• Re: The Fourth Industrial

    From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 07:47:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Atroxi on Sat Aug 08 2020 10:06 pm

    Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive
    ownersh
    ip of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The first role is that of landlord or owner of
    equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The
    secon
    d role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically run organisation which you may even manage, p
    rent to YOU.

    The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the two,
    and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own
    personal assets.

    That argument is confussing.

    If you say the contracts involving the means of production must be socialized, you claim for the socialization of the contract between the guy that leases the factory and the people who uses the factory.

    It's very simple. You only need to understand that

    1) Initiation of property rights for new objects/services are determined by labour. When a new object enters the economy, the labour is the rightful ownew and ALSO responsible for liabilites (ie, paying for the equipment, resource, etc used). A contract which claims that labour cannot be the rightful owner should be considered as invalid, just as one which claims you are my slave is not valid.

    So when object X is created, the labour that created object X (including management, sales people etc) is the owner, and disposes of it by sale. They are also responsible for paying the factor suppliers (ie, paying for rent, inputs, paying interest on loans, etc).

    2) Property rights are transferred through voluntary sale.

    3) Maybe, an alternative to the UBI is that in cases of 1, where that object/service is created by labour working in a firm with automation, that the nation also is considered labour by virtue of having created automation.

    If you build the factory yourself, it falls under point 1, being your labour, you are the rightful owner.

    If you bought it, it falls under point 2, it is your property that you bought.

    If any 'socialisation' took your factory, it would violate your property rights, would it not? If it took the purchased assets of the firm, it would violate property rights, would it not?


    If not the case, your horizontal organization would not be horizontal anymore since the person owning the assets is automatically more
    powerful than the other members of the workforce. "If you don't aprove this rule I am withdrawing my assets." Sure, you cn move the business
    out of the current location, but that is usually such a hassle that the owner of the assets is not on equal foot with the other people, by a
    large margin.

    That is true.

    But I would argue, so what? Any system with humans involved is going to have problems and a utopia where one person cannot be a knob is not possible. The goal isn't to have some kind of perfect utopia, it is to have something a little better. Reform works better than utopian revolutions.

    If you can show me a system which cannot be exploited at all, I'll champion it.
    But such a thing doen't exist.




    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 07:55:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Arelor to Dennisk on Sat Aug 08 2020 02:18 pm

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Atroxi on Sat Aug 08 2020 10:06 pm

    Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive
    owne
    rship of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The
    first role is that of landlord or owner of
    equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The
    se
    cond role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically
    run organisation which you may even manage
    rent to YOU.

    The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the
    tw
    o, and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own personal assets.

    That argument is confussing.

    If you say the contracts involving the means of production must be
    social
    ized, you claim for the socialization of the contract between the guy
    that leases the factory and the
    people who uses the factory.

    If not the case, your horizontal organization would not be horizontal
    anymore
    since the person owning the assets is automatically more powerful than the other members of the workforce. "If y
    don't aprove this rule I am withdrawing my assets." Sure, you cn move the
    bus
    iness out of the current location, but that is usually such a hassle
    that the owner of the assets is not on equal
    foot with the other people, by a large margin.



    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    By the way, declaring that a democratic workplace won't involve itself into self-destructive voting is like claiming a democratic country
    won't involve itself in self-harmful voting.

    A majority in the workplace (or a powerful minority in the workplace)
    can screw you really hard. This is true in our current system in which
    you have members of the workforce screw people who is unpopular over
    (ie horizontal mobbin and the like)

    I get that. But hell, how many thousands, tens of thousands, hell, hundreds of thousands of people have been screwed over by our CURRENT system? Do you think that at the moment, businesses don't fall apart, go broke, and cause harm to people through mismanagement? Are there not already millions exploited and ripped off? People who have committed suicide because their jobs were lots to benefit a tiny proportion of people? I don't see what we have now as great, or even functional.

    By the way, in case you haven't noticed, MILLIONS of people are moving away from non-free countries towards Democracies. Sure, people complain and bitch and moan about the problems of democracy, it sustainability, etc, but how many people voluntarily go the other way, move away from a democracy to an authortarian, centrally controlled system?

    So I don't buy your argument. We have empricial real life evidence, that free systems which value individual rights and empower people offer a better standard of living than authortiarian, centrally controlled systems. We don't want to go back to Feudalism, do we? Yet we still have its remnants hanging around.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Moondog on Sat Aug 8 19:10:52 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Moondog to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 01:36 pm

    Well said. If any "anomalies" that weren't designed in or filtered out manifest
    themselves, that person can be aborted at any age to save the "purity" of the system and state.

    I still wonder if even in that type of system if one could eliminate corruption. The Alphas on top would be most suspect, due to they observe and administer everything, but even at lower levels someone may figure out how to game the system or accidentally come into awareness there is more to the
    system than existence.

    It's a working system that would stand the test of time. All other systems are subject to entropy... they degrade from a state of order into one of chaos. For instance, the world today is very different from the world a century ago -- the laws in your country have changed, the demograpgic make-up has changed, religions have come and gone in and out of favour. We don't know what kind of world we will have tomorrow because there is no control, no consistency, and it appears that everything has been left to chance due to the organic nature of politics, economics and society.

    In BNW the system is ran by a World Controller who is above several Regional Controllers. As these bureaucrats are humans, corruption may still be prevelant in such a world. I think an all powerful AI in charge of the distribution of wealth/assets with no concept of sin could ensure a system like this could last forever... unless overthrown. Which is why under the veneer of a peaceful and benevolent dictatoship, will lie a very powerful state apparatus... just incase.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Underminer on Sat Aug 8 20:01:55 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Underminer to Dennisk on Fri Aug 07 2020 02:23 am

    I understand your concern, but there's a difference between automating away work, and automating away all tasks. It is desirable to automate away jobs and required work in order to allow us to "work" at things which are interesting to us, or present opportunities for self betterment, but are not things others would ever supplement or reimburse us for.

    I read a while back that ancient Greece was home to a mostly hedonistic popualtion as there were around four slaves per citizen. The citizens were thereafter able to pursue art, philosophy, mathematics... etc, however I think most of them ended up getting drunk, having casual sex and fighting wars with other regions.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 00:57:59 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:22 am

    If you are selling labour, why do they pay by the hour? Why are there minim hours? Why can they claim that anything you do is there?

    You NEVER have legal possession of the work you do when employed. No employment contract states what you claim. Companies clearly talk about hav labour.

    I would like to see you in a court, try to claim that at any point, the prod of your labour is something you have some ownership of.

    You rent yourself as a person to the company. That is why they say they HIR you. Hire is a synonym for rent. Economically, the company pays for you th same way they pay for equipment they rent.

    They pay you by the hour because you are selling what you produce within that hour.

    You cannot claim ownership to what you produce because you sold it to somebody else.

    There is no fundamental difference between having a gardener on a payroll who takes X time to maintain a garden, and paying a self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same task. You are paying for the service.


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 01:05:20 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:47 am

    1) Initiation of property rights for new objects/services are determined by labour. When a new object enters the economy, the labour is the rightful ow and ALSO responsible for liabilites (ie, paying for the equipment, resource, etc used). A contract which claims that labour cannot be the rightful owner should be considered as invalid, just as one which claims you are my slave i not valid.

    So when object X is created, the labour that created object X (including management, sales people etc) is the owner, and disposes of it by sale. The are also responsible for paying the factor suppliers (ie, paying for rent, inputs, paying interest on loans, etc).

    2) Property rights are transferred through voluntary sale.

    If I make 500 rubber ducks they are mine. If I sell them to you for 500 dollar, they are yours.

    If you pay me 500 dollar for all the rubber ducks that I can produce in a certain time frame (say, 500 rubber ducks) then they are yours as soon as I produce them, because we did 1 and 2 in just one step, but the principle is the same.

    I go as far as to say that if you produce the rubber ducks for a cooperative horizontal org that pays you for the ducks the result is the same as being hired for making ducks.

    So let's agree to disagree. Don't get employed by a third party if you don't want to, but let everybody else who watns do it.

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 01:12:48 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:55 am

    I get that. But hell, how many thousands, tens of thousands, hell, hundreds thousands of people have been screwed over by our CURRENT system? Do you th that at the moment, businesses don't fall apart, go broke, and cause harm to people through mismanagement? Are there not already millions exploited an ripped off? People who have committed suicide because their jobs were lots benefit a tiny proportion of people? I don't see what we have now as great, even functional.

    Just saying that I have seen that sort of crap in orgs that are as close to an anarcho-syndicalist paradise as it gets. I think that sort of arrangement only works in very specific sets of circumpstances. Anarcho-primitivists are aware of that and attempt to enforce those circumsptances in order to make such organization possible. Namely, that nobody is more skilled than anybody else so there are no power imbalances.


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 17:51:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:22 am

    If you are selling labour, why do they pay by the hour? Why are there minim hours? Why can they claim that anything you do is there?

    You NEVER have legal possession of the work you do when employed. No employment contract states what you claim. Companies clearly talk about hav labour.

    I would like to see you in a court, try to claim that at any point, the prod of your labour is something you have some ownership of.

    You rent yourself as a person to the company. That is why they say they HIR you. Hire is a synonym for rent. Economically, the company pays for you th same way they pay for equipment they rent.

    They pay you by the hour because you are selling what you produce
    within that hour.

    You cannot claim ownership to what you produce because you sold it to somebody else.

    There is no fundamental difference between having a gardener on a
    payroll who takes X time to maintain a garden, and paying a
    self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same task. You are paying for the service.

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 17:54:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:47 am

    1) Initiation of property rights for new objects/services are determined by labour. When a new object enters the economy, the labour is the rightful ow and ALSO responsible for liabilites (ie, paying for the equipment, resource, etc used). A contract which claims that labour cannot be the rightful owner should be considered as invalid, just as one which claims you are my slave i not valid.

    So when object X is created, the labour that created object X (including management, sales people etc) is the owner, and disposes of it by sale. The are also responsible for paying the factor suppliers (ie, paying for rent, inputs, paying interest on loans, etc).

    2) Property rights are transferred through voluntary sale.

    If I make 500 rubber ducks they are mine. If I sell them to you for 500 dollar, they are yours.

    If you pay me 500 dollar for all the rubber ducks that I can produce in
    a certain time frame (say, 500 rubber ducks) then they are yours as
    soon as I produce them, because we did 1 and 2 in just one step, but
    the principle is the same.

    I go as far as to say that if you produce the rubber ducks for a cooperative horizontal org that pays you for the ducks the result is
    the same as being hired for making ducks.

    So let's agree to disagree. Don't get employed by a third party if you don't want to, but let everybody else who watns do it.

    OK. As far as I'm concerned, there are strong implications in what appears to be the subtle difference between those two scenarios. However, I think you are factually incorrect in asserting "as soon as I produce them". At NO POINT do you own anything, not the final product, not the intermediate, nothing.

    If you can provide an employment contract which stipulates a transfer of product, I'll reconsider my position.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 17:56:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:55 am

    I get that. But hell, how many thousands, tens of thousands, hell, hundreds thousands of people have been screwed over by our CURRENT system? Do you th that at the moment, businesses don't fall apart, go broke, and cause harm to people through mismanagement? Are there not already millions exploited an ripped off? People who have committed suicide because their jobs were lots benefit a tiny proportion of people? I don't see what we have now as great, even functional.

    Just saying that I have seen that sort of crap in orgs that are as close to an anarcho-syndicalist paradise as it gets. I think that sort
    of arrangement only works in very specific sets of circumpstances. Anarcho-primitivists are aware of that and attempt to enforce those circumsptances in order to make such organization possible. Namely,
    that nobody is more skilled than anybody else so there are no power imbalances.

    Yeah, but they fail because they are Anarchist punks? The success of an organisation depends on its people. If the organisation consists of people who have no organisation skills, well, of course its going to fail.

    Don't join such an organisation. Have you seen the pathetic attempts to create an alternative society with CHAZ? They would fail, regardless of the system.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 04:10:01 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There never was.

    Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 07:46:14 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same
    task.
    You are paying for the service.

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.


    yeah my paperwork for my employer sez that anything i produce belongs to the company.
    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Ogg@VERT/EOTLBBS to All on Sun Aug 9 10:34:00 2020
    Hello Andeddu!

    ** On Saturday 08.08.20 - 19:01, andeddu wrote to Underminer:

    I read a while back that ancient Greece was home to a mostly hedonistic popualtion as there were around four slaves per citizen. The citizens
    were thereafter able to pursue art, philosophy, mathematics... etc,
    however I think most of them ended up getting drunk, having casual sex
    and fighting wars with other regions.

    Ah.. but there were 4 people employed by 1. More people were serving the
    few.

    Things really aren't that much different now.

    The vast number of the population are employed or slaves to an employee.
    As a bonus to our chagrin, the gov't steps in and taxes the whole process.

    :/

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to MRO on Mon Aug 10 05:12:00 2020
    MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same
    task.
    You are paying for the service.

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.


    yeah my paperwork for my employer sez that anything i produce belongs
    to the company. ---

    Maybe just reply to my other reply instead of this one as well, as the same point is being repeated in two threads. (ie, my other statement also covers this (I think, assuming you do "Write for Hire"))





    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Mon Aug 10 05:22:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There never was.

    Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically
    states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..

    There is a lot of confusion about these issues because of sloppy use of terms such as "hired" and "employed" and "contracted", leading people to believe that two different things are the same. When you "hire" a plumber, it is a very different economic arrangement than when you are a manager at Walmart and you hire a cashier.

    I don't know much about write for hire, and can't find much about it, but it seems to me that you are self-employed, and you agree to a contract to produce a piece of work. From what I can tell, you don't actually get a job WITH the publisher, you get a job to do work FOR the publisher.

    Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no conflict if you are contracting with someone to produce a piece of work. This is still very atypical and not representative of an employment contract.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Sun Aug 9 15:49:00 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: MRO to Moondog on Sat Aug 08 2020 07:20 pm

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Moondog to MRO on Sat Aug 08 2020 09:16 am

    isnt it strange how humans create all this unnecessary conflict in
    their liv

    Humans are thinkers and builders. If we can find a better way or build

    what i was saying is we create our own problems. we create our own misery.

    For example, North and South America had larger animals such as Buffalo however they didn't have any others that could be used as beasts of bur until the Spanish brought over horses. Without the horse or ox, there w little need for road building and the invention of the wheel.


    native americans built cities and they had roads. they cleared forests.

    There's remains of attempts to build more advanced civilizations, however by the time explorers from Europe showed up it appeared there may have been a major die off and most inhabitants reverted to beong transient in nature, travelling with herds of animals or having summer and wintet migrations.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 17:07:59 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to MRO on Mon Aug 10 2020 09:12 am


    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there
    is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.


    yeah my paperwork for my employer sez that anything i produce
    belongs to the company. ---

    Maybe just reply to my other reply instead of this one as well, as the same point is being repeated in two threads. (ie, my other statement also covers this (I think, assuming you do "Write for Hire"))

    what
    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Atroxi@VERT to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 17:07:00 2020
    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
    also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

    It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
    offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
    "Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
    awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
    that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

    Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.

    ... Silence cannot be misquoted.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Mon Aug 10 03:54:23 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Mon Aug 10 2020 09:22 am

    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There nev
    was.

    Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..

    There is a lot of confusion about these issues because of sloppy use of terms such as "hired" and "employed" and "contracted
    leading people to believe that two different things are the same. When you "hire" a plumber, it is a very different economi
    arrangement than when you are a manager at Walmart and you hire a cashier.

    I don't know much about write for hire, and can't find much about it, but it seems to me that you are self-employed, and you
    agree to a contract to produce a piece of work. From what I can tell, you don't actually get a job WITH the publisher, you
    a job to do work FOR the publisher.

    Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no conflict if you are contracting with someone to produce a piece of work. This is stil
    very atypical and not representative of an employment contract.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established
    deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any
    case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Atroxi on Tue Aug 11 05:29:00 2020
    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
    also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

    It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
    offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
    "Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
    awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
    that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

    Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.

    IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Tue Aug 11 05:47:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Mon Aug 10 2020 09:22 am

    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for,
    pa
    ys the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a
    tra
    ns of property rights. There isn't. There nev
    was.

    Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..

    There is a lot of confusion about these issues because of sloppy use of
    terms
    such as "hired" and "employed" and "contracted
    leading people to believe that two different things are the same. When you
    "
    hire" a plumber, it is a very different economi
    arrangement than when you are a manager at Walmart and you hire a cashier.

    I don't know much about write for hire, and can't find much about it, but it
    seems to me that you are self-employed, and you
    agree to a contract to produce a piece of work. From what I can tell, you
    do
    n't actually get a job WITH the publisher, you
    a job to do work FOR the publisher.

    Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no conflict if you are contracting with
    so
    meone to produce a piece of work. This is stil
    very atypical and not representative of an employment contract.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to
    the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that
    you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.

    OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.

    But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Tue Aug 11 12:38:22 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Tue Aug 11 2020 09:47 am

    Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.

    OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.

    But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.

    Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.

    No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's never been any pretense otherwise.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 17:16:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Tue Aug 11 2020 09:47 am

    Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.

    OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.

    But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.

    Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in
    a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output
    over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's
    there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign
    the contract.

    No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by
    the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's
    never been any pretense otherwise.

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 04:58:16 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Tue Aug 11 2020 04:38 pm

    Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.

    I think there have been some companies that have specified that even employees' creations in their off hours could be considered company property. There was a movie that came out in 1999 called Pirates of Silicon valley, which was about Bill Gates & Steve Jobs and the beginnings of Microsoft & Apple. Steve Wozniak worked with Steve Jobs in the early days of Apple, and there was a scene in the movie where Steve Wozniak had to go to his then-current employer (Hewlett-Packard) to tell his manager about the computer he was designing, but his manager didn't understand why people would want a computer at home, which allowed him and Steve Jobs to sell the computer themselves. I'm not sure how accurate that part was though, as I'm sure they made some mistakes in that movie.

    Nightfox

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Dennisk on Wed Aug 12 11:51:00 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm


    No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's never been any pretense otherwise.

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company wo claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.



    Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Wed Aug 12 14:19:23 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.

    You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over it? I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "work hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the monetary proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the story is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Moondog on Thu Aug 13 04:52:00 2020
    Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm


    No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's never been any pretense otherwise.

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company wo claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.



    Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are
    stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.

    Lets say you worked on your own equipment, a battery powered laptop of yours, they would still make that claim.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 05:02:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.

    You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over it? I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "work hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the monetary proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the story is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.

    Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I worked during work hours, the company could claim it.

    This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could ask you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from you and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not recognise the contractual agreement as valid.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Nightfox on Thu Aug 13 05:43:00 2020
    Nightfox wrote to Andeddu <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Tue Aug 11 2020 04:38 pm

    Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.

    I think there have been some companies that have specified that even employees' creations in their off hours could be considered company property. There was a movie that came out in 1999 called Pirates of Silicon valley, which was about Bill Gates & Steve Jobs and the
    beginnings of Microsoft & Apple. Steve Wozniak worked with Steve Jobs
    in the early days of Apple, and there was a scene in the movie where
    Steve Wozniak had to go to his then-current employer (Hewlett-Packard)
    to tell his manager about the computer he was designing, but his
    manager didn't understand why people would want a computer at home,
    which allowed him and Steve Jobs to sell the computer themselves. I'm
    not sure how accurate that part was though, as I'm sure they made some mistakes in that movie.

    In order for such a contract to be valid in a court of law, the parties innvolved must be able to demonstrate HOW ownership of work done outside company time is the product of the employer. I don't think this can be done, without violating or rejecting basic principles of property rights and freedom.


    I can hire you as a hitman, and in the contract specifically state that everything you do, originates as my responsibility/property, but a court would reject that. It isn't the illegal nature which invalidates the contract, it is the fact that it is not POSSIBLE for one human being to 'transfer' their personal responsibility and ownership of the result of their actions to another. Nor would the court accept a slavery contract as valid.

    Agreeing to a contract does not automatically make it valid and enforceable. "You agreed" is not good enough reason.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Thu Aug 13 00:37:19 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am

    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that
    you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company
    buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep
    changing what employment actually buys.

    You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over i
    I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "w
    hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the moneta
    proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the st
    is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.

    Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal
    software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I
    worked during work hours, the company could claim it.

    This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually
    their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the
    principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For
    example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could as
    you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from
    and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not
    recognise the contractual agreement as valid.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Obviously, if they are paying you to accomplish task X during a certain time frame and you use that time for hobbies, things
    are going to get ugly.

    Your labor becomes "theirs" because they purchased it.

    Your employer can't hire you to shoot somebody dead for no reason because the firm has not moral or legal grounds to do it
    itself as a juridic person.


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 17:45:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am

    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company
    would claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the
    c
    ompany claim that during "work hours', all that
    you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows
    wh
    at "employment" actually is. Is the company
    buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What
    specif
    ically is the transaction here? You can't keep
    changing what employment actually buys.

    You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said
    proj
    ect, so why wouldn't they have ownership over i
    I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone
    pr
    oduced a multi-million dollar product during "w
    hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of
    the
    company who thereafter retained all the moneta
    proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people
    w
    ould still sign it. I guess the moral of the st
    is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not
    ha
    ve a claim to the fruits of your own labour.

    Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was
    warn
    ed about this when I was working on a personal
    software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do
    it
    during work hours). I was warned that if I
    worked during work hours, the company could claim it.

    This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the
    contract
    is written such that your labour is actually
    their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically
    imp
    ossible, and is contradictory to even the
    principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is
    not
    automatically valid and enforceable. For
    example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my
    equ
    ipment being my responsibility , and I could as
    you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which
    c
    learly stipulated I was purchasing labour from
    and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law?
    N
    o. And the reason is because they would not
    recognise the contractual agreement as valid.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Obviously, if they are paying you to accomplish task X during a certain time frame and you use that time for hobbies, things are going to get ugly.

    The issue wasn't whether the work was done late or not, it was a thought experiment to analyse what they are purchasing it.

    Your labor becomes "theirs" because they purchased it.


    Your employer can't hire you to shoot somebody dead for no reason
    because the firm has not moral or legal grounds to do it itself as a juridic person.

    You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour still holds responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, and only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow, SIMULTANEOUSLY while under their employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).

    You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour which is related to filfilling the stated job requirements, and other labour is your own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or not.

    The fact that these contradictions exist, indicate a problem with the system.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Atroxi@VERT to Dennisk on Wed Aug 12 10:28:00 2020
    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
    also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

    It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
    offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
    "Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
    awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
    that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

    Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.

    IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
    people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.

    Any big company nowadays goes around espousing that they value this or they value that and that they stand for this or they stand for that. I think they are already the church for most people especially with how prevalent they are in places where people usually access information. Sadly, they are a church whose words, and oftentimes only words, are motivated by how much profit they are projected to get from their "userbase" in the next quarter.

    I don't know if this was real or just an edited picture but I saw once a picture of someone on stage of what I assume to be a facebook conference, mostly due to the font choice in the slide shown. Either way, it stated:

    "Turn customers into fanatics
    Products into obsessions
    Employees to ambassadors
    and brands into religions."

    And so they did.

    ... There's no place like 127.0.0.1
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Thu Aug 13 10:23:47 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm

    You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow, SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).

    You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no

    There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other types of responsibility, at least in the Western culture and Western jurisdictions.

    If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds. Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good reason. This applies whether you are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.

    Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp lots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but then Necrocomp can sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his negligence).


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Thu Aug 13 13:51:05 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am

    Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I worked during work hours, the company could claim it.

    This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could ask you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from you and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not recognise the contractual agreement as valid.

    Surely there's a lawful precedent for this? Creatives have all kinds of projects going on at once and someone must have created something of value during work hours, but not on work equipment. I don't really have a dog in the fight, I do not have a creative bone in my body & have never attempted to produce anything off the books at work, so it's not something I've ever considered. It's interesting, but it seems like some kind of contractual loop-hole that needs to be tested in a court of law.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Atroxi on Fri Aug 14 05:58:00 2020
    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
    also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

    It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
    offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
    "Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
    awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
    that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

    Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.

    IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
    people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.

    Any big company nowadays goes around espousing that they value this or they value that and that they stand for this or they stand for that. I think they are already the church for most people especially with how prevalent they are in places where people usually access information. Sadly, they are a church whose words, and oftentimes only words, are motivated by how much profit they are projected to get from their "userbase" in the next quarter.

    I don't know if this was real or just an edited picture but I saw once
    a picture of someone on stage of what I assume to be a facebook conference, mostly due to the font choice in the slide shown. Either
    way, it stated:

    "Turn customers into fanatics
    Products into obsessions
    Employees to ambassadors
    and brands into religions."

    And so they did.

    I would have no trouble at all believing that slide was real. I've personally heard similar things myself, and many companies want to emulate Silicon Valley.
    That kind of thinking is very much in line with how people who manage companies think.

    You are spot on with stating that companies are like a church, and they are taking advantage of this. I'm not even sure that company profit is even the core goal, I think it may more be self-aggrandisement and more individal, self-serving goals.

    The discussion of values should be left to the philosophers in society. IT doesn't bode well at all for us that it is now formulated by execs.

    ... What is mind? No matter! What is matter? Never mind! - Homer S.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Fri Aug 14 07:24:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm

    You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow, SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).

    You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no

    There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other types of responsibility, at least in the Western culture and Western jurisdictions.

    If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds. Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good reason. This applies whether you
    are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.

    Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a
    product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp lots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but then Necrocomp can
    sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his negligence).

    The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour" (Whatever paradigm you choose to try and explain what it is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did this".

    Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck rental can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truck to temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour can't. You cannot separate yourself from the labour you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your action. Having a contract which claims that happened, doesn't mean it did.

    This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a statement of fact, or must be enforced. The contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then legally, the economic and political system must consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened. If I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signed contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange happened. It is not possible for me to transfer it to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine though, a legal system which claims that London Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally claim tolls from people who crossed it!

    Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that labour was transferred. It is not valid because it it cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can actually transfer labour or time to someone else, only the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.

    There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being responsible for what they perform. Nor can an employment contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can be responsible for creating new property, and we accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are assigned to the human (or humans) which created the property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food is still yours. The property right is attached to the human, not to the equipment.

    Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves a particular organisation of society, which is why culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly only apply to labour!), but they are nevertheless covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to change our legal/economic system to correctly initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with the persons which, through their agency/labour, created the property.


    ... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Fri Aug 14 07:39:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am

    Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I worked during work hours, the company could claim it.

    This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could ask you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from you and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not recognise the contractual agreement as valid.

    Surely there's a lawful precedent for this? Creatives have all kinds of projects going on at once and someone must have created something of
    value during work hours, but not on work equipment. I don't really have
    a dog in the fight, I do not have a creative bone in my body & have
    never attempted to produce anything off the books at work, so it's not something I've ever considered. It's interesting, but it seems like
    some kind of contractual loop-hole that needs to be tested in a court
    of law.

    IT's not well defined, and no one can come up with a systematic way of determing how property rights due to labour performed should be attributed to one party or another, because no such thing exists. The system of property rights and employment, is a cultural creation, predating modern capitalism and property rights, that is based on the idea that one human being can own another as property. In Fuedal times, the Lord was the owner of property, but as part of that property right, the serfs came with it. The serfs, being on the property were also property of the landlord, and what they produced therein.

    Companies work in a similar way. There is a legal property right, and that property right also is treated as if the employees come with it (ie, the people, and what they produce is also part of the property package called "The firm"). The Capitalist revolution was fully realised amongst property holders, but not so much among employees. EArly on, it wasn't that much of a problem, as more people were self-sufficient, but during industrialisation, it didn't serve interests to realise capitalism FULLY (ie, dispense with medieval notions of property and apply capitalist property rights equally). Just as it took time for democracy to be universally applied, so too it may take time for private property rights to be fully applied. Marxism was one long, awful, diversion away from this.


    ... Got my tie caught in the fax... Suddenly I was in L.A.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Dennisk on Thu Aug 13 13:10:00 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Moondog on Thu Aug 13 2020 08:52 am





    Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.

    Lets say you worked on your own equipment, a battery powered laptop of yours they would still make that claim.


    My guess is that will depend on if it's a conflict of interest with your employer. If your personal work appears as if it is derived from IP your employer deals with, it would be hard to prove you weren't working alone, in parallel to your employer's interests. If your company employer makes household appliances such as mixer and toasters, and you're producing a
    method to integrate a heads up display into a scuba diver's mask, it would
    be hard for them to claim your work if you own a personal computer with your own licensed copies of Solidworks or other design software, and your own 3d printer, laser cutter or cnc mill.

    Collaboration with co-workers outside the workplace may complicate this, as would even discussing your sideline work with others in a way that may appear you are consulting company resources without proper authorization or compensation.

    Documentation will also help. While times and dates can be altered or fraudul ently created, the chances are slim anyone would go through such a conspiracy unless there is existing suspicion IP or company resources are being stolen
    or exploited.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Thu Aug 13 23:16:03 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:24 am

    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm

    You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint
    and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds
    responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow,
    SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person
    (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).

    You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job
    requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL
    your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no

    There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other types of responsibility, at least in the Western
    culture and Western jurisdictions.

    If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds.
    Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good reason. This applies whether you
    are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.

    Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp lots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held
    responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but then Necrocomp can
    sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his negligence).

    The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour" (Whatever paradigm you choose to try and explain what i
    is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did this".

    Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck rental can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truck
    temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour can't. You cannot separate yourself from the labo
    you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your action. Having a contract which claims that happen
    doesn't mean it did.

    This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a statement of fact, or must be enforced. The
    contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then legally, the economic and political system must
    consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened. If I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signed
    contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange happened. It is not possible for me to transfer
    to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine though, a legal system which claims that London
    Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally claim tolls from people who crossed it!

    Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that labour was transferred. It is not valid because it i
    cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can actually transfer labour or time to someone else, only
    the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.

    There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being responsible for what they perform. Nor can an employment
    contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can be responsible for creating new property, and we
    accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are assigned to the human (or humans) which created the
    property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food is still yours. The property right is attached t
    the human, not to the equipment.

    Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves a particular organisation of society, which is
    culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly only apply to labour!), but they are nevertheless
    covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to change our legal/economic system to correctly
    initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with the persons which, through their agency/labour,
    created the property.


    ... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly

    You are running in circles repeating the same argument. This conversation is going nowhere so I am dropping it.

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Moondog on Fri Aug 14 18:21:00 2020
    Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Moondog on Thu Aug 13 2020 08:52 am





    Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.

    Lets say you worked on your own equipment, a battery powered laptop of yours they would still make that claim.


    My guess is that will depend on if it's a conflict of interest with
    your employer. If your personal work appears as if it is derived from
    IP your employer deals with, it would be hard to prove you weren't
    working alone, in parallel to your employer's interests. If your
    company employer makes household appliances such as mixer and toasters, and you're producing a method to integrate a heads up display into a
    scuba diver's mask, it would be hard for them to claim your work if you own a personal computer with your own licensed copies of Solidworks or other design software, and your own 3d printer, laser cutter or cnc
    mill.

    Collaboration with co-workers outside the workplace may complicate
    this, as would even discussing your sideline work with others in a way that may appear you are consulting company resources without proper authorization or compensation.

    Documentation will also help. While times and dates can be altered or fraudul ently created, the chances are slim anyone would go through
    such a conspiracy unless there is existing suspicion IP or company resources are being stolen or exploited.

    Companies will make the claim if there is no conflict of interest. This is on the basis of them claiming they paid for it. But we have to establish, what is it EXACTLY, they are buying?

    Note, this doesn't happen elsewhere. If you are paying a plumber to fix your toilet, and they take a call while working to help someone else, you cannot claim what he did as part of YOUR property, because he was on 'your time'. It doesn't work that way. Yet at work, we just accept it.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Fri Aug 14 18:27:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:24 am

    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm

    You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is
    theirs
    , they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint
    and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence,
    the
    person selling the labour sti holds
    responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a
    onl
    y you, can exercise your labour. Somehow,
    SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed
    (a rented source of labour) and a person
    (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).

    You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour
    wh
    ic is related to filfilling the stated job
    requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your
    earlier statement about the employer buying ALL
    your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no

    There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other
    t
    ypes of responsibility, at least in the Western
    culture and Western jurisdictions.

    If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you
    and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds.
    Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good
    reason.
    This applies whether you
    are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.

    Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp
    l
    ots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held
    responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but
    then Necrocomp can
    sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his
    negligence).

    The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour"
    (Whateve
    r paradigm you choose to try and explain what i
    is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did
    t
    his".

    Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck
    rental
    can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truck
    temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour
    can
    't. You cannot separate yourself from the labo
    you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your
    acti
    on. Having a contract which claims that happen
    doesn't mean it did.

    This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a
    s
    tatement of fact, or must be enforced. The
    contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then
    le
    gally, the economic and political system must
    consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened.
    If
    I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signed
    contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange
    ha
    ppened. It is not possible for me to transfer
    to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine
    though, a legal system which claims that London
    Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally
    claim tolls from people who crossed it!

    Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that
    labour
    was transferred. It is not valid because it i
    cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can
    actuall
    y transfer labour or time to someone else, only
    the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those
    terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.

    There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being
    responsible
    for what they perform. Nor can an employment
    contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can
    be
    responsible for creating new property, and we
    accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are
    assig
    ned to the human (or humans) which created the
    property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food
    is
    still yours. The property right is attached t
    the human, not to the equipment.

    Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves
    a particular organisation of society, which is
    culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly
    onl
    y apply to labour!), but they are nevertheless
    covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to
    c
    hange our legal/economic system to correctly
    initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with
    the persons which, through their agency/labour,
    created the property.


    ... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly

    You are running in circles repeating the same argument. This
    conversation is going nowhere so I am dropping it.

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    Very well, there isn't much more I can add. It's pretty much a matter of whether you accept the premise or not.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Dennisk on Fri Aug 14 07:12:00 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 14 2020 10:21 pm


    Companies will make the claim if there is no conflict of interest. This is the basis of them claiming they paid for it. But we have to establish, what it EXACTLY, they are buying?

    Note, this doesn't happen elsewhere. If you are paying a plumber to fix you toilet, and they take a call while working to help someone else, you cannot claim what he did as part of YOUR property, because he was on 'your time'. doesn't work that way. Yet at work, we just accept it.

    Plumbers are normally self employed, so they're providing a service rather
    than working for you. I have yet to see one sign a terms for employment contract to replace a water heater.

    If you owned a company and needed a full time plumber as part of your maintenance crew, taking other calls on the job could be considered moonlighting, or even a conflict of interest if the customer is your competition. If I was his supervisor and saw him taking calls while he
    should be sweating pipes, I would definitely have a talk with him.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Atroxi@VERT to Dennisk on Tue Aug 18 17:50:00 2020
    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
    also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

    It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
    offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
    "Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
    awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
    that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

    Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.

    IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
    people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.

    Any big company nowadays goes around espousing that they value this or they value that and that they stand for this or they stand for that. I think they are already the church for most people especially with how prevalent they are in places where people usually access information. Sadly, they are a church whose words, and oftentimes only words, are motivated by how much profit they are projected to get from their "userbase" in the next quarter.

    I don't know if this was real or just an edited picture but I saw once
    a picture of someone on stage of what I assume to be a facebook conference, mostly due to the font choice in the slide shown. Either
    way, it stated:

    "Turn customers into fanatics
    Products into obsessions
    Employees to ambassadors
    and brands into religions."

    And so they did.

    I would have no trouble at all believing that slide was real. I've personally heard similar things myself, and many companies want to
    emulate Silicon Valley.
    That kind of thinking is very much in line with how people who manage companies think.

    You are spot on with stating that companies are like a church, and they are taking advantage of this. I'm not even sure that company profit is even the core goal, I think it may more be self-aggrandisement and more individal, self-serving goals.

    This is just plain scary. There is nothing more terrifying than an institution bloated with hubris and has an ability to realize its self-serving desires. Every day I wake up, I feel like the world is getting closer and closer to a Blade Runner-esque dystopic future.

    The discussion of values should be left to the philosophers in society.
    IT doesn't bode well at all for us that it is now formulated by execs.

    Exactly. I couldn't agree more on that.

    ... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net