cab21

so say many companny's all buy from the same automation company. instead of the 12$ a unit, one decides on 11$ a unit and all the profit is the same. if this goes down to say 10$ a unit and the profit is reduced, that would be like it going down to 11$ before. now the price for consumers is cheaper , and the workers do their retraining to get better jobs or start their own business. this is assuming that one company won't have a competitive advantage in it's patented automation. a consumer wants the goods for the best price, and if companys need to take a lower profit margin to compete, they can consider that in when going into competition, vs the oppurtunity cost of other business. workers as union power mongers looking to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else seems like a fair explanation.

a decrease in marginal costs increases economic profit. so say fixed cost is 1000 then marginal cost is 5$ a unit 1000 units would be a cost of 6000 if automation reduced the marginal cost to 4$ a unit 1000 units would costs 5000$ if in both cases the unit sells for 12$ the 5$ toal cost gives 7000$ profit while the 6$ total cost gives 6000$ profit

I wonder why there are some that oppose automation because it kills manual labor jobs? which theory supports this? i though even a communist post scarcity theory economy relied on automation to remove humans from manual labor where possible. what is the thought that gives incentive to saving manual labor jobs that could otherwise be automated to free humans for better activities? with capitalism fully supporting automation when possible to increase profits, I know the conflict is coming from the capitalism side, but why should it come from a communist/socialist side either?

I recently was looking at a workshop on consent, and part of the workshop was that there would be "trigger warnings" where the content subject matter was announced and people could leave the room if they thought they would have emotional problems with the content. I am wondering from a philosophy point of view, what are the effects of just avoiding the content instead of working through it with a professional?

so when you asked the FDR questions, did you answer these first, and he just agreed? I don't know how often it would be that a person would come up with all those on their own, the 5 kids or more part matching sound a bit more like he waits for the questioner to answer then molds his answers.

What was the conversation like with your kids to know they prefer this? Is this what you prefer? why do you think this? why do you need to put your child's needs 100% at the forefront, and why would a relationship be at odds with these needs rather than be a need for your child?

unpopular philosophies do debate each other, as exampled in anarchist/minarchists debates thanks for linking the videos ill watch your episode when it comes out ill try watched the video Rand does not call what she advocates for a ruling class. I think it's more along the lines of all are equal and government is a servant to objective law. some of it seemed like a back and forth of no limited government staying limited, vs no anarchy staying a anarchy. neither rand's nor UPB have real implementation records. if voluntary funding make it not a government, rand calls for objective law, perhaps making it so that DRO's still have objective law, but are like other services of voluntary payments. just as it would violate UPB for a DRO to subjectively have policy, subjective policy violates Rands philosophy. i'm not sure rands philosophy puts government officials under a different moral catagory, at least she makes it out like they are equal or servant, and servant in the sense of job funtion like a employee to a employer, and not that a government offical would be of a different moral category. subordinating retaliatory force to objective law is not something that i think makes a category that allows some to morally initiate force. although on the anarchy side, i don't think it makes sense to say only a institution called government could implement retaliatory force subordinated to objective law, and i think a free market of the services keeps all in the same moral catagory the methodology comparison between the two is interesting

I am wondering if there are any good articles or compare contrast charts of objectivism and universally preferable behavior? So far i think one difference I see is objectivism calling for a minarchist government while UPB calls for a free market in dispute resolution organizations. from reading objectivism writings on voluntary funded government, the articles bring up free markets in other areas of service, but seem to say that services that protect rights must be a monopoly and have a different nature than other free market services, while UPB says that all legitimate services can be free market services. I have read objectivists saying that anarchy does not defend individual rights at all, to saying that it does not defend individual rights as well as a objectivist government would. I think i have also seen objectivists say anarchy context drops and have false dichotomy's, while anarchists say the same about objectivism.

https://objectivismforintellectuals.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/why-fairness-does-not-mean-justice-some-further-argument/ I read this article where the author tries to set up definitions for fairness and justice. i'f we try and make the definitions of words objective as possible, does the article make a good point about the separation of fairness from justice into different objective definitions?

a life with the children, more than any material, if you can do it. but i would really look at the effects of children away from their mother.

in the OP i guess i fixed passion meant a sexual relationship, because i think affection and love are passion, but the op said the birth parents still had that but lacked passion. i figure a woman or man that left a relationship because of lack of passion would not "stick together" having resentments and not working them out seems like avoiding reality instead of a friendship or sticking together. i would think each parent having a full relationship with partner would be a better for the parents, and the children see some of that relationship, that would be better than having people missing something and not fullfilling needs

so you got closure best wishes with moving out and therapy. I wonder about what if would sound like for a confrontation to have had a better result? "Mother: What if we went to therapy as a family? I realize that I have damaged our relationship, and I would love to work through how I can have a better relationship with you? I want a relationship where we choose to be connected, and I think therapy will be beneficial for helping me see a pathway to improving my relationship with you, myself and your father "

why would this destroy a child's life? how much of this passion is the child experiencing being modeled? like what they are just having sex with the child present, or just PDA?

but won't they just say it would be a higher percentage if government did not spend the money?

how would a gold standard affect real estate transactions? http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm looking at a alan Greenspan article advocating a gold standard, one quote that caught my attention was the following. When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. real estate loans seem to have huge time lengths, and not the rate of return as productive and profitable endeavors. home loans are for many some of the biggest purchases people make, other from perhaps equipment in industrial industries. would it be safe to just say that with a gold standard people would be free in their banking and financing decisions to trade with one another? a gold standard seems like it could drive prices down, if the money supply is attached to real wealth, and not just speculation or a government system of forcing weights and measures and currency values.

supply and demand is how to determine contribution, just as supply and demand is how to determine price. there is no magic number of contribution for prices, capital, labor. the pay for each is determined through supply and demand.

there is no such thing as a general opportunity to earn X amount per hour. what guarantee is there that you could be paid that much at any occupation? other people might get X or more, but there is no guarentee that any one person will get X from doing any occupation.

people offer free education currently, let alone under free market capitalism what educational resources would be there for people. the people that inherit money have to be good at making money if they want to keep and grow that wealth. there is far more opportunity out there of land that is not even being used right now, you sell your labour for what you think it's worth. if there are not any offers, go out and start your own business with the ample amount of resources not being used today. part of education is how people network, do people try and gain skills and develup relationships with others, to further enhance trade. or do they just sit around feeling entitled to money for nothing. employees think they gain a advantage by working for a employer over working for themselves. there is no way to get everyone at the same bargaining power. any attempt would basically be state coercion. workers gain property through working, so anyone can become a property owner, just by working. there are ample amounts of coops out there offering coop ownership of real estate, a worker can gain capital and then join one of these easy. there is plenty of real estate not owned by anyone. absentee ownership is only a small fraction of the total real estate available for people to work on. owning property absentee does not hurt anyone or cause any injury because there is a ample amount of alternatives. people can simply go out and homestead land, buy land, coop for land, rent land, and all sorts of ways to get ownership of property without making enemies out of absentee ownership.

without government licenses, there would be no restrictions on who could become educated in engineering. supply and demand will determine which engineers get work, or become chosen authority. being able to get the education, or employment, will not mean that everyone will want to pursue such education, nor that those that do get the education will be guaranteed to be hired to use their engineering education. the doctor has employees, who he did not compel to become his employees, just like the doctor does not compel you to become a client. any authority the doctor has as a employer is given voluntarily to the doctor by the employees and customers. capitalism has private property, which allows people to choose voluntarily whose authority to embrace. if everything is public property wouldn't everyone have to embrace what the public embraces by vote, or how does that work?

how would socialism not have a "ruling class" of people with more power than other people? Is there some collective vote on engineering of bridges where expert engineers are to be outvoted by the common population so that engineers don't become the ruling class of bridge safety?

so she negotiated a contract for less points than other people negotiated for, that's not sexism, that's negotiation.

breaking a contract is initiation of aggression against others. i don't think anarchy advocates that we initiate aggression against others.

when you live in a government owned house, what can you expect?

Developers are required by law to make a certain percent of housing fit criteria, so even if they want only apply the NAP and respect property rights, the law does not let that happen. So in a way the justification for taking such government projects on is that developers are forced to, even when they disagree with the government policy. A developer can say all houses should be market rate, but is not allowed to participate in a market where all houses are market rate. so i guess its just the fundamental principles that matter, such as advocating the NAP and individual rights, that would be the acceptable answer. i guess my concern had more do with that its mandatory by government that develupers do affordable housing in order to be allowed to do market rate housing.

the ancap solution is the one i am choosing. if it's as simple as saying market rate housing only, then market rate housing only is the solution.