HopFlop

Love that you had to insert a remark on capitalism even though this has nothing to do with that

Its not that simple because more than the land, the religion is the problem. Neighbouring countries have an issue with that, which goes far beyond a claim of land. Its less of an "We want that land so we can live there" and more of an "We want those jewish people out of here".

Israel even offered them land (as part of the two-state-solution which the Hammas stopped in the end) but that is not what they want.

Why do you think neighbouring countries, who themselves own land that was originally part of Palestine would attack Israel to claim land for.... what really? For Palestine? A country that doesnt even exist anymore?

The thing is, the land itself is not the issue, there is enough land there. Rather, both parties have vastly different political ideals (and religions) and the people from neighbouring countries heavily disagree with Isreals politics.

After WW2, Great Britain gave most of the land to the surrounding countries (as far as I understand) but reserved some land for what is now known as Israel for Jews to be able to form a state. However, this did not sit well with the overwhelmingly muslim countries around it.

Good to know: Whether Palestine is a country depends on who you ask. Most countries in North America, Central/Western Europe and Oceania (Australia etc.) DONT consider Palestina a country while countries in South America, Africa and Asia overwhelmingly DO recognize it as a country (there are exceptions).

Thats irrelevant because darkness ≠ night. Night and day are both defined based on local observations (between sunset and sunrise).

:D

Well, subtitles are usually really fast. For most other things that you dont have to read live, reading a bit slower is not really an issue.

You mean the $5, right? Nobody was paying $20.

Yeah my bad, I meant the 5$.

Are you making a descriptive claim or a normative one? Work is commodified, that's a fact of a capitalist society. Are you saying it should be commodified or that it is?

I am saying that I think that you should be able to sell the results of your work or, if you so please, your work itself. Im not saying that it should be commodified automatically but rather that you should have the option to do so (eg. by applying to work for someone else). I have no issue with people selling their workforce on the market because they choose to do so.

Again, you seem to just be making descriptive claims about how society is currently structured, and then using that to imply normative truths simply on the basis that this is how it is right now.

Not this time. I basically say that the following should be the case because it's the most fair:

• If any goods are traded (with full consent and on truthful terms), both parties should have to completely waive their claims on that product and any future claims should not be allowed
• Regretting an exchange of goods after the fact should not give anyone the right to anything

You can't sell me a machine and then claim it's "theft/exploitation" if I make a ton of money with it later down the line because "possibly making a ton of money with it in the future" was part of the agreement of you selling it to me. You knew the possibility existed and if you didn't want that, you should not have sold it to me.

Just invent a physical package manager where you get all your software packages in the mail every week :D

Maybe not if they did bad things :D

I don't think you would be able to tell the difference between people your age and people that are significantly younger.

Risk isn't value.

I disagree: Having something for sure is better than having something with a risk. You also mention that risk is bad. Thus, taking on risk should be compensated for by a higher value.

If you buy a loaf of bread for $5 and turn it into $20 of value with zero effort, other participants in the market would do the same thing.

They still would need the 20$ upfront to be able to buy it in the first place. If I provided the money necessary to buy the bread and another person provided their time necessary to cut it, shouldn't we both get rewarded?

I think of work itself like a product: I can offer my "workforce" on the market and someone can buy that workforce. If an employer uses my workforce suboptimally so that I dont generate much value, I dont care, they still owe me the amount that my workforce was worth. And if they combine the workforce's of multiple people and generate more value, I dont think they should owe me more because the value of my workforce has not inherently changed. They just put it to better use.

About the automation thing: If I buy any product (in this case: automatic machine) and both me and the seller agree on a price and exchange the goods, then I concider any future claims on the fruits of that product as unethical and illegitimate. The surplus value that I potentially generate would not be stolen, it would, in my opinion, be explicitely given to me as part of the transaction.

Then a human life would be worth less than a million dollars...

Those are very good points and I would agree with everything except for the statement that capitalists are stealing "surplus" value from workers.

Because workers are not (and should not be) paid for the value that the finished product adds to the market if they do not take the risk for it. Otherwise you would have to accept that if the product a worker was told to produce doesn't sell, he shouldn't be paid for it (since he produced nothing of value).

Picture this: Imagine I could buy a whole loaf of bread for 5$. I could slice it up into 20 pieces and sell each slice for 1$. If I did that, the 15$ total revenue would be rightly mine, correct? Now if we assume that the work of cutting it up and selling it was next to zero, i basically wouldn't have worked at all and still made 15$, so you're saying the 15$ would have to be stolen surplus value. But stolen from who? The baker who made the original loaf? But his laofs are just 5$ in value...

Now, if I had to work hours to sell the individual slices, we can agree that I have added value by working and thus I earned the money. But if I didnt have to invest any time (eg. if I could automate the process), should I still be entitled to that money? In my opinion, YES. What do you think?