Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:24 am

Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm

You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is

theirs

, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint

and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence,

the

person selling the labour sti holds

responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a

onl

y you, can exercise your labour. Somehow,

SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed

(a rented source of labour) and a person

(criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).

You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour

wh

ic is related to filfilling the stated job

requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your

earlier statement about the employer buying ALL

your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no

There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other

t

ypes of responsibility, at least in the Western

culture and Western jurisdictions.

If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you

and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds.

Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good

reason.

This applies whether you

are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.

Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp

l

ots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held

responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but

then Necrocomp can

sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his

negligence).

The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour"

(Whateve

r paradigm you choose to try and explain what i

is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did

t

his".

Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck

rental

can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truck

temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour

can

't. You cannot separate yourself from the labo

you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your

acti

on. Having a contract which claims that happen

doesn't mean it did.

This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a

s

tatement of fact, or must be enforced. The

contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then

le

gally, the economic and political system must

consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened.

If

I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signed

contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange

ha

ppened. It is not possible for me to transfer

to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine

though, a legal system which claims that London

Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally

claim tolls from people who crossed it!

Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that

labour

was transferred. It is not valid because it i

cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can

actuall

y transfer labour or time to someone else, only

the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those

terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.

There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being

responsible

for what they perform. Nor can an employment

contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can

be

responsible for creating new property, and we

accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are

assig

ned to the human (or humans) which created the

property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food

is

still yours. The property right is attached t

the human, not to the equipment.

Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves

a particular organisation of society, which is

culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly

onl

y apply to labour!), but they are nevertheless

covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to

c

hange our legal/economic system to correctly

initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with

the persons which, through their agency/labour,

created the property.

... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly

You are running in circles repeating the same argument. This
conversation is going nowhere so I am dropping it.

--
gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

Very well, there isn't much more I can add. It's pretty much a matter of whether you accept the premise or not.

... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 14 2020 10:21 pm

Companies will make the claim if there is no conflict of interest. This is the basis of them claiming they paid for it. But we have to establish, what it EXACTLY, they are buying?

Note, this doesn't happen elsewhere. If you are paying a plumber to fix you toilet, and they take a call while working to help someone else, you cannot claim what he did as part of YOUR property, because he was on 'your time'. doesn't work that way. Yet at work, we just accept it.

Plumbers are normally self employed, so they're providing a service rather
than working for you. I have yet to see one sign a terms for employment contract to replace a water heater.

If you owned a company and needed a full time plumber as part of your maintenance crew, taking other calls on the job could be considered moonlighting, or even a conflict of interest if the customer is your competition. If I was his supervisor and saw him taking calls while he
should be sweating pipes, I would definitely have a talk with him.

---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:51 am

Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really, many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!

No, I've never come across Graeber. I've taken a look at his Wikipedia bio and see he's written a book called Bullshit Jobs: A Theory... seems like an interesting read! I see YouGov undertook a poll in the UK of which 37% of Britons surveyed thought that their jobs did not contribute meaningfully to the world. We have a problem in the UK, notably in the public sector, with "quangos"... highly paid administrators in management positions who seem to do nothing but push more and more policy which does nothing but obstruct the actual workers from doing their jobs effectively & efficiently.

The public sector now seems incredibly bloated, and that's not including all the people who are employed privately but contracted by the government.

---
þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:51 am

Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really, many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!

No, I've never come across Graeber. I've taken a look at his Wikipedia
bio and see he's written a book called Bullshit Jobs: A Theory... seems like an interesting read! I see YouGov undertook a poll in the UK of
which 37% of Britons surveyed thought that their jobs did not
contribute meaningfully to the world. We have a problem in the UK,
notably in the public sector, with "quangos"... highly paid
administrators in management positions who seem to do nothing but push more and more policy which does nothing but obstruct the actual workers from doing their jobs effectively & efficiently.

The public sector now seems incredibly bloated, and that's not
including all the people who are employed privately but contracted by
the government.

That happens in the private sector too. Managers want larger budgets, and want to have more people working for them. Inefficiencies are overlooked because to someone outside of the department, it can be hard to tell where the inefficiences are.

... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:35 am

may not even really care about. IT's already with us if you ask me. Intellectual, political and economic achievements of the 21st century pale in comparison to the
19th. Our art is stagnating, as well as technological development. Our movies are mostly rehashes, remakes, or very derivative. Even our "pop culture" heavily
reference the past. I see kids movies which still reference movies form the 60s. Although our technology is improving in some ways, the breakthroughs aren't like wha

Part of the cause of cultural stagnation is that you have to go through a gatekeper to get creative works published. Publishers and movie makers happen to like formulas
that work. If you send them something groundbreaking, or something they love but they can't classify, they are more likely to dump it than not. It was probably easier to
get published by a magazine when half the population couldn't write and there were not many writer wannabes trying to get published. Nowadays an editor will run through
close to a thousand submissions a month and only gets to publish 10.

Not everything is bad though. There re lots of niche publications fot "less popular" things, but the way things are, they are not very profitable. You can make 12 cents
per word writing Urban Fantasy that has been done to the death, or you can make half a cent per word soing something else.


--
gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Sat Aug 15 2020 05:09 pm

That happens in the private sector too. Managers want larger budgets, and want to have more people working for them. Inefficiencies are overlooked because to someone outside of the department, it can be hard to tell where the inefficiences are.

I watched a video by PragerU a while back where they looked at the inefficiencies of laying down infastructure in the West as opposed to the East. It costs 3-4x more to produce anything, be it a bridge, tram, subway system, road, or anything kind of infastructure in the USA than in Japan. And it also takes months longer to get any work actually going, such is the amount of bureaucracy and red tape.

---
þ Synchronet þ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:35 am

may not even really care about. IT's already with us if you ask me.

Intelle

ctual, political and economic achievements of the 21st century pale in comparison to the

19th. Our art is stagnating, as well as technological development. Our

movi

es are mostly rehashes, remakes, or very derivative. Even our "pop culture" heavily

reference the past. I see kids movies which still reference movies form the

6

0s. Although our technology is improving in some ways, the
breakthroughs aren't like wha

Part of the cause of cultural stagnation is that you have to go through
a gatekeper to get creative works published. Publishers and movie
makers happen to like formulas that work. If you send them something groundbreaking, or something they love but they can't classify, they
are more likely to dump it than not. It was probably easier to get published by a magazine when half the population couldn't write and
there were not many writer wannabes trying to get published. Nowadays
an editor will run through close to a thousand submissions a month and only gets to publish 10.

Not everything is bad though. There re lots of niche publications fot "less popular" things, but the way things are, they are not very profitable. You can make 12 cents per word writing Urban Fantasy that
has been done to the death, or you can make half a cent per word soing something else.

Yes, that is a large part of it. The "entertainment industry" is risk averse (as are most people), and will stick with what is a tried and true phenomenon. The other part may be the audience, as the major entertainment companies now need to market not only to their own home country, or the English speaking world, or the West, but also to other non-Western nations. This has been given as a possible reason for why depth is missing from movies, because for many people not too familiar with English, or our culture, it would be too dense, too inpenetrable.

... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
it is our automation doing it.

Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
"Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.

IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.

Any big company nowadays goes around espousing that they value this or they value that and that they stand for this or they stand for that. I think they are already the church for most people especially with how prevalent they are in places where people usually access information. Sadly, they are a church whose words, and oftentimes only words, are motivated by how much profit they are projected to get from their "userbase" in the next quarter.

I don't know if this was real or just an edited picture but I saw once
a picture of someone on stage of what I assume to be a facebook conference, mostly due to the font choice in the slide shown. Either
way, it stated:

"Turn customers into fanatics
Products into obsessions
Employees to ambassadors
and brands into religions."

And so they did.

I would have no trouble at all believing that slide was real. I've personally heard similar things myself, and many companies want to
emulate Silicon Valley.
That kind of thinking is very much in line with how people who manage companies think.

You are spot on with stating that companies are like a church, and they are taking advantage of this. I'm not even sure that company profit is even the core goal, I think it may more be self-aggrandisement and more individal, self-serving goals.

This is just plain scary. There is nothing more terrifying than an institution bloated with hubris and has an ability to realize its self-serving desires. Every day I wake up, I feel like the world is getting closer and closer to a Blade Runner-esque dystopic future.

The discussion of values should be left to the philosophers in society.
IT doesn't bode well at all for us that it is now formulated by execs.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more on that.

... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net