3 ms·

My opinion is going to be annihilated, but I think "tough shit" when I hear founders complain about being unable to hire people without all of the "complication

My opinion is going to be annihilated, but I think "tough shit" when I hear founders complain about being unable to hire people without all of the "complications" that come with the talent. You are not hiring robots, you are hiring human beings. This is why I do not agree with the "it's not personal, it's business" statement, because in most of the developed world, it's accepted that when you are building a company, you are helping to build a better society, not just line your pockets. And in a lot of the developed world, a "better society" is one with social benefits like PTO. I am surely speaking in unholy tongues to all of the sociopath-worshiping capitalists, but if you want human talent, you have to hire human beings.

zo1 12y ago
You talk about hiring "human beings" instead of "robots", but then you deny them the autonomy and freedom to make decisions/risks for themselves. Sure, it's nice to have noble perks being mandated by government and enforced onto (supposedly greedy, and "capitalist") employers. But it also means that you deny individuals who voluntarily choose to make do without those perks, or who do not need them, to lose the privilege of having employers that offer the type of employment they want/need. >"because in most of the developed world, it's accepted that when you are building a company, you are helping to build a better society" [Citation Required] Citation request aside, I thought that it was understood that that's what taxes and the state is for? Whether it achieves that is besides the point. Additionally, I'd argue that the current prevailing opinion of society is that "corporations" and "businesses" are greedy, evil and generally not in it to benefit society. The opposite of what you suggest is the prevailing opinion; perhaps you're projecting your values onto a society whose collective opinion does not agree with you?
- fapjacks 12y ago
  From what you've said, you sound like one of those sociopath-worshiping capitalists I'm talking about. Because of that, really nothing you say is going to hold any weight. You almost certainly are not one of "the one percent" and as you've said elsewhere "I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, thanks." That pretty much nails you as someone who wants to pave the future with a path to gaining easier control over people. Almost ubiquitously, people who say things like this want to destruct the social infrastructure in place which tries to prevent the kinds of overbearing, sociopath dictatorships that absolutely would prevail in a community with the zero market regulations you hope for as a "anarcho-capitalist". I haven't hoped in my entire life for someone to be as disappointed as you will be to not get your way with the market. The things I hope for are to protect the system against people exactly like you.

zo1 12y ago

You talk about hiring "human beings" instead of "robots", but then you deny them the autonomy and freedom to make decisions/risks for themselves. Sure, it's nice to have noble perks being mandated by government and enforced onto (supposedly greedy, and "capitalist") employers. But it also means that you deny individuals who voluntarily choose to make do without those perks, or who do not need them, to lose the privilege of having employers that offer the type of employment they want/need. >"because in most of the developed world, it's accepted that when you are building a company, you are helping to build a better society" [Citation Required] Citation request aside, I thought that it was understood that that's what taxes and the state is for? Whether it achieves that is besides the point. Additionally, I'd argue that the current prevailing opinion of society is that "corporations" and "businesses" are greedy, evil and generally not in it to benefit society. The opposite of what you suggest is the prevailing opinion; perhaps you're projecting your values onto a society whose collective opinion does not agree with you?

fapjacks 12y ago
From what you've said, you sound like one of those sociopath-worshiping capitalists I'm talking about. Because of that, really nothing you say is going to hold any weight. You almost certainly are not one of "the one percent" and as you've said elsewhere "I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, thanks." That pretty much nails you as someone who wants to pave the future with a path to gaining easier control over people. Almost ubiquitously, people who say things like this want to destruct the social infrastructure in place which tries to prevent the kinds of overbearing, sociopath dictatorships that absolutely would prevail in a community with the zero market regulations you hope for as a "anarcho-capitalist". I haven't hoped in my entire life for someone to be as disappointed as you will be to not get your way with the market. The things I hope for are to protect the system against people exactly like you.