Why from the Marxian Price Faerie, of course! [:P]
Nope, I’m a hoopy frood who knows where his towel is.
You didn’t re-write your post yet. Hop to.
Lol. He gave me a circular argument for exploitation. He could at least have said that it was immoral (although that argument could have also been destroyed). He equated renting to selling then claimed he didn’t. Him: “undesireable working hours are hours of work that are undesireable.” Lol.
Conza, is there more? I don’t want to sign up over there because I don’t want them to have my IP. [:D]
I’m a rich scumbag! [<:o)]
Did that guy believe in self-ownership and if not how else do communists base their renting argument on?
Haha, who knows..
You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: -
But what did I do? [:(] Hey! I guess it’s better than being put up against a wall! [:|]
I’m not rich.
But you’re rich with liberty and freedom - I think that qualifies you for the wall!
Neither am I… but that’s because I’m an entrepreneur currently assessing future market conditions before I allocate my skilled labour capital*, in order to satisfy customers wants & needs.
*props to LS [:)]
Really, so it is fair that if I and a coworker are performing the same task and I double his production I should forever be relegated his same salary?
Equal Shares =/= Equal Rights
Well there is a clandestine admission of inability to address the point if ever there was one.
A well is a hole in the ground which allows access to water. Now then: re-write the post previously indicated.
Ever get the feeling that your pathetic attempt at trolling has been noted? Further, have you gotten the hint that I’m going to treat you like a child until such time as you stop your feeble attempts?
As I said, if you can show how I was ‘intellectually-dishonest’, I will gladly re-write the post. But until that point, remember your latin: Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. Or did you fail to get the point being made, and all of this is a elaborate attempt to entice me to re-write it in a more simplistic form? You have also yet to substanciate your assertion that you have taken apart my arguments.
PS. If I am a ‘troll’, yet another cheap ad-hominen to evade the intellectual obligation of addressing my points, why do you continue to engage in discussion with me?
Ironically, even socialist countries had different salaries for different professions, bonuses for extra work, raises for education, etc. So even they knew they had to provide at least some incentives for the employees.
Or the fact that the worker profits, or he wouldn’t have chosen to work there: he valued the money more than the time and labor.
Are you still here? tsk.
Me: “If I am a ‘troll’ […] why do you continue to engage in discussion with me?”
You: “Are you still here? tsk.”
I guess that is 15/love to me.
You’re arguing semantics and ignoring content. How is that not ‘intelectual dishonesty’?
Whether you’re willing to admit it or not, scarcity is a natural part of human existance. Costs incurred by persuing ends and desires are entirely natural to human action. Action is a testiment to this truth, as all known action is conducted in a temporal frame; it is limited within time. Through perusing one end over another, you are making payment in terms of lost opportunity. A price is merely the expression of that in terms of a good.
Insisting on calling this ‘artificial’ in order to claim slavish status to a price-economy is dishonest to say the least.
If “sociodecatephology” is an actual -ology, you just might win an internets.
Four points, firstly how am I ‘ignorining content’? Secondly, I’m not the one who constructed the semantics argument, Jon did. My point is trade is an artifical construct; Jon brought up the issue of language. Pay attention. Thirdly in answer to your question ‘How is that not ‘intelectual dishonesty’?’, this is a complete dodge of your intellectual obligations. You make the charge, thus the onus is upon you to provide proof, not upon me to disprove your delusions. Fourthly, this:
“Whether you’re willing to admit it or not, scarcity is a natural part of human existance. Costs incurred by persuing ends and desires are entirely natural to human action. Action is a testiment to this truth, as all known action is conducted in a temporal frame; it is limited within time. Through perusing one end over another, you are making payment in terms of lost opportunity. A price is merely the expression of that in terms of a good.”
is based upon unsubstanciated assertions, not proofs. It also doesn’t disprove my central thesis.
Next.
It is the study of cultists on the internet.
I’ve gotta say, i’m bemused by notion that members of this board (such as Captain Obvious of BAAWA) think it is some kind of revelation (that they have discovered or noticed through their sharp wits) that my contributions on this board are not all entirely serious. The name in my profile, if read aloud, is Lord ‘Rather Short Willy’.
And why pick out ‘sociodecatephology’, as opposed to Bugry School for Boys tiddlywinks champion? But you’re right I should have gone with something real like phallology, parthenology or eccrinology, but I thought you fellows may not notice.