David the non-trolled writes:
>You misunderstand my questions. I am not asking
>whether the crew should be paid. I am trying to
>understand the labor theory of value/surplus
>value/exploitation in context.
I don't think I misunderstand your question. I was talking about the
"value" of the crew.
But please inform me of my errors, I am open to instruction, at any age.
The labor/value thing is larger than micro economy, no? When you squish
it into some smaller question, it is easier to make fun of the larger
philosophical point? No? Like you are trying to do with Jim? At that
point, that is where I was making comment about the law.
Ken.
--
What is the argument on the other side? Only this, that no case has been
found in which it has been done before. That argument does not appeal to
me in the least. If we never do anything which has not been done before,
we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand whilst the rest of the
world goes on; and that will be bad for both.
-- Lord Denning
Packer v. Packer [1953] 2 AER l27
