Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[Ghost of a Rider]

Inventing disagreement

I didn't invent it, I actually disagreed.

 

[Curried Goats]

I didn't invent it, I actually disagreed.

With your own imagination.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

With your own imagination.

With you, dumbass.

 

[Curried Goats]

With you, dumbass.

I told you from the start that my use of the phrase your value meant the same thing as the value you provide to your employer. To find disagreement you have to imagine your value meaning something other than what I meant. Like I said. You feel free to disagree with yourself and your own imagination all you like.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I told you from the start that my use of the phrase your value meant the same thing as the value you provide to your employer. To find disagreement you have to imagine your value meaning something other than what I meant. Like I said. You feel free to disagree with yourself and your own imagination all you like.

Let me remind you: All I said initially was that he didn't say "your value...".

 

[Curried Goats]

Let me remind you: All I said initially was that he didn't say "your value...".

And let me remind you that my response to that was, And? Same semantic difference. Let me further remind you what you said in response to that.

Nope. One ascribes value to the person, the other ascribes value to the knowledge and skill a person provides to an employer.

One only does that when you imagine me meaning value in some other context than the one me and that other poster were discussing. It's why he understand exactly what I meant and used the same phrase in his next response to me.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And let me remind you that my response to that was, And? Same semantic difference. Let me further remind you what you said in response to that.

One only does that when you imagine me meaning value in some other context than the one me and that other poster were discussing. It's why he understand exactly what I meant and used the same phrase in his next response to me.

Irrelevant. All I said was that he didn't express it the way you said it. Nothing was implied beyond that.

 

[Curried Goats]

Irrelevant. All I said was that he didn't express it the way you said it. Nothing was implied beyond that.

That red herring doesn't address what you implied in your next post. Again my response to that statement was confusion and that's when you attempted to clear up my confusion by substituting your context of value for the context I actually meant it in.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That red herring doesn't address what you implied in your next post. Again my response to that statement was confusion and that's when you attempted to clear up my confusion by substituting your context of value for the context I actually meant it in.

What difference does any of this make if words are subjective?

 

[Curried Goats]

What difference does any of this make if words are subjective?

What people mean isn't. You dont get to make up my meaning for me. That's cosplay. I had a specific meaning with my words. Whether you choose to say, your value, or, the value you provide to your employer, that's a subjective choice but they can both objectively mean the same thing. Are you still confused by these two concepts? You seem confused.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You don't understand.

EVERYONE should be a corporation unto themselves. That includes your mine workers.

You don't need capital. You can start an LLC for free in California and most other places.

This way the big corps have to pay you corp to corp, and you can sue the piss out of them if they steal your intellectual property.

Which you can't do if you're an "employee".

You don't understand. When I said you need capital to be a capitalist and run a business, I wasn't referring to what it costs to register an LLC. All states charge a fee for filing an LLC and may require you to buy an ad in the newspaper declaring you've filed your LLC, as is the case here in NY state. All of this is irrelevant to the point I made.

Incorporating yourself doesn't change anything if you're relying on being paid money by the corporation that owns the means of production. Without the worker who is actually doing the work, there's no capitalist market. So your point is moot. When advanced automation and AI significantly replace human labor, there won't be enough paying customers purchasing goods and services, hence the market shrinks and eventually collapses. There will also be extreme social unrest due to the large number of people unemployed and unable to support themselves. This is why billionaires like Elon Musk and others are calling for "UBI" or Universal Basic Income:

​

The wealthy big-fish, the big-money billionaires, know that advanced automation and AI, are going to create massive unemployment, collapsing market capitalism. What's their answer to that? A regular, monthly, massive government intervention in the form of a Universal Income. That so-called "Basic Universal Income" or UBI, becomes the only income people have, a UI - Universal Income. Who prints the money? The government does, and since the intelligent robots will produce everything, that will ensure inflation remains about the same, and the government will just send everyone a monthly check.

This is a great arrangement for the big-money capitalists because they get their government bailout (socialism for the rich) every month, by having the government artificially create a non-productive consumer, that keeps them (the capitalist ruling class) owning the means of production (The facilities, factories, machinery, smart robots, AI), controlling the plutocratic government with their crony politicians, and of course their wealth and social status.

Essentially, we're going to be living in a techno-feudalistic society, where we have "tech-lords" who own everything at the top and we the former, productive working class will be reduced to mere, unproductive renter-consumers until the wealthy ruling class finally culls the herd.

How will they do that? Through poverty, pandemics, drugs and street crime, incarceration, conflict between races, and war in general. etc. Ironically, eventually, the capitalist ruling elites will eliminate the market, adopting a fully automated, marketless, non-profit, rationally planned, AI-managed, more democratic system of production, a.k.a. socialism. They become the socialists, and we become fertilizer.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

​

They were already relying on socialism, by forcing the government to intervene on their behalf by paying everyone in society a UBI or UI to avoid the pitchforks from coming out, so now they complete their "final solution" to eliminate the unproductive consumers, by consigning them to the compost heap. Of course, they're not going to do that overnight, it's going to take some time, but eventually, the only people who will be left are the progeny of the present wealthy capitalists and perhaps a billion or so of their slaves.

That's the plan that the capitalist ruling class are betting on to preserve their wealth and power, to solve the problem of advanced automation and artificial intelligence. They will continue to own everything, including the means of production, and will rely on the government to pay everyone a monthly income, to create an unproductive, dependent, paying consumer, who continues to purchase the goods and services being sold by the wealthy elites. The market is saved along with the current capitalist ruling class.

The working class today has to wake up and smell the coffee. The answer isn't for the government to pay us a monthly UBI or UI, it's rather you and I taking ownership of the means of production collectively. It's the public ownership of the means of production and then managing it through a democratic government, employing the latest technology. Eventually, the state will become obsolete, due to the individual consumer having complete control over the means of production. You as an individual, will be able to produce everything that you consume and need, without anyone else's assistance or input.

When we reach that high level of production, where the individual consumer is able to produce everything they consume themselves without anyone else's help, is when humanity will be absolutely LIBERATED, FREE from all types of coercive relationships. Adults will only relate and interact with each other, not out of a fear of scarcity or lack of resources, but because they want to be social and enter into relationships with other human beings.

Thanks to advanced technology, people will become more mobile, living and exploring in their own personal mode of transportation. Communities, or colonies, of people, will be formed and if the administration of those communities becomes overbearing and oppressive, people will just pack up and go somewhere else:

" Mike remarks - Hey Jack, do you believe this crap? The administration wants to take control of our APMMS (Atomic Precision Manufacturing Machines), to constantly monitor everything we produce with them. They're completely paranoid, about us manufacturing weapons of mass destruction in our apartments. Why the hell would anyone want to blow themselves up or produce a poison that kills everybody in the colony? Jack replied, Well I don't like the monitoring but you remember what happened ten years ago in that colony orbiting Titan that blew itself up due to that crazy terrorist who created a nuclear bomb. You never know man, especially when you live in a large colony like this one..."

Jack and his family stay in the colony that monitors everyone's APMM and Mike packs up and goes somewhere else. He has his ship and robots, APMMs, and can settle anywhere in the solar system. This could also apply to sea colonists or people living on land anywhere on Earth. Don't like the administration? Live somewhere else. Hop on your high-tech, big RV or megayacht, and bye-bye. This is what high-tech production will eventually do for humanity, it will liberate us.

You can choose techno-feudalism, where you are reduced to a worthless, unproductive, renter-consumer who owns nothing, under the heel of the current capitalist ruling class or you can take control of the means of production with your fellow workers and collectively excel and elevate yourself to a much better way of life. It's up to you. What do you want?

​

 

[dblack]

We need to decide - equal rights or equity. We can't have both.

 

[Curried Goats]

We need to decide - equal rights or equity. We can't have both.

It seems like you just want everyone to continue believing the fantasy that everyone always had an equal right to capital or participation in society.

 

[dblack]

It seems like you just want everyone to continue believing the fantasy that everyone always had an equal right to capital or participation in society.

No one has a right to capital. No on has a right to participate in society. If no one wants to give you their capital, if no one in society wants to "participate" with you - that's just the way it goes. Everyone has the right to have nothing to do with you, if that's their choice.

You guys have some really bad misconceptions about "rights". What you want isn't rights. You want the power to force others to do what you want.

 

[Curried Goats]

No one has a right to capital. No on has a right to participate in society. If no one wants to give you their capital, if no one in society wants to "participate" with you - that's just the way it goes. Everyone has the right to have nothing to do with you, if that's their choice.

You guys have some really bad misconceptions about "rights". What you want isn't rights. You want the power to force others to do what you want.

That's what laws and governments are when you strip away the fairytale and make believe. That's what property actually is. You don't have an inalienable right to property at all. That's a legal fiction.

 

[dblack]

That's what laws and governments are when you strip away the fairytale and make believe. That's what property actually is. You don't have an inalienable right to property at all. That's a legal fiction.

Yep. That's the angle of the left. Basically you're trying to muddy the concept of rights to the point that they are meaningless. Then you can dispense with them altogether in favor "equity". No thanks.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yep. That's the angle of the left. Basically you're trying to muddy the concept of rights so that they are meaningless. Then you can dispense with them altogether in favor "equity". No thanks.

Then unmuddy them. What makes rights inalienable? How is property acquired without force?

 

[dblack]

Then unmuddy them. What makes rights inalienable?

That's a completely different discussion, and frankly I've found very few people capable of understanding it. Especially when they have a political iron in the fire. So I won't waste much time on it with you. All it really references is our innate capacity for decision making. Volition.

 

[IM2]

Why?

Have you ever worked with people on public assistance?

Very few want to stay on it. And if we are serious about taking peiple out of poverty, then it's time to support a living wage.

 

[Curried Goats]

That's a completely different discussion, and frankly I've found very few people capable understanding it. So I won't waste much time on it with you. All it really references is our innate capacity for decision making. Volition.

It's the same discussion and frankly I've seen you run away from it time and again to the point where I simply just assume you incapable of having it.