Commenter Archive

AvatarComments by JoeSal in reply to Stillwater*

On “The Democratic Debate: Houston Has Problems, Plans, and Candidates for President

I figure we are about 3 weeks from Saul yammering that Chomsky is a far right white supremacist who is real afraid. Maybe a week after Thomas Sowell.


I would propose that pretty much everyone who is going to get a ar15 has one at this point. Hell, they may have two or three. I think where we are headed isn't about concern over compliance rates. That's not necessarily the part that bothers me either.

The part that bother me is that the talk about peaceful partitioning isn't really happening. I'm usually the gloom and doom guy, but this is pretty grim stuff.

I guess on the lighter side, that if you do chart close to Stalin on the x-y axis there are plenty of leftist regimes out there looking for a few good men and women.


Meh, they still have London to deal with and the ancoms there are really, really out there. They make Chip and Jesse look like a right wing ancaps. You have to sprinkle in a little new age mysticism to get the full flavor.

One I ran across actually believed that a person could live their entire life without food. I asked why he was still eating, and he said his soul wasn't "balanced" with the universe enough.


“but you shall not infringe."
are you sure that's the status of those folks?

carry on though, full speed ahead, ha


It's weird your not using the term reactionary these days. It's like the discontinuation of centrally planned, government regulated, military secured, trade thoroughfares just magically turns into a form of socialist protectionism, and not a reactionary response to "free trade".


Next year?
In 24 hours, this whole thing will be a mystery, completely obscure.

A bovine fart in a AOC wind generator.


Meh, maybe in Australia,

As taboos fall away here I'm looking forward to the National Grenade Association, and maybe National Artillery Association becoming the irrational fear target. We'll just have to replace that dwindling population of good natured hunters with war gamers.

Imagine how busy the busy bodies will have to be.

"we need a gun free zone over there, a grenade free zone over there, and a artillery free zone over there"
"they can have grenades over here, but not guns and artillery over there"

"Ohh my gawd, they banned this thingy on grenades but allowed that thing on artillery, the world is literally going to end!!"

(and yes, I am aware I'm going to hell)

On “Chick-Fil-A: Whose Pleasure?

I wouldn't say you were Marxist to any degree, it's just that discussions of labor have been path dependent in that area for at least 60 years. The desired result I would expect is to pull labor into some form of social construct.

I would say the construct of employer-employee didn't arise in the background of scarcity, but during the rise of the social constructs of production.

The reason I say this, is before manufacturing plants and the rise of corporation type constructs, there were mostly cottage industries. These were developing to produce in varying scale and complexity. (mostly referring to the american model, and not the english model)

Production was distributed.

To create value to exchange, you are producing a product or service for others. So whether your in a employee-employer construct or in a owner operator construct, in both, you are working/adding value for a other. Parameters such as quantity of resources, robust economy, measures of scale aren't wholly affected as long as equivalent products and services are created by both models within the same efficiencies.

One thing that does change is relationships. Even in the employer/employee relationship we have seen that the movement to respect the individual sovereignty of the worker has led to less coercion. The authority to enter or exit a position being a significant one. The authority to not be forced by physical violence is another.

The moral principles are evolving out of the idea that conduct should be moral. The subjective value of individual sovereignty is bending even the most coercive social constructs to eventually adopt moral principles.

What we see though is constant backsliding. Social constructs have little motivation in conserving individual sovereignty and maybe to a higher degree looking for subjugation to the social construct. The relationship between social constructs and individual sovereignty is likely to begin in opposition.

(The issue with Marx is that the social construct of worker-government will have a similar set of problems without the adoption of any recognition of individual sovereignty. In effect there is no individual authority to enter or leave a position, and the government can and does deploy physical violence.)

I do not dispute that production has evolved on the corporation scale. That most equipment and production environments evolved to the scale of the facilities involved.

With that said, I would offer that just because production evolved this way, doesn't mean there was ever and only one path for the evolution to have taken. In fact I would say that it was a massive error in the history of man that it did evolve this way.

I think as the future unfold we will see production take on a more human scale, and this will not be by accident.

(I apologize for the lengths of these comments, and don't at all expect a lengthy or detailed response, I just needed some length in order to explain some of the ideas)

On “Thursday Throughput for 9/12/19

Was pretty sure that niche was getting filled, but had no idea what they would call it.


Back in the day if it wasn't shipped from mexico, then it was grown from the seeds from mexico, so there was a considerable consistency, the thing that varied was freshness. There was always this interesting parameter, that the closer to a river you were, the fresher stuff you could find.

That reminds me, if yall ever find yourself near a river down here, dress in a old ratty t-shirt, and not something button up and starched like enforcement would wear.

I do hear the new stuff is stronger, but my thing these days is coconut rum, and I only run through a bottle of that every six or seven months.


"it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief,"



I imagine even after all that advancement there is someone who requests:

"Yeah, that's great, do you have anything approximating (70s-80s-90s) ditch weed?"

On “The Worst Day: My Story of Poly Royal, 1990

That was a close one, for the crowd I mean. Good on ya.

On “Chick-Fil-A: Whose Pleasure?

Let me attempt to come at it from a different angle.

Where is the coercion coming from?

Above you write that the power resides in the ability to fire an employee. This requires the social construct of employer/employee. All I am saying is that the social construct has to exist for this to happen. This doesn't happen in owner/operator models, as the employer and the employee are the same person.

I guess someone could be guilty of self coercing, but that would be a different situation.

My point is, to model harm in this manner begins at a social construct. (if harm is incorrectly used here we can maybe find a better term)

On “Little Miss Don’t Disappear

When you put on your boxing gloves of truth and step in the OT ring, I see you as one of the top writers here.

You were never meant to be the carpet ride, your the sky.

On “Chick-Fil-A: Whose Pleasure?

I don't think your being cynical at all. I do think that with a limited number of niches per location there does arise the issue you are describing about a stick/coercion mechanism.

It is common to look at management or the greater structure of corporation and say that the fault rests solely there. The problem is that this isn't the whole story either. If the niches were infinitely available, and people had agency and could enter and exist position with the highest degree of freedoms in value exchange then the corporations and management would have to compete with offering good working condition to attract workers.

There is one particular parameter to wages that I have discussed before that narrows the available niches, and the available resources to provide the widest array of niches. It also raises the threshold of what is expected of each employee as the minimum allowable toleration of value exchange. So in effect a regulation creates a need for coercion to meet a threshold.

This is related issue, which maybe a facet at what you are attempting to describe, but I don't see it referenced directly. The popular teachings for awhile made reference to surplus value, and usually the frame work for surplus value is that the owners collect that value and the more coercive they can be the more value they can extract. A different way I have been thinking about this lately is in the frame work of 'the unearned'. With fewer niches available the workers may be limited in their ability to collect the full value of what they do earn, and the employer may be reaping unearned value from the conditions of a market of narrowed job opportunities.

That may be bogged in word semantics but it does have some ramifications, in that equitable value exchanges are preferred, but unearned value collection has many ramifications involved.

Sometimes I think a fair amount of spurn is directed at entities that do collect unearned value, but there probably should be as much directed at the conditions which lead to the entity having the position to collect that unearned value.

Let me give an example and maybe an exception.

If a worker negotiates with a exceptionally difficult customer and put effort X into reaching a positive outcome, then the worker would get paid in accordance to the effort involved in X.

I think the way we are thinking about this is that actually the worker puts in effort X, but gets paid (X-Y) and that Y is the unearned value that is collected by the corporation. With fewer niches and barriers/friction to enter and exit positions a worker may choose (X-Y) as a acceptable condition, absent other opportunities. It may be true that the (X-Y) is a issue, but just as much at issue is the absence of other opportunities.

One of the big problem I have with social constructs built around capitalism is that these social constructs tilt the field to have conditions that evolve into (X-Y) outcomes, where Y is forever increased and collected by/in favor of social constructs. And maybe I am using the term social constructs poorly here, maybe something like social groupings or factions maybe a better term, but it does derive by a group of people getting together and building a social construction, whether that is government or corporation. Either one will typically start into the process of collecting unearned value.

In the example above of effort X put into the exchange, what happens when this is plugged into a model where the owner and the operator are the same person with no other social constructs involved?

If we are discussing equitable exchanges, then there is a direct X for X exchange. There is no unearned Y going to some other construct. This resolves the problems in both the surplus value model, and the collection of unearned value model.

The problem I keep running into, is that many people have a substantial subjective value for the existence of entities involved in Y, and that Y is limiting the 'other opportunities' parameter as discussed above.

On “Pizza In The Sticks

Good stuff!
Our fancy pizza place was lit like that, a couple times a year we would drive 50 miles, the place was darkish as compared to others and the lights above the tables (if I recall correctly) were stained glass. The smell of fresh bread made your stomach growl as you entered the door. Always at least one gorgeous 20 something taking orders. The floors always looked too clean to walk on and my boots often had a light coat of red dust.

The cola was always served with a full measure of ice, and almost too cold to drink. There was that one time grandpa took the pepper shaker and shook about a half dollar sized share of pepper flakes and tossed them in his mouth, mistaking them for bacon bits. That's when I knew I needed to start watching him a little bit, with all the new fangledness he was being exposed too.

That was Pizza Hut and it would be a long time until I knew much else. Didn't try Little Caesars until after we moved south, now we have it once a month or so.

On “Chick-Fil-A: Whose Pleasure?

I'm thinking I need to give Gabriel an extra 10 points for using 'Stakhanovites' in this one.

Or maybe he just wins the internet for the day.


Holy horse knockers, I'm always a little suspicious when corporations start mentioning owner/operation, but this is nuts.

Thanks for the info.


ah, link plus correction, I'll watch that one a lil closer. Many thanks


Many thanks, what's going on, was it the link that hangs it?


Is there some technical issue, my comment appears to have disappeared?

On “Pineapple Pizza is an abomination in the Eyes of The Lord.

Good post!
I kinda live by the old adage that any pizza is good pizza. Picked that up in '82 when I had to stare down a can of Hominy for three days.

I still eat hominy, but it has a bitter taste of defeat each time. I guess that would be my topping of least preference.

Again, good work.

On “CNN Climate Emergency Town Hall: Never Let A Crisis Go to Waste

Where the church of ability and the church of needs align, you will find nearly all things are possible. Where the church of ability and the church of needs don't align, not much is possible.

Your not going to get quality welds from the church of needs making authoritarian demands, you just end up with a really pissed off church of ability.

On “Chick-Fil-A: Whose Pleasure?

sifting through their website I found this:

Not sure how true it is, but it appears they are attempting independent owner/operator model. Maybe not to the standards I usually discuss owner/operation, but it appears the folks on location have some skin on the line.

They also mention customer service is a critical value. I don't know how they approach the stick. If the manager just instills the awareness that: "customer service is of high value and if you are not capable of providing that value transaction with customers, even in difficult circumstances, this probably isn't the right job for you".

At that point the workers have to be given agency, as the alternative to not giving the worker agency is to suggest that we Should have people in niches that aren't compatible with those niches*.

When I worked customer service the interactions were typically best if I would first acknowledge the outcome the customer was looking for and efficiently reached something closely approximating that. Of course the transactions required that the customer be made aware that the service is a value exchange, and there is a expected input of value on their part.

If there were no employees and every transaction were between the actual owner/operator all transactions would be purely value for value exchanges, and there would be no labor disputes over surplus value in operations.

*there is a premise here that the available number of niches has been reduced by government interference

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.