Theft is theft. What theft is, fundamentally, is when a person enacts an action upon another in which violates the will of the other within a logical order of operations as it pertains to their property.
For example, if you find a diamond in the woods that nobody else even knows exists and you desire exclusive authority over it then you own it. You don’t own it because I say so, you own it through a logical system because it literally cannot exist in any other feasible structure that isn’t wholly arbitrary. You own it because you did not violate the will of another in order to own it, and you own it because you desire to own it.
If someone else came along and picked up a rock that was lying next to that diamond and you do not care at all about it, then you did not own that rock to begin with and thus, the other person did not rob you in order to claim ownership over that rock.
But if you are with that diamond and someone else comes along and thinks they deserve that diamond more than you but the only way they can manifest their desire of exclusive authority over the diamond is to engage in an action of which violates your will, they would need to steal it from you, and you cannot own that in which you’ve stolen, nor can you steal that in which you own.
No other claim can be made rationally that dictates who should own that diamond. It doesn’t matter if the other person has 10 other diamonds and you have none. It doesn’t matter if that other person has food and you do not and that diamond could get you food. None of that matters, and you actually agree that it doesn’t matter because you already understand and act out in this world per a cardinal rule that you could never suffer another to violate your will, whatever it might be.
This is like the golden rule but ‘The Golden Rule’ is the ethical principle of treating others as you would want to be treated, but that concept is wholly flawed, because it does not take into account that humans have conflicting wills. Maybe I want to be punched in the fact, so the golden rule would then stipulate that I get to punch you in the face. Or what if you want a beautiful woman to have sex with you, do I get to rape her, then?
This principle is similar to the golden rule except that you have to understand that it is go unto others as THEY would want you to do to them, plus a little extra. More or less, human conflicts of wills are always contradictory and there are only two ways to resolve a will conflict, either arbitrary, or logically.
We both want X but only one of us can have X. How do we figure out who gets X?
Well I can murder you and take X, and that’s arbitrary because I just decided I want X more which is not a quantifiable stance. OR we understand that if I had X first I would not want you to take it from me and since you have X first, realizing this, I choose not to take it from you. That is the fundamental principle of ownership vs. theft.
Theft is when will is violated as it pertains to ownership. Ownership is a desire to own where you did not violate the will of another to obtain exclusive authority over. it’s that simple.
This is nonsense though. There is no bourgeoise. Bourgeoise is a placeholder for whatever it is you decide it is. I’ve studied Marx extensively. Marx’s constructs were fundamentally rooted in a notion outlined in an older age where there were individuals who owned things like factories, and workers in those factories. Today, what constitutes as capitol could be construed as anything that can make someone money. My computer is capitol, because I make a lot of money with it. in fact, different leftists will argue this exact concept. The “movement” can’t even all agree on what socialism should start as and what the end-game of communism would actually be.
The notion of communism is in no small part utterly nonsensical. The spiritual concept of communism being a system without government or money, but to stipulate that is to assert a nonsense argument and shows a lack of fundmental understanding of what either government or money is.
Government could be fundamentally described as any relative force monopoly. If the formal government dissolved tomorrow and the people in my neighborhood got together and agreed to protect one another from others vandalizing, stealing, or doing harm to the people therein, that is a small government. If another neighboring government came with threats of violence and overtook them and forced their rules upon them, that was just a small war where one government prevailed. You cannot “do away with government”. Money is similar. You cannot do away with money. Money isn’t even real. Roughly 90 to 92% of the world’s money is actually digital - 1’s and 0’s. It isn’t real stuff, it’s basically some kind of merit that trades had happened or are promised to happen in the future. If I mow your lawn in the summer and come winter ask you to plow my driveway and you keep refusing, I’ll mentally tally how unwilling to return my favors to you are until eventually I start refusing to help you. This is money - it’s just another way of looking at it.
Removing money means removing hierarchy, and that isn’t possible. The mere thought that you believe communism is even a workable system in concept shows a lack of understanding of concept. There isn’t a single human alive who will not put things into a hierarchical structure of some sort based on how they feel in the moment or their fears of the future, whatever they may be.
If we both want X we have to figure out how X is made and either work together to make X or trade consensually with those who can make X.
What is bad? Murder, rape, theft, fraud. We can work together to stop the bad. That should be our goal. In doing so, we will, through proxy, reduce the problems that arise in our modern societies.
If I start a lemonade stand and charge $2.00 a glass and it costs me $0.50 a glass to make and I can sell 10 glasses an hour, I will make $20 an hour with a cost of $5, so my take-home will be $15 an hour.
If I can add you as an employee and now we can sell 20 glasses an hour I can generate $30 an hour in revenue, so now I need to decide what I can/should pay you and you have to decide if you think that’s fair.
If I pay you $0.50 per glass then you make $10 an hour and I now make $20 an hour, but I made that before I had an employee, so why am I hiring you?
And if I pay you even a penny more than $0.50 per glass I’m actually a charity now, because I’m making less money with you than I was on my own.
So I can only rationally pay you anywhere from 0.01 per glass to 0.49 per glass, and when you start getting closer and closer to 0.50 per glass it starts making less and less sense to hire you.
This also isn’t a partnership. I realized there was a market for lemonade, I invested my money to buy the table, the glasses, the lemons, sugar, ice, containers, signs, etc. You came along and offered to help me make more lemonade, so if you accepted say, $0.35 per glass you would make $7.00 an hour and I would make $23.00 per hour.
This is in both of our benefits, you see. I can make $20 an hour on my own so you helping me helps me make an additional $3 per hour, but without my employment, you make $0.00, so now you make $7.00. You can’t make more than $10.00 remember, not unless this is just a charity, and if that’s the case then why don’t I just work on my own and GIVE you $10 an hour in charity? There’s no difference.
Everyone actually benefits when I make a profit. It incentivizes me to hire you, you make more money than zero, and more people can have lemonade because now we can provide 20 glasses per hour instead of 10.
This is how prices are meant to be set too. If I set the price at $3.00 per glass and only 5 people per hour buy, I will only make $15 an hour minus costs, which is $0.50 * 5 = $2.5 so in total, I will make $12.5 an hour, but if I set the price at $2.00 per glass and 10 people an hour buy, I make $15 an hour after expenses.
So highest prices possible does not equate to more for me as the business owner. I need to negotiate a price with my customers, which is also a negotiation of quality, and a negotiation with my employees (which is also a negotiation of quality).
These things also aren’t this simple. I’m obviously simplifying this dramatically. There are a lot more factors at play here too. For instance:
What if hiring someone else ups the number of glasses we can sell from 20 an hour to 25? Do I hire them instead of you? If I hire them both, do I pay you both the same or only based on your respective values? If I can make 10 glasses an hour and you can make 10 but this other person can make 15, in total we can make 35 glasses an hour. At $2.00 per glass with a cost of $0.50 per glass this is a grand total of $52.50 an hour.
So at $52.50 an hour I have to pay both of you but I cannot pay you combined more than a set amount or I would make more than if I never hired you. Now what happens if your work dwindles and you start only producing 7 glasses per hour? What if you don’t show up for work frequently? What if the guy down the road, who claims to be government, comes by and tells me I now have to pay his neighbor $0.10 per cup for his service he’s calling “insurance”?
Here’s the bottom line: If you don’t want to make $7.00 an hour, don’t agree to work for me. Why didn’t you start up your own lemonade stand and sell lemonade for $1.75 a glass and put me out of business then?
In the end, there is no such thing as wage theft, there are simply negotiations and consent. You are completely free not to agree and not work for me at that price. If I can’t get anyone to work at $4.00 an hour I will have to raise my offer, won’t I? In fact, it’s likely in my best interest to give you a good offer just like it is to give my customers a good offer. If you are the best and you can make 20 glasses an hour then I don’t want my competitor to have you, so I want to give you the best offer I can, don’t I?
Most of these “labor theory of value” arguments often come from third world or third world adjacent countries where the respective governments are fundamentally still quite tyrannical and/or where the belief structures are very collectivst.
And they do not “consent” to work either. It is a basic fact that consent can never be manufactured under threats. They are under the threat of starvation and homelessness, thus they cannot consent.
There is no club, only ideologues. I am part of no club, no country, no group. I am the greatest minority of all, the individual. Nothing else is real.
Theft is theft. What theft is, fundamentally, is when a person enacts an action upon another in which violates the will of the other within a logical order of operations as it pertains to their property.
For example, if you find a diamond in the woods that nobody else even knows exists and you desire exclusive authority over it then you own it. You don’t own it because I say so, you own it through a logical system because it literally cannot exist in any other feasible structure that isn’t wholly arbitrary. You own it because you did not violate the will of another in order to own it, and you own it because you desire to own it.
If someone else came along and picked up a rock that was lying next to that diamond and you do not care at all about it, then you did not own that rock to begin with and thus, the other person did not rob you in order to claim ownership over that rock.
But if you are with that diamond and someone else comes along and thinks they deserve that diamond more than you but the only way they can manifest their desire of exclusive authority over the diamond is to engage in an action of which violates your will, they would need to steal it from you, and you cannot own that in which you’ve stolen, nor can you steal that in which you own.
No other claim can be made rationally that dictates who should own that diamond. It doesn’t matter if the other person has 10 other diamonds and you have none. It doesn’t matter if that other person has food and you do not and that diamond could get you food. None of that matters, and you actually agree that it doesn’t matter because you already understand and act out in this world per a cardinal rule that you could never suffer another to violate your will, whatever it might be.
This is like the golden rule but ‘The Golden Rule’ is the ethical principle of treating others as you would want to be treated, but that concept is wholly flawed, because it does not take into account that humans have conflicting wills. Maybe I want to be punched in the fact, so the golden rule would then stipulate that I get to punch you in the face. Or what if you want a beautiful woman to have sex with you, do I get to rape her, then?
This principle is similar to the golden rule except that you have to understand that it is go unto others as THEY would want you to do to them, plus a little extra. More or less, human conflicts of wills are always contradictory and there are only two ways to resolve a will conflict, either arbitrary, or logically.
We both want X but only one of us can have X. How do we figure out who gets X?
Well I can murder you and take X, and that’s arbitrary because I just decided I want X more which is not a quantifiable stance. OR we understand that if I had X first I would not want you to take it from me and since you have X first, realizing this, I choose not to take it from you. That is the fundamental principle of ownership vs. theft.
Theft is when will is violated as it pertains to ownership. Ownership is a desire to own where you did not violate the will of another to obtain exclusive authority over. it’s that simple.
Everything else is nonsense.
we both can have X if we work together against the bourgeoise
This is nonsense though. There is no bourgeoise. Bourgeoise is a placeholder for whatever it is you decide it is. I’ve studied Marx extensively. Marx’s constructs were fundamentally rooted in a notion outlined in an older age where there were individuals who owned things like factories, and workers in those factories. Today, what constitutes as capitol could be construed as anything that can make someone money. My computer is capitol, because I make a lot of money with it. in fact, different leftists will argue this exact concept. The “movement” can’t even all agree on what socialism should start as and what the end-game of communism would actually be.
The notion of communism is in no small part utterly nonsensical. The spiritual concept of communism being a system without government or money, but to stipulate that is to assert a nonsense argument and shows a lack of fundmental understanding of what either government or money is.
Government could be fundamentally described as any relative force monopoly. If the formal government dissolved tomorrow and the people in my neighborhood got together and agreed to protect one another from others vandalizing, stealing, or doing harm to the people therein, that is a small government. If another neighboring government came with threats of violence and overtook them and forced their rules upon them, that was just a small war where one government prevailed. You cannot “do away with government”. Money is similar. You cannot do away with money. Money isn’t even real. Roughly 90 to 92% of the world’s money is actually digital - 1’s and 0’s. It isn’t real stuff, it’s basically some kind of merit that trades had happened or are promised to happen in the future. If I mow your lawn in the summer and come winter ask you to plow my driveway and you keep refusing, I’ll mentally tally how unwilling to return my favors to you are until eventually I start refusing to help you. This is money - it’s just another way of looking at it.
Removing money means removing hierarchy, and that isn’t possible. The mere thought that you believe communism is even a workable system in concept shows a lack of understanding of concept. There isn’t a single human alive who will not put things into a hierarchical structure of some sort based on how they feel in the moment or their fears of the future, whatever they may be.
If we both want X we have to figure out how X is made and either work together to make X or trade consensually with those who can make X.
What is bad? Murder, rape, theft, fraud. We can work together to stop the bad. That should be our goal. In doing so, we will, through proxy, reduce the problems that arise in our modern societies.
An average worker generates hundreds of thousands of dollars of value a year. How much do they get paid? 60 thousand? That is wage theft
If I start a lemonade stand and charge $2.00 a glass and it costs me $0.50 a glass to make and I can sell 10 glasses an hour, I will make $20 an hour with a cost of $5, so my take-home will be $15 an hour.
If I can add you as an employee and now we can sell 20 glasses an hour I can generate $30 an hour in revenue, so now I need to decide what I can/should pay you and you have to decide if you think that’s fair.
If I pay you $0.50 per glass then you make $10 an hour and I now make $20 an hour, but I made that before I had an employee, so why am I hiring you?
And if I pay you even a penny more than $0.50 per glass I’m actually a charity now, because I’m making less money with you than I was on my own.
So I can only rationally pay you anywhere from 0.01 per glass to 0.49 per glass, and when you start getting closer and closer to 0.50 per glass it starts making less and less sense to hire you.
This also isn’t a partnership. I realized there was a market for lemonade, I invested my money to buy the table, the glasses, the lemons, sugar, ice, containers, signs, etc. You came along and offered to help me make more lemonade, so if you accepted say, $0.35 per glass you would make $7.00 an hour and I would make $23.00 per hour.
This is in both of our benefits, you see. I can make $20 an hour on my own so you helping me helps me make an additional $3 per hour, but without my employment, you make $0.00, so now you make $7.00. You can’t make more than $10.00 remember, not unless this is just a charity, and if that’s the case then why don’t I just work on my own and GIVE you $10 an hour in charity? There’s no difference.
Everyone actually benefits when I make a profit. It incentivizes me to hire you, you make more money than zero, and more people can have lemonade because now we can provide 20 glasses per hour instead of 10.
This is how prices are meant to be set too. If I set the price at $3.00 per glass and only 5 people per hour buy, I will only make $15 an hour minus costs, which is $0.50 * 5 = $2.5 so in total, I will make $12.5 an hour, but if I set the price at $2.00 per glass and 10 people an hour buy, I make $15 an hour after expenses.
So highest prices possible does not equate to more for me as the business owner. I need to negotiate a price with my customers, which is also a negotiation of quality, and a negotiation with my employees (which is also a negotiation of quality).
These things also aren’t this simple. I’m obviously simplifying this dramatically. There are a lot more factors at play here too. For instance:
What if hiring someone else ups the number of glasses we can sell from 20 an hour to 25? Do I hire them instead of you? If I hire them both, do I pay you both the same or only based on your respective values? If I can make 10 glasses an hour and you can make 10 but this other person can make 15, in total we can make 35 glasses an hour. At $2.00 per glass with a cost of $0.50 per glass this is a grand total of $52.50 an hour.
So at $52.50 an hour I have to pay both of you but I cannot pay you combined more than a set amount or I would make more than if I never hired you. Now what happens if your work dwindles and you start only producing 7 glasses per hour? What if you don’t show up for work frequently? What if the guy down the road, who claims to be government, comes by and tells me I now have to pay his neighbor $0.10 per cup for his service he’s calling “insurance”?
Here’s the bottom line: If you don’t want to make $7.00 an hour, don’t agree to work for me. Why didn’t you start up your own lemonade stand and sell lemonade for $1.75 a glass and put me out of business then?
In the end, there is no such thing as wage theft, there are simply negotiations and consent. You are completely free not to agree and not work for me at that price. If I can’t get anyone to work at $4.00 an hour I will have to raise my offer, won’t I? In fact, it’s likely in my best interest to give you a good offer just like it is to give my customers a good offer. If you are the best and you can make 20 glasses an hour then I don’t want my competitor to have you, so I want to give you the best offer I can, don’t I?
Most of these “labor theory of value” arguments often come from third world or third world adjacent countries where the respective governments are fundamentally still quite tyrannical and/or where the belief structures are very collectivst.
And they do not “consent” to work either. It is a basic fact that consent can never be manufactured under threats. They are under the threat of starvation and homelessness, thus they cannot consent.
individuals still own factories and workers work in the factories. You are extremly detached from the struggle of the proleteriat
petit-bourgeoise that thinks theyre apart of the club for 100
There is no club, only ideologues. I am part of no club, no country, no group. I am the greatest minority of all, the individual. Nothing else is real.