"Coercion" ...again.

[Tungsten]

LSD

That's because the "right" to private property nescessarily effects others.

That is, your "ownership" of a resource prevents others from utilizing said resource and can, in certain situations, lead to their suffering and/or death.
The same argument could be used in reference to labour and used as a justification for slavery. i.e. while your working for your own benefit, you're not necessarily working for someone else's, which might result in their death or starvation, therefore it's justifiable to make you work for someone else's benefit whether you like it or not.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 12:19 PM
The same argument could be used in reference to labour and used as a justification for slavery. i.e. while your working for your own benefit, you're not necessarily working for someone else's, which might result in their death or starvation, therefore it's justifiable to make you work for someone else's benefit whether you like it or not.
You're wrong there mate. It can only be used as justification for being a slave, the other part of slavery - the owning and keeping of slaves cannot be justified by that logic because it would require a coercive force which by its nature acts against the interests of the slave. Nice try there though.

[Tungsten]

Jazzratt

You're wrong there mate. It can only be used as justification for being a slave, the other part of slavery - the owning and keeping of slaves cannot be justified by that logic because it would require a coercive force which by its nature acts against the interests of the slave.
Communists have never been shy about using coercive force in the past, so why the fuss now? Quote where any communist has argued in favour of the non-initiation of force principle, and I might be tempted to believe you.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:11 PM
Communists have never been shy about using coercive force in the past, so why the fuss now? Quote where any communist has argued in favour of the non-initiation of force principle, and I might be tempted to believe you.
In what context? Most Communists would be disgusted by the kind of coercion used by the capitalist state and the slave owners in the example and many would speak out against that. As for the 'coercive force' that they do not shy away from (and by this I'm assuming you mean revolution) I would assert it is mearly a self defense by those subject to coercion themselves, in a way it was non-initiated force: after all the cappies started it by enslaving most of humanity in the name of 'economic freedom.'

On topic: Yes this homophobia is disgusting and just the kind of small minded bigotry and backward cretinism that divides the working class. It is a false divide created by the churches and encouraged by the plutocratic oligarchs which control every aspect of this capitalist "free" society.

[red team]

Originally posted by Tungsten
The same argument could be used in reference to labour and used as a justification for slavery. i.e. while your working for your own benefit, you're not necessarily working for someone else's, which might result in their death or starvation, therefore it's justifiable to make you work for someone else's benefit whether you like it or not.

You're intentionally negating the fact that most work accomplished in industrialized countries are done in coordinated groups in which no one person can actually be said to be solely responsible for the finished product and that the actual production of material goods is almost always done with energy fueled and in some cases computerized machinery which further negates the justification that the end product is solely of one's manual personal effort, but hey, don't let that bother your overinflated ego for being a brutish exploiter of other people's labour including child labour.

[overlord]

Redteam:


So if I should insult my boss to his face at work by calling him a lazy, stupid parasite can I still be expected to be employed?
I suppose not.



Same with you. If you insult somebody, you'll be denied participation in society or forced to perform compensational work.

Point taken.



But for someone who is favor of sweatshops and deniability of responsibility for industrial accidents caused by your horrendous working conditions and to subject children to this shit the degree of punishment should be harsher.

Actually no amount of punishment can make up for that since available technology can make this suffering all unnecessary. That is why I advocate turning cappies into computer-controlled zombies or live organ farms and believe me the technology is in hand to do exactly that.
Do you hate me that much? Am I really such a bad person? Maybe I am.. :mellow:

[Tungsten]

red team

You're intentionally negating the fact that most work accomplished in industrialized countries are done in coordinated groups in which no one person can actually be said to be solely responsible for the finished product
Nice attempt to obfuscate who's labour is responsible for what, but there's only one kind of person who has something to gain by doing that- those who didn't do any.
Jazzratt

In what context? Most Communists would be disgusted by the kind of coercion used by the capitalist state
It's not coercion in any meaningful sense of the word.

As for the 'coercive force' that they do not shy away from (and by this I'm assuming you mean revolution)
That's just for starters.

I would assert it is mearly a self defense by those subject to coercion themselves,
They're not being cocerced in the manner you're claiming. Confiscation of private property is a strange method of self-defence.

in a way it was non-initiated force: after all the cappies started it by enslaving most of humanity in the name of 'economic freedom.'
There isn't any "slavery". Not in this country, anyway.

On topic: Yes this homophobia is disgusting and just the kind of small minded bigotry and backward cretinism that divides the working class.
It might divide a handful of them in some insignificant way, but you'll find homosexuals are hated by some simply because they're different.

It is a false divide created by the churches and encouraged by the plutocratic oligarchs which control every aspect of this capitalist "free" society.
What a load of tripe. There is no religion in existence that has not denounced self interest and greed (i.e. capitalism) as some sort of sin. The only "alliance" between the religion and business is the one in your imagination.
overlord

Do you hate me that much? Am I really such a bad person?
That's my fault. I've flattened his every attempt to promote his unrealisable political/economic theories and now he's given up all pretence of being benevolent. I guess you could say the cat is out of the bag.

[red team]

You're intentionally negating the fact that most work accomplished in industrialized countries are done in coordinated groups in which no one person can actually be said to be solely responsible for the finished product

Nice attempt to obfuscate who's labour is responsible for what, but there's only one kind of person who has something to gain by doing that- those who didn't do any.

It make's a lot more sense than your ridiculous assumption that one single person is responsible for the finished product which in reality is the contribution of thousands of underpaid people with many varied skills (or no skills in the case of assembling and packaging at the factory), but hey, don't let that stop you from being a multi-billionaire CEO because we all know that they're solely responsible for the success of their company including single-handedly making all of the products. :rolleyes:

[Tungsten]

red team

It make's a lot more sense than your ridiculous assumption that one single person is responsible for the finished product which in reality is the contribution of thousands of underpaid people with many varied skills (or no skills in the case of assembling and packaging at the factory), but hey, don't let that stop you from being a multi-billionaire CEO because we all know that they're solely responsible for the success of their company including single-handedly making all of the products. :rolleyes:
How many times must we go through this before it finally penetrates your sloping forehead? A product may or may not be the result of many individual efforts, but if it is, those involved were paid for their labour.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 07:16 PM

How many times must we go through this before it finally penetrates your sloping forehead? A product may or may not be the result of many individual efforts, but if it is, those involved were paid for their labour.
man, this is ridiculous.

for the sake of argument, let us pretend that the labor the CEOs execute is much more tiresome and time consuming than the work of an average worker.


we all know that the CEO gets paid thousands of times the salary of an average proletarian.

So then, you are implying that the CEO executes work that is thousands of times much more demanding and energy consuming that the labor of a proletarian?

That is fucking nuts man, the CEO would need to be fucking superman to resist so much labor!

[red team]

How many times must we go through this before it finally penetrates your sloping forehead? A product may or may not be the result of many individual efforts, but if it is, those involved were paid for their labour.

So how many times do I have to go over the fact that power is a function of dependency which everyone acknowledges as common sense with the exception of yourself? Is it because you're a semi-neanderthal that doesn't yet understand common sense?

It's so simple that anybody with half a brain can figure this out. A has the capacity to influence B so that B acts in accordance to A's wishes if B is in a dependent relationship with A. Perhaps you have less than half a brain Tungsten.

It use to be that abused wives would stay married to wife-beating husbands because they were afraid to leave the relationship. Afraid of what? It's common knowledge that sexism was widespread in the business world so that women were afraid of leaving for the fear of being left destitute. The more women gained economic power in the workplace the less this dependency on the wealth provided by the husbands and thus the more they are willing to leave abusive relationships without fear.

Similarly workers having nothing to sell other than their potential for labour would endure low wages and harsh working condition from the fear of being left unemployed and destitute by cappies such as yourself. That is why the power of organized labour to threaten work stoppages when unfair wages and dismal working conditions is imposed by the bosses is important which of course you being a cappie oppose.

The power of organized labour is dwindling from the bosse's offensive in busting unions and corrupting them so they are little more than an extension of the company. You're winning cappie, but this was pretty much predicted as what would happen before Capitalism reaches crisis. It's also predicted that we will win internationally when this global system fails to provide for the people directly producing for it, that being the workers, so your days of being the rulers of society are numbered...

[Tungsten]

red team

So how many times do I have to go over the fact that power is a function of dependencyThis would only be meaningful if the dependency (i.e. the need to survive) was enforced by political means.

which everyone acknowledges as common sense with the exception of yourself?
I don't think appeals to common belief will help your case here. They're logically fallacious.

Is it because you're a semi-neanderthal that doesn't yet understand common sense?
I don't think you understand logic, so you're no one to talk.

It's so simple that anybody with half a brain can figure this out. A has the capacity to influence B so that B acts in accordance to A's wishes if B is in a dependent relationship with A.
Politics is all about force, not "influence". I'd have though that obvious, especially to a psychopath who's every other argument is a death threat.

Similarly workers having nothing to sell other than their potential for labour would endure low wages and harsh working condition from the fear of being left unemployed and destitute by cappies such as yourself. The majority of workers aren't enduring low wages and harsh conditions.

That is why the power of organized labour to threaten work stoppages when unfair wages and dismal working conditions is imposed by the bosses is important which of course you being a cappie oppose.
Show me where I've opposed strikes.

The power of organized labour is dwindling from the bosse's offensive in busting unions and corrupting them so they are little more than an extension of the company. You're winning cappie, but this was pretty much predicted as what would happen before Capitalism reaches crisis. It's also predicted that we will win internationally
Predicted by another psycho with a worse track record than Nostradamus.

[red team]

It's so simple that anybody with half a brain can figure this out. A has the capacity to influence B so that B acts in accordance to A's wishes if B is in a dependent relationship with A.

Politics is all about force, not "influence". I'd have though that obvious, especially to a psychopath who's every other argument is a death threat.

Speak for yourself psychopath you want the entire economy to be run as a zero-sum economic shell game for your own benefit where commodities become valuable (profitable) when they're scarce at the expense of a common abundance attainable through the intelligent use of production techniques.

Instead of measuring quantity from the increase in production yields through the application of science and technology you want to rely on some subjective, unquantifiable monetary value which increases with scarcity. In other words, the less available food, housing, jobs, medicine and the rest of the material wealth needed to keep people alive the better for you because you can sell it at a higher value.

As I said before, is this your idea of freedom "Libertarian"?

But what really made me want to split your skull open with a shovel and then bury you afterwards is when you advocate this scarcity-based, economic shell game for children. That is instead of kids being kids, instead of the enjoyment of childhood, instead of gaining knowledge and skills so they can apply it to actually build (note: not speculate or gamble but build cappie which is a foreign concept for you) a better future, instead of sustaining hope that better ways can be found to produce the necessities of life you want to condemn them to the daily mind-numbing, body-breaking routine that the rest of us is forced to go through to make you rich.

By advocating child labour you've just went beyond the limits of acceptable debate for me cappie! But, fortunately for you (or unfortunately) it won't be me who will settle your fate. It will be the many children who lives you've destroyed or made a miserable hell through your advocating of sweatshop child labour who will settle accounts with you.

[red team]

Originally posted by Marmot+Jun 18 2006, 08:42 PM--> (Marmot @ Jun 18 2006, 08:42 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 07:16 PM

How many times must we go through this before it finally penetrates your sloping forehead? A product may or may not be the result of many individual efforts, but if it is, those involved were paid for their labour.
man, this is ridiculous.

for the sake of argument, let us pretend that the labor the CEOs execute is much more tiresome and time consuming than the work of an average worker.


we all know that the CEO gets paid thousands of times the salary of an average proletarian.

So then, you are implying that the CEO executes work that is thousands of times much more demanding and energy consuming that the labor of a proletarian?

That is fucking nuts man, the CEO would need to be fucking superman to resist so much labor![/b]
For your amusement Marmot this is from a previous thread which I've stated the same contradiction in more graphical terms:





Tungsten

Now if you own a shop or factory you pay people working for you using the factory or shop machinery to make something that sells at the amount corresponding to the value of their labour at which point you take a mandatory percentage off and give those working for you less than their full amount.

You can keep on repeating the lie, comrade, but I'm afraid it doesn't get any more truthful.


Well, let's inject a huge amount of truth into this scheme shall we? :)

First let's use something more truthful than money to measure the productive output of workers because money can be quite accurately described as fictitious debt tokens issued by an arbitrary authority to be exchanged based on someone's arbitrary appraisal of value. Let's use the physical measurement of cost that the universe uses namely energy.

Here is the truth of the matter:

You employ 5000 workers in a factory and each worker uses 50 calories of energy per each 10 minutes of work or 300 calories in an hour which is about the same amount as you would spend gardening the whole time. In an 8 hour work day (note: I'm using conservative figures as 14 hour work days are common in third world sweat shops) the average worker uses up 2100 calories, skipping an hour for lunch just to make it even more accurate. In total then 5000 workers expends 5000 x 2100 = 10,500,000 calories of energy per day working in the factory. Now a handful of investors/owners take a profit from this expenditure of let's say 10% which comes out to 1,050,000 calories of energy.

Here's the source for energy expenditure measurements: energy expenditures (http://k2.kirtland.cc.mi.us/~balbachl/calorie.htm)

Wow, you can expend 1,050,000 calories of energy just from sitting in an office and directing people to do the actual energy expending work for you? :lol:

As I have said in previous posts, would you be able to generate that much power all by yourself? Maybe I should give you some extra motivation by harnessing you in front of my car. :lol:

[Tungsten]

red team

Speak for yourself psychopath you want the entire economy to be run as a zero-sum economic shell game
I don't believe in zero-sum economics. That's your territory.

Instead of measuring quantity from the increase in production yields through the application of science and technology you want to rely on some subjective, unquantifiable monetary value which increases with scarcity.
That would be the subjective value of the people who either do or do not wish purchase a particular product. Is buying stuff going to be compulsory?

In other words, the less available food, housing, jobs, medicine and the rest of the material wealth needed to keep people alive the better for you because you can sell it at a higher value.
And if there are no jobs, how are people going to afford this scarce food, housing, medicine etc? I can't see anyone getting rich doing that.

But what really made me want to split your skull open with a shovel and then bury you afterwards is when you advocate this scarcity-based, economic shell game for children.
I don't adovcate scarcity-based anything.

That is instead of kids being kids, instead of the enjoyment of childhood,
How do you propose they do this? It's awfully difficult task when you have to rely on subsistence (if you're lucky) farming to survive.

instead of gaining knowledge and skills so they can apply it to actually build
Where are they going to be "free" to get these skills from? Out of thin air, presumably.

instead of sustaining hope that better ways can be found to produce the necessities of life you want to condemn them to the daily mind-numbing, body-breaking routine that the rest of us is forced to go through to make you rich.
Judging from this post, I'd say your routine must be exceptionally mind-numbing.

By advocating child labour you've just went beyond the limits of acceptable debate for me cappie!
I've never advocated child labour. In some countries, from their point of view, it's a necessity. I'm sure they'll be happy when you come along, "liberate" them and tell them to eat cake.

But, fortunately for you (or unfortunately) it won't be me who will settle your fate. It will be the many children who lives you've destroyed or made a miserable hell through your advocating of sweatshop child labour who will settle accounts with you
Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

For your amusement Marmot this is from a previous thread which I've stated the same contradiction in more graphical terms:
As if your psychotic ravings weren't amusing enough. How do you argue with a moron who thinks that people should be paid for expending energy at random? Answer- you don't. You just ignore, or take the piss. Or if they become violent, shoot.

[overlord]

And if there are no jobs, how are people going to afford this scarce food, housing, medicine etc? I can't see anyone getting rich doing that.

Understand this comrade. Once we have secured the means of production, all our troubles with the ruling class will not be instantly emeliorated. We will still have to work. The difference is we will for once be working for ourselves. As such, if anything, society will become more efficient as a result and workers will be far richer than under the present corrupt system. How do we afford food, housing, medicine? This will be provided free of charge by the state. People will not have to pay for it as such.


I've never advocated child labour. In some countries, from their point of view, it's a necessity. I'm sure they'll be happy when you come along, "liberate" them and tell them to eat cake.


I myself once advocated child labor but have come to realise my errors. Children should not be forced to work against their will and judgement. Your class is used to eating cake no doubt. Rest assured when the workers come to power your cake will be distributed according to need and leftovers will be force-fed to those who resist our dictatorship of the proletariat.