[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 945 KB, 1614x1600, Kropotkin_Nadar.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4690316 No.4690316 [Reply] [Original]

If all product of human society(Property, material products, and ideas) are the result of the long history of millions upon millions of individuals helping each other create and invent then why is it logical or moral to have individuals people reap sole profits from their creations?

>> No.4690324

Because western civilisation just has that kind of view on the individuum.

Also, human behavour ain't logical.

>> No.4690325
File: 45 KB, 600x455, 1376123385358.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4690325

could you give an example please?

>> No.4690327

>>4690326
could you give a specific example please?

>> No.4690326

>>4690325
Everything.

>> No.4690328

It isn't. it just happens to be how we do things around here.

>> No.4690329

>>4690327
Everything is a specific answer, since anything you can think of would fall under it.

>> No.4690333
File: 143 KB, 1200x800, 1391713074355.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4690333

>>4690329
>Everything is a specific answer

pic related then

>> No.4690340
File: 5 KB, 158x191, images (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4690340

Because mankind is no longer in the ancient worlds and is moving away from the modern world into the egoistic future. Just like a child becomes an adult, we no longer need the non-egoistic ways of being.

/Stirner

but seriously, you're probably right, who cares though the singularity will make all this obsolete

>> No.4690342

>>4690333
I never said what you were allowed or not allowed to say. What you're saying is ironic in fact because you're trying to force me to answer your question with your definition of specific.

>> No.4690343

>>4690333
So that picture says that anarchism is a return to the master-slave dialectic? Nice.

>> No.4690349

>>4690342
you're being extremely vague. I am trying to understand your point however you only make very general claims

>> No.4690348

>>4690333
>would you like to work for me
>ok

>implying its that simple
>not taking into account all the systemic and historical injustices and imbalances in the capitalist system

I'm not an anarchist, but even I know this is dumb

>> No.4690347

>>4690340
Egoism is the childish mode of behavior.

>> No.4690350

>>4690348
>not taking into account all the systemic and historical injustices and imbalances in the capitalist system

should i check my privilege then?
fucking leftists

>> No.4690352
File: 94 KB, 632x802, 1345606456713.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4690352

>>4690347
even better, why don't you want to become the child anon, why still stuck in camel mode?

>> No.4690353

>>4690348
like all of libertarianism it displays an understanding of the world that would be considered immature for a 12 year old

>> No.4690356
File: 769 KB, 1312x1014, what the fuck am i reading.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4690356

>>4690333

>Would you like to work for me?
>No.
>That's not allowed!

STATISTS!

>> No.4690358

>>4690353
>like all of libertarianism it displays an understanding of the world that would be considered immature for a 12 year old

>no arguments, just insults
classy

>> No.4690359

>>4690353
yeah like still believing in rational choice theory for one

>> No.4690361

n.b. how stupid this board is. why would you ask such a question here?

>> No.4690362

>>4690349
I'm being specific with my point. Everything human society has made is the result of centuries of time, and millions upon millions of individual human laboring.

The food you eat. The power that provides you light and heat. Ideas that fill your mind.

These are all the result of the combined effort of humanity. So why does it make sense that single individuals reap there profit?

>> No.4690365

>>4690333
>private property
>not the creation of the state
Why do propertarians claim to love liberty when their entire "philosophy" is based on love of the most repressive invention in history?

>> No.4690363

>>4690350
No you should read a history book.

>> No.4690373

>>4690362
let me just help you out by playing along with the guy you're responding to

consider the steam engine or combustion engine or the discovery of particle-wave dualism as a "specific example"

>> No.4690375

>>4690358
Its not insult, its truth.

>> No.4690379

An Egyptian slave didn't contribute to the genius of Thomas Edison.

>> No.4690380

>>4690365
Because ultimately, their view of property has not changed from the natural god given rights philosophy of the 18th century.

>> No.4690383

>>4690358
how do we know the guy wasnt hiring the other guy to assassinate his wife for insurance money? you see how that image means literally nothing.

>> No.4690384

>>4690362
>These are all the result of the combined effort of humanity.

More like individual output from various geniuses that when combined, raises our standard of living. Sorry, but you're not special and future generations don't need you.

>> No.4690387

>>4690379
wow

>> No.4690388

>>4690379
That's a shit argument. One example of one who didn't does nothing to all that did.

>> No.4690397

>>4690379
Not the slave specifically. But add him in with the millions upon millions of other slaves that had built the infrastructure of the world. The workers who made the products that allowed Thomas Edison to live a life capable of inventing and becoming a genius then yes.

Without the countless number of people that toiled to create a society a society advanced enough a person like Thomas Edison would not have existed.

>> No.4690398

>>4690384
>More like individual output from various geniuses that when combined, raises our standard of living. Sorry, but you're not special and future generations don't need you.

You're the one who believes in 'special' individual geniuses we need. You've just contradicted yourself. Congratulations.

>> No.4690399

>>4690384
amerifat detected.
see >>4690373
see google. these things were not the results of "individual geniuses" but whole histories lead up to those points. viz. other people came before whose ideas contributed to these.

l2systems theory

>> No.4690406

>>4690384
And who created the societies that allowed these geniuses to exist? And then who created those societies that created those societies that allowed those geniuses to exist?

This is a result of a combined human existence.

>> No.4690413

>>4690398
>You're the one who believes in 'special' individual geniuses we need. You've just contradicted yourself.

You're insinuating he's a genius, nitwit. When you can grasp the tongue you're trying to communicate in, speak. Until then, excuse yourself.

>> No.4690418

>>4690413
why don't you die in a fire

>> No.4690422

>>4690413
>You're insinuating he's a genius

No I'm not. He's the one proposing a theory of individual geniuses lifting us all while after saying that such notions are ridiculous.

>> No.4690425

>white trash buffoons claiming relevancy by clinging onto the collective they were born into

Yes, society is a collective effort. Some of us advance our society more than others. They should be rewarded, because without them, we'd be stuck with you neckbeards.

>> No.4690429

>>4690425
>we'd

Who are we?

>> No.4690432

>>4690425
They can only advance society more than others because the societies before them created an opportunity for them to do so.

>> No.4690439

>>4690422
Ah, so you are having trouble with English. You're probably a native speaker too. I guess you've always had trouble communicating, huh?

>> No.4690437

>>4690384

lol go to bed Carlyle

>> No.4690440

>>4690425
>They should be rewarded

Thrown a bone like a dog? Who is the master rewarding them?

>> No.4690442

a lot of people who get rich do willingly put themselves into situations requiring much more stress and tolerance for ambiguity than the average person

i'm not going to say harder since being a janitor is definitely harder physically than working a trading desk or something

>> No.4690445

>>4690439
Try to make sense?

>> No.4690447

>>4690442
And these positions you speak of only exist because people who lived before the person who fills that positions worked and toiled to make that position. Directly or indirectly.

>> No.4690448

>>4690445
I can't teach you anything, you foul cow.

>> No.4690450

>>4690442
>lot of people who get rich get born rich

>> No.4690451

>>4690316
>sole profits from their creations

People pay taxes, dumbass.

>> No.4690452

>>4690448
preach*

>> No.4690455

>>4690447
that doesn't mean that they're not doing more than the average person to do what they do
>>4690450
that is also true

>> No.4690456

>>4690451
/thread

holy fuck

>> No.4690457

>>4690450
>implying those heirs don't have extreme pressure put on them as well... Haha dumbfuxk

>> No.4690460

>>4690450
>thinks the majority of millionaires inherited their wealth

lol nope

>> No.4690463

>>4690460
High five anon

>> No.4690470

>>4690455
if you were to add up the labor of the people who worked their lives to create a system were people are able to invent and help the world then the scales would be very well tilted. These positions you speak of owe there existence to the struggle of the many. So the fruits of these positions should go to help the many.

>> No.4690471

>>4690460
>>4690457

Why are you so eager to defend them? Are you wannabes? Temporarily embarrassed millionaires?

>> No.4690476

>>4690456
>>4690451

This doesn't answer the OP's question at all, he's asking why keeping most and giving away some is the default state: why is work seen as something performed by the individual for which the individual deserves to be renumerated, out of which renumeration he must then pass some along to the state, presumably to be used in making good the value of work to other members of the society, in exchange for the state's continued protection - rather than something performed by the society for which the society deserves to be renumerated directly without the state as middleman?

the answer is that states just as much as the notion of property itself are a huge racket and that everyone already knows this but doesn't usually care, as it is not to their advantage to do so. "If one is to guard and take precautions against thieves who rifle trunks, ransack bags, and break open boxes, then he must bind with cords and ropes and make fast with locks and hasps. This the ordinary world calls wisdom. But if a great thief comes along, he will shoulder the boxes, hoist up the trunks, sling the bags over his back, and dash off, only worrying that the cords and ropes, the locks and hasps are not fastened tightly enough. In that case, the man who earlier was called wise was in fact only piling up goods for the benefit of a great thief."

>> No.4690483

>>4690471
Haha okay go to your helpless defenses. Why attack me, and not my opinions? Pigeon-brain

>> No.4690485

>>4690476
>the state as middleman

*the state and the individual as middlemen, rather.

>> No.4690486

>>4690483
I didn't attack you, I asked a question?

>> No.4690491

>>4690486
Yes, it wasn't explicitly scribed, but it was implied. To me, at least--and I'm sorry if I took your notions as derogatory rather than your intentioms--you seemed to imply thatbeing a millionaire was a bad thing (and for the fact of the matter, I'm not), and therefore, insulting me.

>> No.4690502

>>4690471
I'm not defending them out of love. There's nothing more I hate than an ugly rich person that pretends he's cultured. Well, I hate people that parrot populist hogwash more, actually. It's so mindless and irritating.

The have-nots love to cry foul whenever they see a millionaire with the scream of, "he's only a millionaire, because he inherited his wealth!"

I know better. The majority didn't inherit their wealth. You can't hate success unless you're one of those dammed invalids roaming around.

>> No.4690509

>>4690502
damned*

dumb

>> No.4690522

>>4690502

It's pretty disingenuous to pretend that social mobility isn't highly limited on the whole though. At least in the USA, most people who were born to below-average-income families stay at a below-average income their whole lives, and most people who were born to above-average-income families stay at an above-average income their whole lives. "Rags to riches" is one of the founding myths of American society - it's very evocative of the country's transformation from colonial backwater to world superpower after all - and there's a reason why such myth sprung up, it's not wholly false. Occasionally people do get very very rich out of nowhere. But this is an exception, not a rule - and is frequently presented a rule, as a form of counter-reformist propaganda.

>> No.4690524

>>4690509
Lol disregard his views as invalid because of typo

>> No.4690531

>>4690522
What's your point?

>> No.4690535

>>4690502
Actually all people of today have inherited their wealth. I didn't build any roads yet I'm free to travel as long as I have a vehicle this is an opportunity I inherited. I did not build the internet yet I'm free to roam the internet and do all the things that entails. This is something I inherited.

To be have the opportunity to become a millionaire is something that is inherited by the toils of millions upon millions of people who create the society we live in. Who create the roads that their products travel on. Who use the internet to by their products. Who irrigated the lands, dried the marshes that give their consumers food and places to live.

No single person created that. So no single person should be afforded all of its fruits of labor.

>> No.4690538

>>4690502
>Well, I hate people that parrot populist hogwash more, actually. It's so mindless and irritating.

Isn't screaming at the poor 'leeches' or the disinterested just as populist?

>> No.4690549

>>4690538
It surely can be.

>> No.4690558

>>4690531

That the majority of children of wealthy families grow up to be wealthy. That is, the majority did inherit their wealth - their economic status passes directly to them from the economic status of their parents. Bill Gates' dad was a rich lawyer. Warren Buffett's was a US representative. On the other hand, Larry Ellison was raised by a single mom. The point is not that there is NO chance for social mobility in our society, but that that chance is not very good, and it's not really true that most rich people made their money "by themselves", as a result of virtues they possessed and nothing else, rather than as a result of their own qualities and the qualities of the context in which they lived their lives. And that's not even getting into the broader communitarian view of >>4690535.

>> No.4690560

>>4690558
>the majority did inherit their wealth

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/04/20/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth-2/

>> No.4690562

>>4690558
It's true that the "heir" of a wealthy family inherits money that has been accumulated through their families past works, but I hope you're not discrediting the forefathers of which has gotten him/her to their own state in current time?

>> No.4690564

>>4690560
read
>>4690535

You're viewing the world without history.

>> No.4690583

>>4690560

>Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of “wealthy,” and possibly “millionaire” once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by “working.”

This is a dodging of the question, and ignores what is meant by the inheritance of wealth which, as I said, goes beyond the literal amount of money that is bequeathed to one by one's parents and includes the social status and breadth of opportunity afforded by that social status as well.