atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#2962: Ah, another sleepless Saturday night.

Went to bed yawning at 1 AM, slept for about two hours, and then was awake until I forget when; after which I managed all of 1.5 hours of sleep before the alarm went off at 8:20.

Totally boning all the plans I'd made for today, of course: go to church, hit the hardware store for the supplies to construct a makeshift chicken coop, then go see a gunshow with Og and Partner and an undisclosed fourth.


Instead I ended up writing an e-mail to Og saying I wasn't going to make it. Then I returned to bed and slept for a few more hours. The goulash I'd planned to make was in the pot and cooking by 2:30, though, and it ought to be done about the time my guests arrive. (I'll be cooking the peppers at 5:30.)

So my next step, after blogging, is to hit the hardware store. *sigh*

* * *

Those are scimitars. They're clumsy graffiti scimitars, but that's what they are, and it means that Southwest Airlines for damn sure ought to step up their security.

* * *

Two from Vox Day:

Hermain Cain wins the Florida straw poll. "Cain is a corrupt joke as a presidential candidate, but then, so were Bob Dole and John McCain." I can't argue the point.

Look: the GOP leadership has no taste for anyone who might actually be able to lead, because like Reagan they tend to lead away from all the perks and privileges that the Ruling Class has come to enjoy. Even Reagan couldn't get actual spending cuts made, though.

There is quite simply no motivation for any of our elected officials to change the status quo. The GOP and Democrats differ only by degree--how much to regulate, how much to tax, how much to spend--not on whether or not the regulation and the taxation and the spending are actually needed. If we get a President who ran on reducing those things to sane levels, though, then the party actually has to get behind that neanderthal, and who would want to do that? It would make conversation at the parties and functions awkward.


Rick Perry has to know by now that he's stuck his foot in his mouth with his immigration position. He'll modify it.

Meanwhile Chris Christie may have changed his mind about running. He'd be a better choice than anyone else now in the field, and he's got a proven track record as a reformer. This naturally disqualifies him from holding any elected office at the federal level. (According to the ruling class, anyway.)


Abortion in England. They're withholding the sex of the fetus from the mother after a prenatal ultrasound, so she can't decide to abort based on that. You want a boy but have a girl? Have an abortion and try again!

These folks aren't upset that the abortion is happening; they're upset that the female babies are being selectively aborted.

So it's a "woman's right to choose" unless the baby is female, in which case it's wrong?, I can't make any sense out of this.

* * *

"...[K]ill 53 billionaires and seize their assets--the bulk of which they stole from their workers in the first place."

That's right! Bill Gates, for example, is well-known to hang around the bank nearest Microsoft headquarters and rob everyone that tries to cash a paycheck from his company--what? That's not what this goober meant? Well, what did he mean, then?

Oh, right, the Marxist notion that if Joe writes an operating system that you sell for $100, Joe should get that $100 and not the wage (or not just the wage) you paid him while he was writing it. By paying Joe $75,000 per year to write software for you, you're "stealing" his labor when you sell millions of copies of the resulting product for $100 each.

See, Marxism doesn't get the idea that labor is a commodity which can be bought and sold. That when you hire someone to work for you, you've essentially made a contract where you buy X hours of his labor at a certain rate, and since you're buying his labor, the fruits of his labor belong to you.

It's kind of like growing vegetables. If Jim grows corn, he has to spend many hours per week tending his crop of corn for months at a time. When it comes time to sell his harvest and Joe buys an ear of corn from Jim, Joe is not "stealing" Jim's labor. The two men come to an amiable agreement on what the price of each ear of corn should be and they then exchange goods or units of currency: Joe gives Jim a dollar, and Jim gives Joe an ear of corn.

This is exactly the same sort of exchange as the one between Bill Gates and Joe. Only the product differs. Joe is buying some of Jim's labor: the corn would not exist without Jim's careful and hard work, the same way the operating system wouldn't exist without Joe's.

If Joe takes that ear of corn and sells it for $10, where is the theft? According to Marxists, Joe has stolen from Jim because he found someone who would pay $10 for the ear of corn Jim sold him for $1.

Yeah, it's a load.

* * *

I'd better hit the hardware store now.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.