Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment the moral of the story is: don't hire Americans (Score -1) 304

The moral of the story is clear: don't hire Americans, don't hire anybody in the West. They actually believe they are owed a job by a business, that's very interesting but also not something a business wants to deal with.

By the way, discrimination is a human right. You don't lose your right to discriminate just because you run a business, but the way the Western laws are structured: you DO lose your right to discriminate and then you can be a target for various lawsuits based on this oppression of the individual rights by the collectivist system.

So make sure not to hire in the countries that have these types of oppressive regimes and laws in place.

Comment Re:This is horrible (Score -1) 90

Oh, this is a wonderful comment!

Also I suggest that people who are unusually tall should be shortened at the knees because they can move unfairly faster than others and see further. People with 20/20 vision should have their sight reduced artificially by mandatory cloudy glasses to make it fair for everybody and people who are just too damn pretty should have acid splashed into their faces to make life more equitable on this planet for all.

Comment Re:Who exactly is surprised by this? (Score -1) 167

Those are not necessities. Would you defend rich people being the first to have food and water and shelter?

- of-course I would, most obviously people with more means can get food and water and shelter faster and of higher quality than others. Wealth is a way to set priorities just as well as to do a number of other things, why wouldn't the rich have first access to food, water and shelter?

Comment Re: Ontario, largest subnational debtor on the pla (Score -1) 521

Wealth is an abstract concept. In nature noone owns anything

- you own your body if you can protect it. You own your territory if you can protect it. There is no difference between nature and us, we are nature.

If you don't own anything then why would you mind if I decided to kill you for food (don't worry, I am a vegetarian, but I may sell your body to others for food). So you see, your property starts with possession of your own body and mind and from there it extends to the work that you do in your life because that work takes your personal time, the time of your life.

Your work is time taken out of your life that you are spending not on pleasure but on work (maybe your work is pleasure for you but that doesn't really change anything). To take what you have worked for and to distribute it to others, who did not do this work is the injustice of oppression imposed by the collectivism that we are observing here and the more of that is happening the more people will fight against it in every possible way.

I am all for people outsourcing, automating, avoiding and evading every tax they can because that is the fight against the oppression and violence of the collectivist mob and it needs to be done.

Comment Re:Vigorous debate? Surely you jest (Score -1) 521

I've been on this site since around 1998, registered the account within a couple of years I think. As an anarcho capitalist/objectivist I don't see what it is you are seeing (this site becoming more libertarian minded, which means less Statist, less collectivist). For whatever reason the population here is quite happy to be part of a 'larger than self' collective and it's quite happy to use collectivism for protectionism, for taxation and redistribution and such. Where have you seen this shift towards 'Randian garbage' as you call it? Individuals are mostly drowned out in the overall collectivist noise here.

Comment Re:Serving his friends against his constituents (Score -1) 257

There is no such thing as 'essential service', the entire concept is what created the monopolies / oligopolies that are found around the world. Nothing is an 'essential service' (what I mean is that nothing should ever be touched/supplied by any form of government).

This ideology is what lead to the always rising prices and by the way, what the hell is 'infinite inflation of essential services'?

Inflation is expansion, inflation of money is expansion of money supply. You are talking about prices, prices *rise* and *fall*, they don't expand and contract. Inflation around the world is caused by expansion of the money supply and given the status of USD around the world, inflation today is mostly caused by the USA Federal reserve and Congress.

Comment Re:Revolution (Score -1) 130

If you're running a monopoly, and you're running 100% efficient, in what world would you be "making only enough money to survive"?

- you would accumulate savings certainly. However if you pay yourself a salary enough to live on and the rest of the money is always recycled back into the business to ensure that it runs at 100% efficiency what you have then is a fully self sustainable business that consumes almost completely all of the revenue that it generates in order to operate.

Basically if the operational expenses are almost exactly the revenues then there is almost nothing left after all of the expenses are paid. In that case what possible taxes can be applied to a business like that?

Any amount of taxes only would add to the cost of the end product/service and the result is a less than efficient system, where the consumers of the product/service are paying artificially more for getting the product/service.

In reality many businesses operate that way today already, of-course there are larger than average salaries going to the top executives but remove that and you have pretty much nothing left to remove, if you remove more then the business becomes less efficient/prices go up.

So to say that the businesses that will automate all of these jobs away will 'pay taxes' is nonsense, there is no money to pay any taxes. Any taxes added by the government will come out of the pockets of the consumers of the end product/service of the business.

In any case, the so called 'society' will not be able to extract money from businesses to pay for any type of so called 'basic income' or any form of welfare for people who don't work. The money will be extracted from everybody who is *not* a business, so it's quite simple: businesses actually generate all of the wealth and hire all of the people. Adding artificial cost to human labour increases the odds of automation / decreases the odds of new business formation / increases the odds of existing businesses leaving or failing. So the intelligent thing to do is to remove all artificial costs of running a business, removing the government taxes and regulations of business and labour, manipulation of money and interest rates and allow people to work out a natural fluid solution to these questions, not to try and hammer in the idea that those who work are going to be forced to pay for those who do not.

Those who work already provide everybody with all the goods and services that everybody needs, the contribution of any business to the society starts with the product/service the company produces with the added benefit of the person running the company being self reliant and not needing any form of help from anybody. Society should want to encourage people to start businesses and to do that it should remove the barriers to entry, reduce the costs of starting and running business, remove barriers, remove taxes, remove regulations.

The chips will still fall where they may but at least without government interference individuals will start businesses helping other individuals just like themselves. There *will* be separation of companies, some catering to the top tier of buyers, some to the middle and many (most) to the bottom tier. This should be happening now but it cannot because the companies in the top/middle tier prevent the ones at the bottom from competing and they are using the power of the State to destroy the competition by all means, including taxes, laws and money and interest rate manipulation.

Comment Re:Revolution (Score 0, Insightful) 130

people **on the whole** can be squeezed indefinitely with no consequence

- you are under impression that a company that increases its efficiency at doing what its doing and minimizes the costs is somehow 'squeezing' people. I don't think so at all. A company that maximizes its efficiency is the company that improves the standard of living of people who are using the product/service of that company and on the macro economic level that company minimizes the amount of resources needed to perform its function.

There are literally millions of people working in shipping and logistics, hopefully we can reduce that amount by 99%, so that only 1% of people doing the work today are required for that work 20 years from now and almost everything will be automated. That's the goal of any company - to increase its efficiency to the maximum to the point where there are no inefficiencies left.

Inefficiency is in human labour, in the expenses induced by the system and the government, the labour and business laws, regulations, price controls, money controls, everything that reduces the overall efficiency of the system. This has to be minimized, we have to reduce inefficiency to the maximum to get the most profit out of serving the most markets.

Personally I want to develop a monopoly in my market, to take 100% of everybody's business. Let's say for the sake of the argument that I am successful at that, that there is no competitor left because nobody can compete on price, quality, everything (at least for some time) until some breakthrough shifts the balance towards an innovator.

So lets say that 100,000,000 people are out of work because I replaced them *all* with my perfect (for the time being) business machine that does *all* of that work and requires no other human intervention. Would you say that it is a bad thing or a good thing?

AFAIC that's the best possible outcome. It also means that the only way to 'unsqueeze' those people is by breaking my business into pieces, destroying it so that it is inefficient and by creating this artificial inefficiency to supply many people with a reason for them to exist.

They existed and were able to feed themselves because they were an inefficient machine, I replaced them all with an efficient machine, they have to find something else to do, as they are people and they can adopt to the changing environment.

On the other hand they can attack the machine and try to destroy it to reduce efficiency to gain a piece of that efficiency for their own income. This of-course reduces economic power of the rest of the population, who was now enjoying the most efficient way of getting that service.

Somebody here will argue that the most efficient (biggest in their respective field) businesses need to be taxed more to supply the inefficient people with a form of subsistence. I disagree entirely, there is no reason to build all that efficiency in the first place if you are then going to add the inefficiency back on top of it.

Let's say I run a 100% efficient business, where I am making only enough money to survive and no other salary can be paid at all because the prices are absolute bottom without any space in them to pay another dollar in salaries to anybody else. That business cannot survive long, all businesses need savings to survive, otherwise they have no money to innovate, no money to survive through economic downturns. So an efficient business also has to have a healthy return on interest to allow for those savings. To take those savings away from a business to feed the inefficient is the same thing as running a business without savings at all, not allowing for any unexpected economic slow down.

So what you are calling 'squeezing' I am calling evolution, development and progress, minimizing entropy to achieve the maximum economic outcome.

A path to survive for people has to come through freedom from all forms of government regulations, so that new business ideas can be executed without red tape and without the added artificial inefficiency of regulations and taxes.

Slashdot Top Deals

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Working...