5 ms·

As one who is not involved in creation or operation of “vastly expensive” items, you have no say in the matter. Those involved do have a say, that being accepti

As one who is not involved in creation or operation of “vastly expensive” items, you have no say in the matter. Those involved do have a say, that being accepting or rejecting contracted providence of goods or services, which may or may not involve co-ownership. Distribution of profits occurs by contracting. Democracy doesn’t apply because those not involved have no say. You are entitled to life insofar as nobody may actively take it from you. There is plenty opportunity in this country to earn; $1 per meal is enough for healthy comfort (thanks to capitalism, food is plentiful, varietal, and cheap).

tsimionescu 7y ago
In an ideal world, they should have more of a say than 'take it or leave it'. And in fact, for most of human history, people who produced things did have more say than that. I was also talking about democratic governance among the worker-owners: this is how cooperatives work in general. The strict top-to-bottom autocracy of regular corporations is not the only possible system of governance for a successful market actor. As for food, it's not so much capitalism as enormous state subsidies that affect the price of food in America. And living on 2-3$ worth of food a day will not lead you to a long life. Also, how is someone refusing you the right to take food when you are starving not actively taking your life from you?
- ctdonath 7y ago
  You would refuse a starving person your food? You have enough, why the compulsion to steal from others to “redistribute”?
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    I didn't talk about redistribution. I'm describing how a system could work from the ground up with a market economy but without any capitalists. How to get there is another discussion that is far more thorny. I wouldn't deny a starving person my food, though the reality is that I rarely come into contact with someone who is starving. On the other hand, a lot of restaurants and super markets do regularly deny starving people food - they ask for money in place of common human decency.
    - ctdonath 7y ago
      They give away lots of excess food. Every week I take bushels of gourmet bread to food charities. I go out of my way to do so, maybe you should to rather than agitating to compel strangers out of ignorance. The well off do far more for the poor than you think - without gov't compulsion.
- ctdonath 7y ago
  It is an ideal world. People may negotiate for whatever they see fit. It takes two to come to an agreement. It only one agrees to terms offered, how is it fair to compel the other?
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    A 'negotiated agreement' between a company or state and a person that would starve if they don't accept the agreement is nothing more than coercion with a nice layer of paint. Remember that we actually depend on some people literally not having a chance to eat unless they agree to collect our garbage, clean our floors etc. Do you think that a cleaning person in a contract with Google or with the city of LA had any kind of real negotiation power?
    - ctdonath 7y ago
      Minimum wage is ~$7.25/hr. All one need do is work 25 minutes mundane labor a day to afford 3 square meals per day (see Twitter's @ABuckAPlate). (Corollary: min wage law prohibits anyone earning anything if they can't produce at least $7.25 value per hour.) Collecting garbage, cleaning floors, etc has value - that's why we pay people to do it. Is it really worth more than ~$7.25/hr? would you pay someone $20/hr to do it? A thing is worth what another will give for it. People are willing to trade $7.25 for an hour of mundane labor. And yes, there is real negotiation power. Businesses are having to pay more, or find alternatives, for services because not enough people are willing to do those jobs. That's negotiation, in context of large numbers of people being willing to do a job. BTW: if you're working where Google is, or in LA or the like in general, you MUST provide above-min-wage value because the carrying capacity of those areas has been reached - there are people making >$37/hr wanting to live in the same place, and $MinWage/hr can't compete with $37/hr productivity. I threw my stuff in a truck and permanently moved 1000 miles on short notice - so can others who likewise seek economically viable conditions. I've lived off the land. Most of humanity did. If you don't want to plant seeds and build cabins (always a viable option), get busy doing something others will pay enough for.
      - tsimionescu 7y ago

tsimionescu 7y ago

In an ideal world, they should have more of a say than 'take it or leave it'. And in fact, for most of human history, people who produced things did have more say than that. I was also talking about democratic governance among the worker-owners: this is how cooperatives work in general. The strict top-to-bottom autocracy of regular corporations is not the only possible system of governance for a successful market actor. As for food, it's not so much capitalism as enormous state subsidies that affect the price of food in America. And living on 2-3$ worth of food a day will not lead you to a long life. Also, how is someone refusing you the right to take food when you are starving not actively taking your life from you?

ctdonath 7y ago
You would refuse a starving person your food? You have enough, why the compulsion to steal from others to “redistribute”?
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  I didn't talk about redistribution. I'm describing how a system could work from the ground up with a market economy but without any capitalists. How to get there is another discussion that is far more thorny. I wouldn't deny a starving person my food, though the reality is that I rarely come into contact with someone who is starving. On the other hand, a lot of restaurants and super markets do regularly deny starving people food - they ask for money in place of common human decency.
  - ctdonath 7y ago
    They give away lots of excess food. Every week I take bushels of gourmet bread to food charities. I go out of my way to do so, maybe you should to rather than agitating to compel strangers out of ignorance. The well off do far more for the poor than you think - without gov't compulsion.
ctdonath 7y ago
It is an ideal world. People may negotiate for whatever they see fit. It takes two to come to an agreement. It only one agrees to terms offered, how is it fair to compel the other?
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  A 'negotiated agreement' between a company or state and a person that would starve if they don't accept the agreement is nothing more than coercion with a nice layer of paint. Remember that we actually depend on some people literally not having a chance to eat unless they agree to collect our garbage, clean our floors etc. Do you think that a cleaning person in a contract with Google or with the city of LA had any kind of real negotiation power?
  - ctdonath 7y ago
    Minimum wage is ~$7.25/hr. All one need do is work 25 minutes mundane labor a day to afford 3 square meals per day (see Twitter's @ABuckAPlate). (Corollary: min wage law prohibits anyone earning anything if they can't produce at least $7.25 value per hour.) Collecting garbage, cleaning floors, etc has value - that's why we pay people to do it. Is it really worth more than ~$7.25/hr? would you pay someone $20/hr to do it? A thing is worth what another will give for it. People are willing to trade $7.25 for an hour of mundane labor. And yes, there is real negotiation power. Businesses are having to pay more, or find alternatives, for services because not enough people are willing to do those jobs. That's negotiation, in context of large numbers of people being willing to do a job. BTW: if you're working where Google is, or in LA or the like in general, you MUST provide above-min-wage value because the carrying capacity of those areas has been reached - there are people making >$37/hr wanting to live in the same place, and $MinWage/hr can't compete with $37/hr productivity. I threw my stuff in a truck and permanently moved 1000 miles on short notice - so can others who likewise seek economically viable conditions. I've lived off the land. Most of humanity did. If you don't want to plant seeds and build cabins (always a viable option), get busy doing something others will pay enough for.
    - tsimionescu 7y ago