MARCELL DAREUS POWER

it would be in labors interest to stay in business. why would a person destroy themselves? its a situation where, hypothetically, every 6 months, labor will see the data, and see what they need to invest, to expand, and then they would vote on it. on a much more micro level its similar to when a peson is selling a car or donut. you wouldnt sell the donut for a million dollars. duh... you could also compartmentalize bureaucracy and create more efficiency. btw, im not advocating a utopia, and there is no perfect system.

of course it changes man. its not set in stone. im simply saying the left over take home should be voted on democratically. in laymans terms. if its just me cutting my grass, just me. in a collaborative process, like a business, it should be democratic.

the teacher should be fired. disgusting....

i dont understand your question. what do you mean by chain of manufacturing? like the whole company? or companies that work toghether? so i should have no say over my labor?

because if you dont own your body/mind/work, well, then you own nothing. john locke points this out as a vital part of why autonomy over your own labor is so important.

yes, labor from other exploited corporations. ie the welder, admin, etc. and this is what determines in a market what that bike is sold for. from the start, a company will know it cost x to create the bike, ie to buy the materials, and pay labor. if x is more than what the bike is sold for, than they obviously dont make profits and they go out of busines. e.g. the show pawn stars. they buy something knowing they need to sell it for more than what it cost to aquire that item.

the firm can still have profits. i never said that. i told you i believe in a market. obviously a business has to survive. duh... i said those leftover profits after overhead and new investment should be voted on democratically. they obviously all contributed, they should all have a say. intelligent, and very cogent.... :wallbash: :wallbash:

ummm no. private property doesnt extend to an infinite nature outward or inward, ie everyone, or just 1 person. thats what you are getting at. in laymans terms, leninism subsicribed to this, ie a command economy. i dont agree with that. btw, warren is not advocating this, but thats besides the point. i think most people subscribe to the idea that association in a market is a baseline. so more specifically, money and labor working together to sell a product through contractual agreement. i think this boxes in most ideas of where lines are drawn. private property in this sense means the means of life and production. it does not mean your personal house, car, glass,cell phone. this makes some logical sense in that, without lines on personal property, there would be chaos. obviously someone just can walk in your house or car. in other words, we are talking about what is earned and not what is assumed owned. ie, we need a justification for private property. so, say for example, i pay 100$ for a nice bicycle. the labor cost received reciprocation, and the initial necessary investment received reciprocation. this amount was developed through market force. ie supply/demand and a relative concern for political stability. now of course, markets are much more nuanced than that when talking about equilibrium and what constitutes value, if x is valued, should y receive less, etc. for now, to keep it simple, its just supply and demand. so basically, the person who bought the bike, paid his debt to the people creating that bike. it is now his. same for any regular purchase. here is where private property is not justified, regardless regardless of whether or not labor agrees to this. what i mean by this is, there are human wants/desire, and then there are only choices available. so for example, unskilled workers, have little demand in an economy. they are easily replacable. this is in job opportunity and wages. so, if a person is only given a few choices, and those other choices are being restricted for unjustified reasons, then you have coercion. so for example, cheap slave labor in china cannot just quit, their family would suffer greatly. another example would be after the civil war, many slaves went back to their slave owners and took horribly low wages, why? they had no other choice. this happens now to a much lesser extent. but it is pretty bad. it is almost impossible to live by yourself in minimum wage or making 10$ an hr. this is why the means of produciton is so important. it is generally the source of life, and without it, people suffer. so this obviously creates a salient question? why do people put up with such horrible conditions? because they have to. there are no better options, at least not in the near term. ( you just cant quit your job, especially with a family or other relevant circumstance. thats a dangerous risk.) this is much more salient with unskilled workers. the other choice being restricted for unjustified reasons, or arbitrary reasons of power, is no democratic say in your labor in x corporation. never mind surplus value, never mind alienation, never mind any of that stuff. what is truly troubling is initial investment or another person can control or tell another person what to do with their body, when their body is just as much if not more of a contribution to production than finite capital. this is highly totalitarian in that many and all at the top level, we have managerial positions that are totally unecessary and are only stuctures of unjustified power. what a person can do on their own does not need to be imposed. obviously some positions hold higher levels of competency in different skill areas. e.g. a chemist will not tell a welder what to do. in other words, you need a rational reason to hold power here, 1- consent, 2- an expertise or general aptitude someone needs. simply telling someone im the boss and do what i say is not a reason. thats autocratic by definition. and here is the irony, the elizabeth warren example is saying that its wrong for property to extend outward forever, (ie the bus driver example). yet, this is exactly what capitalism does/wants/justifies. ie-walmart. my other problems are through exploitation. ie forced extraction of surplus value. so for example, say i make 10 bikes at walmart during the 8hr workday. at 10$ an hr. and each bike is sold for 100$. my wages are 80$ for that day, but my work is worth 1000$. this means each day, 920$ is extracted from me. and i have no say over this wealth generation. this becomes incredibly exploitative as profits could increase dramatically over a year, and now the bikes are selling for 150$, yet my hard work, and peoples desire for my work is never rewarded. this doesnt even account for slight inflation. so in many circumstances my wages could be going down, yet the value of my work goes up and up and up. in fact, it grown, into another walmart selling bikes. in reality, both parites are contributing capital, yet only one gets to tell the other what to do with their very mind and body. this has nothing to with markets, im for markets. this has to do with structural power. fire away- btw, none of this brings up the point that most credit or loans are made up out of thin air, and their only reason for existence is deposits from poor people. ie the fractional reserve system. so i work really hard at walmart as do other people, and their millions in deposits which is already exploited at walmart, is loaned out, sometimes a 100-1. that means for every 1 real dollar earned, 100 is given for loans. so say 100 walmart employees have collectively 100,000 in the bank. ( hypothetical). that turns into a loan for 10 million for say walmart! now they start another business, say a bar in south beach. its a systematic structure that is a free lunch for the capitalist. the capitalist is taking surplus value, and then hes also taking the rest of their money and creating more surplus value of extraction. in other words, poor people are supporting the rich, its a pyramid scheme. this is why when people say the top 1% pay 45-50% of the taxes is a joke. most, if not all that money came from poor people working. and then those taxes go to protect big business and capital, not workers. we have market discipline for workers, and state protection of capital. few pieces of bread are given out in order to keep people distracted and not hungry. ok- now fire away

I know this is funny, but i actually believe andre reed could suit up and still be decent... he plays tons of flag football and stays in great shape.

i agree.

So you just proved my pt... im arguing for education, not against it... :wallbash: :wallbash:

most of the philosophers and founding fathers and many contemporary political intellecutals believe its a duty to train a society up to its needed level to compete. thomas friedman has made this point along with many people from 200 years ago. if not, the political democracy suffers becoming impotent because people are not properly educated to understand issues, and the 2nd point is that a country loses its competitive edge because people are not educated/trained to keep up with technology and new jobs etc... education is incredibly important in having a vibrant representative democracy. otherwise you just have a country with people from walmart...ugh... its a very wise investment and pays off big.

neo-feudalism!

searcy reminds me of a young henry jones... dude has skills and great size...

ive been to tons of boards all over the nfl. this is by far, the furthest right wing message board on politics i have ever seen. borderline john birch society...

:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:

somehow, and this is just a gut feeling , i dont think you understand what private property is and what justifies it. you need to read john locke again. :wallbash:

1- a million guys not taking care of your kids is not happening. 2- even if there was, i dont know how you solve this. again, birth control and abortion are available and its up to the woman if she wants a child, not the man. i dont believe its ethical to force child support for men given this circumstance. 3- the problem is incredibly small and again a distraction. 4- its not just enron, trillions are stolen and ironically is a major reason why children dont have proper care, because their parents cant find jobs that support a family. this is why ann romney and the repub stance on this recent issue was a joke. ann romney says its great to be a stay at home mom and there is no shame in that occupation,(all but endorsing the idea that stay at home moms are good and necessary.) unfortunately most people and families cant afford to do that. creating a catch 22 for the romney campaign. " were for stay at home moms", " but only for rich people"....

this upcoming year just feels different...

who owns the big tree? jimbo? :worthy: :worthy:

not an argument. .. please respond to what i said... otherwise...

just a concern. im bringing my little brother. lmao

not an argument... no argument... :blink: :blink:

for this remote extreme example. yes, his/her wages need to be garnished. that seems fair. how much, idk... of course you would need some type of cut-off, which would be highly controversial. ie, soft population control. many religions and family still have lots of kids. i remember i liked this mormon girl. they had 7 kids. but they could take care of them. so its a red herring. like i said, how much do we let class determine this? 3 kids? 2 kids? 6 kids? idk... and sometimes in population ethics, it gets really complicated. in this extreme example, this guy has to pay something in monetary value. but again, this wont stop him from having 100 more kids. this is why this is a distraction. its equivalent to looking at a kid wasting his dinner, and then ignoring enron or a bank robber. this also instigates underlying racism, a classic divide and conquer technique. its a distraction... to be fair, and to show im not some drone liberal, im against mandatory child support for men. as long as women have the real choice to choose, you cant force a man to support a child. i would make an exception in this extreme example of 30 kids. obviously hes doing something wrong...lol