Labor costs and prices in an economy using bitcoin exclusively

[kiba]

Well,r are you a human being capable of rational thought or a capitalistbot stuck in a profit loop?

Are you capable of grasping the idea that some people's moral system just might be different from your?

Then why are you content with the idea of employing someone and being his boss?

Employees welcome to quit any time he doesn't like the arrangement. If that is called controlling, then so be it.

yes, a thief.

For the record, most of my bitcoin are earned through economic exchanges. I never stolen anything from anyone.

[1714039722]

1714039722

[1714039722]

1714039722

[1714039722]

1714039722

[1714039722]

1714039722

[wb3]

FatherMcGruder,

I am curious do you work for someone, or do you employ others?

Or do you act on your beliefs, an neither work for someone and do not employ others?

You obviously make use of money, but how is that money acquired?  Through Work? Do you sell your services to others? Effectively working for them.

Just trying to judge the hypocrisy.

Or is the argument, that it is the system in use and you are forced to use it to survive. Which would not be a correct argument because you could gather your belongings go to the woods and live free, of course without an internet connection.
Having grown up in the Appalachian Mountains it is very possible to live of the land, Apple trees, berry bushes, roots, without ever having to "Farm" or own anything. It wouldn't be easy but possible.

[kiba]

FatherMcGruder,

I am curious do you work for someone, or do you employ others?

Or do you act on your beliefs, an neither work for someone and do not employ others?

You obviously make use of money, but how is that money acquired?  Through Work? Do you sell your services to others? Effectively working for them.

Just trying to judge the hypocrisy.

Or is the argument, that it is the system in use and you are forced to use it to survive. Which would not be a correct argument because you could gather your belongings go to the woods and live free, of course without an internet connection.
Having grown up in the Appalachian Mountains it is very possible to live of the land, Apple trees, berry bushes, roots, without ever having to "Farm" or own anything. It wouldn't be easy but possible.

It is weird for a 19 years old like me who is not very world-wise to argue against an adult in defense of voluntary interactions and the right to work. It should be the other way around.

[wb3]

Kiba,

You seem wise for your age. I think the problems arise in defining rights. You have the right to "work", you don't have the right of employment. The results of what happens when people are granted the right for employment can be shown in the decline of the work product produced. The closest one comes to the right of employment in the U.S. in Tenured Teachers with Union Contracts. Their work product declines to a point of absurdity. When you can't be fire, why bother to produce an effective product. There are 7,000 teachers in New York City school system, that are so bad that New York won't let them teach anymore but can't be fired. So they go to what are called Rubber Rooms, and collect a paycheck as if they were still teaching. But the joke is on them, when the system changes, they will be hurt the most. Just imagine all the young teachers that would actually teach but can't because of them.

Everyone has the right to work, but not the right for employment. Of course, there is no guarantee that your work will benefit you.

IMO, I believe modern governments fear people returning to an agriculture based form of living. It is much harder to collect taxes, and harder to control a population. Just go talk to any farmer. They are by nature conservative and strong willed. They are independent individuals with a strong belief in family. They don't like being "controlled".  Many of the transactions they conduct are "off the grid" by use of bartering. I remember trading corn for milk, and vice versa. How can a government tax that? They would have to have an IRS agent present and take a percentage of milk or corn.

No, the powers that be will try everything they can to keep societies from returning to the basics. However, as any sports aficionado understands, when things start getting all messed up and performance is declining, it is time to go back to the basics.

Also IMO,

Kids of the 1950's actually liked learning and going to school, why?  Because if they didn't go to school they worked the a$$es off on the farm. That is why the U.S. has 3 months off in Summer, to go to work and help the family and community out. Now it is used playing Xbox.

Everything that was Old will be New again !!!

[FatherMcGruder]

Are you capable of grasping the idea that some people's moral system just might be different from your?

Yes, but I reserve every right to call out others' moral contradictions. If you believe in capitalism, own it. Love government.

Employees welcome to quit any time he doesn't like the arrangement.

As an employer, you'd assume that they could, or that you were doing them a favor, just to make yourself feel better about governing them.

If that is called controlling, then so be it.

So, you love government?

For the record, most of my bitcoin are earned through economic exchanges. I never stolen anything from anyone.

Assuming that that is true, and not a statement of capitalistic delusion, then you aspire, as a capitalist naturally does, to rule over others and thereby profit.

FatherMcGruder,

I am curious do you work for someone, or do you employ others?

Or do you act on your beliefs, an neither work for someone and do not employ others?

You obviously make use of money, but how is that money acquired?  Through Work? Do you sell your services to others? Effectively working for them.

Just trying to judge the hypocrisy.

Or is the argument, that it is the system in use and you are forced to use it to survive. Which would not be a correct argument because you could gather your belongings go to the woods and live free, of course without an internet connection.
Having grown up in the Appalachian Mountains it is very possible to live of the land, Apple trees, berry bushes, roots, without ever having to "Farm" or own anything. It wouldn't be easy but possible.

My personal life isn't relevant to the discussion. For all you know, I am a capitalist arguing the anarchist position just for fun.

Now, capitalistic entities control all the usable territory. Even if there was a region free of capitalist authority, I would have to abandon my home and endure a state of exile to live there. That I, or anyone, might endure the status of an employee on the threat of exile (best case) does not qualify as a free choice.

[kiba]

Yes, but I reserve every right to call out others' moral contradictions. If you believe in capitalism, own it. Love government.

Your right to call out people's moral contradiction is tempered by your inability to explain why. Your explanation are unsatisfactory since I still don't know what you're talking about.

As an employer, you'd assume that they could, or that you were doing them a favor, just to make yourself feel better about governing them.
naturally

It's a voluntary interaction. I see nothing wrong with it.

Assuming that that is true, and not a statement of capitalistic delusion, then you iaspire, as a capitalist  does, to rule over others and thereby profit.

I had explained to you very clearly that profit is economic surplus being acquired for any given action or work. I have no attachment to ruling or lording over others.

[wb3]

For all you know, I am a capitalist arguing the anarchist position just for fun

I can respect that, especially if it is used to come to a consensus through logical thinking. I have often found the solution to problems by taking the counter point to an argument. It is good science, I think that is why Evolutionists bother me so much in the science field. They won't even entertain a thought of a counter point. Which ends up with corrupt science being produced. They almost died over the Carbon Dating Debacle. OMG, our data is all wrong.

I was curious from a sense of hypocrisy. I tend to find the more extreme positions people take the more hypocrisy there is. Everyone exhibits a level of hypocrisy. It is that the further one gets from a "norm" the greater the hypocrisy is.

I call it the hypocrisy ratio, others call it the BS pile.

[wb3]

FatherMcGruder,

I think the exact opposite of what you propose will happen if there is not a correction to our system. People will give into authority for survival. Imagine millions of people that are now collecting Unemployment checks and food stamps. If that system is stopped, they would eventually become homeless and broke.

But then they realize that if they break the law in some fashion (it doesn't have to be violent), they can get shelter, food, health care, clothing, etc... They will just have to give up their freedom.  Any logical homeless guy living in a cardboard box in New York should go to the nearest Cop and steal something in front of him. Maybe be good for at least a Month of food and shelter. If he finds himself liking "prison", just create problem in prison to prevent your release.  Non-viloents get sent to a much easier system of prisons.

If you want to up your station to a High Class Prison, just adjust your crime. Commit a high value "white collar" crime that breaks Federal Law. You might get one of the Country Club Prisons. 

Need a major operation, you can't afford. Get arrested and have the State pay for it. Just exchange a year of your life for the operation. It would be cheaper than giving up 10 years of income for the operation. *Not in Mississippi - they just release a prisoner rather than pay for a kidney transplant.  Of course, that would create a market for a Terminally ill organized crime.  Need a transplant, Rob a bank. If you get away, you win. If you get caught, you win.

[FatherMcGruder]

Your right to call out people's moral contradiction is tempered by your inability to explain why. Your explanation are unsatisfactory since I still don't know what you're talking about.

I have provided extensive explanation as to why capitalism needs government.

It's a voluntary interaction. I see nothing wrong with it.

So long as people chose employment as a lesser evil, it cannot be voluntary.[/quote]

I had explained to you very clearly that profit is economic surplus being acquired for any given action or work.

And what do you call it when your surplus is the product of the labor of someone else?

I have no attachment to ruling or lording over others.

So you don't mind government. To fully assume the capitalist position though, you must recognize that capitalism doesn't work without government, authority, hierarchy, or whatever you want to call it. In it's absence, you cannot hope to collect a profit off of someone else.

I can respect that, especially if it is used to come to a consensus through logical thinking. I have often found the solution to problems by taking the counter point to an argument. It is good science, I think that is why Evolutionists bother me so much in the science field. They won't even entertain a thought of a counter point. Which ends up with corrupt science being produced. They almost died over the Carbon Dating Debacle. OMG, our data is all wrong.

I don't know what you're doing, but don't even get me started on Intellegent Design. Srsly.

I was curious from a sense of hypocrisy. I tend to find the more extreme positions people take the more hypocrisy there is. Everyone exhibits a level of hypocrisy. It is that the further one gets from a "norm" the greater the hypocrisy is.

I call it the hypocrisy ratio, others call it the BS pile.

What's so hypocritical about a wage slave believing in anarchism?

FatherMcGruder,

I think the exact opposite of what you propose will happen if there is not a correction to our system. People will give into authority for survival. Imagine millions of people that are now collecting Unemployment checks and food stamps. If that system is stopped, they would eventually become homeless and broke.

But then they realize that if they break the law in some fashion (it doesn't have to be violent), they can get shelter, food, health care, clothing, etc... They will just have to give up their freedom.  Any logical homeless guy living in a cardboard box in New York should go to the nearest Cop and steal something in front of him. Maybe be good for at least a Month of food and shelter. If he finds himself liking "prison", just create problem in prison to prevent your release.  Non-viloents get sent to a much easier system of prisons.

If you want to up your station to a High Class Prison, just adjust your crime. Commit a high value "white collar" crime that breaks Federal Law. You might get one of the Country Club Prisons. 

Need a major operation, you can't afford. Get arrested and have the State pay for it. Just exchange a year of your life for the operation. It would be cheaper than giving up 10 years of income for the operation. *Not in Mississippi - they just release a prisoner rather than pay for a kidney transplant.  Of course, that would create a market for a Terminally ill organized crime.  Need a transplant, Rob a bank. If you get away, you win. If you get caught, you win.

Prisons are tools of authoritarians. Why would an anarchist society have them?

[Anonymous]

Alright, McGruder, riddle me this:

Jill is an excellent lollipop maker. Oh, and how wonderful they are, so flavorful and precious in their design. In fact, no two are the same. Since her product is completely handmade, she rather spend most of her time making them rather than selling them. So, she makes a deal with Bob. She sells her lollipops to Bob and he sells them retail with extensive marketing. For Bob's time and marketing he keeps the 30% profit or so from the sales.

What was so exploitative about this?

[FatherMcGruder]

Alright, McGruder, riddle me this:

Jill is an excellent lollipop maker. Oh, and how wonderful they are, so flavorful and precious in their design. In fact, no two are the same. Since her product is completely handmade, she rather spend most of her time making them rather than selling them. So, she makes a deal with Bob. She sells her lollipops to Bob and he sells them retail with extensive marketing. For Bob's time and marketing he keeps the 30% profit or so from the sales.

What was so exploitative about this?

Does Bob happen to get 30% of a single batch for the work that he did relative to the work that Jill did, or does he create a few ads and collect 30% of all the lollipops that Jill will ever make in this operation?

[Anonymous]

Alright, McGruder, riddle me this:

Jill is an excellent lollipop maker. Oh, and how wonderful they are, so flavorful and precious in their design. In fact, no two are the same. Since her product is completely handmade, she rather spend most of her time making them rather than selling them. So, she makes a deal with Bob. She sells her lollipops to Bob and he sells them retail with extensive marketing. For Bob's time and marketing he keeps the 30% profit or so from the sales.

What was so exploitative about this?

Does Bob happen to get 30% of a single batch for the work that he did relative to the work that Jill did, or does he create a few ads and collect 30% of all the lollipops that Jill will ever make in this operation?

Good ads can take a lot of effort. Anyways, can "relative work" be objectively measured?

[wb3]

I'm all confused again. So the rule is Bob can do it but only if his work effort is equal to hers. 

If he spends less time it is bad, how about if he spends more time? would that be Ok or does it have to be equal time.

Not only redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of work to equal amounts. How should we measure the work? Lets stick to physics and measure it in Newtons or Joules, etc...

So rather than a 40 Hour work week, we can have a 40 Joule work week. Everyone will use the same amount of energy during work.

In that case, I will take a hard labor job. Shorter work week and more free time. I assume we are all getting paid the same for our work.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Okay, tell just how the fuck you would grow a crop of potatoes (or anything) in this delusional non-capitalistic society you are dreaming of and I'll tear every little element of your grand plan to shreds with the practicalities of growing potatoes.

You want to starve? Now tell me how to grow potatoes.

[BitterTea]

Another question that popped in to my head earlier today.

Let's say you're sitting at home when an individual enters without permission. You ask them to leave, but they decline, explaining that they don't see that you have any special claim to this plot of land, on which sits this pile of wood and stone. So they rummage through your cupboards, eating your extra food, sleep in your spare bedroom, and deny you the ability to enjoy your home as you otherwise would. Do you at some point use force, or the threat thereof, to remove this person from your home?

[BitterTea]

If you do not control it you do not own it.

So do you use force to remove them from your home, or do you allow them to continue to interfere with your use of it?

[hugolp]

If you do not control it you do not own it.

So do you use force to remove them from your home, or do you allow them to continue to interfere with your use of it?

Yes, you use force to defend from the agression.

[FatherMcGruder]

Good ads can take a lot of effort. Anyways, can "relative work" be objectively measured?

In a lot of cases no, but we don't need to.

I'm all confused again. So the rule is Bob can do it but only if his work effort is equal to hers. 

If he spends less time it is bad, how about if he spends more time? would that be Ok or does it have to be equal time.

Not only redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of work to equal amounts. How should we measure the work? Lets stick to physics and measure it in Newtons or Joules, etc...

So rather than a 40 Hour work week, we can have a 40 Joule work week. Everyone will use the same amount of energy during work.

In that case, I will take a hard labor job. Shorter work week and more free time. I assume we are all getting paid the same for our work.

People will just have to come to free agreements as to the relative value of each party's work if they want to work together. However, they cannot do so if one party has authority over the others.

Okay, tell just how the fuck you would grow a crop of potatoes (or anything) in this delusional non-capitalistic society you are dreaming of and I'll tear every little element of your grand plan to shreds with the practicalities of growing potatoes.

You want to starve? Now tell me how to grow potatoes.

You find some usable land and start farming the potatoes. Perhaps you will do so in cooperation with other farmers. Everyone will own the resulting potatoes in accordance with the work they've contributed to it. They will probably want to keep so many potatoes and trade the rest for things that they need and want.

As for the intricacies of potato farming, I can't help you. The best I can do with one is to add it to my corned beef hash.

Another question that popped in to my head earlier today.

Let's say you're sitting at home when an individual enters without permission. You ask them to leave, but they decline, explaining that they don't see that you have any special claim to this plot of land, on which sits this pile of wood and stone. So they rummage through your cupboards, eating your extra food, sleep in your spare bedroom, and deny you the ability to enjoy your home as you otherwise would. Do you at some point use force, or the threat thereof, to remove this person from your home?

You have the right to refuse to associate with someone as well as the right to defend yourself from thieves. You have no right to lord your surplus over anyone.

[hugolp]

You find some usable land and start farming the potatoes. Perhaps you will do so in cooperation with other farmers. Everyone will own the resulting potatoes in accordance with the work they've contributed to it. They will probably want to keep so many potatoes and trade the rest for things that they need and want.

You have the right to refuse to associate with someone as well as the right to defend yourself from thieves. You have no right to lord your surplus over anyone.

Isnt this contradictory?

[wb3]

I think a lot is being pondered about "Authority", how about "Reliance". Some people are ready and willing to be reliant on others and succumb to their authority in exchange for something.

Are Employers exerting "Authority", or are Employee's being "Reliant".  If someone chooses to be reliant on me for their well being, and I accept that responsibility, do I have any say in the matter?  If I don't, then I will never accept the responsibility of someone else being reliant on me.

For Example:

Employment: You came to me; I did not come to you. You want to work for me, so you can survive. So you are willing to accept my money but not my authority in telling you what, how, and when I want something done. Nah, I don't think I want to accept that responsibility, go look for someone else to be responsible for you. If you are willing and of your own free will want to accept my authority then come back and reapply for the job.

BTW: Sometimes and in certain positions, employers go out and seek employees. Then the Employee has the power. If you want me to work for you, this is what I want. I want a $5000 signing bonus, I want Stock Options, I want a contract, I want profit sharing, etc...  If you as an employer do not want to give me this, then go find someone else.

All employment is an agreement between parties. The need for the type of work, will determine who actually has authority.  Others are perfectly happy being reliant on others (employer, government, family, etc...)