But by that Reasoning my income goes to my parents who made me possible. YEs, the
system is a totality, but we have to look at which bit of the system adds value, and which bits
simply enable that valorization- a shop-floor foreman is not valorizig, but he helps create
value by making the workers work hard.So you do accept them as value adding. If you'll allow me to briefly undo the popular imagery of whip wielding 'bosses' who make workers work hard by threats, fraud or other such means. The point was that managing (whoever does it) , ie organising how, what, where, who and indeed why is part of the value creation process.
Well, in a society where 'the condition for the devlopment of each is the devlopment of all'
contributing to society as a whole is contributing to the welfare of your bairns.
A condition will does not arise because we do not value all equally, we are discrimatory in the value we attribute to others by the fact of being individuated from others. This is major stumbling block of all coercive collectivism, people dont agree with what theyre directed to value, but with your voluntary collectivism I dont see it arising at all, and this must be incorporated. the one thing any societal change will not change with success is the fact that the vast majority of parents hugely value their own children over other peoples children, and seek to allocate resources accordingly.
No, because they don't create wealth. If I blocked the door to the tool shed, and extorted
money out of the workers before letting them go in there, am I creatign wealth? No, I'm
conditioning access to wealth.
If the tool shed would not have existed without you then anything you let out the door is a bonus, and anything you keep hidden is 'as before'.
There may be many, but they are in no way the majority of the population. Certainly, few
could afford to retire before 50.
Im not convinced so many people would want to retire prior to 50 anyway. Also, it seems British stats are different to US in this regard.
The working class doesn't pay tax.
Business pays all of it etc, weve done all this before - the end result is that 'workers' cannot spend because they are supporting a monopoly state which 'helps' them by directing when, how and on what they might retire among other choices decided for them.
What, you mean that scheme whereby all citizens regardless of income are garaunteed a
pension, sounds fair to me...
'Fair' to whom - to the one who adds more value in than he gets out or the one who gets out more that he puts in, where the burden is increased upon the following generations dictating by the size of the retiring one? You do understand why its a Ponzi scheme dont you?
I think the word 'Luxury' makes all the difference there, as soon as your possessions become
'Excessive' in a technical Bataillean sense its no longer expenditure on consumption, but
spectacular expenditure to demonstratye wealth.
Id like to see the list which defines the "technical Bataillean sense ", presumably some attempt to objectively define 'needs'. Then I would also like to see people who support such cease talking hash about 'relative wealth' in the context of needs. Incidently, "demonstrate wealth" to whom? Also, this means that living off investments for needs only is 'ok'
Best Continue at the top of the page...
We have it seems, quite by accident!
