@@priyankalives happy to hear that!

@@vishwaprasadg best of luck with your KZbin channel!

@@silverwildeproductions1085 Your comment is thought provoking. I don’t know. What do you think?

I think that mankind has a mortal component that is animal in nature. By the laws of nature, man must eat, and so he does. At the cost of life, he kills and he eats. He, like the animals around him, does not care about the suffering and loss of life of the prey. Justly so, I think. Survival is important to every animal and each animal will use its capacity to ensure safety and increase its life to the fullest effect. That is the natural man. He admires Rome for conquering. He evokes the lion for dominating with deadly force. He sees the forces of nature as breathtaking because they can, without expending the smallest proportion of their capacity, wipe out entire cities. Greater than the natural or animal man, is the spiritual man. The spiritual man sees value in the life of people, regardless of what those people can offer him. His ability to look beyond the physical, monetary wealth supplied by people means that he can sympathize, empathize, or, at least measure the value of people beyond the desire to garner goods or services from them. Because a man can measure the value of life beyond monetary value, he can see the loss of life as an irreplaceable value. It is once upon the Earth, then it is gone to those places beyond our ability to understand. Life is not just the impulses that fire the atrioventricular and sinoatrial nodes. It isn't just the force that animates us. It is the time that we live. It is the actions that we take on a daily basis. It is the experience that we have within a timeframe. Each person has only so much of that time and experience. Life and its value belongs exclusively to each person who holds that particular gift within his physical being. It is a deeply personal resource. For that reason, we cannot sacrifice someone else's resource. Sacrificing the resources of others is called murder, theft, slavery, coercion. Sacrificing of ourselves is rightly spoken of in the Bible, when it says "No greater love hath any man than that he lay down his life for his friends." That is the greatest kindness we can offer...But to take life, well, that is unthinkable. So, too, ought to be the thought of taking that which a person traded his valuable time (the metric of mortal existence) in order to purchase, cultivate, or gain. So, in my example, I speak of a "kind" society. Kindness can only really involve sacrifices of our own resources. Once we sacrifice our neighbors resources, we steal, enslave, or murder. For this reason, we cannot let even the most well-meaning saboteurs take that which is not theirs. To do so is to be in league with those who steal, enslave, and murder, albeit unwittingly. We are not exempt from the outcomes of our actions or inactions simply because we wished to do well. Nor do we make a kind society whose end is to make comfortable those who deprive in the name of demanding "kindness" at the business end of an armed government. Kindness is, and always will be, doing that which sacrifices one's own resources in order to assist those who do not possess the same. In my example, I think that even the well meaning ought to be removed from that society unless they do that which they are able to do for themselves, or individuals decide of their own accord to offer help. Kindness must never be an invitation to feast on the kind-hearted. When it does, kindness pays the price to conquerors and animals who do not know sacrifice, but thrive on predation.

Wage slavery is not inevitable because you can start a business. The others can probably be disputed too

@@thecurrentmoment False. A business requires capital, licensing, and a market share, all of which are restricted under capitalism (not to be confused for laissez-faire). While anyone with these things can start a business, these are made artificially scarce by the institutional arrangements of capitalism, which produce monopolistic competition at best and full-on monopoly at worst. This artificially keeps self-employment from being a realizable goal for the majority of people, thereby providing wage slaves for the oligarchs. This has psychological ramifications.

@@willschnack not true - you can offer to do cleaning, gardening or help with something in exchange for money. Yes, to expand a business to be a big business you will need capital, hire some employees, licenses, branding, marketing, a website, all that stuff. But the essence of business is simply an exchange of value, and outside of being employed by somebody else obviously. What do you see as the limits to capital? It does depend which country you are in, some countries are easier to start a business in or obtain capital, and others more difficult. Money is in abundant supply - many western nations dramatically increased their supply of money during covid (which led to inflation and the money being worth less, but still). There are many ways to obtain capital - you can take out a loan, you can find someone to invest in your company. Why do you say market share is restricted under capitalism? What is restricting it? As far as I'm aware, you can sell to as many people as you want, if you can inspire them to want to buy it. Heck, some people have multiple phones, tvs, cloths, etc all from different brands, so the same customer is providing market share for more than one company! I've sold things to people who have also bought things from my competition. It's surprising how willing people are to give their money away for something they want, even if they don't need it. As for money, there may be a certain amount of actual physical money floating around the economy, but the amount of money available is effectively unlimited because the same $20 note can become $20 for multiple people, even in the same day. The faster it moves around, the more money everybody has. If I spend.my $20 note to buy food from a street vendor, and they spend the $20 to buy ingredients from a farmer, and the farmer spends it on a gift, and that person spends it on something else, etc, etc, then if 4 people earn it that is $80 of money in the economy, not just $20. Even though it is a $20 note. The proble.of course is that the money doesn't usually go around in a circle like that, it spreads out and flows towards the people who have the most successful businesses and people who save and invest it. There's usually very little preventing you from doing that for yourself, just a lot of work (again, it depends on your country)

@@willschnack I gave you too much of a response. I said wage slavery is not inevitable because you can start a business. You just agreed with me that you can start a business. But you said there are certain barriers, which is not the same thing as can't. Wage slavery is not inevitable, sorry

@@thecurrentmoment The market cannot afford wages for everyone to become a gardener, cleaner, etc. The market, if laissez-faire, allocates wages such that as few people as are necessary to supply the good are motivated to do it, and no more. It does not afford a surplus of gardeners and cleaners. And that is a good thing. Thus, while anyone can offer such services, these services are not able to pay the bills, except for in a small number of instances. Meanwhile, these are gig jobs for most, who in trying bring down the wages of those who are making it a full time effort. In most cases, the market is not laissez-faire, but regulated. In these markets, monopolistic forces take the form of landlords, creditors, and employers. All of these capitalists (monopolists, oligopolists, monopolistic competitors) receive unearned income, a form of surplus value, such as rent, interest, and profit. This comes from out of the wages of their tenants, debtors, and employees, as well as customers. It is enabled by government regulations and privileges, such as laws protecting the property of the monopolists, laws that afford the monopolist licensing, subsidies, tax breaks, etc. all of which serve to curb competition and support the capitalist. You say to scale up a business one needs employees, but an economy with employees cannot be an economy of self-employed people, which is the opposite, and which I, as a mutualist, support. Government upholds banking privileges that promote seigniorage, usury, inflation, deflation, stagflation, etc. This results in biased and partial allocation of money, whether to business magnates or welfare bums, to the detriment if free business activity. This in turns means that land and capital is allocated only to the privileged few, the capitalists and the mediocre. Everyone else has to save up wages from which the capitalists' rents, interest, and profit are regularly taken, supplying enough only to maintain a basic standard of living as a tenant-debtor-employee. This is reinforced by price bracketing, which serves the tenant-debtor-employee lower class, the self-sufficient middle class, and the landlord-debtor-employer upper class of state-enabled parasites. Again, every landlord correlates to at least one tenant, an unfree person. Each creditor likewise to at least one debtor, and employer to employees. Tenancy is the absence of ownership, as is debtorship and employeeship. These are forms of slavery built into the unfree, monopolistic market that is capitalism.

Awesome!

You’re welcome 😃