3 ms·

>The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Furthermore, this ex

by ue_ 10y ago

>The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Furthermore, this exploutation is not necessary for the boss to have a high standard of living, never mind bare survival. >So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me? Yes, that's correct.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Ask yourself - how much money does this capitalist make if consumers do not find his products valuable and don't purchase them? Yes, that's correct. I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >how much money does this capitalist make if consumers do not find his products valuable and don't purchase them? None, but I have little sympathy or wish for the success of those who exploit others, especially if that profit derives from the exploitation itself. A society without exploitation is possible and even in this society one need not exploit. >I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals. I have a feeling you are being facetious here, but you are essentially correct. But we must also take into account the unjustness of private property too, and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death.
  - RickHull 10y ago
    > and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death. That is nature. Consume or die. Since one can only consume what is produced (or windfallen), one must produce (or scavenge windfalls) or die. In a society one can escape this iron law of nature through charity or trade. None of this descends from private property. These are laws of nature.

by ue_ 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Ask yourself - how much money does this capitalist make if consumers do not find his products valuable and don't purchase them? Yes, that's correct. I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals.

ue_ 10y ago
>how much money does this capitalist make if consumers do not find his products valuable and don't purchase them? None, but I have little sympathy or wish for the success of those who exploit others, especially if that profit derives from the exploitation itself. A society without exploitation is possible and even in this society one need not exploit. >I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals. I have a feeling you are being facetious here, but you are essentially correct. But we must also take into account the unjustness of private property too, and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death.
- RickHull 10y ago
  > and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death. That is nature. Consume or die. Since one can only consume what is produced (or windfallen), one must produce (or scavenge windfalls) or die. In a society one can escape this iron law of nature through charity or trade. None of this descends from private property. These are laws of nature.