night_shift said:

Oh, so there are still workers? I mean, at least the owners? Who, by your own post, do work?

You can't take people out of the equation, this is my point.

---

night_shift said:

A company that doesn't employ workers cannot last unless it relies on companies that do employ workers

Start your own company. Prove me wrong.

---

Quote:

In 2015, there were 1.3 million employing businesses and 4.1 million non-employing businesses. Therefore, 76% of businesses did not employ anyone aside from the owner.

---

akira_akuma said:

should everyone own their own business?

---

akira_akuma said:

yeah but would be better for society? for people to work? or people to own?

---

akira_akuma said:

no. you're just mistaken.

agorism is a stupid. your proposal would never lead to a sustainable and functional society. fundamentally stupid. any stupid idiot can create a business...it's not the 'highest idea' like so many idiots claim it to be.
LAUGH LAUGH GASP LAUGH WHEEZ

---

What proposal? I made no proposal ..

Any idiot can create a business? Of course they can. That's why we have a generation of adults soon to turn middle aged, living with their parents, dependent on welfare

Quote:

Frankly if they did, we'd have a lot less people scrounging from the welfare system ...

---

Quote:

Any idiot can create a business? Of course they can. That's why we have a generation of adults soon to turn middle aged, living with their parents, dependent on welfare

---

Quote:

Frankly if they did, we'd have a lot less people scrounging from the welfare system ...

---

Quote:

Yet these people who are busting their ass, are still bound by law to pay shit like corporation tax (or income tax) and VAT
Money that goes in to the pockets of lazy fucking welfare scroungers.

---

night_shift said:

qman said:

Flooding the EU with millions of more third world people isn't inevitable by any means. Polices in the EU are rapidly changing to make sure that doesn't happen.

---

Sure. I see two ways of avoiding the flood: one, make a fortress out of the EU at the expense of the third world people (said expense including their lives), which shouldn't be a problem (eh... except for their unwillingness to cooperate, those bastards); and two, stop keeping the third world people in their third world state for the purpose of benefitting from cheap resources and/or labour (eh... except in this case the first world would have to tighten its belt for a while, which is a no-no). What was the far right all about again?...

qman said:

The West should help from a distance and it looks like that's going to be the last solution to the problem. 

---

The so-called West cannot keep a distance because it has its fingers deep in the honey and won't let go. Well guess what, the bees are angry. Again, the two routes: exterminate the stinging bastards (but who's going to produce the honey next year? - oh, this one is so sweet), or move the fuck away. To translate, this means: stop the fucking wars and stop the fucking economic exploitation.

qman said:

The large majority of these "refugees" are from "stable" countries that are trying to live in a developed nation, but nonsense is coming to a quick end.

---

Which is not a good thing, if you ask me. It's been argued here that nobody is for accepting economic migrants, it's just about war refugees. As much as I hate what this is going to bring, I have to say it: I am for accepting all. I see no difference. There's war - people flee towards peace. There's poverty - people flee towards wealth. People don't just die because of bombs, they also die because of lack of food.

It's not all about death either. People want to live "better", and who can blame them? I understand why somebody who has struggled to "succeed" would think "but why should somebody else get the same for free". First, it's not "the same", and second, it's because this somebody (the first one, the one who struggled) has been exploited - which is not fair, of course, but it also doesn't justify further exploitation. "I suffered so everybody else should suffer as well" is not a valid argument in my book.

---

Wow, this post is full of so much nonsense, where do I start? 

"stop keeping the third world people in their third world state for the purpose of benefiting form cheap resources and /or labour"

They are in that state because of themselves, not the West, you do realize that China and India have a raising middle class because of the jobs coming out of the West?  You do realize that oil producing nations make hundreds of billions of dollars every year SELLING their resource on the global markets? So maybe there's MUTUAL benefactors from this relationship, not just the West!

"stop the fucking economic exploitation"

Honey, you're going to have to get a little more specific, what "economic exploitation" do you speak of and who does it benefit? Giving them jobs they never had before is NOT "economic exploitation".

"I am for accepting all (economic "refugees")"

Yeah, let billions of poor, uneducated, unskilled, and illiterate people into developed nations, turn them into shitholes so you can feel better about yourself.

"they also die because of lack of food"

That's because third world populations are growing out of control, that's their responsibility, or do you think they don't know any better?

"it's because this somebody (the one who struggled) has been exploited- which is not fair"

I got news for you, these people struggle because of their own cultures, that has NOTHING to do with being "exploited" by people in the West. Just because there's not equal outcomes in life, it doesn't mean that wrong doing is involved. Where did you come up with such a wild theories, the college classroom?

Bubbles85 said:

night_shift said:

Bubbles85 said:

night_shift said:

I could make a company. No problem. In order to make profit though, eventually it would boil down to people working - either for my company or for companies paying my company.

---

BS, zappas right. A company does not need to hire third party employees to make a profit. I run my own company in the UK specializing in performance automotive parts. Guess what, 0 employees, other than my sef and my business partner .....

---

Lovely.

I guess your profit comes from no people working at all then? You just collect money appearing out of nowhere, nobody has to work to provide? Please do share how this can be, as I am sure many would be interested to know.

---

Yeah, i though it was pretty obvious from my post. that we do every thing our selves. The point was, that a company does not need employees to turn a profit, like you stated, nor to exist in the first place.

---

zappaisgod said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I'd love to test your theory out on ANY company.  Send the shareholders to the gulag and see how well the company runs.  Then remove the workers and see how well the company runs.

I think we both know damn well which scenario would run the company better. 

---

A company doesn't need any employees at all to exist.  Send the shareholders to the gulag and there is no company at all.  Business is rapidly running away from employees and toward automation wherever possible.  Employees are liabilities. 

---