3 ms·

> uhh. The article appears to suggest that we change who controls our labor... > #1 - we do, we can quit anytime we want and find another place to work for. W

> uhh. The article appears to suggest that we change who controls our labor... > #1 - we do, we can quit anytime we want and find another place to work for. We change who controls our labor by making those who control our labor us, the workers creating wealth, not the heirs who own companies and expropriate our surplus labor time via dividend profit checks. The idea that a worker controls his own labor seems to be the one idea that is alien to your prescription.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
No, I'm a big fan of workers controlling their own labor. If a person wants to 100% control their own labor, they can create a business and provide their services (at a price someone else will pay for them) to the world at large. What is alien to me is that a person believes they can take over other peoples property (factories, existing IP [go to microsoft, say 'windows is mine now' and try to sell your copy of the source). I'm a big fan of property rights. So, I think we mostly agree right? Someone should be able to start their own business, using their own funds, and have their chance to excel in this world.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  I suspect the author would say that we currently live in a system that is designed to reward a certain way of doing business, and that artificially makes things harder for those determined to control their own labor. Some of that system is government, where laws naturally benefit larger business and are explicitly aimed at "small businesses," which are still traditional work-for-someone-else concerns with four or more employees. Some of that system is non-governmental, where it seems to be much easier for an S-corp with a few employees to get an operating loan than it is for a self-employed person. It is easy to say that the rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under the bridge, but it is a too-narrow focus that ignores many, many assumptions.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago

No, I'm a big fan of workers controlling their own labor. If a person wants to 100% control their own labor, they can create a business and provide their services (at a price someone else will pay for them) to the world at large. What is alien to me is that a person believes they can take over other peoples property (factories, existing IP [go to microsoft, say 'windows is mine now' and try to sell your copy of the source). I'm a big fan of property rights. So, I think we mostly agree right? Someone should be able to start their own business, using their own funds, and have their chance to excel in this world.

pwinnski 4y ago
I suspect the author would say that we currently live in a system that is designed to reward a certain way of doing business, and that artificially makes things harder for those determined to control their own labor. Some of that system is government, where laws naturally benefit larger business and are explicitly aimed at "small businesses," which are still traditional work-for-someone-else concerns with four or more employees. Some of that system is non-governmental, where it seems to be much easier for an S-corp with a few employees to get an operating loan than it is for a self-employed person. It is easy to say that the rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under the bridge, but it is a too-narrow focus that ignores many, many assumptions.