4 ms·

How is this question relevant? Does creating jobs and generating wealth justify being an exploiter and parasite?

jerf 17y ago
It would seem to me that "creating jobs" and "generating wealth" would mean that you aren't a parasite, and barring further evidence, that you're not an "exploiter" either. Unless you think it's simply impossible to have a non-exploitative employer relationship, in which case all I can say is that it's great that you don't believe in the concept of an "economy" but personally I prefer it to the squatting-in-a-hut-that-I-made which is the other basic alternative.
- dusklight 17y ago
  Well, as an example. You could be creating lots of exploitative sweat-shop type jobs, and generating wealth that that all goes to you, instead of the people who work for you and who created that wealth in the first place. And if you did that, you would in fact be a parasite, you are parasiting off the wealth that is created by the people tricked/forced into working for you. Furthermore you are parasiting off society, because you have stolen the hopes and ambitions of those people you are exploiting. One of the basic tenets of capitalism is the idea that the harder you work, the more reward you get. When this is not upheld, people become disillusioned, and why wouldn't they be? Why would I work hard and come up with new ideas and inventions, if the benefit of my work is stolen by someone else? I totally think it is possible to have a non-exploitative employer relationship. I also totally think it is possible to have an exploitative employer relationship. Surely you admit the possibility of the existence of both types of relationships?
  - jerf 17y ago
    "Surely you admit the possibility of the existence of both types of relationships?" Yes, congratulations on finding my point. By definition, if you are a net wealth suck because you are being exploitative, then you are not a wealth producer. You're trying to have it both ways to make a bad point. Being a net wealth increaser can't "justify" being a net wealth sink because you can't be both at once. This smells like weak thinking.
    - dusklight 17y ago
      I am saying it is possible to be exploitative even if you are a net increaser of wealth. I am saying that while it is a good thing to generate wealth, the good of generating wealth does not justify exploitation of labor, especially when the wealth that is generated does not go to the people who created that wealth.

jerf 17y ago

It would seem to me that "creating jobs" and "generating wealth" would mean that you aren't a parasite, and barring further evidence, that you're not an "exploiter" either. Unless you think it's simply impossible to have a non-exploitative employer relationship, in which case all I can say is that it's great that you don't believe in the concept of an "economy" but personally I prefer it to the squatting-in-a-hut-that-I-made which is the other basic alternative.

dusklight 17y ago
Well, as an example. You could be creating lots of exploitative sweat-shop type jobs, and generating wealth that that all goes to you, instead of the people who work for you and who created that wealth in the first place. And if you did that, you would in fact be a parasite, you are parasiting off the wealth that is created by the people tricked/forced into working for you. Furthermore you are parasiting off society, because you have stolen the hopes and ambitions of those people you are exploiting. One of the basic tenets of capitalism is the idea that the harder you work, the more reward you get. When this is not upheld, people become disillusioned, and why wouldn't they be? Why would I work hard and come up with new ideas and inventions, if the benefit of my work is stolen by someone else? I totally think it is possible to have a non-exploitative employer relationship. I also totally think it is possible to have an exploitative employer relationship. Surely you admit the possibility of the existence of both types of relationships?
- jerf 17y ago
  "Surely you admit the possibility of the existence of both types of relationships?" Yes, congratulations on finding my point. By definition, if you are a net wealth suck because you are being exploitative, then you are not a wealth producer. You're trying to have it both ways to make a bad point. Being a net wealth increaser can't "justify" being a net wealth sink because you can't be both at once. This smells like weak thinking.
  - dusklight 17y ago
    I am saying it is possible to be exploitative even if you are a net increaser of wealth. I am saying that while it is a good thing to generate wealth, the good of generating wealth does not justify exploitation of labor, especially when the wealth that is generated does not go to the people who created that wealth.