4 ms·

You have a very different definition of freeloading. The slave situation is totally incomparable on account of how the slave cannot quit aside from by dying. >

You have a very different definition of freeloading. The slave situation is totally incomparable on account of how the slave cannot quit aside from by dying. > It is freeloading in every sense of the word. Every sense, except the dictionary definition, is what you meant, I take it? "Freeload - take advantage of other people's generosity without giving anything in return." Giving ten cents is not the same thing as not giving anything. And if an employer gave me ten cents for a day of work, I would quit and go elsewhere as would every other free person in America. As for capitalism being unfair, that's basically the point of capitalism, in the essence that "unfair" means "not everyone is compensated the same."

deltaonefour 5y ago
Oh my bad. Throw a penny at the employees face and it's no longer freeloading. This isn't freeloading. Maybe a better term is "fucking over". Employers fuck people over, they don't freeload off of them. My bad. >As for capitalism being unfair, that's basically the point of capitalism, in the essence that "unfair" means "not everyone is compensated the same." Why you're repeating something I stated is beyond me. I said capitalism is unfair. You say that being unfair is the "point" of capitalism. We're saying the same thing. Does the word "point" change the nature of what I'm saying? No.
- ironmagma 5y ago
  > Why you're repeating something I stated is beyond me. I said capitalism is unfair. You said that as a means of supporting your larger point which is that capitalism is flawed. I am arguing that unfairness (as I defined it) is the whole essence of capitalism, which is very different from saying it's an unwanted byproduct of it. We want unfairness. If you instead want fairness, there are other systems for that in use by other countries. You can move to one of those countries if you prefer that system. But there are good reasons that capitalist countries are the most prosperous. > Employers fuck people over, they don't freeload off of them. It's equally possible for employees to fuck over employers, we just tend not to do it (for good reasons).
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    >You said that as a means of supporting your larger point which is that capitalism is flawed. I am arguing that unfairness (as I defined it) is the whole essence of capitalism, which is very different from saying it's an unwanted byproduct of it. We want unfairness. Thank you for the clarification. No we don't want unfairness. Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing. Nobody wants this, you'd have to be insane to want it. That is unless you're the one doing the fucking. Let me make one thing absolutely clear. I never said I prefer another system. I just said the current system is flawed. Please don't tell me to move to another country. Also you obviously don't understand capitalism. Adam Smith originally conceived of the invisible hand that would influence market forces to distribute wealth fairly. This was the intent, the outcome is clearly not the case. Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribute the most to GDP not getting the most wealth. The people who get the most wealth are owners of capital, not the people who generate or increase capital. The idea of capitalism started with the idea that wealth was fairly distributed. Modern economics now is fully aware that this is not the case and that there are huge flaws within capitalism even though there is currently no known superior system. >It's equally possible for employees to fuck over employers, we just tend not to do it (for good reasons). So? The problem here is every employee under a capitalist system is getting fucked over. So if I'm getting fucked over then of course I owe the employer nothing beyond stated business obligations.
    - ironmagma 5y ago
      > Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing. This is a moral absolutist take. We clearly don't agree on "bad" vs. "good" because some of the best (from my perspective) things were/are done in capitalist countries, such as the creation of NASA, rollercoasters, the Internet, innovative surgeries, and life-saving medical treatments for chronic conditions. > Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribute the most to GDP not getting the most wealth. Measuring contributions is not a trivial task, even philosophically. How much does my CEO contribute versus the work of us workers? That isn't something that can be measured, so any conception of the answer to that is going to be a matter of opinion. So I'm going to say "[citation needed]" on that one, and arguably there's a "[philosophical justification needed]" as well. > every employee under a capitalist system is getting fucked over First, that definitely is not true, especially if you believe that a portion of people in the system are overpaid. But secondly, if you are getting "fucked over," you should leave and join a different company that does not fuck you over. If enough people do this, either the economy will grind to a halt (forcing companies to raise wages) or the wages will be raised without grinding the economy to a halt. There is absolutely nothing in capitalism that prohibits this. In fact, the prospect of higher wages means it is encouraged. > The people who get the most wealth are owners of capital, not the people who generate or increase capital. You are again stating this as though it's supposed to be taken as a given that it's bad. Acquiring capital and growing capital are two totally different roles and it's impossible to compare their true value to society. We need both, and it's not clear that acquiring capital (providing it) is less valuable.

deltaonefour 5y ago

Oh my bad. Throw a penny at the employees face and it's no longer freeloading. This isn't freeloading. Maybe a better term is "fucking over". Employers fuck people over, they don't freeload off of them. My bad. >As for capitalism being unfair, that's basically the point of capitalism, in the essence that "unfair" means "not everyone is compensated the same." Why you're repeating something I stated is beyond me. I said capitalism is unfair. You say that being unfair is the "point" of capitalism. We're saying the same thing. Does the word "point" change the nature of what I'm saying? No.

ironmagma 5y ago
> Why you're repeating something I stated is beyond me. I said capitalism is unfair. You said that as a means of supporting your larger point which is that capitalism is flawed. I am arguing that unfairness (as I defined it) is the whole essence of capitalism, which is very different from saying it's an unwanted byproduct of it. We want unfairness. If you instead want fairness, there are other systems for that in use by other countries. You can move to one of those countries if you prefer that system. But there are good reasons that capitalist countries are the most prosperous. > Employers fuck people over, they don't freeload off of them. It's equally possible for employees to fuck over employers, we just tend not to do it (for good reasons).
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  >You said that as a means of supporting your larger point which is that capitalism is flawed. I am arguing that unfairness (as I defined it) is the whole essence of capitalism, which is very different from saying it's an unwanted byproduct of it. We want unfairness. Thank you for the clarification. No we don't want unfairness. Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing. Nobody wants this, you'd have to be insane to want it. That is unless you're the one doing the fucking. Let me make one thing absolutely clear. I never said I prefer another system. I just said the current system is flawed. Please don't tell me to move to another country. Also you obviously don't understand capitalism. Adam Smith originally conceived of the invisible hand that would influence market forces to distribute wealth fairly. This was the intent, the outcome is clearly not the case. Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribute the most to GDP not getting the most wealth. The people who get the most wealth are owners of capital, not the people who generate or increase capital. The idea of capitalism started with the idea that wealth was fairly distributed. Modern economics now is fully aware that this is not the case and that there are huge flaws within capitalism even though there is currently no known superior system. >It's equally possible for employees to fuck over employers, we just tend not to do it (for good reasons). So? The problem here is every employee under a capitalist system is getting fucked over. So if I'm getting fucked over then of course I owe the employer nothing beyond stated business obligations.
  - ironmagma 5y ago
    > Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing. This is a moral absolutist take. We clearly don't agree on "bad" vs. "good" because some of the best (from my perspective) things were/are done in capitalist countries, such as the creation of NASA, rollercoasters, the Internet, innovative surgeries, and life-saving medical treatments for chronic conditions. > Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribute the most to GDP not getting the most wealth. Measuring contributions is not a trivial task, even philosophically. How much does my CEO contribute versus the work of us workers? That isn't something that can be measured, so any conception of the answer to that is going to be a matter of opinion. So I'm going to say "[citation needed]" on that one, and arguably there's a "[philosophical justification needed]" as well. > every employee under a capitalist system is getting fucked over First, that definitely is not true, especially if you believe that a portion of people in the system are overpaid. But secondly, if you are getting "fucked over," you should leave and join a different company that does not fuck you over. If enough people do this, either the economy will grind to a halt (forcing companies to raise wages) or the wages will be raised without grinding the economy to a halt. There is absolutely nothing in capitalism that prohibits this. In fact, the prospect of higher wages means it is encouraged. > The people who get the most wealth are owners of capital, not the people who generate or increase capital. You are again stating this as though it's supposed to be taken as a given that it's bad. Acquiring capital and growing capital are two totally different roles and it's impossible to compare their true value to society. We need both, and it's not clear that acquiring capital (providing it) is less valuable.