spacex-is-giving-an-open-demonstration-of-crony-cap... https://townhall.com/columnists/stevesherman/2016/06/08/elon-musks-spacex-ex... https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/elon_musk_and_crony_capital... wow - the list is endless
Again, the Bessemer process for making steel: Bessemer found a way to make large amounts of good steel cheaply. He tried to sell his way to other steel makers, selling his method and his advice. They tried to follow the Bessemer process, and they failed. Their steel was crap. They were pissed, and blamed Bessemer. In the end, the only way that worked was for Bessemer to grow his business and train steel making engineers under his command and authority.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 20:24:19 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 08:19:27 PM PDT, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 03:00:58 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, you clearly DISAGREE with what I said, but you've said nothing to DISPROVE it,
What makes you think that your baseless assertions have to be 'disproven'? You just ASSERTED stuff, you didn't 'prove' it, so it doesn't need to be disproven. But OK - let me 'disprove' this especially ridiculous bit : "Then came the Industrial Revolution, when products began to be made mostly, and eventually almost completely, by machines (and later, even robots)." It is 'self-evident' that even to this very day little things like say, skycrapers or huge container ships are not made by 'machines'. They are made by people using tools. Lots of uh, WORKERS, work, for instance, in construction. As to the so called 'industrial revolution' http://victorian-era.org/victorian-children-in-factories.html https://spartacus-educational.com/Child_Labour.htm So now, you should be asking yourself a few questions : 1) Is there a free market? 2) Was there EVER a free market? 3) How did 'capital' get distributed? 4) How is capital distributed today? 5) How are prices determined in the current fascist enviroment? and 6) what is this? https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/
On 2019-09-19 08:28, Punk wrote:
It is 'self-evident' that even to this very day little things like say, skycrapers or huge container ships are not made by 'machines'. They are made by people using tools. Lots of uh, WORKERS, work, for instance, in construction.
But they would not be able to make these things without large amounts of capital, direction, and supervision. So who provides the capital and the supervision? Does the capitalist or the party provide it. And if the party provides, it has to get the capital somewhere, which it usually does by squeezing the peasants, with the result that large numbers of peasants starve. And party supervision, because Moscow is far away, results in shoddy workmanship and ugly skyscrapers. "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work"
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:28:43 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-19 08:28, Punk wrote:
It is 'self-evident' that even to this very day little things like say, skycrapers or huge container ships are not made by 'machines'. They are made by people using tools. Lots of uh, WORKERS, work, for instance, in construction.
But they would not be able to make these things without large amounts of capital, direction, and supervision.
false, and irrelevant anyway. lots of things can be done with little capital and no 'supervision'. Then again you are nothing but a piece of worthless facist shit. You 'were' a troskyte and you're a troskyte. Get fucking lost. You have nothing to contribute as far as freedom is concerned. All your contributions are freedom-destroying.
All your contributions are freedom-destroying.
I remember my early cp days and wondering how "commercial enterprise" would work in an actually libertarian or anarchistic community. Folks round here pointed me to various readings to understand certain concepts I was missing, and I peeked at Bakunin and Bobbio for starters, and others, and more are on my bucket list. One 'ahah' moment came from my question that when we have no coercive government wielding exclusive or predominant right and use of force over the individual humans in a community, what are we left with (wrt commercial interactions between humans)? And at least one answer is "private contract". At a fundamental level, exercising coercive force over humans who have given no consent to such use, and have not otherwise agreed to any particular law or contract, is a fundamental wrong, a violation of the inherent dignity of that individual and a violation of that individual's sovereign right to choose who to interact with or engage with (either commercially or in any other way). Violate such fundamental sovereignty (with laws, "government's "right" to exclusive use of force on a day to day basis", etc etc), and we have taken away or given up freedom at a very basic level, and as a result, created a nation of human slaves - those who are compliant and usually angry at the fundamental violation of their dignity. We must respect the right of every human to conscientiously object to those laws he deems "an ass of a law", in all cases where that human harms no one. To have an ethical law of contract? We have to say that, at least at a certain "coming of age", an individual human ought be bound by his explicit agreements, and to some degree (open to debate), his tacit agreements (those things he has not explicitly objected to). But to deny the right to conscientiously object, or to peacefully protest, is nothing but a raw tyranny upon those who seek a better world.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 07:18:49PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-19 11:39, Punk wrote:
lots of things can be done with little capital and no 'supervision'.
Lets see if you can make a pencil without a boss telling you how to do it.
"without a boss telling you how to do it" is in a real sense a sort of non-sequitor or irrelevancy. Why label the sharing of information, tutoring and/ or learning process as one involving "a boss"? If one or more sufficiently motivated individuals decide they need to make pencils, can employ their ability and creativity to learn and achieve many ends. Some things may be quite arcane, where very few have "the deepest knowledge", and other things may be very well guarded secrets - what the case is for pencil making IDK, but again, there's no need to lump learning processes with the overloaded word "boss". And, today's home hobbyist may turn out to be tomorrow's manufacturing powerhouse. We may not make a pencil or build a house, right the first time, but that can be part of the fun of living, learning, doing. It is perhaps just ingrained and well schooled thinking that leaves us holding to certain (outdated/ poverty conscious) ideas such as that "abundant commercial productivity is only possible with a boss" - that's far too general an assertion (or implication) and therefore ain't gonna hold water with any but shallow thinkers. Now, where is this "boss" concept useful or "an immoval object"? When a group of humans wishes to achieve an outcome dependent on that group, then coordination becomes very useful, perhaps vital even (depending on the outcome sought). A competent vision keeper. And when a group of humans wishes to work together frequently over time, interpersonal matters naturally arise, and someone capable of talking with those who find themselves having problems with one another may be vital to team cohesion and therefore actually achieving the outcome. A competent interpersonal arbiter/ communicator. And one human who successfully embodies both vision keeper and arbiter/ communicator, and has stamina/ persistence, and sufficient IQ for the complexity of the goal, would be a human worthy of holding in the position one might call "boss". At least, if you want to achieve the goal. There will always be hierarchies. But over time, the base of technology we can rely upon, advances (pending apocalypse of course), and so too therefore does the practical capacity of even one individual to manifest his visions, increase. Which means the goals we might set can be greater (inter-planetary travel looks like a worthy challenge for the most creative/ deepest thinkers today). Those who have great capacity on too many vectors have historically (apparently) been crucified. First hand experience of being told "intellectual capacity is a threat" by a close associate a few years ago, shocked me to the core - my inclination is to create, and give my creations away, and the ability to grok in ways to make certain creations as computer programs, requires a certain IQ (not necessarily high, but at least sufficient), and this capacity was actually named (by a low IQ associate/ friend), as a threat. Blew my mind. Gotta watch out - those of low capacity may view you as a threat and want to (literally) crucify you, even when you devote your life (seemingly) to "giving" "creating" "fixing" and "trying to help"! Strange humans in this world...
On 2019-09-19 11:39, Punk wrote:
lots of things can be done with little capital and no 'supervision'.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 07:18:49PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Lets see if you can make a pencil without a boss telling you how to do it.
On 2019-09-19 19:43, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
"without a boss telling you how to do it" is in a real sense a sort of non-sequitor or irrelevancy.
Why label the sharing of information, tutoring and/ or learning process as one involving "a boss"?
For a group of people to get anything done, someone has to be in charge. And it will not be done right unless the guy in charge knows how it should be done. I am sure we have both attended more than enough committee meetings. When Wernher von Braun was merely sharing information and tutoring at NASA, the rockets did not work. They had to put him in charge. And when he retired, they still had all that information and the people he had tutored, but the rockets stopped getting better, started to get worse, and started to fail. Shockley shared information and advised, he wrote the book, but transistors did not get built, except for a tiny number of not very reliable prototype transistors and those he personally and individually made. When he formed a company of which he was the boss, *then* transistors were mass produced. Rather more people can successfully operate a restaurant than can build rockets or transistors, but still, the vast majority of people cannot successfully operate a restaurant. The vast majority of people who attempt to do so, fail. Suppose the guy at the restaurant who *can* operate a restaurant is not the boss. He is merely sharing information and advising. The restaurant is going to fail.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:00:04 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
For a group of people to get anything done, someone has to be in charge.
notice how the troskyte is obsessed with dictatorship. All he cares about is bossing people around. Like any troskyte or right winger he's as anti-freedom as they get. rest of his idiotic, incredibly dishonest propaganda deleted.
The reason you need a boss to make a pencil is that almost no one knows how to make pencils - or any other common object, and the guy who does know is probably the boss of a pencil factory. He probably learned it by working under someone else who was boss of a pencil factory, but not everyone, not even a large proportion, of the people who worked under that boss became competent to run a pencil factory. And if you have no one person running the operation, stuff is not going to get done even if a minority of the people there know how to do it.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:14:40 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
The reason you need a boss to make a pencil is that almost no one knows how to make pencils
unhinged nonsense by the way, arguments regarding the ANARCHIC and distributed nature of 'knowledge in society' are usually presented as arguments against central planning. Notice how the fascist shitbag donald is trying to turn them on their head.
jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
The reason you need a boss to make a pencil is that almost no one knows how to make pencils
On 2019-09-20 04:59, Punk wrote:
unhinged nonsense
Let us see you make a pencil.
by the way, arguments regarding the ANARCHIC and distributed nature of 'knowledge in society' are usually presented as arguments against central planning. Notice how the fascist shitbag donald is trying to turn them on their head.
They are arguments against one big central plan, arguments for having lots of plans by lots of people, rather than one big plan. But to build a rocket, build a building, or make a pencil, or run a restaurant, the *restaurant* needs one man with one plan, and everyone working at the restaurant follows his plan. A business, like a family, has to be internally socialist, has to be externally market oriented. But that a father has to run his family does not mean it is a good idea for the King, or the family court, to run everyone's family. Knowledge is necessarily distributed, but that does not mean that everyone knows everything. It means that very few people know anything of value. And those people have to run stuff, or stuff just does not get produced. Recollect all the attempts to build a gun in a home workshop entirely from plastic and metal that was not already shaped into gun parts. For a long time, no one could build a complete gun. They always had to buy some of the parts, or else the gun would blow up. Eventually Ivan the Troll succeeded, using subtractive electrolytic machining on the parts that had to be made of high strength, high melting point, steel. But an awful lot of very talented people failed.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:29:59 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
A business, like a family, has to be internally socialist,
yes we know you're commie scum - you don't need to keep illustrating the fact with every sentence you write.
For a long time, no one could build a complete gun.
by the way, notice how talking to ignorant fucktards like donald is almost counterproductive. It's hilarious that the guy pretends to have some sort of 'technical' background given his limitless ignorance regarding the history of engineering. Now, if one bothers to look at history books, one can learn that INDIVIDUALS made COMPLEX CLOCKS, BY HAND, hundred of years BEFORE the FUCKING 'industrial revolution' but hey, only the NASA can make a pencil
On 2019-09-20 06:16, Punk wrote:
by the way, notice how talking to ignorant fucktards like donald is almost counterproductive. It's hilarious that the guy pretends to have some sort of 'technical' background given his limitless ignorance regarding the history of engineering.
Now, if one bothers to look at history books, one can learn that INDIVIDUALS made COMPLEX CLOCKS, BY HAND, hundred of years BEFORE the FUCKING 'industrial revolution'
Those people who built those clocks had the title "Master". Their apprentices had to take vows of obedience and the Master could beat them and compel their attendance. When enforceable apprenticeship was abandoned, workmanship declined. Shockley told people how to build transistors, and it did not work, Bessemer told people how to make steel, and it did not work, and Wernher von Braun told people how to build rockets and it did not work. They had to be in charge. Every piece of steel is made by an engineer who learned steel making *under* an engineer who learned steel making *under* an engineer who learned steel making *under* an engineer who learned steel making *under* ... an engineer who learned steel making *under* Bessemer. And similarly, every transistor made by an engineer who learned steel making ... *under* Shockley. Come Civil War II, we are going to have to conscript Ivan the Troll and put him in charge of making guns, as NASA had to put Wernher von Braun in charge and tell people to treat him respectfully.
On 2019-09-20 06:16, Punk wrote:
Now, if one bothers to look at history books, one can learn that INDIVIDUALS made COMPLEX CLOCKS, BY HAND, hundred of years BEFORE the FUCKING 'industrial revolution'
Not individuals, because those clocks were built under the medieval apprenticeship system. The guild system was capitalism, and the medieval capitalist system was far more authoritarian than modern capitalism, in that a Master could beat his apprentice, and if the apprentice ran away he could have the apprentice imprisoned or dragged back on a leash. And if you look at furniture, you can see that when modern capitalism replaced medieval capitalism, the skill of the furniture makers declined.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:40:57 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-20 06:16, Punk wrote:
by the way, notice how talking to ignorant fucktards like donald is almost counterproductive. It's hilarious that the guy pretends to have some sort of 'technical' background given his limitless ignorance regarding the history of engineering.
Now, if one bothers to look at history books, one can learn that INDIVIDUALS made COMPLEX CLOCKS, BY HAND, hundred of years BEFORE the FUCKING 'industrial revolution'
Those people who built those clocks had the title "Master". Their apprentices had to take vows of obedience and the Master could beat them and compel their attendance.
yes, more crony capitalism - the point of the whole system was to PREVENT people from learning how to do stuff, unless they belonged to the commercial-state mafia. you know, I was assuming that you are just a piece of trolling shit, but every post you make convinces me that you are as hopelessly brain dead as all the stuff you write. You are not 'playing dumb' - you are actually retarded. also the way you robotically repeat the same false absurdities. Maybe it's a trolling technique - or maybe you are THAT stupid.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:00:34 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-20 06:55, Punk wrote:
yes, more crony capitalism
Every technological advance that created industrial civilization came from what you are calling crony capitalism.
notice how this sub-human piece of shit only cares about 1) enslaving people 2) "getting things done" so what is donald? - he's a commie - a technocratic piece of totalitarian shit as a technocrat he doesn't give a shit about freedom. The only thing he cares is being able to buy hamburguers on amazon using his latest 'smartphone'. "industrial civilization" - something that only anti-libertarian assholes can regard as valuable.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:29:59AM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
The reason you need a boss to make a pencil is that almost no one knows how to make pencils
On 2019-09-20 04:59, Punk wrote:
unhinged nonsense
Let us see you make a pencil.
I am confident I could learn to make a pencil, work to obtain required tools and inputs, and make a pencil. "So you could be the boss" perhaps you say? Possibly I could be a reasonably competent coordinator for some number of other humans, although I am at times brash, fail to listen sufficiently, get impatient and subsequently angry, and other interpersonal traits which aren't so good in a "boss", though these negatives are softened somewhat by a significant capacity to listen and empathize when I put such a hat on. I know those who who struggle to cope just when looking at a mathematical formule such as volume of a cylinder. That's a gulf of consciousness differential right there. And there are those with so much capacity/ natural ability on various axii that I wonder at the gulfs I can only hope to cross. Some of the concepts inherent in the word "boss" are useful to grok and apply in the world. Some of the common (mis/)conceptions arising in people's minds when the word "boss" is used, are useful to avoid. It appears far too easy to hold intensely to words which convey unnecessary dichotomies. There may be more effective ways to communicate, such as getting grounded in actual (possible) plans, hopes, intentions. I am not particularly interested in rockets or establishing a colony on Mars. I would like to see the sovereignty, rights and inherent dignity of humans upheld, rather than quashed as is often the case within our current schooling and political "democratic" systems for example. When a competent human with sufficient clarity of communication, and apparent persistence, patience, empathy (and perhaps one or two other traits) shows up, there I carefully consider contributing, supporting and or in some way working with. You may call this treating that person as "a boss", but that term is a little too overloaded for my taste.
by the way, arguments regarding the ANARCHIC and distributed nature of 'knowledge in society' are usually presented as arguments against central planning. Notice how the fascist shitbag donald is trying to turn them on their head.
They are arguments against one big central plan, arguments for having lots of plans by lots of people, rather than one big plan. But to build a rocket, build a building, or make a pencil, or run a restaurant, the *restaurant* needs one man with one plan, and everyone working at the restaurant follows his plan.
A business, like a family, has to be internally socialist, has to be externally market oriented. But that a father has to run his family does not mean it is a good idea for the King, or the family court, to run everyone's family.
Knowledge is necessarily distributed, but that does not mean that everyone knows everything. It means that very few people know anything of value. And those people have to run stuff, or stuff just does not get produced.
Recollect all the attempts to build a gun in a home workshop entirely from plastic and metal that was not already shaped into gun parts.
For a long time, no one could build a complete gun. They always had to buy some of the parts, or else the gun would blow up. Eventually Ivan the Troll succeeded, using subtractive electrolytic machining on the parts that had to be made of high strength, high melting point, steel. But an awful lot of very talented people failed.
If we for a moment set aside technicalities of minutiae objections to particular words, and say hypothetically you're right on each of the above positions, we can now ask "what of it?" - a functional family requires interpersonal cohesion - a functional restaurant ditto - functional manufacturer ditto Got it. Of course we can agree with such a principle. Lack of group cohesion means effectively a dysfunctional group, at whatever granularity we look at - and the Communist central government steps on many heads, thus betrays national cohesion and asks for its demise (as does "Western democracy", may be not quite as badly). We can have cohesive groups, whilst also respecting absolutely the sovereignty (freedom to act) of the individual. As long as we're not communisticly imposing (by fiat and force), various "bosses" over those who don't consent, we might be able to find some common ground. Again, the free software movement (thank you RMS for the GPL manifesto), was a significant cause for globally distributed cohesion within the self selected anarchic group "free software community". Highly functional indidivudal humans were attracted to this group, gave enormously of their time, attention and efforts, over decades, in the face of (in the early days) gargantuan opposition, to overcome most all obstacles and literally dominate the world of computer software today. Anarchic/ anarchism success story par excellence. - RMS was a "boss" in the sense that he held staunch the grounds laid out so clearly in the GPL, encouraged (often times in quite confronting ways) those he spoke with to do likewise, and in the early days was the primary worker (coder) coding up Emacs, GCC and other software. - RMS was not a "boss" in the sense that he had no power to force anyone to "work for the cause/ group" and likewise had no power to fire anyone from the group for any reason. So, the word "boss" is not the most apropos word by a long shot... Good luck, and create our world,
On 2019-09-20 12:25, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I am confident I could learn to make a pencil, work to obtain required tools and inputs, and make a pencil.
If you had even started to think about what would be necessary to make a pencil, you would have sketched in an outline of how you would go about it. How for example, would you form graphite into pencil leads? How do you form anything? With your bare hands? What tools would you need? Hint: You cannot buy a machine for forming pencil leads, because that kind of machine is a one off - most machines for forming specific shapes are one offs. You have to make the machine, just as Ivan the Troll had to make one off devices that formed high strength, high melting point steel into gun parts, for those parts of a gun where one cannot use anything more easily shapeable, those parts where one cannot use a threedee printer or a numerically controlled lathe. And the fact that you have not sketched an outline tells me that you lack the knowledge to even think about what would be needed. Machines exist for making arbitrary threedee shapes using additive or subtractive technologies, but there are rather severe limits to the materials they can shape, and the shapes they can achieve, so that in practice you wind up using several such devices to make the things that make the things that make the thing that you actually want to make. They cannot shape pencil lead or wood, or rather they can, but not to the shapes you need for a pencil. So you would need to think about the kind of devices you would need for making a pencil, and then think about how to make those devices.
- a functional family requires interpersonal cohesion
- a functional restaurant ditto
- functional manufacturer ditto
Shockley was notoriously terrible at that, but he founded all of modern electronics. Steve Jobs was mighty bad at that also, but Apple was only able to make groundbreaking new products when Steve Jobs was at the helm. When they put Wernher von Braun in charge of what became NASA, they did not tell him he had to get on with people. They told other people that they had to get on with Wernher von Braun. He was not put in charge of NASA for his interpersonal skills, but because he could make rockets, and other people could not make rockets, even with his advice and information. Nah, what you need to make stuff is knowing how to make stuff. That is what in short supply. Interpersonal skills are worth ten cents a bale, but only if already baled. Interpersonal skills are inherently valuable only in the way water is inherently valuable. Water is not valuable, because we have plenty of water. There is a sense in which water is more valuable than diamonds, but nobody cares and nobody should care.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:53:21PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
And the fact that you have not sketched an outline tells me that you lack the knowledge to even think about what would be needed.
It might behoove your interactions to caution your own words with qualifications here and there. Absolutes can absolutely make an ass of self. Hint - you might recall me mentioning "the tools to make the tools". And in case you missed it, there's 100s of sites these days such as http://opensourcemachinetools.org/wordpress/ You want perfection in every paragraph from those you communicate with? Perhaps deliver a little more caution, and expect a little less than perfection, if you seek more productive communication.
On 2019-09-21 11:48, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:53:21PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
And the fact that you have not sketched an outline tells me that you lack the knowledge to even think about what would be needed.
It might behoove your interactions to caution your own words with qualifications here and there. Absolutes can absolutely make an ass of self.
Hint - you might recall me mentioning "the tools to make the tools".
And in case you missed it, there's 100s of sites these days such as http://opensourcemachinetools.org/wordpress/
Which don't tell you how to make a pencil.
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 06:15:00PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-21 11:48, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:53:21PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
And the fact that you have not sketched an outline tells me that you lack the knowledge to even think about what would be needed.
It might behoove your interactions to caution your own words with qualifications here and there. Absolutes can absolutely make an ass of self.
Hint - you might recall me mentioning "the tools to make the tools".
And in case you missed it, there's 100s of sites these days such as http://opensourcemachinetools.org/wordpress/
Which don't tell you how to make a pencil.
How many years was the interval between when RMS started his version of "the free software movement/ community" and now (now being a relevant point in time where we see an incredibly abundant cornucopia of all manner of computer software, in free forms available to all) ?
On 2019-09-20 04:59, Punk wrote:
by the way, arguments regarding the ANARCHIC and distributed nature of 'knowledge in society' are usually presented as arguments against central planning. Notice how the fascist shitbag donald is trying to turn them on their head.
The argument against central planning is that the King does not know how to build a pencil, or bake a pizza - because very few people know how to make pencils or run a pizza shop. This means it is a very bad idea for NASA to tell Musk how to make rockets. But it is a very good idea for Musk to tell his engineers how to make rockets, because until Musk started to make rockets, rockets were getting worse, not better.
The schmuck is a Rocket Scientist. He KNOWS Musk builds better blah blah. On September 19, 2019 12:45:19 PM PDT, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-20 04:59, Punk wrote:
by the way, arguments regarding the ANARCHIC and distributed nature of 'knowledge in society' are usually presented as arguments against central planning. Notice how the fascist shitbag donald is trying to turn them on their head.
The argument against central planning is that the King does not know how to build a pencil, or bake a pizza - because very few people know how to make pencils or run a pizza shop.
This means it is a very bad idea for NASA to tell Musk how to make rockets. But it is a very good idea for Musk to tell his engineers how
to make rockets, because until Musk started to make rockets, rockets were getting worse, not better.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:18:49 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-09-19 11:39, Punk wrote:
lots of things can be done with little capital and no 'supervision'.
Lets see if you can make a pencil without a boss telling you how to do it.
somebody might be wondering why the troskyte is ranting about pencils. It's because of some 'essay' written by some fake americunt 'libertarian', an essay that the troskty prolly didn't even read, as usual. Pencil making was used to illustrate division of labor and so right wing fucktardsm including the author's essay of course, came to the laughable conclusion that you need extenisve division of labor to make a pencil. Which is nuts! or rather, incredibly stupid. now as to extensive division of labor, right wing fucktards and fake libertarians love to rant about the benefits it produces while ignoring the costs of division of labor. Who would have thought that these people suck at economics!
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019, 03:25:56 PM PDT, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 20:24:19 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 08:19:27 PM PDT, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 03:00:58 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, you clearly DISAGREE with what I said, but you've said nothing to DISPROVE it,
> What makes you think that your baseless assertions have to be 'disproven'? You just ASSERTED stuff, you didn't 'prove' it, so it doesn't need to be disproven. You are misrepresenting what I said, and that amounts to a 'strawman argument'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Yes, I asserted, but it was with an argument, but the only thing you did was to merely deny, with no argument at all. > But OK - let me 'disprove' this especially ridiculous bit : >> "Then came the Industrial Revolution, when products began to be made mostly, and eventually almost completely, by machines (and later, even robots)." It is 'self-evident' that even to this very day little things like say, skycrapers or huge container ships are not made by 'machines'. They are made by people using tools. Lots of uh, WORKERS, work, for instance, in construction. That is a kind of work, and the people who do it are paid quite well. Quite possibly overpaid. In any case, they are paid for the work they do. They are not entitled to a fraction of the productivity of the people who will eventually live and work in the building they constructed. > As to the so called 'industrial revolution' http://victorian-era.org/victorian-children-in-factories.html Child Labour in the Mining Industry
So now, you should be asking yourself a few questions : 1) Is there a free market?
I've never claimed that there a 'free market', at least in the last few hundred years.
2) Was there EVER a free market?
I cannot think of one. >3) How did 'capital' get distributed? I think of "capital" as merely accumulated wealth that the owners decide to invest in a venture they predict will be productive. I've never liked the term "capitalism", because it is only one aspect of what ought to be a "free market". The modern term might be "crowdsourced investment money". "4) How is capital distributed today?" Your question is vague. Maybe you should answer your own question, so we will all know what you meant. >5) How are prices determined in the current fascist enviroment? To some degree, there is usually competition. > and 6) what is this?
The Big Bank Bailout
I'm not defending today's (or yesterday's) societies, claiming that they represent "the free market". Jim Bell
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 06:19:13 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But OK - let me 'disprove' this especially ridiculous bit :
>> "Then came the Industrial Revolution, when products began to be made mostly, and eventually almost completely, by machines (and later, even robots)."
It is 'self-evident' that even to this very day little things like say, skycrapers or huge container ships are not made by 'machines'. They are made by people using tools. Lots of uh, WORKERS, work, for instance, in construction.
That is a kind of work, and the people who do it are paid quite well. Quite possibly overpaid.
So your previous claim about machines was at least partially wrong, and now you changed your argument on the fly. Now you're asserting that those people are 'well paid' or even 'overpaid' =)
In any case, they are paid for the work they do.
Well, that's the whole issue. Obviously they are paid SOME amount. Question is, is that the right amount? How can we know?
They are not entitled to a fraction of the productivity of the people who will eventually live and work in the building they constructed.
I never said they are.
> As to the so called 'industrial revolution'
http://victorian-era.org/victorian-children-in-factories.html Child Labour in the Mining Industry
So now, you should be asking yourself a few questions : 1) Is there a free market?
I've never claimed that there a 'free market', at least in the last few hundred years.
2) Was there EVER a free market?
I cannot think of one.
Fine. So I guess we agree that the current distribution of property titles(and hence 'capital') is not the result of a free market at work. Without going back too far in time, it can be seen that the old government and commercial 'elites' have morphed into new 'elites' without losing too much power (if any).
>3) How did 'capital' get distributed?
I think of "capital" as merely accumulated wealth that the owners decide to invest in a venture they predict will be productive.
Yes, that's one aspect of it. But I was getting at how did wealth get accumulated in practice, in the first place.
I've never liked the term "capitalism", because it is only one aspect of what ought to be a "free market". The modern term might be "crowdsourced investment money".
Yes, that's an accurate term.
"4) How is capital distributed today?"
Your question is vague. Maybe you should answer your own question, so we will all know what you meant.
I'm getting at the fact that past and present distribution of property is far from ideal and just, on libertarian grounds.
>5) How are prices determined in the current fascist enviroment?
To some degree, there is usually competition.
True. And to some other degree there's central planning by govcorp. So, do you think govcorp will set the price of labor at levels that benefit them, or the 'workers'?
> and 6) what is this?
The Big Bank Bailout
I'm not defending today's (or yesterday's) societies, claiming that they represent "the free market".
...in that case you shouldn't be too bothered by the term 'surplus value' regardless of its marxist overtones because it can be used to refer to the fact that current price for labor is not what it would be in a free market. Also, rigged markets mean that products are more expensive than they should be and so 'surplus value' flows from consumers to privileged producers.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 06:19:13AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019, 03:25:56 PM PDT, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: >5) How are prices determined in the current fascist enviroment? To some degree, there is usually competition. > and 6) what is this?
The Big Bank Bailout I'm not defending today's (or yesterday's) societies, claiming that they represent "the free market".
Indeed, remember the Fed. Much of today's world chaos is a direct result of unethical, mathematically cyclically chaotic, and fundamentally unfair banking system. Yes there will always be hierarchies - of competency at the least. But this is no argument to acquiesce to -unfair- (in the extreme) hierarchies such as epitomised by the Federal Reserve banking system. Remember the Fed!
participants (7)
-
grarpamp -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
jim bell -
John Newman -
Punk -
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness