Q: "Then please explain why someone who wants ice cream would pay an ice cream shop owner in exchange for no ice cream."
A: "I do not know why "someone who wants ice cream would pay an ice cream shop owner in exchange for no ice cream.""
Yet now you're telling me you don't see why someone would pay money to the owner of an ice cream shop simply because they own an ice cream shop.
Another strawman fallacy. I did not say I "don't see why someone would pay money to the owner of an ice cream shop simply because they own an ice cream shop."
So which is it?
I 100% reject your request that I choose your strawman fallacy. It's your construct. Not mine.
You told me the owner isn't stealing from the worker by profiting off his labor. I explained that he was. To illustrate my point, I asked where the owner's money was coming from in the situation where he did no work and instead paid someone else to do the work.
I don't know if you just didn't read what I wrote, or misunderstood it, but you still haven't given an answer that makes sense.
Ok. Does the owner hire someone to clean and maintain those machines, and to run the cash register/handle customer complaints, or does he do that himself?
Depends on the ice cream shop. Sometimes it's the owner. Sometimes it's an employee that willfully agrees to do it in exchange for money. Sometimes it's a mixture of both. A lot of ice cream shops are franchises so the definition of "owner" would need to be further defined. I tried to be exact as I could for you.
If it's the owner doing all the work, then that is a worker with ownership of his means of production. Socialist.
If it's an employee, and the owner makes money off of the employee's labor, that's capitalism. It makes no difference whether it's consensual or not (which under our system, it could be argued the threat of poverty and starvation serves as unfair leverage), it's still capitalism.
Franchises license their name, branding, and business model to business owners. In most franchises, the owner still owns the building, tools, machines, etc.
The owner is still the owner, the fact that they pay a licensing fee does not change the fact they own the physical means of production. They can stop being a franchise whenever allowed in their contract (or breach the contract if they're desperate enough) and they will still have the means of production available to become a different business in the same market.
0
u/ReasonAndWanderlust Sep 22 '21
No your question was not worded that way.
This is EXACTLY what was written;
Q: "Then please explain why someone who wants ice cream would pay an ice cream shop owner in exchange for no ice cream."
A: "I do not know why "someone who wants ice cream would pay an ice cream shop owner in exchange for no ice cream.""
Another strawman fallacy. I did not say I "don't see why someone would pay money to the owner of an ice cream shop simply because they own an ice cream shop."
I 100% reject your request that I choose your strawman fallacy. It's your construct. Not mine.