Burger flippers demanding $15/hr

None of this wall of text contradicts the fact that each of us value things differently. Value is subjective. Each person values different things differently.

 

wikipedia for a source? bwajajajajaja

 

While John Locke's arguments are often presented in a religious context his arguments are compelling nontheless and he addresses this issue.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

Several very important issues are addressed here.

First and foremost is that there is a limitation established upon what a person can own based upon how much they can actually use.

Next is the fact that no person has a right to "spoil or destroy" nature lending not just credibility to our environmental laws but actualy establishing that our environmental laws are not going nearly far enough in protecting nature from it's destruction by individuals. "Industry" is destroying the oceans and the land and we're not doing enough to prevent that destruction that violates the rights of every person.

Finally is that the "limitation of ownership" is based upon "reason" and there must be a means of determining and establishing what is and what is not reasonable. We have created that means of making a determination through the Congress that can, through debate and consensus, establish the limits of reason as well as the Supreme Court that is the ultimate arbitrator of disputes arising under the US Constitution. If the laws are properly created and enforced to limit ownership of property based upon "reason" and to protect the environment then there is "little room for quarrels or contentions about property."

So we have three things established. You cannot own more than you can reasonably use because that violates the Right of Property of others, you cannot spoil or destroy nature because that violates the Right of Property of others, and our government, under the US Constitution, is delegated with the responsibility to ensure that no individual violates the Right of Property of others.

The argument against establishing laws based upon the "natural right of property" hinge upon the fact that the current "statutory laws of property" allow for the violations of the Rights of Property of others and we should continue that violation of the Rights of Property. It's virtually identical to the (pre-13th Amendment) argument for continuing slavery in the United States where it was argued, "We should be able to keep slaves as property, violating the rights of the slave, because the statutory laws of property allow it."

That is, of course, an irrational argument. If statutory laws allow the violations of the Rights of the Person then the laws must be changed.

 

The problem arises when the "extraction" is not limited to the "surplus value" but actually takes from the fundamental cost. Logically the employee cannot work "at a loss" where it costs them more for basic necessities than what the employer pays. We don't expect an enterprise to "operate at a loss" because it is illogical and it is also illogical to expect the employee to "operate at a loss" where they don't receive enough in compensation to live on. When the employer pay less than what's required for the worker's basic "support and comfort" they're not extracting from the surplus but instead they're extracting profits from the employee that is under-compensated and forced to "operate at a loss" for the benefit of the owner.

In short it is the "theft of labor by the employer" that doesn't provide enough compensation for the "support and comfort" of the employee.

 

but there are your subjective terms again.... define "support and comfort"

How you choose to spend the money, no matter the amount, you are paid, is not up to the employer. NBA stars have gone broke. Noone is entitled to live in a 2000 sq foot house. And Sally McBurgerflipper seeing my lifestyle and arbitrarily defining it as the standard for support and comfort is false. I wouldn't be able to afford it either, if I didn't budget my wages appropriately.

 

I don't support the violation of the property of others. You appear to be the one advocating that the government use force to take the property of others, which makes me wonder how you call yourself a libertarian.

 

The employer is not stealing any of the worker's property. In fact, the employer is paying the worker.

 

The specific claim made was that objective value doesn't exist. This is incorrect.

 

slave wage is an appeal to emotion, nothing more. you seem to think me building wealth off your labor is stealing something. But you don't seem to think the risk I took as a business owner that you didn't, capital I fronted that you didn't, liabilities I assume that you don't, don't have any value.

again, it's a tradeoff, and voluntary. If you don't like that I turn your 8$ /hour labor into 20$ profit for me.... by all means, start your own business, or test out the job market and take a better paying job if it's offered.

You are only trapped in a min wage job if you allow yourself to be.

 

In any viable business, the surplus value created by the employee is, by logical extension, taken by the employer in the form of profit. The fact that the employer pays the worker under such circumstances is therefore moot.

- - - Updated - - -

That's merely a subjective evaluation.

 

You have demonstrated otherwise.

 

The worker doesn't create surplus value. He doesn't create anything. The worker simply performs tasks assigned to him by the employer. And the employer doesn't take any of the worker's property.

 

You'll have to back that one up. Whose property do I advocate violating?

 

The wage labourer/capitalist relationship is such that it is by definition exploitative. The market value of a commodity is determined by the competition between the capitals in that industry, each trying to win a larger share of the market than its rivals, each seeking to do so by improving its conditions of production and thus reducing the value of its commodities. Usually the resulting market value will be the value of the goods produced in the average conditions of production in the industry. An individual capital's products will, as a result of this competition, sell at the market value, even if the actual labour used to produce these commodities, their individual value, is more or less than the market value.

There is, moreover, a second way in which competition enters into the workings of the law of value. This arises from the fact that commodities are, as Marx stated the "product of capital".In other words, the capitalist invests his capital in the production of commodities, not for its own sake, but in order to produce surplus value.The source of surplus value is variable capital - in other words, the workers that the capitalist employs in exchange for their wages. However, as you correctly alluded to, the capitalist does not simply advance the money to pay these wages, he also has to fork out for the machinery, buildings, raw materials etc, which are necessary if the workers are actually to produce commodities.

What counts for the capitalist is not simply the return he makes on the variable capital, but rather that on his total investment, variable capital plus the constant capital tied up in the means of production. Recognition of this fact allows us to distinguish between the rate of surplus value and the rate of profit. The rate of surplus value is simply the ratio of surplus value to variable capital. It's this that measures the degree of exploitation of labour power. Ultimately, it's labour power that is the source of value.

 

I've already been through this. The wage labour/capitalist relationship is logically exploitative.

 

This is simply nonsense. Without surplus value there would be no profit and hence no worker and no employer.

 

Yes, everyone knows that an employer makes use of (i.e. exploits) workers in order to operate his business. However, the employer does not take the worker's property, so your claim that I support the violation of people's property is complete garbage.

 

He hasn't advocated anything of the kind.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you mean by property?

 

The worker merely carries out tasks assigned to him by the employer. He doesn't create anything.

If I buy a piece of wood and a bunch of nails and pay some guy $25 to hammer the nails into the wood, please explain how I have taken any of his property.

 

What do you mean by property?

- - - Updated - - -

Absolute nonsense. He creates the surplus value from which profit for the employer is derived.

 

Some thing he owns.

 

In the context of the discussion, I don't see what the relevance of property, in the sense you mean it, has.

 

Some thing he owns.

You keep saying that, but you might as well say that he creates unicorn farts. Nothing is created.

If I buy a piece of wood and a bunch of nails and pay some guy $25 to hammer the nails into the wood, show me the surplus value.

 

I said that the employer doesn't take the worker's property. In fact, quite the opposite. The employer gives the worker some of his own property as wages. You disagreed with this.

 

That's not relevant to what is being discussed.

- - - Updated - - -

Right the employer doesn't take any of the employees physical property. Thanks for clearing that up...LOL