Ashley Olsen Spotted Sporting $39,000 Backpack By The Row

[Pat]

If I worked at a "democratic company" I would quit and find a real company. Sounds like a nightmare.

In Soviet Sweden, democratic company owns you.

Because right now, everyone owns the place they work!

[Drakken]

What about taking the surplus value of labour from many workers and then spending it on inconspicious consumption? And maybe if you could read and understand what I was writing you would see I wasn't arguing for Robin Hood robbery or theft, even by the most libartardian standards.

Because your premise starts from the assumption that such celebrities would tacitly accept being trickled-down like that, instead of voting with their feet and leaving with their surplus of money to go somewhere they are actually free to use their money as they see fit, like say the United States.

Charity is one thing, forced charity is another.

Consumption may be deemed "inconspicious consumption" to you, but to them it's just enjoying their money. And yes, people have the inherent right to be selfish, petty, and vain with their wealth as long as it doesn't trample on the liberty of others. They even have the right of hoarding or destroying that wealth for his or her enjoyment.

Because right now, everyone owns the place they work!

They can buy shares and become stakeholders, or they can create a coop.

[Ed Anger]

I spent over a thousand on a smoker/grill and it is fabulous. No swedes are invited to my cookout. Well, maybe Brain if he brings some animals to grill.

[Slargos]

"Bagge får tacka lamm". But what if there is no afterlife?

I suspect you either read it incorrectly, or not at all. 

[The Brain]

I spent over a thousand on a smoker/grill and it is fabulous. No swedes are invited to my cookout. Well, maybe Brain if he brings some animals to grill.

I'll bring some lovely animals.

[Slargos]

I spent over a thousand on a smoker/grill and it is fabulous. No swedes are invited to my cookout. Well, maybe Brain if he brings some animals to grill.

What if I promised to behave?

[Drakken]

I spent over a thousand on a smoker/grill and it is fabulous. No swedes are invited to my cookout. Well, maybe Brain if he brings some animals to grill.

We've still got some cariboos here, I can illegally poach one and bring it over.

[Ed Anger]

I spent over a thousand on a smoker/grill and it is fabulous. No swedes are invited to my cookout. Well, maybe Brain if he brings some animals to grill.

What if I promised to behave?

Okay. 

[HVC]

Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.

could be, but wouldn't be. She'd just keep it in the bank, advertising firms and croc purse factories would shut down causing more hungry people.

[Admiral Yi]

Haven't several countries tried it your way already Pat?

[Pat]

Haven't several countries tried it your way already Pat?

No?

[Pat]

"Bagge får tacka lamm". But what if there is no afterlife?

I suspect you either read it incorrectly, or not at all. 

I also read the passages before and after.

[Admiral Yi]

No?

Pre-liberalization China had its "iron rice bowl" policy.  Cuba still has its guaranteed food ration.

Or perhaps you mean on a global scale?  As long as there is still one person going hungry in Bangladesh then $39,000 rucksacks should be appropriated?

If the latter, that then begs the question of why you are still consuming at higher than a subsistence level.  Don't you have a moral obligation to divert that surplus to people with a greater need than you?

[Pat]

No?

Pre-liberalization China had its "iron rice bowl" policy.  Cuba still has its guaranteed food ration.

Or perhaps you mean on a global scale?  As long as there is still one person going hungry in Bangladesh then $39,000 rucksacks should be appropriated?

If the latter, that then begs the question of why you are still consuming at higher than a subsistence level.  Don't you have a moral obligation to divert that surplus to people with a greater need than you?

I already answered that question, no, I don't think I have. I don't think individuals have obligations to solve structural problems as individuals (edit: except through working for structural changes that might actually make a difference on the macro level). Also, if you tried giving a chance reading what I wrote maybe you'd see I'm not arguing for maoism or castroism (sorry, I know it's like 15 lines and that's 10 lines too much for this forum...).

[Slargos]