- 0 Posts
- 10 Comments
I had a shit job in high school. This led me to think all jobs suck, bosses are cruel and out of touch and the corporate system doesn’t give a shit about you. I didn’t work harder at school and every entry level job I took as I progressed my education continued to, in part, reaffirm this early and naive conclusion.
This quote is just a general failure in reasoning and imagination. It has a view of work and teenagers that is just true enough that they can quickly look at it and feel alright about thinking this way. But anyone who spends any time with either knows how weird and complicated both can be.
Low charisma brown woman from California fails to convince racist, mysogist country to vote for her.
I don’t deny that coercive relationships exist… but I’m talking about “roots” like tool usage and cooperation in communal animals such as primates. It relates to the context of property ownership because animals mark their territory and use violence to enforce it. Hence why property as a concept is fundamentally violent.
Object ownership isn’t as fundamentally violent the way I see it.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying other than land ownership started as violent and tools were shared in small tribal collectives. This seems muddied to me. I don’t think small tribal bands protecting territory or sharing tools with their own tribe translates to a modern rental contract. There is no reason to believe that the origins of those behaviors should trump the reality of how these systems function today.
Today, object ownership allows a person to claim authority over an object that is in someone else’s hands. An ISP can remotely disable a modem. Or a manufacturer software-locks a tractor. This is territorial dominance.
In primitive societies, everyone had access to the tools that allowed them to function and survive. Today, you can be excluded from those tools. The exclusion is the violence.
Renting an object grants someone else the legal right to “mark territory”. This is not like a person letting another tribe member use the communal tool they just finished with. Those tools were communal and not private property. Renting an object is part of a fleet of tools you don’t use or plan to use. They protect that profit stream like a pack of chimpanzees patrolling their territory and evicting intruders with violence. modern owners can rip a tool from your hands by locking you out remotely by executing a script.
TBF One could also argue that …
Are you making this argument? Should I spend time addressing it?
Renting objects on the other hand is rooted in mutual benefit. Tool creation and use being separate skills creates a natural opportunity for cooperation.
Up to a point. If I rent a modem from my ISP, I eventually meet and then exceed the value of the modem. If you rent a $60 modem for $15 a month, you have fully compensated the ISP for the tool by the fourth month. Every payment after that is no longer a trade for someone’s labor; it is a fee because someone else holds the title to the hardware. A mutual arrangement would recognize that once your payments cover the cost of the tool and its maintenance, the ownership should shift to you. , This stops being cooperation.
Rental of land is unique because land ownership is made by drwing line on a map and drawing up a contract with the state. Equipment rental is the product of labor that has transformed natural resources into something people can use.
- They are willing to work for less than a normal American living wage. This reduces the amount that an American can work for for the same job. Globalists love this.
- They bring and establish a different culture eroding a way of life that is considered American.
Those are two things I think someone might say about immigrants. Additionally, there’s general disdain for the poor and many immigrants come here to escape worse poverty.
Poor… And not normal poor, but wartime poor. It was invented by Heinz to sell beans in England.
Affab - all fire fighters are base