Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,371
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 4 days, 18 hours
|
|
Since when are the poor so helpless? It is not the gov't job to help these people by giving them what they did not earn. If they wanted the wages changed they could do that. As they have in the past.
The last thing we need is more laws and more regulation. Very bad example.
--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.
bang bang
|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
What you're saying is that it would be better for them to just go ahead and drop dead without the soup.
Exqueeze me? 
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2234894 - 01/11/04 01:39 PM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You probabaly still live with your parents
nope.
and dont have any children to support.
correct. why don't i have any children? because i realize i cannot support children right now so i take the proper precautions against becoming a father. rather simple.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Annapurna1]
#2234922 - 01/11/04 01:49 PM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
in this example..if that scumbag really could afford to pay everyone 10 bowls of soup..it means that each employee is in fact producing at least that much value...but since their only getting one bowl each..it means that the other 9 bowls are still handouts...in return for their survival..the workers are in effect paying the boss 9 bowls of soup a day so that they can work for him/her...and thats what makes it immoral...
oh brother. marxist bullshit. the worker may be producing that much value, but not without using the tools paid for and provided by his or her employer.
let's say i want to deliver goods for people. i could be self-employed, and walk from place to place, carrying goods and making deliveries. doing this, i can deliver no more than 4 or 5 packages a day, provided that they are very light and the distances are not far. doing this, lets say i make $10 a day making deliveries.... not very much. or i could go to work for a man who has a delivery business and a few trucks. with a truck, the deliveries i make bring in $200 a day. should that $200 be mine to keep at the end of the day? of course not. there would be nothing immoral at all for my employer to pay me whatever i was willing to accept and keep the rest. without his truck, i can make only $10 a day.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2234943 - 01/11/04 02:00 PM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So if someone can find children willing to work as child prostitutes why should they refuse to hire them?
because they are children, and children are an exception. children cannot do a lot of things that adults can. entering into employment contracts is one of them.
Because when employers realise they can exploit the starving, wages for everyone else drop through the floor and we are effectively back in the days of slavery.
i fail to follow... how is voluntary employment tantamount to slavery?
I think you'll have to read this in relation to toiletduks post to understand.
i'll have to do that. doesn't surprise me you haven't any answer to that question.
Your concept of the poor and disabled working for a bowl of soup a day is awfully similar to the Nazi concept of treatment for the "sub-humans". Can you tell me how it differs?
because alex... the nazis did "starve and work people to death". the owner of a company, who employs people at jobs they are willing to do at wages they are willing to accept does not.
Himmler said whether 10,000 russian women drop dead digging a trench for us interests me only in so far as the trench is dug. Would you agree with this?
no, because himmler had a gun to their heads.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2234979 - 01/11/04 02:23 PM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
as i've said before, i am not opposed to welfare programs and minimum wages out of self-interest. i personally might benefit from an increased minimum wage, and welfare programs take little, if any, money from my pocket. i do not have any special hatred of the poor, nor appreciation for the rich.
i oppose these programs not just because they depend on coercion to support and enforce, but because i have come to believe that these programs are in fact detrimental to those they intend to help.
people argue for a minimum wage. they want to guarantee "the lowest reasonable standard of living" to the unskilled worker... as if by making it illegal to hire a man for less than a certain amount, his labor magically becomes worth at least that amount. therein lies the problem. when a minimum wage is enacted, those workers not worth that wage will not be employed. the minimum wage will create unemployment. people will be put out of work. what's more, producing goods and services becomes more expensive, so the cost to consumers increases. there is more unemployment, less production, and few people actually better off. those put out of work are to be placed on welfare.
welfare ain't so hot either. it seems people forget that for every dollar given to welfare recipients (people who are presumably unemployed and unable to find work), a dollar must be taken from working people. a dollar is taken away from them that they would have otherwise spent. they purchase less than they would have, and so less people are put to work producing goods and services than would otherwise be. thanks to welfare, someone is put out of work... and onto the welfare rolls. welfare creates the very disease which symptoms' it attempts to alleviate. the community as a whole loses employment and production, the unemployed lose the dignity of a paying job, and the employed lose their hard-earned currency. you are taking what would have been someone's paycheck, putting them out of work, and giving it to them as a relief check.
it is my belief that if the government would stop adopting these well-intentioned but shortsighted sorts of policies, everyone, including the wage-earners, would be much better off for it.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 18,984
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2235005 - 01/11/04 02:34 PM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
because i realize i cannot support children right now so i take the proper precautions against becoming a father
*GASP* You don't mean to see you practice personal responsibility?
Outrageous.
OUTRAGEOUS!
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: d33p]
#2235054 - 01/11/04 03:14 PM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said:
Since when are the poor so helpless? It is not the gov't job to help these people by giving them what they did not earn. If they wanted the wages changed they could do that. As they have in the past.
The last thing we need is more laws and more regulation. Very bad example.
If the majority of the people are "poor", which isn't really true in America, they would be the majority in a democracy and thus, the main group that politicans were pandering to. I don't think that the government should give money out to people that aren't working, but I do think that the government has the responsibility to protect the people of the nation. This goes for groups that serve interests that are usually geared more for the higher class wage earners, such as those from economic groups that are more inclined to invest money, trade stocks, etc. as well as it does the lowest paid worker in the country. We don't want to construct a system where only the rich are thriving by oppressing the uneducated working class, and we don't want a society where the investors (mainly middle/upper class) are being lied to and cheated. Thus, we create laws to protect them.
America should be against anything where one powerful group turns on other groups and oppresses them. I don't feel that this means that their shouldn't be, say, millionaire CEO's or that Joe Sixpack would be making 50$/hour working in a warehouse either.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2235949 - 01/11/04 11:16 PM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
because they are children, and children are an exception
Only because "leftists" fought and died for their right to an education. If they hadn't you would have been working in a factory since you were 7 instead of getting an education. The corporations don't give a shit - look how they treat children in south east asia.
how is voluntary employment tantamount to slavery?
Since when is it voluntary when you are starving to death? Is the choice between work for a bowl of soup a day and die in 3 days or die today really "voluntary"?
i'll have to do that
You do that. You might grasp it then.
the owner of a company, who employs people at jobs they are willing to do at wages they are willing to accept does not.
BUT THEY ARE STARVING. If they don't work for the bastard paying a bowl of soup a day they die. What kind of choice is that?
no, because himmler had a gun to their heads.
And if you don't work for the bowl of soup a day in your world you die a slow death from starvation. What difference is there?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 18,984
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2236451 - 01/12/04 02:36 AM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
no, because himmler had a gun to their heads.
And if you don't work for the bowl of soup a day in your world you die a slow death from starvation. What difference is there?
Really weak Alpo.
In one case you're shot. In the other if you don't like the terms you can look elsewhere, grow your own food, or start your own business.
It's like night and day oh disingenuous one.
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
GuidoBastard
newbie
Registered: 12/24/03
Posts: 33
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
My summer job is at a deli in the dregs of town in a city in upstate NY's idustrially ravaged Adirondack foothills. The, um, clientel of this deli and market are more than bummy.
Nobody works. They jam up the place when the people who DO work wanna run in and get a sandwich real quick for their like, 8 minute lunch break. They have declining benefit cards that they can use to buy food and deduct it as fast as they want. This means LARGE orders by the scumbags. They can't budget, so the ass-end of the month is always less busy. I hate welfare scum.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2236689 - 01/12/04 08:07 AM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Only because "leftists" fought and died for their right to an education. If they hadn't you would have been working in a factory since you were 7 instead of getting an education. The corporations don't give a shit - look how they treat children in south east asia.
listen, i'm glad that "leftists" helped end child labor practices. so they did something good. does that make them right always? no, it doesn't. the percieved political affiliation of the people who ended child labor has got nothing to do with this discussion.
Since when is it voluntary when you are starving to death? Is the choice between work for a bowl of soup a day and die in 3 days or die today really "voluntary"?
absolutely. if i didn't work, i'd be starving too. virtually everyone would starve if they did not choose to work, but the decision of whether or not to work, how much to work for, and where to work, is still a voluntary decision. no one is forcing anyone.
let's say you're on a desert island, and by mustering up all of your productive potential, you can only manage to feed yourself one bowl of soup per day. who is exploiting you? who is starving you? who is forcing you to work? if you choose not to work, but to starve instead, who has forced that fate upon you?
You do that. You might grasp it then.
ok, i've read it, and nowhere does toiletduk made an argument in support of the assertion that keeping what is yours rather than giving it to someone else is tantamount to taking that same thing from the person you could have given it to.
alex, i have never offered you a meal. does this mean that i am starving you? unfortunately, my neighbor is without an MP3 player. i just so happen to have two of them. by not giving one away to my neighbor, am i depriving him of an MP3 player? if i see an ice skater slip through the ice, and i do not immediately react by running over to her rescue, am i guilty of drowning her? of course not.
depriving someone of something, be it their liberty, property, or life, cannot be done by keeping what is rightfully yours, but only by taking what is theirs. voluntary employment is not the same as slavery, no matter what the wage. i volunteer a great deal of my time to charitable organizations who pay me nothing. am i their slave? are they exploiting me?
BUT THEY ARE STARVING. If they don't work for the bastard paying a bowl of soup a day they die. What kind of choice is that?
it's a great choice. if it was not available to them, they would be dead.
And if you don't work for the bowl of soup a day in your world you die a slow death from starvation. What difference is there?
read my comments about what it means to deprive someone of something. himmler deprived people of their life and liberty by forcefully taking it from them. an employer who offers to exchange wages for labor, and accepts advances on that offer by consenting individuals, does not.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
 
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,346
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236787 - 01/12/04 09:04 AM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
in this example..if that scumbag really could afford to pay everyone 10 bowls of soup..it means that each employee is in fact producing at least that much value...but since their only getting one bowl each..it means that the other 9 bowls are still handouts...in return for their survival..the workers are in effect paying the boss 9 bowls of soup a day so that they can work for him/her...and thats what makes it immoral...
oh brother. marxist bullshit. the worker may be producing that much value, but not without using the tools paid for and provided by his or her employer.
let's say i want to deliver goods for people. i could be self-employed, and walk from place to place, carrying goods and making deliveries. doing this, i can deliver no more than 4 or 5 packages a day, provided that they are very light and the distances are not far. doing this, lets say i make $10 a day making deliveries.... not very much. or i could go to work for a man who has a delivery business and a few trucks. with a truck, the deliveries i make bring in $200 a day. should that $200 be mine to keep at the end of the day? of course not. there would be nothing immoral at all for my employer to pay me whatever i was willing to accept and keep the rest. without his truck, i can make only $10 a day.
fortunately..you have already been rebuked...
Quote:
TheOneYouKnow said:
Lets say that I own a warehouse. The majority of my labor is unskilled and highschool or GED education level. If the other warehouses were paying 15$/hour and offering full medical, dental and vision benefits, I'd have to do the same (or better) or I wouldn't be able to attract workers. Now, lets say that I went to the owners of the other warehouses in town. I proposed a plan that would save us a great deal of money. We would all agree to pay our workers no more than 7$/hour and offer no benefits. Since every warehouse would do this, the people would either work for the much lower wage with no benefits, or not have a job any longer. Lets take this a little bit farther and say that the association that I made with other warehouse workers went a bit farther. I'd talk with the farmers who would pay their cheap, uneducated labor much less than they were now. Now, if their wasn't a federally established minimum wage, we could keep on doing this until the only opportunities that unskilled workers had were all paying the same meager salary (or, perhaps, a bowl of soup per day?). This is an example of why the Federal Government does need to be involved in regulating business and protecting the interests of the poor.
If it was done with prices of merchandise, it would be price-fixing and would be illegal. If it were done with stocks and bonds, it would be illegal. The lower class needs to have governmental protection to ensure that they aren't being oppressed as much as the wealthy do to ensure that their isn't insider trading taking place, casuing their entire portfolio's to shrink exponentially overnight (read: Enron).
under these conditions..could you really choose not to "accept" that rate-of-pay??...and btw..charging 9 bowls of soup for the use of the souping equipment would be called usury...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
Edited by Annapurna1 (01/12/04 10:47 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Annapurna1]
#2236805 - 01/12/04 09:15 AM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
fortunately..you have already been rebuked...
when and where?
This is an example of why the Federal Government does need to be involved in regulating business and protecting the interests of the poor.
no, its an example of you being ignorant of game theory.
and btw..charging 9 bowls of soup for the use of the souping equipment would be called usury...
no. usury refers to lending money at interest. more specifically, it was the term used by the catholic church when it condemned the practice (thereby prohibiting investment and holding back european commerce for hundreds of years). in modern times, usury is defined as lending money at an interest rate higher than a legally defined maximum.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236812 - 01/12/04 09:20 AM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
read my comments about what it means to deprive someone of something. himmler deprived people of their life and liberty by forcefully taking it from them. an employer who offers to exchange wages for labor, and accepts advances on that offer by consenting individuals, does not.
No, the russian women always had a choice not to work. They consented to work or they died. Exactly the same choice you are giving to the starving.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2236820 - 01/12/04 09:24 AM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
No, the russian women always had a choice not to work.
and if they didn't, someone would kill them. putting a bullet in someone's head, and refusing to buy them lunch, are two entirely different things.
i am not going to keep repeating myself in different words. if you have an argument against the fundamental principles for which i have been arguing, please present it.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 20,723
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 33 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236821 - 01/12/04 09:25 AM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
if i see an ice skater slip through the ice, and i do not immediately react by running over to her rescue, am i guilty of drowning her? of course not.
I wouldn't have a problem with making it illegal not to help someone who was dying. If I had a relative die while someone just watched indifferently and did nothing. I would kill them.
I would put a knife to their throat and slit it and let them bleed to death like an animal.
...and I would be right to do so.
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 18,984
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
...and I would be right to do so.
Not so. However, your example would work if someone else did the slashing and then you watched them bleed.
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236836 - 01/12/04 09:30 AM (8 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
and if they didn't, someone would kill them. putting a bullet in someone's head
Well, you can't live on a bowl of soup a day so you would die of a horrible disease very rapidly anyway. Could you explain what choice the starving person has? He either dies today or dies tomorrow. What "choice" is that?
if you have an argument against the fundamental principles
I really don't how to present an argument to make you understand why starving people to death is wrong. You either understand it or you don't.
|
Anonymous
|
|
I wouldn't have a problem with making it illegal not to help someone who was dying. If I had a relative die while someone just watched indifferently and did nothing. I would kill them.
it would have to depend on how they died, wouldn't it?
what if they were killed in a bank robbery?
should all witnesses of bank robberies jump into the fray and try to disarm and subdue the robber?
what if they were dying of a terrible disease, which could be cured, but not without substantial amounts of expensive therapy?
should a person who saw this and didn't open up their checkbook and sign a fat check have their neck cut by you?
what if they were trapped in a burning building... should the nearest passerby be required to go in and rescue them?
who are you to decide when someone is required to come to another person's aid and when they aren't? people make choices. if they want to help another person, that's their decision. if they don't, that's their decision too, and they shouldn't be punished for it.
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1
8,954 topic views. 3 members, 2 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous
