'You Didn't Build That'

[Vosem]

If the business would not exist without you, then yes, of course you built that. You may have received aid from the government, you may not have. The government did not put in the work, you did.

he is of course correct; the wage-slaves employed by a business 'build' the business, and the socialized costs re: building roads, bridges, and communication networks provide the necessary atmosphere for profit-making, free of charge.  if only Mr President would go further, and if only he had moved left along with his rhetoric post-Occupy.

wage-slaves, *snicker*. I will however give you credit for recognizing Occupy is over, something Bandit still hasn't grasped. And keep in mind this is a gaffe Romney will now try to shove in everyone's faces -- how could Obama move to the left without having his poll numbers fall, and with a Republican House blocking legislative action?

[Vosem]

If the business would not exist without you, then yes, of course you built that. You may have received aid from the government, you may not have. The government did not put in the work, you did.

wage-slaves, *snicker*. I will however give you credit for recognizing Occupy is over, something Bandit still hasn't grasped. And keep in mind this is a gaffe Romney will now try to shove in everyone's faces -- how could Obama move to the left without having his poll numbers fall, and with a Republican House blocking legislative action?

Vosem, you refute yourself in your own post - the owner of a company doesn't put in any work,  this is done for him by the wage-slaves.

Merely having large sums of capital is not 'work', you see, it is power to force others toil for you.

While I object to the use of the term 'wage-slaves' to describe American workers, for once you do actually have a point -- of course it is rare for the owner of a business to build that solely by himself. The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been. The workers have agreed to help him do it on the basis that in return they will get money, but the workers didn't consciously decide to do it. The government, depending on circumstance, may have helped or hindered him, but the government did not consciously decide to do that: you did. Not only that, but in most cases (such as our own poster clarence) the builder of the business is taking a substantial risk -- if the business is not profitable, he still has to pay the workers and can quickly end up seriously indebted and not any richer than they are. The taking that risk (if not of bankruptcy, then at least of severe monetary loss) is why so many are offended when Obama says they didn't build the business: of course they did.

People who disagree with his point are dumbs.

Yes, but you see this is a huge problem as he is running for re-election in America.

We must be thankful this is the case; in other Western countries people might simply agree with this.

[Vosem]

The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been.

So, in exactly the same way that mad King Ludwig 'built' this:

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

[Vosem]

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

'Credit'?  The only reason he could order them about so was because he had Power - he could kill them.  It is no different with the present controllers, Vosem.  I've no objection to your congratulating them for the blood on their hands, if that's your taste.

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money, an act that has been a key part of functioning societies for thousands of years. Ironically, nowadays Ludwig's legacy brings tourism to Bavaria, and tourism is one of the key reasons Bavaria is the richest part of Germany today. There's no blood on Ludwig's hands.

The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been.

So, in exactly the same way that mad King Ludwig 'built' this:

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

Lol.  The King didn't lay a single stone in building of the castle, so all the credit goes to the worker.

The worker wouldn't've built it if the King hadn't payed for it to be designed and then built. More credit goes to the King than anyone else. Some credit goes to the worker, but certainly not all or even most. (Also, as I recall Ludwig personally laid the cornerstone on Neuschwanstein, so he did lay at least that one.)

[Vosem]

Gustaf is perfectly right, as usual.

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

'Credit'?  The only reason he could order them about so was because he had Power - he could kill them.  It is no different with the present controllers, Vosem.  I've no objection to your congratulating them for the blood on their hands, if that's your taste.

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money, an act that has been a key part of functioning societies for thousands of years. Ironically, nowadays Ludwig's legacy brings tourism to Bavaria, and tourism is one of the key reasons Bavaria is the richest part of Germany today. There's no blood on Ludwig's hands.

The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been.

So, in exactly the same way that mad King Ludwig 'built' this:

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

Lol.  The King didn't lay a single stone in building of the castle, so all the credit goes to the worker.

The worker wouldn't've built it if the King hadn't payed for it to be designed and then built. More credit goes to the King than anyone else. Some credit goes to the worker, but certainly not all or even most. (Also, as I recall Ludwig personally laid the cornerstone on Neuschwanstein, so he did lay at least that one.)

The worker would have built it or an equally impressive structure if there was no King and all the capital(fruits of labor) were in the rightful hands of the worker. The designer is also most likely a worker(engineer & architect).

Neither Christian Jank nor Eduard Riedel were workers -- in the 19th century Europe architect was very much an upper-class or middle-upper-class job. And, no, of course the worker wouldn't've -- they wouldn't've gotten anything for it without the King, because they're reason for participating in the construction was that the King was giving them money.

[Vosem]

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money

No, they do it because if they don't they will die.  Money is just a method for coercion, Vosem.

They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die. (And even if you do, if you are careless with it you can waste it quite quickly -- as I recall some music singer spent $55 million in six months? Can't remember who, though).

[Vosem]

They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die.

Precisely, which is why they are wage-slaves.

Being required to work doesn't make you a slave because you can pick who you decide to work for. In the long run, even Ludwig himself went bankrupt.

[Vosem]

If you disagree, you're demeaning your own career because it's true.

That's better.

[Vosem]

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money

No, they do it because if they don't they will die.  Money is just a method for coercion, Vosem.

They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die. (And even if you do, if you are careless with it you can waste it quite quickly -- as I recall some music singer spent $55 million in six months? Can't remember who, though).

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.

Everybody having the same amount isn't fair, though. At all. And, no, of course they wouldn't've for absolutely no short-term gain.

[Vosem]

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

[Vosem]

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

Private property prevents freedom, personal does not. I don't expect a right winger to understand this though.

How am I free if somebody can just come and take things I need?

[Vosem]

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

Private property prevents freedom, personal does not. I don't expect a right winger to understand this though.

How am I free if somebody can just come and take things I need?

to have some starting point for understanding the difference between possessions and private property for discussions like these, you could review some texts re: the everyday life of an average urban citizen in the Soviet Union.  you could 'own' pencils but not forests, cars but not automobile factories.

Considering my parents and grandparents were actual urban citizens of the USSR, I have far more understanding of this topic than you do and would be offended if you disagreed. I can assure you people in the USSR strived to emigrate to places like the US where people can own automobile factories. Why? Because they work better. Because forests owned by people and not the government are used more economically. And so on. Of course individuals should be able to own pencils, forests, cars, and automobile factories.

All you have to do is think, Tweed, it isn't so very hard.

[Vosem]

So it is in life - if you redistributed all the wealth evenly and then left the individuals to their own merits, after a relative short period of time, you'd end up with roughly the same distribution as you currently see.  The only way to keep the wealth evenly distributed is to hold back the more effective.

^This guy perfectly displays the blind spots which allow for the right-wing viewpoint.

Everything is down to 'effectiveness', as if we were all running a foot-race.  As we all know, society is more like an ant-hill or bee-hive than a foot-race.

Not really. In an bee-hive, the life of the colony is more important than the life of the individual bee. In a human society (for most people), the life of the individual is more important than the life of the society. Therefore society is more like a foot-race.

[Vosem]

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

Private property prevents freedom, personal does not. I don't expect a right winger to understand this though.

How am I free if somebody can just come and take things I need?

to have some starting point for understanding the difference between possessions and private property for discussions like these, you could review some texts re: the everyday life of an average urban citizen in the Soviet Union.  you could 'own' pencils but not forests, cars but not automobile factories.

Considering my parents and grandparents were actual urban citizens of the USSR, I have far more understanding of this topic than you do and would be offended if you disagreed. I can assure you people in the USSR strived to emigrate to places like the US where people can own automobile factories. Why? Because they work better. Because forests owned by people and not the government are used more economically. And so on. Of course individuals should be able to own pencils, forests, cars, and automobile factories.

All you have to do is think, Tweed, it isn't so very hard.

This is so absurd, most people(including me) were trying to escape the right-wing regime of the 90's not socialism.

I will agree that Yeltsin botched things up enough that nobody was any keener on staying in the '90s either. In the '90s it was just easier to get out.

EDIT: Also I think 'incompetent' is a better way to describe Yeltsin than 'right-wing'.

[Vosem]

...society is more like an ant-hill or bee-hive than a foot-race.

Not really. In an bee-hive, the life of the colony is more important than the life of the individual bee. In a human society (for most people), the life of the individual is more important than the life of the society. Therefore society is more like a foot-race.

What?  I guess you must be joking.  In case you haven't noticed, workers are killed in their millions in order to make society function.  You can think of society as a big machine designed for killing off the masses in order to 1) continue functioning, and 2) continue ensuring a life of ease, leisure, and luxury for those at the top.

I would simply have to say your last two sentences are lies outright; a) in the modern Western world, workers aren't killed; b) society is disorganized, difficult to predict, and totally unlike a big machine; c) those at the top have to know how to stay at the top, which is difficult. It will be impossible for us to debate if we can't agree on what the facts are, opebo.

[Vosem]

I would simply have to say your last two sentences are lies outright; a) in the modern Western world, workers aren't killed; b) society is disorganized, difficult to predict, and totally unlike a big machine; c) those at the top have to know how to stay at the top, which is difficult. It will be impossible for us to debate if we can't agree on what the facts are, opebo.

In fact they are killed, Vosem, but in ways that may not be so obvious to you.  Certainly their lives are taken forcibly from them.  Society is in fact organized and predictable (and after all a machine is far from completely predictable).  And those at the top are not there by virtue of knowing anything, they're there by virtue of position-in-the-system - capital or in other words power.  Any toils related to keeping those at the top at the top are done by those they control, not by the controllers.

Nobody's life is taken from them forcibly. They have to work, but consider that society would collapse if nobody did any work -- somebody's got to, and those that don't have money have something clear to gain from doing work (money). You don't actually explain how they are killed, so I will simply continue to maintain that they are not. Those at the top are there by virtue of how much money they have, that's true, and I honestly can't think of a better system. There are no toils related to keeping them there -- they stay there by virtue of inertia if they are smart and know how to use their money. If they are not smart, eventually they fall (go bankrupt) no matter how many workers are on their payroll.

[Vosem]

Nobody's life is taken from them forcibly. They have to work, but consider that society would collapse if nobody did any work -- somebody's got to, and those that don't have money have something clear to gain from doing work (money).

But don't  you see - those who 'have money' are controllers - they control the labor of those who do not have, and do not labour at all themselves.  It is a system of forcible control.

But they don't control anybody because they compete amongst one another, first of all, and second of all, how do you think they got the money in the first place? Either they labored or one of their ancestors labored to ensure they would have it.

Those at the top are there by virtue of how much money they have, that's true, and I honestly can't think of a better system. There are no toils related to keeping them there -- they stay there by virtue of inertia if they are smart and know how to use their money. If they are not smart, eventually they fall (go bankrupt) no matter how many workers are on their payroll.

The toils I referred to are things like - managing their interests, guarding them, etc.  They require protection and assistance

Some of them who can afford to do so hire people to manage their interests or guard them -- there's nothing wrong with that, and in the first case the people who can competently manage the interests of a really-wealthy person are generally not poor themselves.

- hence the existence of the 'house ******' or middle class.

I don't understand this at all -- could you explain?

And, I must say, opebo, you're one of my favorite people to debate on this whole forum. You have a manner of writing clear falsehoods in such a way that they're so obviously true that you're actually one of my favorite posters. I hope you see me the same way