Logical Disproof Of Profiteering

[red team]

Now I know that for fanatical defenders of the profit system, this doesn't mean a damn thing as they would manipulate with the definition of words, but mathematically this is sound logic.

Anybody here want to verify this as something that can be used in an argument?
(Comrade Red?) :)

Here's a shorter variant of the profit contract agreement disproof I've presented before
You're also free to challenge the logical coherence of this one too.

Statement: A free person does agree to be robbed

A: A free person
B: Own's total freedom
C: (A) seeks to preserve (B)
Not C: (A) seeks to limit (B)

D: the full benefits of own's labour
E: The freedom of receiving (D)
F: (E) is included as a subset of (B)

G: An employer's profit
H: (G) is a subset of (D)
I: (G) limits (D)


C is obviously true
(Not C) is obviously false
(F) is obviously true
(H) is false if you work for somebody else's profit

Because C is true meaning (Not C) is false then (F) being true invalidates any contracts signed which limits (E) because it will also limit (B) because C is true. Because (H) is true only if the employer and you are the same person meaning you are self-employed then (H) is false if you work for an employer that is not yourself.

If you work for an employer that is not yourself then (Not H) and (I) therefore the contract is invalid because (Not C) is false C is true and (I) violates (E).

Conclusion: A free person does agree to be robbed is false which implies A free person does not agree to be robbed.
Sorry: Profiteering is BULLSHIT!

Just in case any slippery con-artist want to play around with words:
short-changed = robbed = embezzled = swindled = conned = exploited = profitted from
And many others meaning unequalness in exchange

agree = seek to = desire = concede = intend
And many others meaning expressing will for

[ComradeRed]

A: A free person
B: Own's total freedom
C: (A) seeks to preserve (B)
Not C: (A) seeks to limit (B) Well, Not C would be "(A) seeks to eliminate (B)", but same concept ;)



G: An employer's profit
H: (G) is a subset of (D)
I: (G) limits (D) Not so, because this argument states that the employer seeks the full fruits of the employer's labor (or the bourgeois wants to be paid what the bourgeois earns from his own labor).

I think what you mean to say is to define revenue as the gross fruit of the gross labor (or something like that), then you would be correct here.

You took a long-a-bout way to prove something whose corollary is that profiteering is bullshit :( rather inelegant from the mathematical (and the programming) perspective.

I'll think about this some more and get back to you; but if it could be given shorter, more concice, it'd be better ;)