Racist Poster

[KrazyHorse]

Hey KH, if weapons are a commodity, and we define the state as a monopoly of violence over a given territory, why shouldn't political influence be considered a legitimate commodity? In terms of share % of a monopoly?

Is this the kind of reasoning that passes for clever in filosofy, you ****ing idiot?

1) Some rules are better than others. Rules that prevent people and groups from engaging in mutually beneficial trade are generally destructive (subject to a number of classic caveats)
2) The ability to enforce the rules is required for the rules to have an effect. The State monopoly on (organized) violence is therfore not subject to the same general truism (that trade is beneficial)

You ****ing child.

[KrazyHorse]

Wuh?

He's a filosofer. Nothing he says makes sense.

[KrazyHorse]

So you're upset about employees using the cost of replacing them to bargain with their employer?

Good ****ing God, no. You ****ing imbecile.

[Fake Boris]

And gribbler has summed up this thread.

It is wrong that workers can use the cost of replacing them in negotiations, but it isn't that owners can invoke the threat of bankruptcy and/or relocalization.

Some people believe that true legitimate power stems from citizens and workers. Others think that it stems from capital ownership.

This is sort of like the debate between monarchy and republicanism in the 17th century. You pick up a metaphysical fundamental and discussion is barely possible.

[giblets]

gribbler, why should they be allowed to negotiate with anything other than their actual value as an employee? If you want to get the correct price for labor, then the two factors to be balanced have to be the value of the pay to the employee versus the value of the employee's labor to the employer.

They should be allowed to withhold their labor, because they have a right to it. And I don't think it should be illegal for an employer to replace them.

[KrazyHorse]

And gribbler has summed up this thread.

It is wrong that workers can use the cost of replacing them in negotiations, but it isn't that owners can invoke the threat of bankruptcy and/or relocalization.

You are barely more stupid than gribby here.

[Fake Boris]

Is this the kind of reasoning that passes for clever in filosofy, you ****ing idiot?

1) Some rules are better than others. Rules that prevent people and groups from engaging in mutually beneficial trade are generally destructive (subject to a number of classic caveats)
2) The ability to enforce the rules is required for the rules to have an effect. The State monopoly on (organized) violence is therfore not subject to the same general truism (that trade is beneficial)

You ****ing child.

Capital accumulation disintegrates the ability for your model to scale from the working class individual to the bank CEO.

The only way you can scale with associative capital is with associative workforces.

[Hauldren Collider]

They should be allowed to withhold their labor, because they have a right to it. And I don't think it should be illegal for an employer to replace them.

You can withhold your labor without a union. Asher did it with that phone company, which proves that if you're a VIP you can make a difference . What you can't do is force by majority vote to withhold the labor of every employee.

[giblets]

Good ****ing God, no. You ****ing imbecile.

What exactly did you mean by "specifically, if the competition from other firms is outweighed by the costs of dismissing all of your workers then the union cannot extract 100% of monopoly rents". I interpreted "the costs of dismissing all of your workers" as being the cost of replacing them.

[Hauldren Collider]

Oncle's a ****ing imbecile, gribbler is just prone to defending liberal political positions.

[KrazyHorse]

They should be allowed to withhold their labor, because they have a right to it. And I don't think it should be illegal for an employer to replace them.

Holy ****, you ****ing idiot, THEY AREN'T JUST THREATENING TO WITHHOLD THEIR OWN LABOR, THEY ARE THREATENING TO WITHHOLD LITERALLY ALL OF THE EMPLOYER'S LABOR, FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES TO FIND REPLACEMENT FOR ALL OF IT

It's as if your boss could credibly threaten to fire you AND make sure you couldn't work for any other firm currently in your industry.

Learn to ****ing think, or tis is my last response to you in this thread.

[KrazyHorse]

What exactly did you mean by "specifically, if the competition from other firms is outweighed by the costs of dismissing all of your workers then the union cannot extract 100% of monopoly rents". I interpreted "the costs of dismissing all of your workers" as being the cost of replacing them.

Operative word, you ****ing moron.

[KrazyHorse]

Capital accumulation disintegrates the ability for your model to scale from the working class individual to the bank CEO.

The only way you can scale with associative capital is with associative workforces.

This is pretty much indicative of the level of analytical thought you display.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yikes, that's quite an outburst.

[C0ckney]

did someone piss in KH's cornflakes today?