Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   "If you ask me, this country's been going down hill ever since that Marxist Lincoln and those socialist Republicans took over and ended slavery"   (rawstory.com) divider line 144
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

2990 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Aug 2014 at 3:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-11 01:20:27 PM  
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
 
2014-08-11 01:29:12 PM  
As much as I enjoy uninformed opinions, I don't think I will ask this guy about anything, except maybe moonshine.
 
2014-08-11 01:46:33 PM  
Republican ==Dixiecrat
 
2014-08-11 02:02:26 PM  

abb3w: Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.


As much as I agree with the second point, you absolutely can have capital without labor. Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.
 
2014-08-11 02:03:11 PM  
Wait, I thought Lincoln was the crowning glory of the GOP? I am so confused.
 
2014-08-11 02:14:07 PM  
I loved his logs, when I was a kid...

images.amazon.com

Now that I'm older, I like some of the other toys he made...

www.txtransportationmuseum.org

History lesson: Henry M. Leland (the creator of both Cadillac and Lincoln) named his Lincoln auto brand after the first person he voted for in a presidential election.
 
2014-08-11 02:14:40 PM  
 Lincoln "indoctrinated children in communist principles via the Public School system "?

Well know we know:  Apparently Obama's time machine originally belonged to Abraham Lincoln
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-08-11 02:24:49 PM  
My pappy said son, you're gonna drive me to drinkin' if you don't stop quoting that Commie guy Lincoln.
 
2014-08-11 02:43:45 PM  

vpb: My pappy said son, you're gonna drive me to drinkin' if you don't stop quoting that Commie guy Lincoln.


archive.wired.com
What vpb may look like.
 
2014-08-11 02:44:53 PM  

vpb: My pappy said son, you're gonna drive me to drinkin' if you don't stop quoting that Commie guy Lincoln.


thanks for putting that song in my head.
 
2014-08-11 02:53:45 PM  

nmrsnr: Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.


With rare exceptions, those generally require labor before becoming products -- even if only labor for marketplace transport.
 
2014-08-11 03:02:24 PM  

nmrsnr: Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.



Tree makes apple, apple appears in my kitchen.

You can't explain that.
 
2014-08-11 03:04:07 PM  
The only document in the US National Archives that is  written and signed by Karl Marx is a letter to Abraham Lincoln.


/DNRTFT yet.  Anyone said 'mudsill' yet?
 
2014-08-11 03:07:17 PM  
i989.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-11 03:08:22 PM  
I read the headline and thought, "There's no possible way someone advanced this as a serious argument."
 
2014-08-11 03:08:39 PM  

abb3w: With rare exceptions, those generally require labor before becoming products -- even if only labor for marketplace transport.


I have water on my land (it's my land because I'm willing to kill anyone who says otherwise, we can debate whether that qualifies as "labor"), if someone wants access to that water they will have to compensate me for it. Ta-da, capital with no labor.
 
2014-08-11 03:09:33 PM  

Blues_X: nmrsnr: Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.


Tree makes apple, apple appears in my kitchen.

You can't explain that.


The earth just farts out gold in a usable form periodically.
 
2014-08-11 03:09:47 PM  

nmrsnr: abb3w: Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

As much as I agree with the second point, you absolutely can have capital without labor. Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.


Wat. Minerals in the ground, lumber that is still a tree, and food in the ground are of no use to me, or anyone. It's labor that turn these things into goods.
 
2014-08-11 03:12:36 PM  
I guess technically debt slavery winning out over chattel slavery in the Civil war was...  kind of a victory for workers' rights, if you look at it from a certain angle.  Though the robber barons on the winning side spent the remainder of the century trying to convince us we'd made the wrong choice there, so not the biggest step forward really.
 
2014-08-11 03:12:56 PM  
wow...just...wow
 
2014-08-11 03:13:47 PM  
For Christ's sake, round these people up and send them to Somalia. After tattooing a big red target on their asses.
 
2014-08-11 03:18:23 PM  

Blues_X: nmrsnr: Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.


Tree makes apple, apple appears in my kitchen.

You can't explain that.


Thanks for the hearty guffaw...earned yourself a favorite right there.
 
2014-08-11 03:19:02 PM  

nmrsnr: abb3w: With rare exceptions, those generally require labor before becoming products -- even if only labor for marketplace transport.

I have water on my land (it's my land because I'm willing to kill anyone who says otherwise, we can debate whether that qualifies as "labor"), if someone wants access to that water they will have to compensate me for it. Ta-da, capital with no labor.


You're arguing about a quirk of timing.  Without the labor to harvest/utilize the water, its value is minimal except to whatever lives in it. All your ownership did was to insert a step for someone else between their deciding to labor and their performing that labor.
 
2014-08-11 03:19:08 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Blues_X: nmrsnr: Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.


Tree makes apple, apple appears in my kitchen.

You can't explain that.

The earth just farts out gold in a usable form periodically.


Aluminum's even better. It's the most abundant metal in the Earth's crust, third most abundant element (after oxygen and silicon), yet we didn't know about it in its pure form until the 1800s (it reacts strongly with oxygen to form bauxite). It's really useful, but you're not just going to find any lying around nature in pure form.

The widest-used non-ferrous metal in use in the world takes a metric s**t-ton of labor to produce into a form that will get you capital.

Checkmate, noble elements.
 
2014-08-11 03:19:54 PM  

gnosis301: nmrsnr: abb3w: Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

As much as I agree with the second point, you absolutely can have capital without labor. Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.

Wat. Minerals in the ground, lumber that is still a tree, and food in the ground are of no use to me, or anyone. It's labor that turn these things into goods.


Simplest example: You're walking along and find a 3 ounce gold nugget on the ground. Can you exchange it for goods and services? Did you do labor to obtain that capital?
 
2014-08-11 03:20:26 PM  

nmrsnr: abb3w: With rare exceptions, those generally require labor before becoming products -- even if only labor for marketplace transport.

I have water on my land (it's my land because I'm willing to kill anyone who says otherwise, we can debate whether that qualifies as "labor"), if someone wants access to that water they will have to compensate me for it. Ta-da, capital with no labor.


Someone doesn't understand the concept of "harvesting".  That takes effort.  A lot of it.  Water, wood, iron, copper, coal, oil, whatever.  It takes a lot of work to bring that in and make it useful as capital.  Sure, you can say people have to pay you to setup their harvesting materials on your land to get the resources, but it still requires labor to do it, you're just subtracting that profit from yourself and passing the labor onto them.

Either way, labor is required to create capital from raw materials.
 
2014-08-11 03:22:17 PM  

nmrsnr: gnosis301: nmrsnr: abb3w: Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

As much as I agree with the second point, you absolutely can have capital without labor. Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.

Wat. Minerals in the ground, lumber that is still a tree, and food in the ground are of no use to me, or anyone. It's labor that turn these things into goods.

Simplest example: You're walking along and find a 3 ounce gold nugget on the ground. Can you exchange it for goods and services? Did you do labor to obtain that capital?


So you're suggesting that a serendipity-based economy would be viable?
 
2014-08-11 03:22:33 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Blues_X: nmrsnr: Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.


Tree makes apple, apple appears in my kitchen.

You can't explain that.

The earth just farts out gold in a usable form periodically.


not anymore thanks to that rino nixon
 
2014-08-11 03:22:54 PM  

nmrsnr: abb3w: Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

As much as I agree with the second point, you absolutely can have capital without labor. Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.


So that gold magically appears as a gold bar?  That diamond magically appears cut?  That oil Magically appears as gas.  That tree magically appears as lumber?  etc. etc. lolwut.jpeg
 
2014-08-11 03:23:07 PM  

Lochsteppe: You're arguing about a quirk of timing. Without the labor to harvest/utilize the water, its value is minimal except to whatever lives in it. All your ownership did was to insert a step for someone else between their deciding to labor and their performing that labor.


You're making an assumption about the person I'm selling the water to. Maybe he just wants to sit and stare at it. I, as the previous owner, don't care at all, but I have received compensation for something that has cost me no labor.
 
2014-08-11 03:23:15 PM  

nmrsnr: gnosis301: nmrsnr: abb3w: Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

As much as I agree with the second point, you absolutely can have capital without labor. Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.

Wat. Minerals in the ground, lumber that is still a tree, and food in the ground are of no use to me, or anyone. It's labor that turn these things into goods.

Simplest example: You're walking along and find a 3 ounce gold nugget on the ground. Can you exchange it for goods and services? Did you do labor to obtain that capital?


Yes, labor is required.  It's minimal, but required.  Is it pure?  What is its weight?  How much is it worth?  Does it have to be pressed into a standard form to legally spend?  There's still processing that has to be done to make it usable.  Yes, you found something that requires little labor, but still requires some.  Picking flowers still take work, even if it's minimal.
 
2014-08-11 03:24:15 PM  

nmrsnr: gnosis301: nmrsnr: abb3w: Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

As much as I agree with the second point, you absolutely can have capital without labor. Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.

Wat. Minerals in the ground, lumber that is still a tree, and food in the ground are of no use to me, or anyone. It's labor that turn these things into goods.

Simplest example: You're walking along and find a 3 ounce gold nugget on the ground. Can you exchange it for goods and services? Did you do labor to obtain that capital?


If I'm hungry, your nugget of gold is worthless to me. You suggest there is a store or place to trade it in for food or other goods. I suggest that there is no store or place to trade it in. Natives didn't give 2 squats about gold- they wanted something that was of real value. Like iron pots. Or steel blades for digging or cutting. Labor is required for use of resources to create capital.
 
2014-08-11 03:25:03 PM  

nmrsnr: Lochsteppe: You're arguing about a quirk of timing. Without the labor to harvest/utilize the water, its value is minimal except to whatever lives in it. All your ownership did was to insert a step for someone else between their deciding to labor and their performing that labor.

You're making an assumption about the person I'm selling the water to. Maybe he just wants to sit and stare at it. I, as the previous owner, don't care at all, but I have received compensation for something that has cost me no labor.


No, you're simply passing the opportunity cost of harvesting onto the purchaser, dropping your final profit because you're - wait for it - paying for labor.

Labor is required for your harvest, you're just hiring someone else (the final buyer) to do the labor.
 
2014-08-11 03:25:06 PM  

Lochsteppe: So you're suggesting that a serendipity-based economy would be viable?


Not even close. I'm just saying that "you can't have capital without labor" isn't true. You can.
 
2014-08-11 03:25:38 PM  

nmrsnr: gnosis301: nmrsnr: abb3w: Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

As much as I agree with the second point, you absolutely can have capital without labor. Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.

Wat. Minerals in the ground, lumber that is still a tree, and food in the ground are of no use to me, or anyone. It's labor that turn these things into goods.

Simplest example: You're walking along and find a 3 ounce gold nugget on the ground. Can you exchange it for goods and services? Did you do labor to obtain that capital?


Why would anyone buy a rock, no matter how shiny or yellow it is?
 
2014-08-11 03:25:43 PM  
States rights = BIG GOVERNMENT.

That is, when you give government agencies - i.e. STATES - rights, then the government gains more power.

When you give people rights, then you limit government.

Anyone that thinks giving local government more power is somehow limiting government is a fool.

Government is government, whether it is local or national.

The cry of states rights is always used to oppress minorities.  Certain states are less discriminatory than others.   Minorities all over the place cry out "LEAVE US ALONE, WE HAVE RIGHTS."    In the more favorable states, the minorities gain power, concentrate and flourish.    Then the local states where the minorities have fled because the laws were slightly harsher, see this happening.  

They don't like their downtrodden minorities rising up, so they pass oppressive, discriminatory laws. The rest of the country, where the minorities have some power, see this crap going on and object.

Then the local states say "LEAVE US ALONE, WE HAVE RIGHTS".

No you don't.   People have rights to protect them from governments  You don't get to have the political power and also have rights.   If you want rights, you have to give up the power.

People have Rights, States have power.  States have no rights whatsoever, because they have power.
 
2014-08-11 03:25:47 PM  

nmrsnr: I have water on my land (it's my land because I'm willing to kill anyone who says otherwise, we can debate whether that qualifies as "labor"), if someone wants access to that water they will have to compensate me for it. Ta-da, capital with no labor.


I guess congratulations on understanding the basic theory of communism?  The moral assertion of the system is that the water belongs to whomever is doing the work to extract it, the fact that you 'own the land' doesn't matter and is at best a moral hazard.

Put another way, the water has no value unless someone comes along with a bucket and pulls it out and boils it, or otherwise processes it for drinking.  Fish in the water have no value unless someone catches them.  This is the fundamental assertion of the philosophy.
 
2014-08-11 03:26:31 PM  

nmrsnr: Lochsteppe: So you're suggesting that a serendipity-based economy would be viable?

Not even close. I'm just saying that "you can't have capital without labor" isn't true. You can.


No, you can't.  SOMEONE has to do the labor.  Even if you pay the cost to have it done by someone else, it's still being done.  You're just hiring someone to do the labor instead of doing it yourself.
 
2014-08-11 03:27:07 PM  
th08.deviantart.net
 
2014-08-11 03:28:43 PM  

Khellendros: Is it pure? What is its weight? How much is it worth? Does it have to be pressed into a standard form to legally spend? There's still processing that has to be done to make it usable.


Don't care if it's pure, all I care about is if someone will give me something for it. It's weight is 3 ounces, but pretend you don't know, if I show up with a small chunk of gold and say "hey, will you give me your hat for this?" and you say "yes" I have obtained capital without labor, unless you want to qualify me picking it up as labor, which I'd argue is a stretch.
 
2014-08-11 03:29:55 PM  

gnosis301: nmrsnr: gnosis301: nmrsnr: abb3w: Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

As much as I agree with the second point, you absolutely can have capital without labor. Mineral and natural goods can serve as capital or a source of capital, without requiring labor to produce.

Wat. Minerals in the ground, lumber that is still a tree, and food in the ground are of no use to me, or anyone. It's labor that turn these things into goods.

Simplest example: You're walking along and find a 3 ounce gold nugget on the ground. Can you exchange it for goods and services? Did you do labor to obtain that capital?

Why would anyone buy a rock, no matter how shiny or yellow it is?


To keep Tigers away, Lisa.
 
2014-08-11 03:29:56 PM  
pbs.twimg.com

It's America's heritage.
 
2014-08-11 03:30:17 PM  

Jim_Callahan: I guess technically debt slavery winning out over chattel slavery in the Civil war was...  kind of a victory for workers' rights, if you look at it from a certain angle.  Though the robber barons on the winning side spent the remainder of the century trying to convince us we'd made the wrong choice there, so not the biggest step forward really.


but even in debt slavery, you at least OWN something ....
you also have the CHOICE to go into debt or not

whereas chattel were chattel with no rights ...
so yup
they are exactly the same
 
2014-08-11 03:31:15 PM  

gnosis301: Why would anyone buy a rock, no matter how shiny or yellow it is?


Don't know, why are pieces of paper in my pocket worth anything?
 
2014-08-11 03:31:46 PM  

tarkin1: States rights = BIG GOVERNMENT.

That is, when you give government agencies - i.e. STATES - rights, then the government gains more power.

When you give people rights, then you limit government.

Anyone that thinks giving local government more power is somehow limiting government is a fool.

Government is government, whether it is local or national.

The cry of states rights is always used to oppress minorities.  Certain states are less discriminatory than others.   Minorities all over the place cry out "LEAVE US ALONE, WE HAVE RIGHTS."    In the more favorable states, the minorities gain power, concentrate and flourish.    Then the local states where the minorities have fled because the laws were slightly harsher, see this happening.  

They don't like their downtrodden minorities rising up, so they pass oppressive, discriminatory laws. The rest of the country, where the minorities have some power, see this crap going on and object.

Then the local states say "LEAVE US ALONE, WE HAVE RIGHTS".

No you don't.   People have rights to protect them from governments  You don't get to have the political power and also have rights.   If you want rights, you have to give up the power.

People have Rights, States have power.  States have no rights whatsoever, because they have power.


sure
but at LEAST with states' rights you could own your wife and kill people you dont like ... if they are brown
 
2014-08-11 03:32:14 PM  

nmrsnr: Khellendros: Is it pure? What is its weight? How much is it worth? Does it have to be pressed into a standard form to legally spend? There's still processing that has to be done to make it usable.

Don't care if it's pure, all I care about is if someone will give me something for it. It's weight is 3 ounces, but pretend you don't know, if I show up with a small chunk of gold and say "hey, will you give me your hat for this?" and you say "yes" I have obtained capital without labor, unless you want to qualify me picking it up as labor, which I'd argue is a stretch.


seems that by your definition a handjob would count as capital rather than labor
 
2014-08-11 03:32:52 PM  

nmrsnr: Lochsteppe: You're arguing about a quirk of timing. Without the labor to harvest/utilize the water, its value is minimal except to whatever lives in it. All your ownership did was to insert a step for someone else between their deciding to labor and their performing that labor.

You're making an assumption about the person I'm selling the water to. Maybe he just wants to sit and stare at it. I, as the previous owner, don't care at all, but I have received compensation for something that has cost me no labor.


Presumably you'd have to keep track of who is and isn't allowed to use your water, and enforce it?
 
2014-08-11 03:35:44 PM  

nmrsnr: Khellendros: Is it pure? What is its weight? How much is it worth? Does it have to be pressed into a standard form to legally spend? There's still processing that has to be done to make it usable.

Don't care if it's pure, all I care about is if someone will give me something for it. It's weight is 3 ounces, but pretend you don't know, if I show up with a small chunk of gold and say "hey, will you give me your hat for this?" and you say "yes" I have obtained capital without labor, unless you want to qualify me picking it up as labor, which I'd argue is a stretch.


Seriously, what?

If you wander around this paradise of easily picked gold nuggets collecting them for 8 hours, is it labor then?
 
2014-08-11 03:36:01 PM  

JolobinSmokin: So that gold magically appears as a gold bar?


Actually, pretty much yes.  One of the primary reasons gold is always shiny is that it's dead last on the anodic series.  Short of some extremely powerful artificial chemistry that's not really present in nature, it pretty much just floats around in the shiny whitish-yellow form naturally.  Even alloying it with copper is something you pretty much have to do artificially.

This is what gives it value as currency: there's no chance of someone refining it from another lower-energy form (like an oxide) and it doesn't corrode away or get used for something else (gold is... pretty useless), really, so the reserve you've got stays pretty constant.  For low-mobility societies and controlled economies that's pretty much ideal, it doesn't start being an issue until you have larger, more interlinked and fluid economies (at which point a more officially fiat currency becomes preferable).

You've... sort of stumbled backwards into the reason why we've assigned value to gold in the first place.  You pretty much  dojust find it on the ground in the same form as its applications, with no real processing involved.

// You don't have to cast it into bars for the material value to be 'legitimate', I'm not sure where you got that idea.  A bunch of raw flakes and nuggets in the same weight has exactly the same value.
 
2014-08-11 03:36:28 PM  
img.fark.net

/this is what democrats actually believe
 
Displayed 50 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report