Reddit reviews The Missing Piece
We found 5 Reddit comments about The Missing Piece. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
From Shel Silverstein, the celebrated author of The Giving Tree and Where the Sidewalk Ends, comes The Missing Piece, a charming fable that gently probes the nature of quest and fulfillment.
Shel Silverstei's The Missing Piece - Wiki - Amazon
I thought you where linking to Shel Silverstein
The animation is from a book by Shel Silverstein called The Missing Piece.
There may be a gif version around somewhere, too.
Side note: I found this for someone else, months ago. I believe it was my first post to TOMT.
Read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Missing-Piece-Shel-Silverstein/dp/0060256710/
Or this one: https://www.amazon.com/Missing-Piece-Meets-Big/dp/0060256575/
1/1
> It would as well in a worker's co-op.
Within a capitalist monetary market system, absolutely true. I have already conceded this. Outside of a capitalist monetary market, this depends on what type of market system is assumed.
>According to your argument, the co-op should be more efficient than the capitalist cousin. Between that and merely splitting profits differently the consumer would experience the same or better prices and quality with a co-op. Thus your argument that the co-ops couldn't compete against the capitalist counterparts is bunk.
This is not an accurate representation of what I've said. I have outlined why the incentives within a capitalist monetary market system would lead to exactly the opposite result.
>Not in the way you mean here...
No, in the way I mean it here.
>No, I'm not.
Yes you are. I've explained why several times in different posts (you make the same mistake a lot. Insane, I tells ya).
>You've invented a right to access of the MoP.
No I haven't.
>How? If someone trespasses or steals the property he is initiating the violence. Anything done by the owner is only the defense of his property.
You continue to beg the question. Please read this post on the NAP by Matt Bruenig (he a smart feller). You might also be interested in following the cited post he mentions by right-libertarian Julian whatshisname.
http://mattbruenig.com/2014/02/01/libertarian-julian-sanchez-agrees-non-aggression-is-circular/
Let me lay out a scenario for you.
I have 4 skittles. These skittles are deemed by mommy and daddy to be mine. You have zero skittles because instead of making a birdhouse at school, you decided to snack on Mr. Elmer's glue. You get upset that you don't have skittles. You reach over and one by one gently pick up each of my four skittles and place them into your mouth. Mommy comes over and slaps you into last week, spilling the skittles from your mouth conveniently onto my lap (I'll still eat 'em).
The only individual in this scenario that committed a violent act is mommy. Shame on her. But you stole my skittles, so that violence is deemed "defense, HOO HOO DEFENSE".
The point here, to put it in yet simpler terms, is that a violation of property rights does not necessitate violence. And enforcement of property rights is always through some act of coercion: sometimes violence, sometimes threat of violence, sometimes threat of ostracization, etc. In order to justify the current conditions of the property system you cannot in your argument assume the current conditions of the property system.
>So? They were paid for their labor at a rate they agreed to and forfeited all claim on the product of their labor.
Yes they did, Charlie. Very good! Now what did Mr. Professor impaired walking limbs Mcgee say about assuming current conditions to justify current conditions? 10 minutes, nose in corner. ...NOW.
Nope. Not that corner. The corner Phillup pees in.
>They don't deserve a say. They haven't invested a cent into the business. If they want a say they can buy stock. Don't you realize that employee ownership is already possible in any publicly-traded company?
Employee ownership through stock options does not necessitate having an equal vote, or any vote, into what risky business decisions are engaged in. But we are in disagreement about fundamental property theories. You believe theft and parasitism is legitimate, while I do not.
>No, I'm not. Stop putting words in my mouth.
^^^^^^Yes ^^^^^^you ^^^^^^are.
>You're the one arguing that things will change significantly in the future. If anyone needs to back up anything it's this you and this economic Malthusianism.
Trust me. I'm smarter than you.
>In the way they're used in the vernacular, the dictionary, and the legal system.
Please be specific about definitions.
>Except for that whole bit about people spontaneously getting together
No, spontaneity is not required for producing something you need and want.
>and constructing a MoP with raw materials that fall from the sky,
Nothing falls from the sky except rain and snow when you're in reality, just workin' away using human labor to extract resources and use and build MoP.
>all without acquiring an ownership stake as a form of compensation.
Socialism is the exact opposite. Socialism is an equal ownership position by workers. You really really really need to read a book or something. I mean...I guess start anywhere.