The Trouble With Billionaires
by Success on Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 | 25 Comments
Linda McQuaig: Concentration of wealth in North America growing and dragging down economy
-
-
Resources
Archives
Categories
Tags
"forbes alex bill gates billionaire Billionaires black business david economy facebook films finacial for Free Gates gold google gop home Investor jones law life love millionaire millionaires money music new news obama of paul People rich self help Success Successful the to video Warren Buffett wealth world youtube
@sirellyn “believe it or not” Of course but it is still job like all others and should duly be rewarded by regular wage. “form their own business” what people generally fear is the capital cost -> bankruptcy -> debt slavery “owners aren’t important” I’m saying that the workers? should own the business. “lazy/selfish workers are imaginary?” WFT obviously other workers don’t like free riders.
@SystemLordNemo There are a few businesses that do have the workers as the owners. They are usually co-ops. And a handful are successful, but not many. Even for individuals running businesses it’s very hard to do.
The people I know who did ok, avoided buying all the treats, lived very modestly and squirreled away money (savings). They did try things, and did fail a number? of times but every time they did they weren’t in debt. And eventually they did succeed. It was a lot of sacrifice.
@sirellyn “And a handful are successful” Mind me if I don’t share your pessimism my information does not support it and I go even further I? think that all totalitarian organizations should be illegal. Totalitarian means a single human can play dice over countless others and it is likely that rulers are psychopathic(it’s demonstrated that businesses nowadays operates like psychopaths) voluntary democracy or self-determination minimizes that problem. It is also most fair economic system.
Saying that you advocate more co-ops thinking they are more successful than I see it is fine. Saying you want to outlaw single owner businesses is not. It seems like you have never been a business owner, and have no idea what kind of tough decisions they have to make. Your view seems to be both generalized and heavily distorted.
If there is something stopping someone from quitting a bad job, and from starting up one? of their own, that should be addressed.
@sirellyn” outlaw single owner businesses ” I didn’t say that single owned businesses are ok if you don’t “hire” anybody (that is what I meant by “self-determination) and if you do you will take them as co owner and stop being single owner. “tough decisions” Yes you talk about todays economics it’s truly brutal? but should it be always so? To clarify I don’t talk about fully tested theory of economics but more like from hypothetical moral perspective.
@SystemLordNemo And what of those people who choose? that kind of working relationship? And can choose to discontinue it at any time?
From a moral perspective I support the choice of any individual to freely enter into a contact, bargain or relationship with any other. I push for the shortest and simplest length of a contract which retains demonstrated effectiveness. So that both parties have the best chance of fully understanding what they are getting into.
I don’t advocate forcing a choice
@SystemLordNemo This is why having a gazillion laws doesn’t actually help. It confuses things and allows for the “fine print” by which people are able to hang themselves.
I? also would never force a sole owner to work in a peer relationship with another simply to work with another. If thats both their choice, then great, they are partners. If not, I’d find that hypocritical when advocating individual free choice.
@sirellyn “who choose” Choose to work for totalitarian organization? “discontinue it at any time” in my opinion there should not be contracts that cannot be terminated at any time and everybody should be able to leave in one piece while counts are balanced. “I don’t advocate forcing a choice” Lets keep it simple do you advocate? voluntary slavery or slavery by force of current ownership situation? In my moral framework ownership and binding contracts are power and it cannot go unchecked.
@SystemLordNemo People can leave places at any time. People can simply walk out. Their remaining pay up to that day has to legally be paid. Voluntary slavery isn’t slavery.? A barrista or waiter are no slaves, nor is your dry cleaning attendant.
And we are all subjects to situation, thats not the issue, it’s people who subvert or manipulate situations to the extreme (knowing/willful ignorant) loss of others basic human freedoms that cause issue.
@SystemLordNemo Contracts are checked by both sides. Again, simplicity and effectiveness is paramount here. ? Most contracts need no third party supervision, those you worry about are ones where time is committed in excess, or someones basic freedom is supposed to be stripped away. (I sell myself to slavery). But those are be null and void. People can make “dumb” contracts, people make dumb decisions all the time, but results should be short lived and injury should not be permanent.
@sirellyn “It confuses things and allows for the “fine print”" That “fine print” IS clear problem if there is no LAWS to ban it. I have heard some horror stories about ‘states local business practices and all because there are no clear laws against downright criminal advertising and agreements can be in what ever shape. “both their choice” I disagree the owner is in blackmail position but if both of them are truly in “a peer” situation nobody? has real disadvantage its ok.
@SystemLordNemo I agree there should be a law on the word length of contracts enforceable in the courts. Originally lawyers? were mainly only for drafting up short but succinct documents. If the document was in contest, no lawyer was needed, either party (or the court) could read the thing simply enough. Court cases were much shorter then too.
To insist that courts have to adjudicate contracts or laws several hundreds of thousands of pages long for one case is lunacy and malfeasance.
@sirellyn “Voluntary slavery isn’t slavery.” Righht and yes slavery is slavery(IMO). But “a peer” contracts if there is nothing criminal involved are binding if other party has received payment that cannot be called back. “A barrista or waiter are no slaves” Maybe I should explain more thoroughly: imagine a island two men living in it and imagine now that one of them owns all the farming? land. What is in your opinion the other mans status? And does that fact change even if we add more owners?
@SystemLordNemo? The island scenario, you are ignoring the before and after, but sure, if one person didn’t own the land the other may lay claim to and fish in the sea. Now how does this person own the land, is it a written contract, or was he bullied, or did some external force grant one person ownership and not the other? These things actually do matter. Likewise is the land owner capable of farming or producing from the whole land, does he like coconuts or wants some fish? Its context-less.
@sirellyn Yes all the information must be available for both no argument there. An yes I value simplicity(to protect the people)too but I cannot sacrifice certain values for utilitarian? goals(in this thought experiment) but I grant value of utilitarian moral framework and of course the EVIDENCE in actual world right now.
@sirellyn This is pure thought experiment and answers to that should come from its premises. The sea is not a option just now sorry
Lets say that the guy was farming it before other arrived(maybe the other was born) that should satisfy any lockean, minarchist, agorist? or anarcho capitalists, BUT obviously not me.
@SystemLordNemo Well no the individual is not a slave, they are a guest I assume. The land owner doesn’t live forever, and they have to pay something to subsist on it. A human being can only farm so much food, if it’s getting crowded they’d start having theft. Who would prosecute with 2 people on the island? It would take the land owner a lot more? time and effort to try to fight the person rather than work out some arrangement with them.
@SystemLordNemo You are suggesting someone is entitled to the fruits of previous efforts if they just suddenly? pop up somewhere, and while charity is fine and common the answer is no. The reason is that it’s theft of the past efforts of the other individual, which if allowed makes people less likely in the future to produce more knowing that it could be taken away at a moments notice. Also why people don’t save as much in high crime areas. Why save when someone will rob you anyway?
@sirellyn That’s some fancy(even bit of realistic I give you that) story but like I said before we are playing by strict laws so no cheating. The? point of experiment is to show that non owner is truly at the mercury of the owners arbitrary property laws maintained by violence(slavery by property laws). And this will hold true even if we add more owners/non-owners or recourses so this moral outlook is applicable to “real” world the difference is specific competition but that is not redeeming.
@sirellyn “entitled to the fruits? of previous” All personal(not historical(other persons) nor future, personal work, dangers and suffering) loses should be paid back in due time(by not dangering anybodys life or happiness). I am saying that everybody has right to life or more specific everybody has right to sustain themselves.
Again consider a wider view, when people show up and by there existence mean resources are forcibly stripped from others it sews great discontent, even if considered “loan”. The measures would be forced and subjective at best. If it’s by charity people also have a better compass of where to go, if people are forced out of one area, would you rather go to racistown or niceville? In turn those to head to better places work with others and make a stronger by diversity. Forced only? means hatred.
@SystemLordNemo “Children” are also enslaved in the same way you describe to parents. Because pop up out of nowhere one day, have no way of accessing the resources and total dependency? for needs and knowledge. Law enforces kid-parent dependence.
But over time they grow acquire (and save) their own knowledge/resources and eventually gain independence. As long as others are granted the ability to learn and save, and are not initially treated unfairly independence would eventually be theres.
@sirellyn “when people show up and” All this can be arranged more rational and non- arbitrary ways and I’m certain that the people see justice in the final laws. Everybody has right to life, liberty and pursue of happiness more propriety that is needed is not a right but a privilege(and can be considered power) like income? from excessing part and if you acquire it you have to agree before hand several conditions. I too like charity but when psychopathic totalitarian organizations govern…
@sirellyn I have something special in mind for children, elders and sick people. For every generation the overall of wealth is increased in my opinion that wealth when it’s no use to the original creator anymore should be used to sustain those who cannot sustain themselves(the rich are obviously out and responsible), what is left will be channeled to the means of production(physical things and education) of next generation.?
There is one solution! Save your unborn children from this misery! Let the breading be done by the? billionaires! let their children grow the food, clean the dirt, and sort out the mess their parents and grand papas have created! STOP CONSUMING THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!