399

Libertarian rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 1 year ago by RothyBuyak@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] SneakyThunder@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Because the other option is to starve to death.

That's pessimistic... Food can be grown...

theft includes the net profits that are not shared with the workers

How businesses would innovate without accumulating capital? What happens if they suffer a loss? What would they pay their workers?

IMO it's not theft, it's just a price you're paying for someone else to deal with risc possible losses while providing you stable income.

Not talking about reserch, marketing and realization of goods/services, that someone without capital can't do on their own.

[-] Belgdore@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

If I don’t work for the system then I starve. I’m not talking’s about a Malthusian disaster. I can’t grow food because I don’t own land.

I specifically said net profits should be given to the works. They can then invest in new ventures and become decision makers. That would maintain innovation. By only having those at the top make decisions you actually limit the things getting innovated because you only have a few minds working on it. There is nothing that would prevent a company from having a research fund like they currently do. I said net profit for a reason. The issue is money exiting via exorbitant corporate salaries and dividends and investments in unrelated things that do not benefit the workers.

When was the last time a billionaire went broke they aren’t assuming any risk. The workers who you say aren’t assuming a risk go homeless and starve when the company fails and they can’t find a job.