Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

celebratedrecluse wrote

Wage labor entails systematic theft. There can be no equal exchange in a world defined by differential social power. Anything other conception of the realities of the market is pure idealism, and should be rejected by anyone with a real stake in predicting the outcomes of market forces-- capitalist or communist or anarchist, alike.

2

Silver_ wrote

And then ? Don't see anything wrong, In fact I even think that Toys R us is generous to throw away cash like this.

You are not entitled to a job/working isn't a "basic human right".

−6

heckthepolice2 wrote

Did you read the article? They didn't "throw away cash," they were ordered by a judge to pay severance that they were trying to withhold

6

Silver_ wrote

Why ? They didn't commit any crime...

−6

heckthepolice2 wrote

They committed the crime of not paying legally required severance to their workers

7

Silver_ wrote

It's just state law/regulation .

AKA stupid law. Do you support it ? Do you support regulation ?

−6

heckthepolice2 wrote (edited )

It's just state law/regulation .

As opposed to.... non state law? All laws are made by states. That's how laws work. i'm not saying that's a good thing, but by definition, the state determines what is and isn't a crime

Do you support it ? Do you support regulation ?

Lmao are you actually trying to turn this around on me? No, I don't support the existence of the state, but I also don't support the existence of corporations. Even when they're acting legally corporations steal the labor of their employees. To even ignore what meager compensation is required by law is impressively slimy

I thought you were all about compensating people when you steal from them? How is this different?

7

Silver_ wrote (edited )

The corporation hasn't stolen from them, If they agreed to the contract.

So you support when the mafia is regulating another gang ?

It's good when bad people are regulated by the state ?

Edit :

As opposed to.... non state law? All laws are made by states. That's how laws work. i'm not saying that's a good thing, but by definition, the state determines what is and isn't a crime

As opposed to natural laws (the fact that I own my body, for example)

−5

heckthepolice2 wrote

Again, I would like to ask that you please read the goddamn article (like come on, it's literally like a page long), because the contract that the workers agreed to said they would recieve severance, which is why it was illegal for the company to deny them that severance

Judge Keith Philips of the Eastern District of Virginia awarded the $2 million to workers who had been told they would receive severance at the start of the bankruptcy as part of a benefit package that was then voided during the legal proceedings.

"Nobody is getting what they deserved, so that's a slap in the face," Reinhart told CBS MoneyWatch. After the first wave of 180 stores were closed, workers including Reinhart that remained were promised severance, she relayed. "So I stayed until the end. Six weeks later, they announced no one was getting severance."

And I never said I support any aspect of the state, so not sure where you're getting that idea from. I think a company denying workers the pay they were promised is an unbelievably shitty thing to do.

5

Silver_ wrote

Yes I read it, I don't see anywhere, where they said that the company will give severance in the contract. Yes, they promised to, later on (was It to not go to jail, because of regulations ?), but the article doesn't say that It was negociated in the initial contract.

And even If what you say is true, I think that the state should never intervene in the judicial system (even for horrible crimes, like mass shooting/rape)

−2

heckthepolice2 wrote

Wait, so deceiving someone into giving you something by promising payment and then never giving it doesn't count as theft in your book? How the hell does that work?

I think that the state should never intervene in the judicial system

You are aware that they judicial system is part of the state yes?

I don't see what this whole section has to do with anything

5

Silver_ wrote

Promising something is not the same as affirming it in the contract.

If I promise you to give you 500$ in your bank account tomorrow, but If I don't give 'em, I did nothing wrong .

In the same way, that If I say that there will be a meetup in X place, but cancel it, I didn't do anything wrong, I haven't stolen anything.

However, from a moral point of view, It's better If you refund my plane/train ticket even though It is not mandatory.

It's not theft, they haven't stolen anything.

You are aware that they judicial system is part of the state yes?

Private justice already exists.

−1

heckthepolice2 wrote

If you tell me that you will pay me $500 to do work for you, and I do the work, and then you refuse to give me the $500, then yes, you have done something wrong

3

Silver_ wrote

It depends If It was written/agreed upon in the original contract.

If Yes : Then yes, It's theft

If No, It's just a promise like another

−1

heckthepolice2 wrote (edited )

Why this obsession with written contracts all of a sudden? Why is that so different than a verbal contract?

In fact, the only thing I can think of that distinguishes written contracts from other forms of agreement is that they're more likely to be recognized legally. You know, like, by the state

But, no, that couldn't be it...

6

Silver_ wrote

No difference, between written and verbal contract, yeah It was just an example

1

heckthepolice2 wrote

So you admit then that the company broke their agreement, and thus deserves to be ostracized, to lose their honor, and unfortunately maybe to be killed by vigilantes?

4

Silver_ wrote (edited )

Not necessarily, I don't know If It was mentioned in the original agreement.

Promising something is not a contract (It's not a two way trade).

Whether I think that they deserve to be ostracized or not, doesn't change anything.

People are free to ostracize (or not) people.

You can be ostracized, even If you haven't done any crimes.

0

heckthepolice2 wrote

Why does the original agreement matter so much? They made a new agreement. Most of the workers probably would have left had they known they wouldn't get severance. The company got them to stay under false pretenses. That in and of itself is an agreement. "I will continue working for you if you give me severance when the company goes bankrupt"

4

Silver_ wrote

Promising something is not a contract !

Most of the workers probably would have left had they known they wouldn't get severance.

Yup, It's like cancelling a meetup or a soccer match, people wouldn't have bought their plane/train tickets. From a moral perspective, It's better to compensate, even though It's not mandatory.

That in and of itself is an agreement. "I will continue working for you if you give me severance when the company goes bankrupt"

I agree, but have they agreed to this ?

−1

heckthepolice2 wrote

Why are you so into this soccer match metaphor? Are you salty cause your ex-wife got mad at you for not coming to your kid's games?

Anyway, to make that actually comparable to the situation at hand would require a few changes

  1. The person flaking owns the train company and thus directly profits from the sale of the tickets

  2. The person flaking fully intends to flake and is deliberately decieving the other person for their own profit

  3. The cost of the train ticket is several months of labor

Where exactly do you draw the line between a "promise" and a "contract"?

1

[deleted] wrote

1

Silver_ wrote

If I say "no transgender people in my shop", will you attempt to murder me, then ?

−5

[deleted] wrote

2

Silver_ wrote

Oh no, I am going to keep what I earned, you're so oppressed because of me !

−2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

Silver_ wrote

Yeah and what ? I am forced to sell you my pants, while you're at it ?

I own my shop, kid

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Silver_ wrote (edited )

In other words "anarchists" want war with voluntaryists, meanwhile voluntaryists don't want to attack anyone. You are the "good guy" "non-violent/peaceful" . Nice.

But If everyone followed your logic then most "anarchists" would be dead, because you have unpopular opinions.

Killing people over ideas (even If no violence was done)...

−4

[deleted] wrote

4

Silver_ wrote

It's MY shop, therefore I get to decide who enter in it or not...

−4

[deleted] wrote

3

Silver_ wrote

The security guards will ask the person to leave.

−2

[deleted] wrote

3

Silver_ wrote

The guards will first try to de-escalate, but If the person doesn't want to leave MY property, It will end up badly for him.

Aka, the guards will use force.

−2

[deleted] wrote

3

Silver_ wrote

I own my shop.

"Violence" is acceptable to defend your body/property.

I am simply defending my property. If I don't want you to enter, you don't enter : I own my shop.

−2

[deleted] wrote

3

Silver_ wrote

Yup, I don't want you to enter in my bathroom, when I take a bath, you don't enter.

I don't want you to enter in my garden, you don't enter.

I don't want you to enter in my shop, you don't enter.

−1

shanc wrote

This has to be a sockpuppet account someone has setup for a laugh... right?

2