Private Social Media Platform

➽ I've got to say this excerpt is leaving me with so many more questions than it resolved.

⇉ Natural Law is your unalienable right to protect all of your Natural Rights from those who would attempt to encroach upon and violate those rights.  This means: If I attempt to harm you, my right to not be harmed by you is forfeit to you.

➽ I still don't know what Natural Law is, because I don't know what this author means by "Natural rights".  It seems odd to use the term "right" to mean "right to protect rights", and I don't know how I would determine if a thing is a right or not, even given their example.  Do I have the right to eat?  Do I have the right to go where I please?  Do I have the right to defend my person from the violence you use on me upon finding me on "your" property eating food from "your" tree?  Do I have the "Natural right" to retaliate the violence you cause upon my son or friend who did this?  Without some test as to what is and is not a Natural Right, I cannot use this definition of Natural Law.

⇉ Natural Law is Quid pro Quo.  Something for Something.  That Something could be a positive or a negative.

➽ Again, the same problem arises.  What is the Something and when does it work logically?  I take from you therefore you do not feel the pain of my beating you.  You give me your shiny object and I leave you alone.  You stop me from going where I wish and I attack your family.  All of these seem to fulfill the Quid pro Quo set, but I wouldn't think any are very desirable.  This test seems flawed, and another definition I cannot use.

⇉ Natural Law is YDOM (You Don't Own Me). YDOM is the initial natural state of being. YDOM is a self-evident truth. YDOM means: I don't own you; your life; your liberty, or your property. Since I don't own you, I do not have any authority over you. Lacking this authority over you, I can not delegate it (give it or sell it) to any body else. Since nobody else owns you either, Nobody else has authority over you either.

➽ YDOM is self evident, so everyone understands that they cannot own property of another.  Except that it seems people very often don't understand such.  Children must be taught that what they desire is not theirs, or they simply take it.  So property cannot be self evident.  Is liberty self evident?  I have not seen many examples that children know they can go as far as they wish from their parents, but that may be learned behavior.  This also seems at odds at times with property ownership- do you have the liberty to go onto another's property?  I would think that owning yourself and your life might be self evident, but when grouped with the others here it makes me question that.  If it is self-evident, is there anyone who disagrees (as such might be a case for why it is not self-evident)?  A communist might say you belong to a collective.  A religion might say you belong to their God.  What makes Natural Law correct here and them wrong?

⇉ Primum non nocere Latin for First, do no harm. To put this in other words, Do not initiate force, violence, or harm against others. This does not preclude you from responding to initiated force and violence with your own defensive force and violence. The logical extension of Do no harm is to use only the least amount of defensive force and violence against the aggressor as required to stop the initiated force, violence, and harm. In other circles this is referred to as NAP and ZAP. (Non Aggression Principle and Zero Aggression Principle.) NAP and ZAP does not mean Pacifism. In my opinion, Pacifism is a method of inducing self harm by not protecting one's self from external harm.

➽ I do not see how "First"  and "Do no harm" equate to "only do harm after another does harm", nor do I see how to determine from this what level of response I should have against aggression.  A guy in my house at night without my permission is a threat to my life, and I will respond as such.  Is that the "least amount of defensive force"?
I might have been able to just ask them to leave.  That might have given them a chance to attack or kill me.  How do I use this in any way as an objective measurement?

⇉ If you have, for whatever reason, initiated harm against another human, repair the harm to the victim's satisfaction. This should not be too hard to understand. Imagine if you were harmed in the same way. What would you want as compensation and repair of the harm? Offer that to the human you harmed, and if agreed to, make it happen, repair the harm you caused.

➽ "If agreed to" seems to be pulling a lot of weight here.  What if I desire compensation you think unfair?  You broke my wooden fence, therefore I desire you to build me a brick wall.  If you don't agree, then how does this "rule" work?

⇉ There are no collective human rights without individual human rights.

➽ Not even going to post the rest of that.  What is a collective right?  This is another new term that is not defined.  What collectives must I be a part of to get a "right"?  Which collectives prevent my getting a "right"?  Is the same as a "Natural Right" and denying it under these terms allows me to use violence upon you?

⇉ Natural Law Tool
⇉ I will give you one tool YOU can use to free yourself from your slavery: YDOM.  YDOM means You Don't Own Me.
⇉ It's the mindset of a free mind.
⇉ Here's how it will work:  Since you know that nobody owns you, you know that you do not need to obey the commands and demands that you know will cause you harm.  Anytime a tyrant (a government official) or criminal (I repeat myself) attempts to control you, just assume they intend to cause you harm; be it financial, physical, psychological, or emotional.  If you are a prudent person, you will have already decided and planned the best method to curtail such attempted victimization and use that method as planned.  There are those who believe they own others in spite of "YDOM!" being shouted from the rooftops. These tyrants and criminals must be resisted at every opportunity. A society of increasing YDOMists, would have the self defensive duty of educating the brainwashed, indoctrinated, inculcated dumb masses who need to awaken to rejecting and resisting their slavery.  YDOMists would know that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control, and would resist extortionists because extortionists do NOT own their victims.

➽ I can appreciate the desire to be free.  I can also see quite easily how such a "tool" can be fatal for the person using it, especially if they have not been able to determine who is a "criminal tyrant attempting to control you".  "Don't go on my property" "You don't own me!" (Gunshots ensue). Absent context, is this a property owner defending their house, or a tyrant stopping someone from entering unowned (or "collectively" owned) property?
"STOP! DONT GO IN THERE!"  "You don't own me!"  (Insert dangerous situation of your choice- electrical wires in water, fire that was contained rapidly expanding, dangerous animals attacking, delicate immunocompromised individuals dying) A dangerous tool that can be easily misused is not one I would give without warnings.


Sorry for being so late in continuing our conversation. You caused me to think. That is commendable and gets you high praise.

You have given me more than a few things to think about, and sound-bite replies don't examine the concepts for your, mine, and any silent readers (Lurkers) edification. Also, real life is making demands on my attention and time, as well as the days I have been spending on this: https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1767.0

You claim to be a "Marxist". I claim to be a "Pedantic Asshole".

The definition under pedantic does not quite fit; It comes close. I am quite pedantic in regard to Voltaire's Admonition: If you wish to communicate, define your terms. I have read discussions, (I use the word loosely), between Capitalists & Anti-capitalists. At present, I have not defined the terms Capitalists & Anti-capitalists, except that whatever Capitalists & Anti-capitalists are, they are diametrically opposed to each other... Yet both sides fail to present the details of their positions and beliefs.

You put the concept of "Marxian analysis" before me. As a result what I started as a reply to your post has turned into an essay as I research and discover points of "Marxian analysis".
Here: https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1764.0

Having read Volume One of Capital, I found Marx's logic to be "self-consistant"... Yet a Capitalist leaning person got pissed at me for presenting that factoid on his group page.

[JS, I am referring to you; I will send you a link to this essay/discussion as an FYI.]

Though Marx's logic is self-consistent, Marx failed in regard to his First Principals as compared to the environment that exists now. His First Principals started because he was observing the interactions between Capital & Labor during the rise of the industrial era.

A Christmas Carol written by Charles Dickens, published in 1843, Is in my opinion, a good starting point for painting the backdrop of the stage of that era. (In looking up dates I found Dickens' Tail of Two Cities. I do not recall ever reading the story, Yet I know the first sentence. Now I will need to read the story. [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/98/old/2city12p.pdf])

Marx's Das Kapital three volumes were published in 1867, 1885, & 1894.

Between Marx's story (his observations of the era) and Dickens' story (using the same era as a backdrop for his story), I am left with an imagined mental image of the era. I have another memory that supports this image where health workers discussed the squalid conditions that existed with open sewers and humans packed too close together in 'shelters'. This was an anti-immunization outlook claiming better living conditions helped discontinue the diseases running through the human population.

Those conditions of the beginning of the industrial age are not the conditions that presently exist. Some of the pressures still do though; Greedy, selfish MF's with no moral compass willing to screw their fellow humans. These are details I think are good discussion/discussing points.

➽ Labor creates wealth.

I mostly agree with this concept... But... The definition of wealth is assumed to be knowledge in common. So I will do a quick lookup of the Dicta-History (Dictionary is the common list of word meanings; As the meanings have become commonly agreed to).

www.wordnik.com wrote: ⇉ from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition wrote: ⇉
An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
The state of being rich; affluence.
Goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.
A great amount; a profusion.

www.wordnik.com wrote: ⇉ from The Century Dictionary wrote: ⇉
Riches; valuable material possessions; that which serves, or the aggregate of those things which serve, a useful or desired purpose, and cannot be acquired without a sacrifice of labor, capital, or time; especially, large possessions; abundance of worldly estate; affluence; opulence.

The Century Dictionary supports your contention that: ➽ Labor creates wealth.

Absent a useful or desired purpose all the dog feces in my yard has no value (or a negative value since it must be gotten rid of; disposed). So I think of wealth as things others are willing to trade value for value. Who wants dog crap.

➽ Devaluing currency encourages labor.

I can see the logic behind that claim. I don't think Marx had that thought~~
Inflation did not exist in the U.S. money system until 1913 when the Federal Reserve System fraud was perpetrated on the U.S. people.

I will return to my thoughts on this later when the focus changes to Marx's observation (and self-consistent logic) of the Capital Class screwing (Scrooging) the Labor Class and the Labor Class' failure to know their cost of living.

➽ Capitalists can use this to maintain a loyal workforce.

Yes, but...failure to know their cost of living.

[C]apital and automation both come [from] labor.

I agree.

➽ Devaluing currency is a helpful technique capitalists use to keep workers hungry.

This technique did not exist in Marx's time. I did not create the technique of the horseless carriage or its improvements over time. I do use the technique of driving the modern horseless carriage in going about my affairs of life.

Devaluing currency is technique the Banksters (sic) and politicians created so they could steal value from humans.

➽ Labor creates wealth. Capital is the accumulation of labor that can be reinvested to amplify labor. The capital itself doesn't produce wealth- labor does, and capital is the result, which in turn has an exponential effect.

This is correct and aligns with what I read in Marx's Capital.

➽ It's an important distinction because it's a reminder that the capitalist does not contribute to production, and only subtracts from it.

I must disagree on this point. The Capitalist does contribute to production. After production and production is converted into capital, then the Capitalist does subtract from that wealth that Labor created as you presented in your next sentence.
Note to self: Return to the math.

➽ Workers create wealth and the capitalist extracts, accumulates, and reinvests the wealth they create in order to accumulate even more wealth.

No contention on this claim.

➽ Workers could do this on their own, and more efficiently (without having to pay profits to capitalists who themselves do not contribute) if they were responsible for their own capital investments and retained ownership of their capital.

I am not understanding what you are claiming is being done "more efficiently"

I personally borrowed $52,000 which became my capital that I invested in purchasing a Semi-truck tractor. I brought home more money as employed Labor than I did as a Capitalist owning my tractor. I paid off the loan and was just starting to get ahead when medical issues forced me out of that industry.

Capital investments require... Capital. There is a side topic here regarding the fraud called the Federal Reserve System. And there is a second side topic about the Government Indoctrination Centers (a.k.a Public Schooling), also a.k.a. in some minds as Day Jail for youths.

➽ The capitalist system is inefficient because of the parasitic nature of the capitalist.

You are painting with a very broad brush and brush strokes. They are not all parasites. This comes back to the games government uses in defining words. A human is a person; A corporation is a person. Is the capitalist a natural human or a corporate entity? Written law often makes the distinction.

1 U.S. Code § 1
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

1 USC Code § 8
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

➽ Marxian analysis has developed a lot in the better part of two centuries.

Marxian analysis is a term I am not familiar with. A DuckDuckGo (DDG) search presented these links to me:
Did not have its linked article behind its paywall. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21598282.2023.2296167

ABSTRACT
The subject of economics, which was once famous for several views and schools of thought, has been limited to just one school neoclassical: where markets usually find equilibrium, meaning government intervention is not needed, and any such intervention could hinder the economic growth process and smooth functioning of the economy. The neoclassical theory focuses on the behaviour of individual agents, which are assumed to be economic decision-makers. There is an attempt to emphasise the importance of the Marxist approach to analysing capitalist crises logically and historically. The study of economics must stay close and keep unity between different social sciences, especially sociology, political science, and history, which classical economists had established but marginalist economists had tried to undermine. The study concludes that economics is embedded in society and politics, and the mainstream school of thought ignores this. They cannot effectively address the main economic issues of our times, which include combating rising inequality, economic and environmental crises, and biodiversity loss.

Marxian analysis does expand the focus I must examine; this focus is not the narrow focus I have had. Marxian analysis concludes that economics is embedded in society and politics; Unlike the neoclassical economic theories that ignore these other factors and consider the economy solely on the mathematics. As an admonition claims, Without math, it ain't science. I do wish to examine that math in the light of the thoughts triggered by my reading the linked article discussing Marxian analysis.

➽ to analyze power systems

"Government" is a power system. One that is provably corrupt and lies to people all the time. It is a system that has been used to create crony capitalism. The anti-Marxist position is that crony capitalism is not true capitalism... But capitalism has not been defined to my satisfaction. I do know that capitalism has something to do with Capital. I do agree with this definition: Capital - Is wealth available to make more wealth. That wealth can be an accumulation of money or currency.

Currency is not money since money has been defined as a measure and store of value. Currency, due to government school brainwashing, has been accepted as a measure and store of value. Currency shares this trait with money: Both are used as a medium of exchange, or “widely accepted as a method of payment.”

"Inflation" is not he cost of items increasing. Inflation is the value of the currency you own going down. A currency that loses value can not be a store of value. Trivia question: Why do dimes and quarters have ridged edges? (Government is not the only thief that debases metal money.)

Adam Smith's words from Wealth of Nations are by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884) case:

'the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.

I interpret that as claiming Labor is Capital; and I agree. One sells their labor for money or currency; thus converting the capital of labor into wealth that can be used to create more wealth by purchasing investment tools to create more capital by increasing your labor's value. E.g. If your employment is creating widgets by driving four nails into some wood, purchasing a pneumatic-nailer will increase the efficiency of your labor.

Saving one's labor capital that is converted to a widely accepted method of payment is hard to do when the banking system with and via government rules consistently devalues the worker's converted labor-capital (currency).

I do not accept Marx's logically self-consistent definitions of what "profit" is. What he saw during the beginning of the industrial age is what he correctly wrote about.

On page 133 Marx wrote:

We know that the value of each commodity is determined by the quantity of labour expended on and materialised in it, by the working-time necessary, under given social conditions, for its production.

On page 152 Marx wrote:

We have seen that the labourer, during one portion of the labour-process, produces only the value of his labour-power, that is, the value of his means of subsistence.

Marx was describing the actions of the Capital class taking advantage of the Labor class. I have no reason to doubt or deny what Marx observed and wrote about. Marx's math WAS correct. I find it is no longer correct. GIGO. (Garbage In, Garbage Out- A well known First Principle in the computer sciences industries.) In today's financial environment the cost of purchasing labor is not just the cost of the laborer's subsistence.

In the same paragraph Marx continues:

If the value of those necessaries represents on an average the expenditure of six hours' labour, the workman must on an average work for six hours to produce that value. If instead of working for the capitalist, he worked independently on his own account, he would, other things being equal, still be obliged to labour for the same number of hours, in order to produce the value of his labour-power, and thereby to gain the means of subsistence necessary for his conservation or continued reproduction.

"{O}ther things being equal." Minimum wage, or as I think of it, warm body pay, is $7.25 per hour -- $1,257 per month.  Two bedroom apartments near here average $1,300 per month. Skilled labor can make much more. Getting the wanted skill set requires learning. Absent the desired skill sets Marx does seem to have correctly assessed how unskilled warm body laborers were being taken advantage of. If the wage offered doesn't cover the costs of one's subsistence then one shouldn't take the job.

Labor creates wealth. Devaluing currency encourages labor. Capitalists can use this to maintain a loyal workforce.

capital and automation both come labor. Devaluing currency is a helpful technique capitalists use to keep workers hungry.

if you're saying "capital and automation create wealth," I disagree. Labor creates wealth. Capital is the accumulation of labor that can be reinvested to amplify labor. The capital itself doesn't produce wealth- labor does, and capital is the result, which in turn has an exponential effect.

It's an important distinction because it's a reminder that the capitalist does not contribute to production, and only subtracts from it. Workers create wealth and the capitalist extracts, accumulates, and reinvests the wealth they create in order to accumulate even more wealth. Workers could do this on their own, and more efficiently (without having to pay profits to capitalists who themselves do not contribute) if they were responsible for their own capital investments and retained ownership of their capital. The capitalist system is inefficient because of the parasitic nature of the capitalist.

You wrote that like a Marxist

Dale Eastman that's because I'm a Marxist.

I like your honesty. Care to explore and discuss our differing Ideologies?

I've read many failed attempts at discussion because both parties (anti-capitalists and capitalists) do NOT use words, terms, or definitions with agreement as to what those words, terms, and definitions mean. I recognize your intended information as being what Marx wrote about in his three volume essay "Capital". Full transparency: I only read volume one in its entirety, half of volume two, and skimmed Volume three.

Dale Eastman sure. Capital is one source I use, but not the only one- Marxian analysis has developed a lot in the better part of two centuries. Marx's framework of dialectical materialism is a helpful way to analyze power systems. Of course, we have to always be aware there are multiple dialectical relationships simultaneously affecting different groups with overlap (intersectionality).

The materialist aspect of Marx's approach is one that resonates a lot with me. The purpose of a system is what it does. Rather than worrying about ideological principles, we can start by looking at the real world and analyzing the material conditions people experience that affect their behavior and create conflicting relationships of exploitation.

Truth: Restaurants are informing us that servers no longer get to "cash-out " their credit card tips at the end of shift. The restaurant owner/ manager tallies the credit receipts & the tips get taxed & applied to the servers' payroll check every week/ 2 weeks. A lot of restaurants have already gone this direction. So with that being said, TIP YOUR SERVER IN CASH $ if you can . With so many people paying by credit card many servers are going home empty-handed at the end of their shift . 'Just something to think about entering this holiday season

Just in case you want to look it up.
Olk v. United States, 536 F2d 876 (1975):
"Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."

This is a suit to obtain a refund of federal income taxes. The issue is whether monies, called "tokes" in the relevant trade, received by the taxpayer, a craps dealer employed by Las Vegas casinos, constitute taxable income or gifts within the meaning of section 102(a), INT. REV. CODE of 1954. The taxpayer insists "tokes" are non-taxable gifts. If he is right, he is entitled to the refund for which this suit was brought. The trial court in a trial without a jury held that "tokes" were gifts. The Government appealed and we reverse and hold that "tokes" are taxable income.
https://www.anylaw.com/.../06-01-1976/dojYP2YBTlTomsSBoRJB

Try actually reading the case.

The[n] go find out what a "taxpayer" is.

Dale Eastman A taxpayer is a 14th Amendment citizen.
according to 26 CFR § 1.1-1(c)
If you are not also "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then you cannot be a taxpayer.

You don't know what you don't know.
Answer these questions.
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/OpenQuestionnaire.html

Dale Eastman I quote the 14th Amendment and cite a tax regulation that uses the exact same language. Then you tell me I'm ignorant.
I'm familiar with tax arguments. I have not filed a tax return in 24 years.
What part makes me ignorant?

WRONG!
26 U.S. Code § 7701 - Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(14) Taxpayer
The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor object of revenue laws.
Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)

FN3.
The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. U.S.,
470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

History
Most of the significant history of the 14th Amendment appears in the text of Original Intent's citizenship treatise. However, one historical fact is not included because it was presumed during the construction of the treatise that every American knows that the 14th Amendment was created to nullify the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404 (1856).

Oddly, while the nullification of the Dred Scott decision is universally acknowledged as the reason the 14th Amendment was thought necessary, some ill-informed and/or illogical expositors attempt to use the Dred case as their rationale to turn the true meaning of the Amendment on its head. Fortunately, the words of Chief Justice Taney (author of the Dred decision) are unmistakably clear.
http://originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

Dale Eastman So what?
Why do you assume that restaurant servers are taxpayers?

➽ Why do you assume that restaurant servers are taxpayers?

I don't. The original post points out that the restaurant owners do.

➽ What makes restaurant servers completely subject to federal jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment?

Most of the significant history of the 14th Amendment appears in the text of Original Intent's citizenship treatise. However, one historical fact is not included because it was presumed during the construction of the treatise that every American knows that the 14th Amendment was created to nullify the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404 (1856).

Oddly, while the nullification of the Dred Scott decision is universally acknowledged as the reason the 14th Amendment was thought necessary, some ill-informed and/or illogical expositors attempt to use the Dred case as their rationale to turn the true meaning of the Amendment on its head. Fortunately, the words of Chief Justice Taney (author of the Dred decision) are unmistakably clear.
http://originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php