|
Anonymous
|
 Re: The American poor.  [Re: Xlea321]
#2236862 - 01/12/04 10:37 AM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
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 still do not see the difference between a case of holding a man underwater until he drowns, and that of simply refraining from jumping in the water to rescue a drowning man who has fallen in, i don't think i can make it any more clear than i already have.
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.
and starving people to death is wrong. what you do not understand is that to starve someone, you must take their food from them. not giving someone food isn't the same as taking it from them. prove that it is, and you'll have something to stand on.
|
 RandalFlagg
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,594
Last seen: 3 months, 5 days
|
|
America should be against anything where one powerful group turns on
other groups and oppresses them
Exactly. If democracy has proved one thing, it has shown how groups
of people do whatever political thing they can in order to get
whatever they can. This statement goes for massive corporations all
the way to unions who represent poor people.
|
 Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 4,182
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237025 - 01/12/04 12:26 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
fortunately..you have already been rebuked...
when and where?
>> see edit to post...
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.
>> game theory is irrelevant...at the very least you have not explained how it justifies industrial exploitation..but none of the following:
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.
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.
>> interest is the price charged on the use of capital (in economist-speak..which in this case means the souping equipment)...as such..the usage is correct..pushing aside the legal technicality...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Annapurna1]
#2237099 - 01/12/04 01:07 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
see edit to post...
i've read the whole post. nowhere do you make an adequate case in support of the marxist fantasy that something can be worth more than that with which it can be voluntarily exchanged.
game theory is irrelevant...at the very least you have not explained how it justifies industrial exploitation..but none of the following
price fixing is illegal. the government enforces against it. you've merely given an example of a way in which the government interferes in the market. what you have not done is supported the notion that this, or any other interference, is a proper use of government power. the fact is that it is usually not in the self-interest of any given business to cooperate with other businesses in collusive strategies, and so such instances are rare, even in the absence of government enforcement.
let's say i have a chicken farm. all of the chicken farmers in the state have gotten together and decided to all cut the wages of our laborers from $15 an hour to $6 an hour. i quickly realize that by throwing that agreement out the window, and paying my laborers more than the set $6, i can attract the best workers, i can attract as many workers as i want (from my competitors no less), i can have happier and thus more productive workers than my competitors, and have an extremely low turnover rate. the other chicken farmers would also realize this, and the $6 pact would quickly fall apart.
interest is the price charged on the use of capital (in economist-speak..which in this case means the souping equipment)...as such..the usage is correct..pushing aside the legal technicality...
do you feel that it is wrong to lend things at interest? if so, why?
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237276 - 01/12/04 02:20 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
let's say i have a chicken farm. all of the chicken farmers in the state have gotten together and decided to all cut the wages of our laborers from $15 an hour to $6 an hour. i quickly realize that by throwing that agreement out the window, and paying my laborers more than the set $6, i can attract the best workers, i can attract as many workers as i want (from my competitors no less), i can have happier and thus more productive workers than my competitors, and have an extremely low turnover rate. the other chicken farmers would also realize this, and the $6 pact would quickly fall apart.
You would be foolish to do so. If you were paying almost three times the value that other employees assigned to their workers, but you were still producing the same goods that they were, and the same amount of goods that you were when you entered the bargain, you'd be forced to sell your goods (the chicken) for a higher price to cover your overhead. So the REAL deicison would be made in the grocery store when people were given the choice between your chicken and another companies chicken, both being the same quality of chicken, and yours being twice as expensive.
Quote:
do you feel that it is wrong to lend things at interest? if so, why?
This wasn't really addressed to me, but I do have a few thoughts on it. The people that are against lending that involves interest say that they do so insupport of the poor people. How would a poor person afford a vehicle (about 9,000$ US minimum for a new car), a house (60,000$US+) or other expensive but necessary things? Would would be the causal factor that would lead "the rich" to put up money to be loaned?
|
Anonymous
|
|
You would be foolish to do so. If you were paying almost three times the value that other employees assigned to their workers, but you were still producing the same goods that they were, and the same amount of goods that you were when you entered the bargain, you'd be forced to sell your goods (the chicken) for a higher price to cover your overhead.
who's saying i'd have to pay 3 times what everyone else was paying to reap those benefits? all i'd have to do was pay more than the rival chicken farms. i could pay $7 an hour. other firms would of course follow suit, perhaps paying $8 an hour. eventually, we'd all be paying the market wage rate, just like we had been before.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,193
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 days, 18 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237599 - 01/12/04 06:15 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
who are you to decide when someone is required to come to another person's aid and when they aren't?
The guy with the knife.
Who are you to say who "owns" something? A person is ony wealthy if there is a broad consensus that they own the things they claim to own.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
Who are you to say who "owns" something?
i own myself. if i don't own myself, that is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my own life than i do.
because i am alive, i exist in time and have the ability to act. i own my time and i own my capacity to act. to say that someone else owns these things means that someone else has a higher claim on my time and capacity to act than i do. it is to say that someone has a higher claim on my liberty than i do. it is to say that someone has a higher claim on my life than i do.
if i own my time and ability to act, it follows logically that i own those things for which i exchange my time and effort. to say that i do not own the things for which i have exchanged my time and effort for implies that someone else has a higher claim on these things than i do. it is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my property than i do. this is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my liberty. this is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my life than i do.
Edited by Anonymous (01/12/04 06:53 PM)
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,193
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 days, 18 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237649 - 01/12/04 06:44 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
How do you know that the stuff you got isn't stolen? If you accept stolen goods as payment for your time, who is then the real owner, the person who had it stolen from them, or you.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
that would be a good topic for another thread. i think that the person who had their property stolen should have it returned to them, and that the person who did the stealing should have to reimburse the person they exchanged it with. that's not really related to this thread though. private property does exist, and individuals have the same right to their property as they have to their life and liberty.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,193
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 days, 18 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237732 - 01/12/04 07:24 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Everything was stolen from someone at some point. Just because you think it's yours doesn't make it so.
If someone else needs it more than you do then they deserve it more than you do. If that means they get to live, and you don't get to take a cruise, then too bad. There is no immoral way for that exchange to take place, not by theft, and not by taxes.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
Everything was stolen from someone at some point.
i don't think so. the computer i'm using wasn't stolen from anyone, nor were the clothes i'm wearing, the food i ate today, etc.
what has been stolen and from whom?
If someone else needs it more than you do then they deserve it more than you do.
why should someone deserve that which i have created any more than i do? why should someone deserve a portion of my life any more than i do? why should any person by forced to support any other person?
here's a question:
you say it is ok to take people's property in order to support those in need. is it also ok to enslave people and force them to labor in support of those in need?
Edited by Anonymous (01/12/04 07:41 PM)
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,193
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 days, 18 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237760 - 01/12/04 07:31 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
>>>you say it is ok to take people's property in order to support those in need. is it also ok to enslave people and force them to labor in support of those in need? <<<
example?
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
hmm... it's sortof a hypothetical. like for instance, there is habitat for humanity and many other volunteer groups like it that help poor folks. would it be ok to force people to do this kind of work?
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,193
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 days, 18 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237806 - 01/12/04 07:52 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I think it's a matter of scale and proportion.
It would not be fair to force someone into real, literal slavery for a year, in order to keep another person alive for a year, but bedridden and in pain.
On the other hand, I don't have a problem in denying someone a summer cruise so that a seven year old boy can be completely cured of his terminal illness and live a full healthy life.
There is a matter of diminishing returns on this issue.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
so... it is ok to take that for which someone has labored, but not their labor itself?
if i am a builder and i charge $500 to install new rooves on houses, why is it not ok to force me to install a new roof on someone's home today, but it is ok to take from me the $500 that i earned installing a roof yesterday?
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,193
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 days, 18 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237872 - 01/12/04 08:23 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
That's not slavery. Slavery is owning someone, and controlling all parts of their lives.
I would be okay with giving them the option of cash or labor as long as the outcome was the same.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
That's not slavery. Slavery is owning someone, and controlling all parts of their lives.
it's forced labor, and there's not much difference. forced labor is ok?
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,193
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 days, 18 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2239000 - 01/13/04 11:17 AM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Forced labor is okay to a point, but what we're talking about is not forced labor. what we're talking about is taxes (I think). Taxes are based on the amount of money you choose to make.
I've never once gotten a letter from the government demanding that I make more money.
--------------------
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 1 year, 26 days
|
|
Taxes are based on the amount of money you choose to make.
If you have just cashed your check and pocketed all the money and I come up and rob you, isn't the amount of money robbed from you based upon the amount of money you choose to make?
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous
