Oddbean

I did not say before that inheritance should be redistributed. I say that nobody should have more than they can build with their own two hands, or in partnership with their neighbors. Nobody should hire anyone for a wage because wage labour is just temporary slavery. Every human being should own everything resulting from their labour and sell it if he chooses.

That's completely retarded. You might as well be saying that people can't work together & can't give things to each other. You want to magically vaporize what a parent earns so that it can't be left to their children?! If people WANT to work for someone else, what then? If you actually understood what it's like to run a business you would also understand why most people would want to work for others. Being compensated at an agreed to rate for your time & effort is just trade, it is literally selling your work directly to another person. It's not even sorta slavery. But when the govt picks and chooses economic winners then the options for employment become limited & that IS a problem.

I work for friends all the time. They employ me under the tabke to do things that no one else can do. I pick & choose the jobs I want & recommend other people when it's not something I am interested in or particularly skilled at doing. Employees with highly needed skills have all the power, they get compensated for jobs while taking on none of the risk of the business they are serving.

People can and should work together, then they should divide the output according to anegotiations before. Renting a human is as wrong as owning one. If a child offered to shovel your driveway you should negotiate the price for the whole job. You SHOULD NOT pay him according to how long it takes. That would be renting a human, which would be slavery.

You can just as easliy learn what to charge by pricing things at an hourly rate & making others buy materials until you get a handle on how to predict such things. Micro managing the sort of business relationships people can enter into is ridiculous.

Lol, don't thank me too much. I think most of the worst atrocities in human history were rooted in good intentions that ultimately became a deadly effort to refuse to accept being wrong or to give up power.

Who said anything about force? I would never want to control anyone with force unless in defence. I'm an anarchist. The less experienced ones can be mentored by an individual or a group. If you wanted to be an apprentice lineman then I, as a journeyman lineman, could bring you into the fold in a 4 man crew. 2 journeymen, an equipment operator and an apprentice is a typical crew. Well we could say all income could be divided like journeymen take 30% each, equipment operator takes 20% and you the apprentice could take 20%. Or whatever is negotiated beforehand. This way everyone knows all the values and costs. The pay for the work is not secret. No secrets.

You are free to organize your own work crews however you please. Others may not be interested. Bitcoin & Lightning potentially make it possible to be paid by the minute. There are lots of reasons people might prefer that. Slavery is force & coercion & should be opposed by force. Saying that hourly wages are a form of slavery or that "renting people" is slavery would suggest you believe they should be opposed by force. If you want things to be voluntary then you advocate an anarcho-capitalist world whether you like it or not. I could see socialists making the argument that your effort to place % based valuations of people creates an inhumane sort of heirarchy too. Your distinction between what you imagine as some sort of ideal & the wage rates that people agree to is completely arbitrary.

Its not arbitrary because the wage system enables the payer to keep the financials secret. If the inputs and outputs are divided then the whole balance sheet must be transparent. Withholding and omitting knowledge is shady as well.

... And its funny but my Murray and yours knew eachother. Below is an article talking about how yours kicked mine out of his living room in the 1970s. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/bookchin-rothbard-anarcho-capitalism/

If we create an environment where anyone can start a business (or work to solve some problem in an economically sustainable fashion) without paying anyone else for permission, then we create a world were anyone who wants work has more options. Then arrangements where people are more open about all financial arrangements might out compete everything else. So long as the threat of taxation exists it might be necessary for most dealings to be private though.

You keep arguing against me like I'm making communist assertions. Its like all the capitalist propaganda you're repeating is calibrated against communism and you can't make pro capitalist arguments unless the opposition is communist. Stop repeating the shit you read by rote.

Okay, then take a fucking position & make a solid point. You keep arguing around the issues & making communist assertions against capitalism while claiming you haven't said anything at all. If you don't even know what you believe then there is nothing for us to argue about.

I'm criticising capitalism. You assume any criticism of it is communist. You're stuck. Here's a position: if owning a human being is wrong then renting a human being with a wage is wrong as well. If one of the core tenets of capitalism was the abolishment of the wage system then I could get behind it.

Are people not allowed to sell their labor in any form or fashion they choose? If someone doesn't know how long a thing will take & WANTS to be paid by the hour are you going to tell them they can't do that?