Wealth is a false concept

The concept of wealth is false in that we can only be wealthy relative to other people. We cannot be objectively wealthy because this has no meaning. We can be poor because we can be lacking in certain things... but if we have everything we want this is not wealth since it the absence of desire. It is only 'wants' which can be measured and observed we cannot measure the amount of desires which have been satiated only those which remain. We are only poor (in different ways)... we are never rich.

Capitalism is prostitution

Capitalism is a form of prostitution in the sense that we are selling ourselves when we sell our labour. Our labour is synonymous with ourselves because what we do with our labour is no less important than what we do with our bodies. Our labour is our gift to the world and if it can be purchased by another person due to our poverty then we are a prostitute.

Land is a requirement for life

As technology improves it will become increasingly difficult to sell our labour and so we will only be able to survive if we have our own land.

We need either land or a client (or both)

If we do not have land then we must support ourselves in the market where our labour may be refused. With land we are in the special situation where we can work the land and support ourselves without being involved in the market. People with land cannot have their labour refused and so in that sense being landed is different to having other assets. (Those with land are always able to support themselves.) People with land do not need to sell their labour into the market in the conventional way. If you do not have land then you will need to sell your labour which means you will need to have a client. If we do not have land we need a client and if we do not have a client then we need land.

Lies are temporary

If a claim is testable and cannot be shown to be false then we can presume that it is true. We can show the non-truth of a claim by finding a counter-example. Once we have found the counter-example then the original claim no longer stands. If we cannot find a counter-example then either the claim is true or it is untestable. We might speculate about what is on the far side of the moon but since it is not easy to go there and find out such claims are practically worthless and empty. If we are making a non-empty truth claim (a testable truth claim) then once we have made the claim and presented proof we can assume it is true and wait for a counter-example to be found. We do not prove the truth of something merely by showing that a different thing is false unless that thing is the opposite of the original claim. We can only prove A by showing that B is false if B is the opposite of A. If B is not the opposite of A then to establish the falseness of B has no bearing on A because there may be other factors. We can only show A by giving evidence and waiting for a counter-example. We have a (testable) law about nature if there are no counter-examples. If a testable (meaningful) claim has evidence to support it and no counter-examples then we can say that (for the time being) it is true and a law. If something cannot be falsified then it is true.

Counter-examples are progressive

If someone is arrogant this means they hold a false belief. For example someone who thinks that all Scottish people eat porridge for breakfast will be shocked to discover a Scottish person eating something else. They are arrogant because they have assumed a generality. It is easy to show that such people are wrong because we have at our disposal ridicule which means that we can 'laugh' at them.

We might however discover that there is rule which in fact states that only porridge-eaters are truly Scottish and so their claim is correct and we are shocked and in denial to discover they maintain their claim. Our laughter doesn't work. (The size of the group being referenced has changed... it is smaller than what we thought it was.) Only if there is no such rule (no such smaller group) would our laughter and ridicule (our counter-example) have an impact on the object. If the original object of our laughter was not being arrogant but instead making reference to a smaller group than we assumed then jokes don't work.

You can't force people to buy your work

As far as employment is concerned it is important to remember that you can't force people to give you a job... just as you can't force people to make a purchase from you. The labour market is a market just like any other and if you are seeking to sell your labour then you must wait for someone to accept your offer as in any market. It is only the government or a criminal who will seek to force you to purchase their product. Only criminals can do this... if you are not a criminal then you cannot force people to buy your work you must wait for them to accept your offer. Non-criminals cannot force people to buy their work.

Pleasure is the purpose of life

"Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minus pain)."

"Ethical hedonism is the idea that all people have the right to do everything in their power to achieve the greatest amount of pleasure possible to them. It is also the idea that every person's pleasure should far surpass their amount of pain. Ethical hedonism is said to have been started by a student of Socrates, Aristippus of Cyrene. He held the idea that pleasure is the highest good."

We can think of liberal hedonism as a kind of restrained hedonism. Whilst it may be true that the pure form of hedonism is entirely liberal and restrained it is fair to say that the term 'hedonism' is often associated with decadence and libertinism. And whilst those two concepts may too fall within a liberal version of hedonism the purpose of this more narrow definition (of liberal hedonism) is to establish a distancing from the more ugly concepts of hedonism. Liberal hedonism is a kind of hedonism which distances itself from gluttony and debauchery for example. The notion is that we seek to maximise our pleasure within the boundaries of a civilised society. We pay attention to other people so (if we are drunk) we do not play loud music when it is disturbing. We do not abuse our bodies. We are aware of the consequences of our actions for ourselves and other people.

The stigma (if there is one) which surrounds the philosophy of hedonism is related to the fear that if people act only on their instinctive desires than they will do harm and hurt innocent people. Perhaps they will steal from the nearest shop or attack the next person to disagree with them in discussion. But this is not true hedonism because - plainly - this kind of thoughtless action will almost always result in more suffering (for the agent) later. And because we do not want to live in this kind of criminal society hedonism is rejected. But this kind of damaging hedonism is not true hedonism... or if it is it is certainly not liberal hedonism. If typical hedonism is not liberal and has no concern for other people then it is to be rejected but if hedonism means maximising your own pleasure within a construct of care and concern for others then there is nothing wrong with this philosophy.

Farming is life

In order to live we must either farm the land or have a 'boss' of some kind. But in many ways we can think of your boss or employer in the same way that a farmer would view the land... this is not to denigrate the boss. But we can think of working for an employer in the same way that we think of working on the land. When we farm we must 'work the land' to yield a profit and the same applies with a boss or a customer. So then we can treat all kinds of employment as farming and can consider all income-making to be farming. If we make money then we are a farmer. And if we do not farm we do not live. If all income is farming and we cannot live without income then we cannot live without farming and to farm is to live and to live is to farm.

Capitalism is primarily concerned with exchange

In a capitalist system people are free to swap things and trade... we are free to swap our labour for money. And via this system people are able to survive and create wealth because our environment provides the means to do so.

Your boss is not rich

The nature of farming is that we can make a living without selling to anyone... there is no need for a farmer to have a client because they can live off the land. Everyone else who does not have a farm must have a client to survive... so we must serve other people if we want to live.

If when you go to work you are resentful of your client then you will find it hard to provide a good service and you will go out of business. To be successful you must be sympathetic towards your customers and treat them as you would a recipient of charity. If you hold bad feelings towards the people who are buying your labour you will not be a good employee and you may end up getting fired.

Work is stressful

The nature of work is that there is stress. And we can define stress as uncertainty concerning whether we will be paid. If there is uncertainty that we will be paid then we are stressed and the only (non-criminal) way to avoid this is to be a farmer. Farmers are more relaxed and not stressed because their income is almost certain whereas the normal worker who might get fired cannot be certain if their income. The nature of work is stress unless we are a farmer and can relax once the crops have been sown.

Farmers get paid by default

Farmers are in the envious position of being able to do nothing for most of the time and get rich. If the fields are sown and the sun is shining then a crop is almost certain and the same applies to animal farming. All other kinds of workers (ignoring thieves and beggars) cannot be certain of a harvest and must turn up each day hoping to make some money. Non-farm workers in a sense charge rent for their services. The aim of a non-farm worker is to maintain the standard of the shop or service such that they stay in business whilst accommodating improvements in technology and new trends. The non-farm worker is punished for his or her absence which is different from a farmer who still earns a harvest even if they do nothing most of the time. The non-farm worker must keep moving to earn a living which is not the case for the farmer. In that sense farmers are fortunate in that the default position for them is to get paid and it is only if they make a mistake with their farming that they fail to make a harvest. Non-farm workers must show up every day. Farmers are fortunate in that they get paid by default.

Lawful people are farmers or workers (or beggars)

We can survive in one of three possible ways... we can either farm the land (be a farmer) or we can work for other people selling our labour... or we can be a thief. Assuming we are willing and desire to be respectful of the property rights of other people then this leaves us with only two options we can either be a farmer or sell our labour and be a labourer. Lawful people are reduced in their options for living they can either be a farmer or be a worker.

Insanity is either passive or active

There are two kinds of insanity. We can either be passively insane or actively insane. When we are passively insane our inaction is to the detriment of other people because they rely on us taking action or would benefit from our taking action. If we are actively insane then our actions are to the detriment of other people and they would prefer we did nothing. (We are likely doing a crime.) We are passively insane when we have failed to see something which would otherwise incite action in us. If we have seen a danger we will likely act upon it but if we are insane and have not seen the danger (and that we can prevent the danger) then we are passively insane which can be harmful to other people... and perhaps to ourselves. We are actively insane when we are unaware of the harmful consequences of our actions. In both cases the perpetrator has failed to demonstrate an awareness of an important fact... in the active case they cause harm and in the passive case they fail to prevent harm... or fail to do good.

Employees are specialists

Whenever we sell our labour we are participating in the division of labour. This means that we are selling expertise which is not available to the customer... we are giving them something they are unable to provide for themselves. We might think that it is preferable to live on our own and work on the land providing for ourselves. Whilst this is perhaps a viable option for some people we are not then taking advantage of the division of labour. If we just work for ourselves then we must become an expert in all of the things required to support ourselves. If we sell our labour then we will be able to purchase the labour of other people... all of them experts. When we sell our labour we sell expertise which is why the labour market enables good products to be made cheaply. If we each live on our own and produce our own food then we will not be reducing prices as a consequence of our expertise... this means that there will be less progress and more poverty. The division of labour enables people to become experts in their particular field which means that there are reduced prices and is more progress.

Capitalism is concerned with exclusivity

The nature of Capitalism is that people have choices and they can always shop elsewhere. This means that to make money you need to sell you produce at a cheaper price than all of the other agents in the market. This might at first view appear to be almost impossible given how many other people there are in the market but then we realise that for different reasons we have a niche. The main niche for most people in the market is location. People shop locally as a general rule. So you can sell things in your shop at a slightly higher price than the superstore in the next town purely due to your location. There may be other distinguishing characteristics which mean that raw price is not the only determinant to make a trade. But for a trade to take place there must be something special which you offer which cannot be provided by the rest of the market. There must be something unique about your product... whether it is the location... the ambiance... the price. It is because your product is exclusive in some sense that you will be able to make a trade.

Life is slavery

There are strong similarities between having a job in the conventional sense and being a slave. A slave must follow directions or face the consequences (which can be very severe) and an employee must too follow orders to avoid being unpaid. Not being paid is not the same as being punished for not working (which is a crime... it is not a crime not to pay people) but in the sense that we must follow orders the two are the same. It is a crime to own slaves but when we employ someone we are getting them to do something they would not otherwise do in return for our money. The employee is choosing to be a - kind of - slave so that they stay alive. We are a salve to nature in the sense that if we do nothing and do not work then we will starve.

It's not insane to deny free will

It is possible to make the claim that 'we exist if we have free will' and that by extension to deny the truth of free will is to deny our very existence. But this might not be the case and the reality might be more nuanced. A lack of free will doesn't necessarily mean that a thing does not exist... determinists are often willing to accept that they exist... their only claim is that they have no free will. If we take the hypothetical example of a plain rock having no free will... clearly we are not at the same time denying that the rock exists. The determinist is only making the claim that they and the rock are similar and that they have no special differences as far as choice and free will are concerned. It can be argued that people (and things) will always make their best choice and so that even when we have the perception of making a choice all that is happening is that we are deducing our best action based on the information and knowledge available. It is not a choice because there is no active agent involved in the process it is simply a weighing of the evidence in favour of that which is best for the individual. If we are always certain to make our best decision then it becomes difficult to claim that a 'choice' is being made... when all that is happening is that someone is coming to their (objectively) best decision given the evidence. This process might have the appearance of free will but all that is happening is that we are observing the process of a person analysing this data. Even if we choose and have choices this doesn't mean we have free will. We might have no option but to choose the best option. Few people reject success.

No boss is permanent

We might not like having a boss but we can take solace in the fact that no boss will live forever... eventually they will be put out business by a more efficient and profitable firm. No boss lasts forever and so eventually we will all be free.