Good thing other people exist that are willing to hire them. Mutually. Beneficial. That doesn’t mean the guy digging ditches is going to make the same profit as his employer. Of course, he’s also not doing the same work as his employer.
1 Like
Agreed, few people have the vision. Most people’s interests exists outside the market. There is nothing wrong with that most people don’t have a vision.
If everybody had a choice, we’d have no garbage-men or janitors, but somebody has to do it.
You don’t have to love what you do, you have to take pride in yourself and do whatever you do, well. Lot’s of people make lots of money doing shit they don’t care for. And that is a-ok.
1 Like
No.
I’m not familiar with any school of capitalism that doesn’t recognize private property rights…or any theory of private property rights that doesn’t recognize self-ownership. To enslave someone against his will would definitely violate his property rights.
1 Like
I am not arguing that it isn’t mutually beneficial. Just that one party often does much better than the other. I think that is obvious, right?
Lopsided deals can be described as exploitation in many cases. That is my point.
You are defining people as being property, self owning or not, it’s still property. Do you consider yourself property or a human being? I would hate to have the government come up with a property tax on people, since we are property.
Not in sports!
A self-owning human being. Being human gives us a right to self-ownership in this world.
It does suck. I’d like to know what it was like before that.
1 Like
Once you start looking at people as property, you can start to think of ways to own them.
Given by whom?
All you need is their approval.
The Creator.
1 Like
Apparently, you don’t.
You mean, the one who owns us?
You have a habit of trying to combine Rand and God; it doesn’t work. Pick one. Rand did.
1 Like
How so? They own themselves. Theft is not permitted.
Yes. And everything.
I can assure you that I do not. I am a libertarian, politically. Rand hated libertarians.
Not that I’m aware. Unless the lopsidedness is caused by the threat of initiation of force, or through fraud.
Given your position on humans having self owning property rights, do you support that a woman who has ownership of her body as property should have the right to evict any unwanted tenants?
Yes.
What about unwanted human tenants inside her body?
Well, perhaps she can issue an eviction order and wait 30 days to remove it, but can we agree you cannot just kill the tenant?
They get a nine month grace period before having to seek a new residence.
3 Likes
Legally, yes. Review “eviction.” I believe you meant to ask, “Do you believe evictions should be immediate and at the whim of the property owner?” In that case, the answer would be “No.”
More akin to someone being stuck on your property, through not fault of their own (in fact, in almost all cases, at the fault of the property owner) for a temporary and defined period of time not even equaling a year.
Baby’s got a fixed-term lease. Not sure what baby can do to violate the terms of the lease unless baby threatens mom’s life.
1 Like