PAUL JOSEPH WATSON BTFO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPvHoxlY3UY
>>70422196
U mad from the 'Some cultures are better than others' video?
>acne
Disgusting, but expected from a self described "libertarian socialist"
>>70422196
How is libertarian socialism even a thing? It's an oxymoron like anarcho-socialism, how are they this retarded?
>>70422196
>nu-male from NI
literally the lowest form of life
Libertarian socialist has to be the most ridiculous faggy special snowflake ideology out there.
#RapistsWelcome
>>70423037
>>70423331
They're basically leftists who infiltrated libertarian movement to argue that voluntary discrimination against poopdick is unlibertarian.
>>70422196
The AIDS has really taken a toll on this poor anarchist's epidermis. Poor faggot.
No wonder the Nazis purged the Communists. They're unbareable and so annoying
>>70422196
>anarchism
dropped
only high school edgy kids take that shit seriously
>>70422196
All this acne-ridden faggot does in this video is argue semantics, conflate government grants with corporatism, and assert that countries that are ~officially~ socialist/communist are still somehow capitalist because of the aforementioned semantic bullshit.
He also really needs a shower; I can smell him through my monitor.
>>70422196
wow, I kind of like Paul now seeing the amount of leftist commie tears he generates.
>free views
>>70423037
>>70422196
as much as i hate that acne ridden commie faggot, he makes some good points
that's probably Joseph's worst video in terms of facts, any other video of his is top level quality
>Libertarian socialist
>Socialist intellectuals
>>70422196
Libertarian Socialist (lel) is hands down the biggest cunt I have ever come across on youtube.
>>70422196
>Libertarian Socialist
>>70422196
lel, hopefully he'll respond to this. poor kid will get rekt.
>paul is for democracy
>well groomed white man with nice clothes
>video maker is libertarian socialist
>ungroomed man with acne.
Connections?
>>70423037
You'd have to look at the political spectrum in terms of capitalism vs. Authoritarianism, then deny both
Oh it's just a snowflake faggot ripping on an edgy infowars faggot video
This kid is a retard but I genuinely wish PJW would fuck off forever
his voice is like nails on a chalkboard
>that voice
>>70426116
He's Scottish lol
>>70426232
but he doesn't sound anything like Limmy.
>>70426326
He's from the twat part of Scotland
>>70426116
The eternal Scott!
>>70422196
what the fuck is wrong with his face
its like he went down on a fucking prostitute orsomething
Acne
disgusting
>>70426599
he's going for the reluctant anti-hero look methinks wafflebro
>>70422196
>24 minutes of that face
no thanks
>>70423037
They're libertarians who like to deny free agency.
You can of course extend this logic to invalidate all contracts as inherently involuntary, which reduces to anarchism.
>>70422196
Why are these antifa cucks always so damn ugly?
RETARD FIGHT
Seriously, both of them have pretty weak arguments.
>tfw trying to learn politics
>tfw everybody gets all the political systems confused
>mfw
>>70422196
>rich first world "Anarchist" white boi nu-males with micropenises
lol
Immediately closed video.
>>70427217
This. And if you're just listening and not watching it's about 20 minutes of his earrape-tier voice, which is also unbearable
>>70427970
He's not English.
>>70427970
So... That's it? Nobody is going to oppose his arguments. Just call the guy ugly.
>>70422196
> looking to the script every 2 seconds
Literally unwatchable.
Watson is an idiot
>>70423037
I'm a transcendent polydimensional anarcho-sans-communist and I agree with this.
>>70428129
flag noted
>>70428062
OK at 18:30 he reduced meritocracy into lazy vs. diligent, which is completely retarded because there are so many other factors that determine worth.
>>70425231
yeah well ur gay
Africa bans light pollution from advertising signs
>>70423037
No. The left has always had this division. It goes back to Marx and people like Bukharin and Kropotkin. Marx, and later Lenin, believed that the state should, after the revolution, be used by the working class to reach communism.
Kropotkin and others like him believe the state should be immediately be destroyed after the revolution. One of Kropotkins arguments was that using the state to reach communism would lead to tyranny and a dictatorship. He was proven right.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
The reason most of you are unaware of this fact is because your ignorant and only think in memes and buzzwords.
>>70428399
Communist* Africa bans light pollution from advertising signs
>a country whose capital is undertaken by the state is not communist
what
>>70423251
>>nu-male from NI
Pretty sure that's a Scottish accent, Padraig.
>>70426326
Limmy has a Glaswegian accent, I'm pretty sure.
>>70422196
They're onto us pol!
>>70425880
/thread
>>70422196
"Naturally I started rubbing my hands in delight"
NO. FUCKING. WAY.
The reason why the iphone / starbucks thing is so important is because it illatrates the what makes capltism the best system, voluntaryism. You choose to praticape in it, and your choices have a direct impact on its outcome. If you don't like that fact that Apple outsources production to china, and large chains put local coffee brewers out of business, then don't reward that behavior with your participation. If enough people did this, then those companies would loose chunks of their profits. The only reason they are able to stay in business is because you buy their shit, and it's not shit that you need to live, it's shit that you want.
This is why no one takes you seriously, you say one thing, but refuse to back it up with action. You're not resisting capitalism if you can't wait to get your hands on the latest iphone, you are actively practicing in it.
It seems since you throw the word Libertarian around like you know what it means, you would have an understanding of voluntaryism. But you're an idiot who think's it's compatible with socialism so.....
>>70429314
HE LITERALLY FUCKING SAID THIS. THE JEWS PULLING STRINGS WAS MEANT TO BE A MEME
>>70423037
>/pol/'s understanding of pthe political spectrum is actually this poor
>>70429429
theres a reason its called politically INCORRECT
:^))))
>>70429084
>iPad
I refuse to believe that Chad/Stacy browse /pol/
>>70427858
>beginning to see how politics is and how political ideologies camouflage their ideas with different names
IT ONLY GETS WORSE FROM HERE MANG
>>70429429
Libertarianism advocates strongly for private property rights
Socialism advocates the opposite.
While I'm aware that libertarian socialism is a real thing, it's confusing because it has very little to do with libertarianism.
>>70429725
i should have taken the blue pill
>>70429429
A key tenant of libertarianism is individual rights for yourself and your property. Socialism is a collectivist ideology that believes all poetry should be shared, they are polar opposite ideas.
>>70422196
>Government taxes companies
>gives a small proportion of it back in grants, which are then used to develop technology
See, you should be thanking the benevolent government!
LSR also took a 6 month holiday from YouTube to take drugs, check his update video from a month ago
>>70428062
The Apple iphone is undoubtedly the result of capitalist product innovation. Whilst the initial technological research into SMART phones and the internet may have been undertaken by government initiatives, the constant and rapid innovation is directly the result of the capitalist system.
Secondly, he is hugely hypocritical with his rants. He refers to an anti-capitalist comment that calls for CIS white men to be massacred against a wall as "admittedly a bit hyperbolic". Would he refer to a statement by a far-right organisation to put Jews in a concentration camp "a bit hyperbolic", but then ask why it is they feel that way? Of course not. He has one standard for the behaviour of capitalists/right-wing people and another for communists/left wing people.
Furthermore, you cannot suggest that you absolutely need to use the outcomes of the capitalist system to survive. Do people who oppose animal cruelty have to buy meat to survive as they live in a society that allows the eating of dead animals? The Occupy London protestors could have used other drinks but specifically chose to drink at Starbucks as they like the efficient service, like the taste of its coffee and probably regularly use Starbucks when they aren't protesting.
He also says that capitalists have always required a state to protect their economic interests but it is this state that also ensures the safety of everybody else.
The rest of the video is just about whether Capitalism != Corporatism.
>>70428198
That little sounds like a fucking tumblr gender.
>>70429910
>all property
nuh uh! Only a certain special type of property called "private property", which changes definition depending on how rich you are.
>>70430147
I'm talking about the ideology's, not their various forms and implementations.
It's collectivism vs individualism, they simply aren't compatible.
>>70429801
>>70429910
What this guy is in simpler terms is an "Anarcho-socialist." That means the MEANS OF PRODUCTION (not p. property) are owned and controlled by the workers, but (since liberty is the founding principle), participation is voluntary. There is no state to enforce this, so it comes about communally. Failure to participate would probably just result in starvation or homelessness but, since this stuff is only being enforced on a communal level, this could vary.
Personally I think it's an unsustainable system but its important to know that libertarian is a HUGE umbrella
>wow this man made a video that people don't like
>WHY IS EVERYONE DISLIKE STUPID FUCKING FANBOYS PLEASE LET ME SUCK YOUR DICK LSR
>>70423037
Buddhism, DUDE WEED LMAOers and shit if I recall correctly is the very bottom left of the political compass.
>>70430583
Define means of production and show that it isn't a subset of pirvate property.
>>70429801
>While I'm aware that libertarian socialism is a real thing, it's confusing because it has very little to do with libertarianism.
He mentions in another video that it's a term that he has stolen.
>>70422196
>You just won the internet
And that's how you know when you've spotted the redditor.
>>70428706
Nah, it's definitely Irish. I don't detect one bit of proper Doric in his speech. But it is hard to tell since he is an autist with a lisp though. I da ken?
They're both faggots, especially Paul for dismissing all the negatives of capitalism as corporatism.
Tbh he did kinda BTFO of him
>>70430774
I mean, it literally cannot be private property in any legitimate sense without a government to enforce it. It can function in the same way as private property (and I would argue that it inevitably would under anarchy) but it remains technically ownerless. Ownership is a political construct anyway so it cannot come into being in an Anarchist society.
Means of production is defined by its name.
>>70430961
You can never create a system without sacrifice retard. Capitalism is always going to have downsides.
>>70431076
t. LSR
>>70431076
PJWs video is filled with retarded, fallacious arguments, but LSRs response may have been even worse.
Leave Peejaydubs alone acne man
>>70422196
>Libertarian socialist
>Anarchist
Excuse me?
>>70431229
Those downsides aren't corporatism. Corporatism is an entirely different system.
>>70422196
You forgot to turn on your VPN
>>70423037
I posted a question about that and got this from these Liberal faggots.
>What are you talking about? Anarchists have always HATED capitalism. Capitalism is a system of domination by one class over another through state supported violence. A libertarian was a non-statist socialist until american businessmen stole the term to express their anti-communism in the 1950s. And now they're trying to steal the term anarchist even though the guy who coined "anarcho"-capitalism admitted that it didn't make sense for a pro-capitalist to call oneself an anarchist since all anarchists were against capitalism for one reason or another
>you have the gall to call someone stupid? (Also, free market capitalist "libertarians" stole the term from libertarian socialists, so actually it's your side making a mockery of libertarianism.)
>You should be killed.
>So you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. 'Libertarian', and 'anarchism' were originally left wing anticapitalist terms. They still mean that, everywhere except america, where the term 'libertarian' was adopted by the more radical arm of Grand old Party.
>Oh boy this comment is hilarious. but not for the reason you wanted.
Guess they are right. Non-aggression principle goes hand-in-hand with a government that strips you of all possessions by force. Guess that's how it works.
>>70425231
This. He presents his arguments very well and points out the contradicting, condescending and false arguments from PJW.
It's sad how ignorant /pol/ has become. So far every argument I've seen against this guy is >muh acne >lol ur ugly. Has /pol/ really sunk so low that when challenged you instinctively resort to ad hominems and do nothing to refute the actual arguments? Fucking pathetic.
>>70428706
Nice false-flag, Pat.
>>70426116
he sounds in no way Hiberno, lrn2accent
>>70424838
I stand with Achmed on this one
>>70432147
His arguments are very poor.
The government did not develop the iPhone like he claims. The iPhone was developed by Apple because they're trying to sell shit.
Most of the things he said can be dismissed by saying ''not an argument''. I'd love to see the guy talk to Stefan Molyneux who is a libertarian who actually knows what he's talking about.
>>70422196
fuck you and this zit faced English twit
>>70425231
Can't wait for him to redpill pol on the Not One Argue-dollar
>>70431867
A socialist would argue that the defence of property is the initiation of force, rather than a reaction to aggression, I guess.
>>70432337
Sorry.
>>70422196
>smartphone=iPhone
Also, this guy dares call himself libertarian
I WANT OFF THIS RIDE.
>>70432709
appears this kid is also a cuck.
>>70422196
They both make shit points.
Especially socialism kid.
>Capitalist countries do well
>"YES BUT THERE ARE THESE BAD BEHIND THE SCENES SOCIAL ISSUES THAT WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE THEM HAPPEN"
That has nothing to do with an economic system and these social issues happen more often under socialist systems.
>Talks about how "Capitalism" doesn't exist/work in the real world
>Is a socialist
The real world is closer to making capitalism work than it is socialism. Guy's living in a dream.
>>70431867
I thought people who held early Libertarian ideas were classical liberals, but that term has come to mean something completely different, corrupted by marxists. So Now they use the term Libertarian. The root word is still Liberty, not collectivism like Social or Community for Communism and Socialism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X89Y1kAjoqA
>Feminist.
>>70423506
It is funny because the opposite is actually true and also happened relatively recently. Libertarian was always generally been associated with leftist idea and anarchism as radical or extreme left wing idea. It was retarded Austrian free market and anarcho capitalist style shit that has co-opted these terms to stylise them as right wing.
The actual difference more goes along with hardcore individualism to extent psychopathy, not giving a single fuck about anyone else but yourself and the ideas that actual value a society, maybe even a nation.
>>70422196
none of these faggots understand reality, and what works, which is probably a middle point among all these extremist view points they will keep idealizing about
is china communist? is china capitalist? deng xiapoing said it best, what works is pragmatism. china is a good example of both, usa is a good example of both free market and regulations
the reason these fags cant understand is because they only think in absolute ideas, for absolute applications.
>>70433769
besides, what ultimately works is the level of efficient, highly complex cooperation that can exist from every elemtn of society. be it in a ["socialist" framework, or a "capitalist" framework. it is the private and public cooperation that bring about development, and any of these ''frameworks'' could work ebtter than the other, but that is the end game, and what these ideologies should be geared to, not the vapid shit people argue about
>>70422196
I hate this wee edgy, anarchist shite. Makes me even more ashamed to be Scottish than I thought I ever could be.
>>70423037
Perhaps
- If you care for people the way Socialism in Churches does
- If you value Social Security and Medicare for the Elderly (Not sure the name in UK)
- If you defend Pension and Retirement Plan and want to figure out a way to seal the borders and tamp down on Anti-Trust, Globalism, Corruption, Fraud, Power of Lobbying, and Unlimited power of Wealth... shipping jobs out destroys future consumption and vigor in the Economy
- If you see Corporate Powers as putting more people on welfare, and destroying Good Full Time Jobs in all States and local Economies
ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS POO IN THE FUCKING LOO
>>70433627
Liberty and collectivism are not opposing terms.
Capitalism is collectivist in the form of a vertical hierarchical social grouping.
Liberals today generally refers to social liberalism which came out of classical liberalism because classical liberalism failed to bring liberty to everyone. Some peoples freedoms actually diminished as other grew in classical liberalism.
>>70422196
>stupid anarchy meme flag backround
stoped there
>>70434080
>Socialism in Churches
was all voluntary charity, not state sponsored theft
>>70434294
>Capitalism is collectivist in the form of a vertical hierarchical social grouping.
:^)
>socialism
>anarchism
Its like people got assblasted in their intro to economics class in high school and decided everybody should be entitled to 1/3 of everything everybody else owns because working is too hard and life shouldn't be unfair and "muh feelings".
Fucking faggots. If you haven't grown out of socialism and anarchism by the time you're out of high school you're a fucking failure. No matter how many times your favorite punk rock band tells you that we should all be equal and forced to share, that doesn't mean they are right simply for having a moral high ground. Your feelings and favorite musicians are not economic experts, and in fact are probably capitalists.
>>70433651
What a cockhead.
>>70432147
Half his video is an epic strawman. If you realize that PJW's point is:
socialism < corproratism < capitalism
then the video literally becomes 12 minutes shorter, since all of the rest is him accusing PJW of flip-flopping, when he's clearly not.
He's also a male feminist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay0qthsZZMg
Thanks for making my country look even worse faggot.
>>70434497
Look up collectivism.
You can be a very hardcore individualist and reject any social grouping and think all that matters is yourself and you only engage with other people as a means to exchange things you want with little regard for the person you are exchanging with or anyone else as long as you get what you want.
You cannot say that is capitalism though as businesses are groups. Apple is not an individual it is a collection of people that are aligned to the Apple group.
>>70422196
>i want everyone to be free
>yet also compelled to pay for my education and healthcare
the absolute shit tier of ideologies
>>70435266
>>70422196
>libertarian-socialist
something like anarcho-totalitarian?
>>70423037
>How is libertarian socialism even a thing? It's an oxymoron like anarcho-socialism, how are they this retarded?
They believe that property is oppressive/"theft" so obviously common ownership with some sort of socialized control is necessary to free people from it.
>>70436029
>control
there you go
that's why it's not full freedom and not libertarian
>>70422196
He says that the iphone isn't a product of capitalism because it received some government funding for the development of some of it's technology. But how is that a point for socialism if a capitalistic government provides funding for cool things? Total fucking faggot douche
>>70422196
Oh my god I cant believe iwatched 7 minutes of that spitty oil face.
>Well your wrong because you said corporatetism is bad, and free market is good, but HAHA then you say we have a corporatetism.
Well fuck its almost like it isnt all encompassing, and we're on a slow death march toward it.
>Ugly people are still stupid
>>70435354
Now look a bit harder. That is simply mentioning Stalins political policy which was called collectivism. Stalin didn't invent the term collectivism.
Collectivism is more broadly the opposite of individualism. Collectivism focusing on social groups, individualism focusing on the individual and there is not one specific ideology for either one, there are many.
In terms of broad philosophical thought what do you think the opposite of individualist ideas is since you are using collectivism to refer to a specific political policy?
>>70436178
Classic leftist tactic #1
Constantly replace definitions to make discussion of ideas impossible.
Please tell me more about how racism is racism + power
>>70436161
He didn't say it was a point for socialism or that it was socialism. He was highlighting the inconsistency in Pauls argument. Paul tried to say corporatism was a bad thing and it being the state intervention in capitalism, capitalism being free exchange. Yet he tried to say the iPhone was an example of capitalism despite so much of it being state intervention and therefore corporatism.
Although the worst mistake Paul made was at the end when he said Capitalism is great because it has a social safety net to help poor people, a welfare state right after he attacked the socialist welfare state.
>>70422196
>anarchist commentaries
>>70436714
Classical rightist tactic #1
Ignore the argument
There are many dictionaries that mention both definitions.
>>70437237
>implying you made an argument
I looked up the definition as you asked and you replied by giving me a different definition so weak that it includes nearly everything.
Which will then reduce the whole thing into a semantics argument as always does when you try and talk to the left.
Why are all leftists ugly?
Jesus christ this dude needs to put on some makeup or something.
>>70437797
http://therightstuff.biz/2014/12/31/liberalism-and-low-self-esteem/
>>70428062
his arguments are highly semantic, its not something you need to refute for others, just watch the video, if you can't see what he's doing, there's no hope for you.
It's just another faggot trying to replicate a thunderfoot with bright pastels and ermagerds.
Take his first argument that he makes, without Govt, i.e. Darpa, the smartphone wouldn't exist therefore Capitalism = rekt. That doesn't even make sense even if we accept that Darpa somehow represents the government as a whole, let alone believing the government could create profit like the private sector. He's comparing two things that are incomparable.
Paul Joseph Watwho?
>>70437456
I didn't ask you to look up definitions. I said look up collectivism.
How does what I said include nearly everything? There is even a distinction between vertical and horizontal social groups. That is why I said capitalism is vertical.
>>70436812
You choose wisely, watched until 2 minutes in, couldn't stand his repulsive cuckold talking points and shut it off
>>70438615
You're defining two people working together as collectivism m8.
>>70430096
>The Apple iphone is undoubtedly the result of capitalist product innovation. Whilst the initial technological research into SMART phones and the internet may have been undertaken by government initiatives, the constant and rapid innovation is directly the result of the capitalist system.
Except the actual innovation as in the actual technology that makes the thing what it is was all created by the state or funded by the state.
All Apple did was put a nice bow on it. This is why all the patent action you see is not over actual technology but rounded corners.
>>70439096
No, as it depends how they are working together which I already highlighted.
>>70439130
You're assuming they wouldn't have gotten the funding elsewhere.
If they got the funding from a private group they would have developed the iphone for a fraction of what the state forced taxpayers to pay for it.
>>70439338
Yes, you believe that two people mutually taking advantage of each other as business partners is collectivism.
You probably believe this because you think everything is a zero-sum game because you are young.
>>70439421
No, the actual technology wasn't even made by apple it was made by science and defense departments
oh god not that faggot
>>70439576
Except I already stated that as the individualist view...
>>70422196
>The government created the I-phone guys I swear!
>Even if they didn't you'd have no choice but to buy that I-phone! Its forced upon you!
Stopped watching there. This guy seems pretty dumb.
>>70422196
>government money is related to production of iphone
>therefore iphone can not possibly exist without government money
This guy knows his fallacies.
>>70439670
What "science and defence" departments do research and development themselves?
They give out grants to private companies. If they grants weren't given out by the government, some investment group would give them less money and still end up with the same product at the end.
>>70439786
>You cannot say that is capitalism though as businesses are groups. Apple is not an individual it is a collection of people that are aligned to the Apple group.
>>70423037
they believe people will magically voluntarily exchange services for free and that the socialist state will whither away
>>70422196
Jesus the fuck has bad teeth
>>70440082
>What "science and defence" departments do research and development themselves?
DARPA is private?
>some investment group would give them less money and still end up with the same product at the end.
Based on what?
>You cannot say that is capitalism though as businesses are groups. Apple is not an individual it is a collection of people that are aligned to the Apple group.
Are you saying Apple it self is an individual that can negotiate a decision with another individual?
Just watched his feminism video and wasted 15 minutes of my life waiting for him to get to the bit where he backs up his retarded claims, but it never came. He just insulted the Amazing Atheist a couple of times, said most feminists are nice people (kek) and spent ages talking about a strawman called "gender equalism" that has never helped women, only feminism has (so third-wave feminists are given credit for things like suffrage).
This guy really likes to point out what he believes to be logical fallacies while never actually backing up anything he himself is saying.
>Libertarian
>Socialist
>>70440581
>DARPA is private?
DARPA give out grants to private companies.
>Based on what?
The fact that investment groups constantly invest in new things because they see a profit in it down the line.
>Are you saying Apple it self is an individual that can negotiate a decision with another individual?
Apple is a set of property in one form or another owned by a group of people who are each taking advantage of the others to maximise their profits.
They are individuals working in their own best interest, the fact that they are working together is an emergent phenomenon.
Again, you're assuming that everything is a zero-sum game. You're being very short sighted and assume that because I want to maximise my own profit I want to diminish yours.
Stealing all of someone's product and making them go out of business might seem great in the short term but it's bad in the long term since I'll end up with no more product to sell. Is this collectivist?
If I only have half the money required to start a business and I take advantage of another person by getting them to invest in a business with me so that I can actually make a profit to begin with, am I being collectivist?
Use your brain.
>>70422196
they're both idiots
>>70422196
This was also the guy that hated Onision for telling a depressed person "you can solve this problem yourself". He said "Fuck you Onision you are making her feel more guilty. He is against self determination
He also said anyone who wasn't 6 feet, a male, and had blond hair blue eyed was considered subhuman in Nazi Germany.
>>70422396
You're disgusting
>>70423251
You disgust me.
>>70423037
You're stupid.
>>70441542
>DARPA give out grants to private companies.
That maybe so but not in this instance.
>The fact that investment groups constantly invest in new things because they see a profit in it down the line.
That is no argument as to it being better but it leads to the question of why didn't they do it? Why did the government beat them to it?
>They are individuals working in their own best interest, the fact that they are working together is an emergent phenomenon.
Except they agree to the rules of the apple group. An individual cannot join apple and negotiate there entirely own set of individual rules. There is a collective apple ruleset that all working there agree too.
>You're being very short sighted and assume that because I want to maximise my own profit I want to diminish yours.
Then you are not maximising your own profits. You are making an exception. To maximise profits except where it may harm others.
You are mistaking me presenting the hardcore individualists argument as to an argue that is what we have. We don't.
>>70423037
>It's an oxymoron like anarcho-socialism
Are you fucking retarded? The most extensive real-world application of anarchism that has existed in history was anarcho-socialism (Spanish Revolution).
>>70443681
>Then you are not maximising your own profits
Again, you assume zero sum games here.
In almost all circumstances the solution that maximises your profits also maximises the other persons.
I told you, use your brain, don't just repeat Marxist mantra.
Can you tell me a situation where a company will maximise it's profits and not benefit the other party?
One that isn't completely short sighted.
>Except they agree to the rules of the apple group. An individual cannot join apple and negotiate there entirely own set of individual rules. There is a collective apple ruleset that all working there agree too.
Yes, you cannot change your rules in the middle of a contract. It's collectivist of me to write a contract now?
>>70444325
>In almost all circumstances the solution that maximises your profits also maximises the other persons.
To maximise is to lower your costs as much as you can which means you want to lower the price you pay for the things you need to make what ever you are selling. That by extension means you are trying to lower the price of the people you are buying from and therefore lower their profits.
That is the essence of buy low sell high. It is not buy high sell high to ensure everyone is getting the best possible price and maximizing their profits.
I never said it wasn't shortsighted though. Maximising profits is, especially if looked at very individualistic. Businesses depend on people buying their products but if all business owners pay their employees very little to maximise their profits then no one has any money to buy the products all businesses are selling. Obviously the economy gets fucked.
>It's collectivist of me to write a contract now?
Can anything be on an employee contract at apple or do you think there will be a contract with some standardised apple rules for all employees that all must except to work at apple?
