A topic for traders. - page 226
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I remember the Marxists had some kind of "proletarians of mental labour". But in this particular case the term "proletarians of insane labour" would be more appropriate.
No brains 😉
In the noughties the internet was more free of ochlos/plebs, profane drudge beings, and the forums were different and the entry threshold was higher, nowadays the availability of IT has led to a situation where any concrete-mixer or vocationalist hippy can even enter from a phone and defile noble meetings with his presence - the reverse side of democratisation in technology, though.
Creative work, yes, but routine work, not so much.
Not unequivocally... Kant, for example, condemned the revolution as a phenomenon, but acknowledged that after it it was certainly much better.
I am a pauper, I fly in the hold to save money.
Especially then one should understand that resources and possibilities are limited, and there are not enough goods for everybody, all that costs money.
Capitalism creates inequality, yes, but capitalism raises the lower basic level of welfare considerably, while other systems only create inequality, but do not raise overall/median welfare.
If it's a monocity, it's by definition a dreary and depressing place, I don't know why people live there or how, that's a question for Gosplan who put people there and now don't need them there.
People are free to leave anyway, at least in theory.
Of course it won't work out for everyone, just as not everyone will be able to get free of the concrete mixer. 😁
Labour and infringement are different things. Apparently one has to consider the proportionality and market value of labour.
This is not about Kant. He recognised rights. It's about marginal teachings about societies where individuals are powerless and obligations are substituted for rights and freedoms.
It makes no difference, mono, poly. It's about the infringement of rights you don't recognise for property owners. Like they can do whatever they want, but then by the principle of equal rights, you can do the same to them as they do to others. They can all resign, or have their share of income taken away legally.
Labour and infringement of rights are not the same thing. Apparently we have to consider proportionality and the market value of labour.
This is not about Kant. He recognised rights. It's about marginal doctrines of society where individuals are powerless and obligations are substituted for rights and freedoms.
It makes no difference, mono, poly. It's about the infringement of rights you don't recognise for property owners. Like they can do whatever they want, but then by the principle of equal rights, you can do the same to them as they do to others. They can all resign or have part of their income taken away legally.
Yes, of course labor is not a violation, but compulsion to work is (if any), some thinkers believe that the tax system at its core is slavery, as the tax is a forced withdrawal of the results of labor in monetary form, which means the person has to work more to return to their previous level, hence the compulsion to work. 😉
It's almost always a market value of labour now, there are no distribution institutions, propiska etc. for a long time. - You can come to any city and apply for anything commensurate with your qualities and skills.
As for disenfranchisement, this is now practically the case all over the planet in some respects, in particular I suggest thinking about the fact that the mere existence of passports makes a person an inventory item with a unique number and belonging/subordinate to some sovereign.
I still don't really understand what kind of rights violation you're talking about if the employment contract said: . and the employee has the right to wash in the factory, and the employer deprived him of it, then there would be a violation of rights, but I think that washing in the factory is rather an assumed, but not mandatory option, although purely humanly I understand that it is a dead-end, even the fact of working in the factory is already dead-end.
What can I say in general, let them have a union and go on strike - it's a practice proven over the years, or the Italian strike obstruction.
In reality, the proletarians are now so fragmented and helpless that they usually cannot even hold a meeting.
The no brainer 😉
In the noughties the internet was more free of ochlos/plebs, profane draughtsmen, and the forums were different and the entry threshold was higher, nowadays the availability of IT has resulted in any concrete-mixer or vocationalist hippie can even log in from his phone and defile noble meetings with his presence - the reverse side of democratisation in technology, though.
What can you do. Apparently, the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood from your eyes from reading the internet as well)
Yes, of course labour is not a violation, but forced labour is (if any), some thinkers believe that the tax system is fundamentally slavery, as the tax is a forced withdrawal of part of the results of labour in monetary form, which means the person would have to work more to get back to the same level, hence it is forced labour. 😉
It's almost always a market value of labour now, there are no distribution institutions, propiska etc. for a long time. - You can come to any city and apply for anything commensurate with your qualities and skills.
As for disenfranchisement, this is now practically the case all over the planet in some respects, in particular I suggest thinking about the fact that the mere existence of passports makes a person an inventory item with a unique number and belonging/subordinate to some sovereign.
I still don't really understand what kind of rights violation you're talking about if the employment contract said: . and the employee has the right to wash in the factory, and the employer deprived him of it, then there would be a violation of rights, but I think that washing in the factory is rather an assumed, but not mandatory option, although purely humanly I understand that it is a dead-end, even the fact of working in the factory is already dead-end.
What can I say in general, let them have a union and go on strike - it's a practice proven over the years, or the Italian strike obstruction.
In reality, the proletarians are now so fragmented and helpless that they usually cannot even hold a meeting.
Labour is not that much of an infringement of rights, but an obligation to a reasonable and righteous life, a life without labour is a sin... This is what society seems to have come to today. It's a mess with taxes. Taxes are a sign of the state and are the means of maintaining it. Bash for bash. Laws to replace the fiscal part of pay for labor, well as income).
There is no market price for labour now, it's imposed by the owners of the means of production, we don't have a free labour market. This is an illusion. The price of labour is reduced to a minimum probability of workers going on strike. This probability goes to zero almost nowhere. Apart from semi-public entities and a small / thin plankton environment.
I don't understand about passports. People identifiers have always been there. What do people's rights have to do with them. They (identifiers) don't get in the way if the laws are right. The Age of Forensics was recently read. Not a bad book. There identifiers are presented as an achievement))))
What is incomprehensible, natural of course for today, not last century)))) And the treaty is not natural rights, neither are laws.
Society, taking into account the properties of individuals which do not change for hundreds of centuries, will always have approximately the same structure, system. And the more correct, conflict-free on the one hand and motivating those individuals to develop, the more stable it is. Your theses are toxic precisely because they are not for a sustainable society, or a non-existent society, which simply cannot be a society. There will never be a perfect market. Neither will there be a perfect society.
Besides, here we come again to our antagonisms, which comes first, law or economics. You put economic actions first and then the right, but I think the right originated with animals, then with human beings - hunters and gatherers of land with their economy. And it is the right of force.
For some reason you do not acknowledge that the structure of society is always about the same. And it does not depend on most individuals. But it does depend on the ruling structures.
And the reasoning of what people in non-governing structures should do is meaningless. Motivation without training? Is that what you are suggesting? Without training, motivation to lead a good life leads to violation of laws and rights of others.)))
It doesn't depend much on proletarians.))) I hope this is an axiom for you too))))
Labour is not that it is not an infringement of rights, but an obligation to a reasonable and righteous life, a life without labour is a sin...
Why? And what is sin? Can you explain it in detail without using religious references?
That's what society seems to have come to today. It's a mess with taxes. Taxes are a sign of the state, and it's the means of maintaining it. Bash for bash. Laws in lieu of the fiscal part of wages, and, well, income.)
Monstrous conformism still reigns on the planet, almost medieval concepts of taxes are used, and states take on too much, and most importantly that in practice they are not so easy to abandon, the state monopoly on the very power, on the monetary system, etc.
It's not the market value of labour now, it's imposed by the owners of the means of production, we don't have a free labour market. This is an illusion. The price of labour is reduced to a minimum probability of workers going on strike. This probability goes to zero almost nowhere. Apart from semi-state structures and a small / thin plankton environment.
Partly in some industries mainly in traditional industries - I agree, but there is for example fintech and consulting - where the influence of the mercenary is much greater on pay for work. It's quite common, when you interview a narrow expertise lead or senor, he raises his own offer in the process, because he understands that we need him right now, and it's urgent. But even for traditional industries, as you yourself pointed out, pay is aligned so that people don't revolt, for them it's also a market! - An implicit agreement between the whole mass of workers and the employer - such a balanced price so that they have no reason to riot, but so that the owner of the factory is also happy with the fines on the payroll. So the market has a universal value, a universal equalisation mechanism, it's just that workers don't have much uniqueness to bargain for better terms.
I don't understand about passports. People identifiers have always been there. What do people's rights have to do with them. They (identifiers) don't get in the way if the laws are right. The Age of Forensics I recently read. Not a bad book. There identifiers are presented as an achievement)))
Perhaps it is purely symbolic that I am disturbed by the existence of passports - for the human being passports are very similar to product passports, goods, PTS again, and especially the tendency to biometrics, because biometrics remarkably resembles the technical product passport, thus I want to say that the development of civilization as if we had been led into a new (digital) slavery. And for example, the compulsory fingerprint scanning in some jurisdictions can be regarded as a kind of presumption of guilt. It is not hard to imagine that in the near future it will be possible to introduce profiling of potential criminals, which seems to be a utilitarian good for everyone, but in the philosophical sense it is an encroachment/violation of individual freedoms, the subject has not committed anything yet, but he has already been labelled as a potential enemy of society, but based on correlations in his behaviour.
What is incomprehensible, natural of course for today's times, not last century))) And the treaty is not natural rights, neither are laws.
How about a social contract? 😉
Society, given the properties of individuals not changing by a hundred centuries, will always have roughly the same structure, system.
Well then, why does the structure still change? And even at the same time in different regions it is different? Let's compare eastern despotism and Greek democracy before Alexander or somewhere around 5th century B.C.? - As you can see - even within the same historical epoch, there are very noticeable differences, not to mention different epochs.
And the more correct, conflict-free on the one hand and motivating those individuals to develop, the more sustainable it is.
A slaveholding society subject to brutal punitive suppression would also be conflict-free, but not very motivating. 🤣 And why do you think the slave systems eventually collapsed?
Your theses are toxic precisely because they are not for a sustainable society, or a non-existent society, which simply cannot be a society. There will never be a perfect market. Neither will there be a perfect society.
On the contrary, it is usually the conflict that is the source and driving force of development. In stability, there will only be stagnation. Egyptian civilisation/culture was extremely "stable" and "conservative" and eventually lost out, even the Egyptians themselves in the Greco-Roman period started to adopt Hellenic culture. Greek/Roman cultures were more "grounded" in conflict and openness, so they pulled ahead. Modern examples are all perfectly visible too, no need to even comment.
Besides, here we are again coming to our antagonisms, which comes first, law or economics. According to you, first economic actions and then the right, but according to me the right originated with animals, then with humans - hunters and passed to farmers with their economy. And it is the right of force.
Can you give reliable documented examples of the legal system in animals? 🤣😆😁 But even ants have the rudiments of a productive economy, although of course this is a very degenerate example.
Again, the tribal system, there's a productive economy, but no law. There's a way of life, there's custom, there's community, but no enshrined legal institutions.
Even the genesis of law comes from the need to regulate economic-proprietary relations, law arises as a response to the need to resolve property conflicts within the tribe.
For some reason you fail to acknowledge that the structure of society is always roughly the same. And it doesn't depend on most individuals. But it does depend on the ruling structures.
This is nonsense. Now would compare the social structure of the ancient Celts and a European developed democracy. Three times LOL... Did you even skip history in school? 😉
And the reasoning of what people in non-governing structures should do makes no sense. Motivation without training? Is that what you are suggesting? without training, motivation for a good life leads to breaking laws and the rights of others.)))
I don't see where this is going. The idea is that if it's not tyranny and arbitrary by a one-man sovereign, then the elected should do what their agenda states and not deviate from it. I don't seem to have called for breaking laws. But economic competition always makes someone suffer, it is an inevitability. One wins the contract, the other sits without a contract. It's as simple as that.
The proletarians have little to do with it))) I hope that's an axiom for you too)))
That's right, and it's only their personal problem.
Why? And what is sin? Can you explain it in detail without using religious references?
I don't know why a thankless life without work is considered a sin in most of the world. Even though I agree with it. Apparently you have to study the question, I haven't come across any direct answers. I don't want to talk about sin. There are very perverted notions of it). And there's a blurring of understanding.) Don't be.)
Monstrous conformism still reigns on the planet, almost medieval concepts of taxes are used, and states take on too much, and most importantly that in practice they are not so easy to abandon, a state monopoly on power itself, on the monetary system, etc.
I wouldn't be so crushed, it's like with bugs in the system that don't get fixed for a long time. The outrage is pointless. One should accept their existence, take them into account and control their correction. Societies as a whole are getting better))))
Partly in some industries mainly in traditional industries - I agree, but there are for example fintech and consulting - where the mercenary's influence is much greater on the pay-for-performance. It's quite common, when you interview a narrow expertise lead or senor, he raises his own offer in the process, because he realizes that we need him right now. But even for traditional industries, as you yourself pointed out, pay is aligned so that people don't revolt, for them it's also a market! - An implicit agreement between the whole mass of workers and the employer - such a balanced price so that they have no reason to riot, but so that the owner of the factory is also happy with the fines on the payroll. Thus the market has a universal meaning, a universal equalisation mechanism, it is just that workers have no particular uniqueness to bargain for better terms.
A market without laws is not a market, or even a wolf pack, there is a pattern there, but let's just say not a stable state of society, with all the illegalities that follow.
Pay rises in the narrow or managerial at an interview who also understands the need for... market and equality of the parties)))) But it's not a group of individuals without leadership, they don't stand a chance. Generally speaking, in the U.S. gangster-union action only by 1964 established a more or less adequate minimum wage per hour. That's why we and not only us won't have miracles. Whatever people revolt is a very dangerous criterion.
Perhaps this is purely symbolic to me - the fact that passports exist - for human passports are very much like product passports, commodity passports, PTCs again, and this is especially related to the trends towards biometrics, as biometrics is remarkably similar to technical product passports, thus I want to say that the development of civilization seems to have brought us into a new (digital) slavery. For example, compulsory fingerprint scanning without any alternative in some jurisdictions can be regarded as a kind of presumption of guilt. It is not hard to imagine that in the near future it will be possible to introduce profiling of potential criminals, which seems to be a utilitarian good for everyone, but in a philosophical sense is an encroachment/violation of individual freedoms, the subject has not yet committed anything, but he has already been labelled as a potential enemy of society, but based on correlations in his behaviour.
And what is the problem, when a child is born it is clear who the mother is, the family (if not in the woods or fields). Why should society let go of the identification of its individuals. It is toxic to society. And what is digital slavery? I don't believe in profiling criminals, though. Too much money spent on research with no result, well or a deplorable mistaken result in reality.
How about a social contract? 😉
Well then why does the device change after all? And even at the same time varies from region to region? Let's compare eastern despotisms and Greek democracy before Alexander or somewhere around the 5th century BC? - As you can see - even within the same historical epoch, there are very noticeable differences, not to mention different epochs.
A slave society subject to brutal punitive suppression would also be conflict-free, but not very motivating. 🤣 And why do you think slave systems eventually collapsed?
On the contrary, conflict is usually the source and driving force behind development. In stability there will only be stagnation. Egyptian civilisation/culture was extremely "stable" and "conservative" and eventually lost, even the Egyptians themselves in the Greco-Roman period started to adopt Hellenic culture. Greek/Roman cultures were more "grounded" in conflict and openness, so they pulled ahead. Modern examples are all perfectly visible too, don't even need to comment.
Ha ha, a pact between wolves and lambs?
When I studied history at school I also believed that the differences were significant, but without any analysis of living standards, rights and property ownership. Compare for yourselves, the Eastern despotisms and the same Greek democracy, by rights the difference is qualitative, but by the relative living standards of the strata of society of both, the difference is within the limits of reasonable deviations. The standard of living is more influenced by the development of the society itself in various aspects, rather than by the system. And yes, both there and there, everywhere the society is heterogeneous. The institution of coercion is everywhere and always. Sometimes it is a tyrant dictator, sometimes it is the majority, sometimes it is the law. What is the difference? Coercion is coercion everywhere.
Yes, conflict-free AND motivating, not OR. I must have misrepresented it to you. Slaves had little motivation)
And of course motivation and development leads to conflict, so it is also correct that conflict from development is not toxic to society.
Can you give reliable documented examples of legal systems in animals? 🤣😆😁 But even ants have the rudiments of a productive economy, although of course this is a very degenerate example.
Again, the tribal system, there's a productive economy, but no law. There's a way of life, there's custom, there's community, but no enshrined legal institutions.
Even the genesis of law comes from the need to regulate economic-proprietary relations, law arises as a response to the need to resolve property conflicts within a tribe.
This is nonsense. Now would compare the social structure of the ancient Celts and the European developed democracy. Three times LOL... Did you even skip history in school? 😉
That's right, and that's just their personal problem.
Well to our sheep) The pack way of life is just an example of the different rights of pack members. How is it that the tribe doesn't have legal foundations, but chiefs, wives, hunters, etc. Or according to you rights can only be printed and without writing they did not exist at all? Or were they only needed for property conflicts? Rights started with wives and a comfortable life for not everyone, property was still a long way off. And then, with the development of the society, these rights started to be protected by the laws.
The personal problem of the individual proletarians is not interesting, and I don't agree that it is THEIR problem. You could end up with a cataclysm if you dump everything on the proletariat. They do not decide their own fate.))
I don't know why a thankless life without work is considered a sin in most of the world. Although I agree with that. Apparently you have to study the question, I haven't seen any direct answers. I don't want to talk about sin. There are very perverted notions of it). And there's a blurring of understanding.) Don't be.)
What is a talentless life? Who defines the criteria for mediocrity? How about the fact that different people may have different criteria? How fair/admissible is it to evaluate life as an outcome in general, and isn't life itself self-sufficient? I also suggest that we reflect on the fact that a reasonable creature may have been "created" for happiness as a supreme value and not for labour as a necessity. By placing man in a compulsory labour context, you are treating man as a tool if you oblige him to work.
I wouldn't be so crushed, it's like with bugs in the system that don't get fixed for a long time. The outrage is pointless. You have to accept their existence, take them into account and control their correction. Societies as a whole are getting better))))
Yes, it is clear that in practice, it is easier to simply change jurisdiction to a more comfortable one, or become financially independent of the territory, than to make revolutions.
A market without laws is not a market and not even a wolf pack, there is a pattern there, but let us say not a stable state of society, with all the illicit activities that go with it.
This is wrong of course. There is for example a black market among bandits, what kind of lawfulness is there? There may be some notions and some tacit agreements, but it is not a full-fledged law. Or the Chukchi came to the Eskimos to trade: there is trade, no laws.
Pay rises for the narrow or executive at the interview, who also understands the need for... market and equality of the parties)))) But it's not a group of individuals without leadership, they don't stand a chance. Generally speaking, in the U.S. gangster-union action only by 1964 established a more or less adequate minimum wage per hour. That's why we and not only us won't have miracles. Whatever people revolt over is a very dangerous criterion.
Yes, it's understandable that the average worker can't bargain for anything. Either you evolve dramatically or you haul bricks / mix concrete / etc.