Originally posted by Neo_Serf
No, I did not say they do nothing. I said they are not doing the final job - the ditch digger is. All they're doing is administrative stuff and
investing (share holders). My point is that of all the meaningful energy expended on this project, only the ditch diggers are doing the actual work
that needs to be done. And THEY are the lowest paid of the lot.
And also the least skilled, right?
Depends on how "skill" is defined. They are surely more skilled at labor than am I, for example. I surely could not do it. So I suspect that
"skill" is a relative term. Being relative, we cannot say in any absolute terms whether they are any more or less "skilled" than any other.
I say they are not the ones actually creating what is needed.
So the owner of the company created nothing in your eyes. If this is so, *why does the ditch digger apply and accept a job at all? CLEARLY, by your
reasoning, the boss is pure overhead who creates nothing and produces nothing. So by your reasoning the ditch digger should never need a boss, as the
boss provides the digger with no value.
Now I did not say that. I merely pointed out that as far as actually moving the earth, the ditch digger is the one who gets it done. Yes, in the
system we have set up, the company does the coordination aspects. But coordination can occur in other ways. Regardless of how it is coordinated,
however, the digger is the one who actually moves the earth, whether Human or robot.
You know what a ditch digger who doesnt need a boss is? A boss. If you applied for the position ditch digger, and I was the boss,and you
started telling me that I contribute nothing, I would first chuckle, and then ask you 'so why have you applied for the position of ditch digger, when
clearly my role is unneeded?' right before I told you to get the hell out of my office.
I never said there was no contribution in any terms at all by the company. That contribution can be obtained in other fashion, however; the ditch
digging itself needs the digger.
Sorry, this is a misleading (and strawmanish) question. Do I actually believe... I actually believe that the "intelligence and brains"
are worth nothing without the ones who actually accomplish the goal. The ditch digger's meaningful energy expended is what actually makes it happen,
and without the ditch digger, the "intelligence and brains" could do all the risking and advertising and contracting and optimizing and planning and
accounting and hiring and investing and competing they could possibly do, but without the ditch digger, nothing would actually be done.
So you agree, by your line of reason, that the management could not accomplish its goal of getting a ditch dug without the ditch digger. In this
admission you implicitly agree that the ditch digger could not have the oppertunity to dig the ditch without said management. Yet you completely
negate that side of the argument.
No. That's not what I implicitly agree to. If someone placed an ad for a ditch digger and they came and dug a ditch, there is no company/management
needed. Just because a company is reliant upon having ditch diggers to get ditches done does not follow that the ditch digger necessarily needs a
company to dig ditches.
Call strawmen when they actually apply, otherwise it is *you* who is guilty of deflection.
I still feel it applies.
Does managment not expend meaningful energy, in your opinion? What sort of field are you employed in, i wonder? The only gig I know that can
get paid for non productivity is government. (or one governments spawn)
Management does expend energy presently given meaning in the system We have set up. In another system, their contributions may be meaningless.
I actually believe that you have that backwards. The ditch digger doesn't rely on those above him if a ditch needs digging.
Now its my turn to LOL. Let us experiment with your principle, shall we. Go dig a ditch in the woods and see how much youre paid.
I didn't say that ditch diggers didn't need people who need ditches dug. If someone needs that ditch dug in the woods (and presuming I could
physically do such a thing as dig a ditch) which were that One's woods to dispose with, I bet if I dug it, I would be paid. The ditch digger can dig
ditches for people whether the management is there or not.
So the vast energy the ditch digger uses is not compensated to HIM - virtually all of it goes to someone else who is more concerned with
paperwork in some form or another, all necessary because we need to account for money.
Most of that paperwork is due to taxation and regulation, not due to money.
Well, if there was a shift from the paradigm of needing money for something to having what One needs to follow One's bliss, aside from petro-fuels (We
are told), We have abundance - and Now We have plenum energy as well. Once the cost of energy is removed deeper and deeper into the structure, a
point will be reached where what is there is free.
Once that happens, then free sort of will flow backwards. As the structure becomes easier to support robotically, remotely, and publicly, We become
more active in actually solving problems rather than controlling others. With the public and free domain of the Interweb, supported more and more by
those who love doing it and less and less by those who have the most money to manipulate it, an Ethically grown primary structure will emerge - if a
widely proclaimed site were to be offered much as I describe in the OP by someone, that One will have acclaim, and Humanity would achieve great
Keeping track of money *is* work.
Yeah, I worked in banking a decade and a half. I listened to the people around Me and each One had something to say about the things They would do
instead of coming to work if They didn't have to because One had to input energy into the accounting for energy. If that structure was unneeded, and
these Ones could have Their needs richly met, I bet They would spend more time one Their boats, time with Their kids and grandkids. Time learning
about something that interests them (the Interweb is awesome for that even in its assaulted state for power (m/p/e) over perception), or time
socializing. Time pursuing honest science not driven by paradigm but results.
Time building things, creating things, giving Love. All these people are lovely at heart, these Ones I have seen in this massive structure built
around the scarcity of energy. Oh, sure, I have met individuals who I would help if I had the means and knowledge, but overall, Humanity doesn't want
any trouble. Humanity is Loving, even above the bonds of a system of money, which keep the bulk of that Love at bay.
That the digger sweats his ass off is irrelevant, since weve agreed that value of effort = what others will pay for it.
Well, We actually don't agree precisely. The value of effort = a subjective evaluation, the measure of which We might use money as an indicator.
This does not mean that money is the ONLY measure We might apply, nor that money is even necessary in the transaction at all.
By your logic the digger should be the richest man in the world.
No... By Your deciding I agree with something, You have built an illogical construct against me. By a "joule assignment," where everyone was paid
per joule expended, the ditch digger would be well to do, I imagine. But every transaction is subjectively evaluated as to how much the total
expenditure is worth, and often based on who is doing the labor. In reality - that IS what We're addressing, right? - because money is required to
effectively survive some of Us can take advantage of this and use the profit from Others' energy for Ourselves.
And without money, when ditches need to be dug, those concerned can step up to the plate and offer their services (solving problems is
many people's bliss) even without robots, leaders will emerge, and the work will be thereby coordinated and done.
This is a stunning admission, and I am literally floored in knowing that you would openly admit this. Youve basically said that leaders will
determine who will work and for what.
Yeah. So? I never said there would be no leaders. In fact, "leaders of the moment" is a common phrase I use. My point is that these leaders are
NOT "determining" who will do what, per se, but that Those who CARE will have input, and leaders will emerge from those who CARE. And if money is not
involved and cannot be, the CARING solution will be found, not the cheapest (profitable), and the leaders will be leading the people whose bliss it is
to take on good ideas and make them happen - NOT people who are getting bucks (big or little) to do things (that even might harm) for even MORE big
bucks for someone else.
OK, youre a Communist. To me, thats one step above a Fascist on the gage of moral depravity. I hate to throw around words as strong as 'evil'
casually, but what you have just said is squarely in that realm.
Again. You conclude things based on your initial error that are not true. I have said, over and over, Communism is a scarcity paradigm construct. I
am at a right angle to the "communism/capitalism" dichotomy. In both cases, the need for the system arises to account for meaningful energy expended.
Communism seems to invariably come with individuals, Ones, who control Others who wind up with nice places to live while others don't. In communism,
the idea is to take away the "excess" things of some and give them to others.
In the abundance paradigm, the Ones with things keep them, and everyOne else gets things too. The only loss is in having power over others.
What you have just said, imo, puts your ideas in league with such gems as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot ect. It also disqualifies you from any
kind of respect or consideration, imo, as these ideas youve espoused have literally led to the horrific deaths of millions upon millions of your
What You just arrived at is based on faulty analysis from the get-go. So I really have nothing else to say to this.
I dont say this lightly, but you should be ashamed. That you could feel shame implies that youre better than this.
I'm unsure whether there is shame to be felt here or not. I am sure it is not on my end that any shame should be felt. Should You feel shame at
beginning with a faulty assumption that We agreed on something We did not?
What do you think would happen if money was not needed, and we could create to the best standards and not the cheapest? (As to what
would happen in a money situation...so many are so used to sapping the energy of the slave (paying him about what it would cost to own him outright)
that and living better than him on that energy he expended, what would happen is that the ones propping the money mechanism would complain that they
had to get less, and stop propping the money structure.)
A slave is one who is *forced*. Our hypothetical digger agreed to dig of his own free will. And he agreed to be compensated in *money*.
Therein lies the fable. The ditch digger needs to eat. (S)he is not allowed into the ranks of the educated because happenstance precluded that, so
(s)he is compelled to take positions where her/his energy is used to enrich others. Else starve or seek help. Help is not as forthcoming for
able-bodied individuals, and so Our ditch digger takes what (s)he can get. That her/his energy is used by others is a function of the concept that We
need to account for energy meaningfully expended.
And with effectively infinite energy, We do not need to account for it.
As far as actually digging the ditch, indeed, he was.
Im sorry but who the f*** cares. He agreed of his own free will to dig the damn thing for a specified reward. If he didnt like the deal he could
have walked and dug his own ditches.
(S)he agreed within a system that pushes that "free will" choice as an "only option." If there are few options, how free is the Will?
The position exists because we don't have robots yet to do it, and people require non-random ditches.
Ahhh so youve come back to reality temporarily.
No... I'm still in reality. Just not stating that You agree with Me where You don't.
True. But what's your point?
The point is that the direction of the shovel and all the implied specifications were determined by someone other than the digger. If the digger
determined this, he would be the boss.
Only if (s)he isn't determining AND digging... If not digging, not a ditch digger.
I understand how it works in scarcity of money/power/energy without robots I grasp the logic of this. Without money, with robots, and
with the Interweb, the person who needs the ditch dug does a search for ditch digging, finds people who are willing to program robots for person (or
might find a number whose bliss it is to dig ditches...) and arranges with them to dig the ditch. If it's a major project, the one who thinks of it
first poses it as a problem (no problem? No need for project) on the central site. Others who would like to contribute may. Through the thread
suggesting the problem might arrange for meetings, or someone might come up with a better solution. Those interested in solving a problem will do
I wonder, if these hypothetic savior robots are created, (which your entire position and party os predicated upon) what makes you think youll ever be
granted access to them? Surely, since we share the similar critisims of the existing system, you realize that evil runs the show. Since we accept
this, why do you believe this ultimate power that is free enegy and unlimited production will just be handed over to the masses, and not used by said
evil elites as the ultimate weapon against us?
Well, first the Ideas must spread. Then a central, well publicized site for solving problems needs to be created. Then personal use power boxes are
developed and sold. Then, as the cost of energy drains, building robots is focused on, with people communicating need and offering solutions on the
central site. Initially robots might be sold, but eventually they will be created by people who love to create them and see Others happy with what
"Savior" robots. An emoti-epitaph. No "savior," dude. Just useful. And open source is crucial. Didn't you read the OP?
You seem to think that robots instantly = abundance for all mankind, but the opposite, under current conditions, is almost certainly true. For
reference material, watch Terminator 2, I Am Robot, and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I'm sorry. I am sure I said it would be a process. Oh, see Star Trek! Yes. While We're using fiction as "proof!" (Actually, as speculative
fiction goes, Star Trek is likely the closest as far as expectations go.)
Remember how they thought nuke power would set us free from energy? Hmmmm....
Remember how the Ones who would make money from it hyped it? Remember how the radioactive elements and earthquake dangers were downplayed? Remember
how We were manipulated into believing it was Oh Kay?
Thus far, plenum energy has shown life ENHANCING qualities. I don't think comparing the apple to the orange is a fair comparison here.
No, I culled all that to point out that when it comes to whether a ditch is dug or not, it is the energy of the ditch digger that is
Were you going to say 'all that is needed.'?
Yes. All that is needed for the ditch to actually be dug. Regardless of the way in which the digging of the ditch came about - whether some guy was
offered money or he's doing for his favorite Aunt who pays him back in smiles and appreciation - all that is necessary for the ditch to actually be
dug is the ditch digger's energy.
State yes or no - does the managerial side of a business provide any value whatsoever. If no, then goodbye, if so, what standard, in your
eyes, determines the value of the digger vs the value of the boss?
In a scarcity paradigm, yes. Well, actually, in an abundance paradigm, too, it's just that they operate differently. People need projects done and
the problem of getting a ditch dug is offered on the web. People who love to solve problems might hunt the web for someone who loves to dig ditches -
or just arrange with the people who love to program and build robots to come up with one that will dig the ditch. Management emerges rather than is
I don't "ignore" issues of "free will." The ditch digger, having the spoils of his energy taken by those who support the
money/power/energy accounting structure,
I offer a digger $12/h to dig ditches. He accepts. I pay him om time as per our agreement. Tell me where I have stolen, in this
The value of his accomplishment is worth more than he gets. You get some of it. The corporation gets some of it. No "stealing," per se, as that is
how the system is presently set up. Except no One is telling the ditch digger that his energy is worth that much that others above him can live far
better than he off of that energy he expended. And, he has few choices, being forced to take, not the whole value of his energy, but the small
fraction it is actually worth. Or else starve.
He barely puts food on the table. So he will accept the next ditch digging job.
So now he *can* put food on the table?
Sometimes, sometimes not enough, but surely not as much as the major shareholder who is reaping the bulk of the value placed on his work. And I never
said he can't. That would be depended on individual cases. Implying that I said that is either poor comprehension on your part, or poor form.
And in most cases, ditch diggers didn't get to go to Harvard because they had no money for it
Not defending insitutional education, but, could it not also be possible that he didnt have the intelligence for harvard? Who says Harvard is the
only good school? Who says he has to finish university to be valuble?
If all he can get is ditch digging jobs, he is unlucky in meeting the right opportunity in intelligence, education or employer (unless his bliss
is digging ditches). "Harvard" clearly was an example. Let's not be purposely dense here. And if he's lucky, he doesn't have to finish university
to be considered valuable. In most cases, the ditch digger was not that lucky.
keeping them in the ditch digger position as opposed to some position in the support structure.
You disallow our poor ditch digger his justly earned human dignity. You refer to him as a slave. You assume hes 'kept' anywhere; as if hes bound and
shakled and wears a gimp suit.
He IS a slave when people live richly off the energy he meaningfully expended. He still has dignity, He is a Human. What strips any dignity from him
is having to pour his sweat out so that others and not him can live richly. He is a slave when there's no money beyond the basics. He is a slave
when he cannot dictate his hours. He is a slave when his choice is to work to enrich others or starve.
Our ditch digger is a hard working human possesing the ultimate gift that is free will.
Within very tight constraints.
If he chooses to remain the digger of ditches, he will do so, and if this is the case it may be because he himself knows he is suited for no
other task. You see, he wasnt *lucky* enough in the dice game of life to be granted the good looks, keen wit or striking intelligence that others
were, and thus, he is not suited to take on a role that requires the aformentioned traits that he is unfortunate enough not to be endowed
It may not be much his choice whether he stays a ditch digger, eh? More that is where he was planted in life.
So, playing his hand, he digs for 20 years and proves himself invaluble to his digging concern, and wise enough to save something for the
future. His kids prove more able than him ability wise, but he imparts his hard working ethic onto them, and they end up owning the ditch digging
company as he looks on with pride.
That may be a happy future, but what if there are no jobs for his kids? What if he is laid off? The "work ethic" is the slave ethic. The Betterment
Ethic is the Human Ethic.
Then the government overprints the currency they all trade in and they ever built is wiped out by a state induced depression that was totally
outside of their control. The end.
Unless... We eliminate the need for money and therefore government as we presently know it. Bring in an emergent form through the Interweb not
driven by money interests but Betterment interests.
He doesn't do it because he "knows" his high energy expenditure is not worth more than $10 an hour to others. He does it because that
is all of his energy expenditure others are willing to pay so that the true worth of his energy can be siphoned to others.
And by his consent he agrees to this arrangment. Why do you not allow him his judgement? Is he too *unlucky* to know what is best for
Under duress. Either agree or starve. His judgment has little to do with it beyond survival.
No. I'm saying he is between a rock and a hard place - either expend his energy to benefit others, or starve.
So? Such is the nature of mortal existence. Produce or starve.
No. Such is the nature of energy scarcity. Produce for the haves or starve. Mortal existence will change radically with the introduction of plenum
If you do not produce enough to at least break even in terms of the cost of your own upkeep, and yet you consume, you are a negative feeder
upon others production and thus are classified as a *parasite*. (one that consumes at the detriment of the productive entity.)
A true scarcity paradigm situation, I agree. With an abundance of energy, this is no longer valid. With an abundance of energy robots can be put to
the tasks no one wants to do, freeing Humans to do what They choose from amongst a wide array of options now abundantly available. FAR more dignified
that doing something you don't like just to maintain a ratty apartment and food on the table for yourself, and trips to Rodeo Drive for those who use
the spoils of your energy.
You are *given* a body. You are not *given* the sustenance to upkeep it. An entity *must* produce *at least* what it comsumes to be a viable
Hmmm... What do tigers produce? The point is that there is enough to give everyone sustenance. Overflowingly. In abundance it is NOT necessary for
an entity to produce, but for Betterment, effort is prized. It works as you describe in scarcity, not abundance.
Or, we can work as individuals, since companies are pointless without money, and have the problem solvers bring forth leaders of the
moment to get things done.
OK, as fun as this extended back and forth has been, I must admit that when you constantly contradict yourself and just breeze by them without any
reflection, things get tiring.
Show me this contradiction and "breezing." If it matters, if it is a problem, in abundance leaders will emerge from those who care. If no one cares,
there is no problem. But no One will be caring because They can make money. Only because They want to solve a problem.
Really simply: companies are just groups of people who voluntarily agree to be led by a hierarchy of some kind. Thus leaders.
And the "leaders" are determined by who has money - NOT by who is necessarily the best to solve a given problem. In chaotic emergence, the best will
surface for each problem.
Thus when say you companies will be pointless, but in the same breath say leaders will come forth, what you are saying is that leaders will
form 'companies' (groups, organizations, parties, team ect) of some kind, but they will be pointless because there will be no money.
Do I really have to state that pointless "companies" means corporations and any for-profit groups? Yes, groups will form to solve problems, but NOT
because there is a profit involved somewhere. Because there is a problem to be solved.
People with experience will have social advantage, and those who are key in solving a problem will gain prestige and
You should really read 'Atlas Shugged' to at least challenge your premises and examine a theoritical economy that is based on 'pull'.
I have read it. Several times, in fact. And while I applaud Ayn for her vision of the Human, I have already shown you, in the reply to your posting
of her work where she errs, presuming money would never lead to love of it such that things like Genmod, water rights buyouts, Neotame, war, and other
evils would take over. She was very naive.
Because you seem to think the ditch digger is getting the true value of his meaningful energy expended, when he is not. Many others
leach off him, using his energy to create their money.
He voluntarily agreed to work for said terms. If he is in such high demand he should apply with a ditch digging company that doesnt treat him so
He took what was available because he had no other choice but to starve. You make it sound as if he thought, "Meh. Might as well work today. Got
nothing better to do. And hey, I'll choose that company because it treats me better than this one." No. He is standing in line with many others
being grateful he gets work when he does. Because he has to. Voluntarily, my ass.
No. I said all that money represents is energy expended,
Gadzooks dude. If you take an objective review of this thread youll see that weve thoughly established that your original position was the above, but
then through numerous examples and exchanges, we agreed with my original position that money does not = energy expended, but instead money = value to
others. And now youre back to money = energy expended again.
Gadzooks, dude, Did I forget the word "meaningful" again. Sorry. Money represents meaningful energy expended. The value we place on that energy
expended varies. I never agreed (though you keep telling me I did) that money = value to others. No. Money can be used as a gauge to determine what
value any given One places on anything. Now We're back to you claiming I agreed with something I did not.
Weve proven this = false so I wont address it anymore.
In your mind, I suppose.
you said something on the order of, "So if I jump on a pogo stick for an hour I have expended energy and should expect to be paid."
(Not those words, but same in concept.) I realized where you were having difficulties and clarified that it is meaningful energy. And now you are
claiming I have some sort of contradiction going on. WTF? (And actually, saying all money represents energy expended does NOT equal all energy
expended represents money - which is where you were having difficulty.)
I am having difficulty with your spiraling logic.
Not spiraling at all. Just coming from another paradigm. I can see you struggle with shifting.
No. In the system of accounting for money, with the LOVE of money rampant, the person who winds up with the money is the one who is
best at using others' energy
*cough* COMMIE *cough*.
Marxist fallacy # 2001010399: Production of wealth comes at the expense of those who didnt produce it.
I think I covered the "commie" comment above.
If i grow some wheat, and you dont, are you at a loss? YES/NO.
If the robots grow the wheat, and We eat it (neither of Us having grown it), who is at a loss?
It turns out that, with the exception of paychecks, most money is gained by coercion, theft or fraud.
HAHA thats a pretty BIG EXCEPTION dontcha think??!
No, considering most wealth is not in paychecks. It's in corporate earnings and aggregated to 1% of the population.
You just EXEMPTED the most RELEVANT factor in the equation - the ditch diggers paycheck!
Not at all. The pittance that goes into honest paychecks is vastly overshadowed by wealth earned through coercion, theft or fraud.
Im sorry but LOL.
Heh. Laugh all you want. Changes nothing.
(And even some of those were gained by those means.) Many contracts are awarded because some greased someone else's palm.
If you grease my palm I will surely give you a contract.
Why? To get a lot of money in the end. And all of this is built, for the LOVE of money at the top, and for Love, Itself, at the
So I guess the builders favor money over some abstract idea of love and bliss. Funny that.
The BUILDERS? They favor some benefit. In the scarcity we presently live in, money is favored. But Love and bliss are not as "abstract" as you
suggest. Not any more so than the value we assign to money collectively. And they will suffice if basic needs are met richly as payment.
If you remove money, those that presently are at the top because They forsook Ethics for gaining more money/power/energy, twisted out of
Human form by it, statistically would choose Ethical behavior. Dare I say it, Star Trek Now is?
This is just nonsense. Seriously, WTF are you smoking. I want some.
Good naysaying. Please show the proof of this statement.
Your leaps in reasoning and assumtions would span the grand canyon.
No... Your inability to shift paradigms make you think this. If you ever accomplish the shift, you will see the progression.
Well - and please don't get confused here - abundance means effectively infinite resources overall, because though specialty
items may be scarce, materials to richly provide for everyone's material needs (food, clothing, shelter) exceed by an order of magnitude what we
What. The. Sh*t. Seriously. "effectively infinite" would *have* to mean inifinite abundance in every perceiveable form, if 'effectively' is to
mean 'almost totally infinite'. And yet I could provide 10 scarcity paradigms not solved by your super robots off the top of my head. Lobster.
Salmon. Bison. Parrots. Genius. ect ect.
Where do You get that from? Really. If there is more than One can use, it is EFFECTIVELY infinite. Not LITERALLY infinite. Can We produce far more
food than We consume? Yes we can. Can We produce more clothing than We need or use? Yes. Yes We can. Can We produce more shelters than We need?
Yes. Indeed. Can We therefore richly supply all needs? Yes. Effectively infinite, they are, because there is more that We can use.
You did not think of 10 scarcity PARADIGMS, sweetheart. You thought of 10 specifics which might be scarce in a rich abundance of necessities. You
may not get to eat lobster, but you will eat, and you will eat fresh, organic, nutritious food. Or is it better to have people starving because you
can't have a specialty item?
That we could house and feed everyone (something that is doeable now under a free monetary system) does not = 'effectively
If there's more than we can use, it's EFFECTIVELY infinite. Or do you not understand the definition of "effectively?" And though it is doable, any
efforts will be thwarted by special interests looking out for their market share, or trying to get more money, or scamming to get money, or lack of
motivation because there's no money... In other words, with money, it would look like it does.
True, but if it becomes unnecessary, why bother? (Again, I never said justly exchange of energy was a problem. Only that because of a
scarcity of energy, Humans devised a method of exchange, money, and because of how We interact relative to it, We are frequently drawn into LOVE of it
such that We forsake Ethics.
So justly earned exchange of energy is perfectly compatible with eithics. Gotcha.
Never said it wasn't. Just that if You want to get rid of evil, you need to remove the soil it grows in.
But the whole premise of a business is based in slavery. You HAVE to have wage slaves to give the energy needed to do whatever it is
you're dog, the return of which feeds the money structure around the energy extraction itself.
What a load of rubbish. You constantly attempt to change the meanings of words for some sort of dramatic effect. SLAVE = INVOLUNTARY. FREE =
That is the illusion They promote - but it is NOT voluntary if one HAS to do it to survive. It is a coercion.
The whole premise of business (VOLUNTARY) is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF SLAVERY. (INVOLUNTARY)
I seem to recall many a business that used outright slaves. Nothing inherently voluntary in operating a business. Now They give Us the money, create
an illusion of "free will" and force Us into positions We would not choose if We had the freedom to choose. Now We have to administer Our slavery
instead of them.
I CHOOSE to accept the terms of my current employer, and my laborer CHOOSES to accept the terms I offer him. Anything besides our voluntary
consent is beyond your right to judge.
And I don't get to choose my preferred field of interest because I ran out of money and could not complete the schooling I needed for that pursuit. I
am forced into other areas to eke out a living, letting others live richly off my efforts and poverty.
Yes, some energy is expended by those in the support system (for which they are compensated, mostly as higher paid slaves), while those
at the top reap the bulk of the slaves' energy/money.
Slavery is being FORCED to give the government half + of your produced earnings.
I agree there. Both governments and corporations steal in some fashion.
As for going into business, is this something you want to do to make money? Or is it something that happens to make money that you love
I can assure you my dayjob is not my passion. (maybe arguing with you is ) I do what I do in order to sustain my existence. Bonus points to those
who do so doing what they are passionate about.
And that is what I am talking about. Where you don't need to work to sustain your existence but can follow your bliss, and making things better if
you see a chance to do so. Bonus to everyOne.
Perhaps I will cut this short as its getting late and Im not communicating in a civil way atm.
Well, I have no issues with your communications. Except where you claim agreement where there is none... [grin]
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I enjoy it as it allows me to hone my ability to put forth the paradigm shift - away from working as
necessity and towards bliss for all.
edit on 4/29/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags
edit on 4/29/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags
edit on 4/29/2011 by Amaterasu because: and again
edit on 4/29/2011 by Amaterasu because: Once more