Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
Offlinedomite
Puppet
Male User Gallery
Registered: 04/12/03
Posts: 2,978
Loc: Who's askin'?
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
libertarianism
    #1902867 - 09/10/03 04:26 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

I just started reading a bunch of thier propaganda, and, I have to admit, i am quite intriuged. There are still some things I disagree with, but mostly they seemed right on the money, but for one thing, really seemed rediculous... no minimum wage.

are there any liberataians who want to defen this position? (without the trickle down theory plese)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: domite]
    #1902894 - 09/10/03 01:07 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

the idea is rather simple.

as long as your actions do not, by way of force, impede on the actions of another person, you are to be free to act as you wish, without interference by force.

the only role of government (legally recognized force) is to enforce this principle.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedomite
Puppet
Male User Gallery
Registered: 04/12/03
Posts: 2,978
Loc: Who's askin'?
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1923680 - 09/16/03 11:10 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

I understand the main principal, but wont having no minimum wage lead to a situation like cities in the industrial revolution? Or are there SOME labor laws?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: domite]
    #1923798 - 09/16/03 11:43 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

It will lead to the situation that already exists throughout south america, mexico, africa and south east asia. Corporations devastating the environment with impunity, treating child workers no better than brutalised slaves, paying 10 cents an hour and slaughtering anyone who tries to form a union.

Sound like fun?

With no minimum wage or welfare in the US wages are going to plummet through the floor.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 month, 8 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: domite]
    #1924128 - 09/17/03 01:52 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Instead of prohibiting all work that is worth less than the minimum wage, some libertarians propose a minimum work-free income, called citizen's dividend or negative income tax. This idea is much healthier economically than welfare programs, charity, or socialist rigging of wages.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1924445 - 09/17/03 06:19 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

It will lead to the situation that already exists throughout south america, mexico, africa and south east asia. Corporations devastating the environment with impunity, treating child workers no better than brutalised slaves, paying 10 cents an hour and slaughtering anyone who tries to form a union.

we are talking about libertarianism here, not anarchy. 3 out of the 4 "offences" you cite are deviations from libertarian principles.

1. Corporations devastating the environment with impunity

if someone poisons the air you breathe, the water you drink, or dumps waste (or anything else) onto your property without your consent, they've initiated force against you.

2. treating child workers no better than brutalised slaves

even in a libertarian system, children cannot enter into legally binding contracts. there will be child labor laws. brutalized slaves? slaves are kept by way of force.

3. slaughtering anyone who tries to form a union.

again, an initiation of force. not permitted.

and for that other one...

4. 10 cents an hour

if they can find better work elsewhere, then they should get a new job if they want more money. no one is forcing them to work there. if no other work exists, how is giving them a job and paying them something when they would otherwise have nothing, hurting them?

With no minimum wage or welfare in the US wages are going to plummet through the floor.

as will prices for consumer goods and services.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1924453 - 09/17/03 06:27 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

if they can find better work elsewhere, then they should get a new job if they want more money. no one is forcing them to work there. if no other work exists, how is giving them a job and paying them something when they would otherwise have nothing, hurting them?





Should they not be paid the fair rate for what they are doing? If we are trying to stop poverty and establish a truly fair global economy shouldnt we stop companies exploiting third world workers?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1924458 - 09/17/03 06:32 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Should they not be paid the fair rate for what they are doing?

the only "fair rate" is the one that both the employer and the employee voluntarily agree on.

If we are trying to stop poverty and establish a truly fair global economy shouldnt we stop companies exploiting third world workers?

i don't recall anyone saying that the goal here was to stop poverty. i doubt anyone can ever end poverty. if it can be done, it's not going to be through enforcement.

shouldnt we stop companies exploiting third world workers

see my response to alex's "10 cents an hour" comment.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1924664 - 09/17/03 09:37 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Voluntarily agreed upon! Thats a good one. What western companies are actually doing is exploiting the poverty stricken. The people they employ truly are wage slaves. Many of them are alot worse off than the slaves people kept in the past.
If instead the western companies balanced their need to maximise profits whatever the cost and passed on more of the profit to the workers in the form of higher wages then these people would actually have a chance of climbing out of poverty. It would obviously also give the whole economy a shot in the arm.
When you have a situation where a sweat shop worker can produce say 20 shirts in a week and is making in a week less than the price in the west of ONE of these shirts then somebody is being exploited. Thats not a matter for debate that is a fact.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1924690 - 09/17/03 09:49 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

again, an initiation of force. not permitted.

Do corporations really care if it's permitted or not tho? Say you're a 12 year old kid getting 10 cents an hour and you call for the forming of a union. The day after you either get sacked or beaten to a pulp by "mysterious" attackers in the street. Is going to the police really going to help you? When the corporation says "We didn't do it" where do you go from there?

The only protection people have is strong unions or measure like the minimum wage.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1924718 - 09/17/03 10:01 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Voluntarily agreed upon! Thats a good one.

please explain how the pay is not voluntarily agreed upon.

is there not an option to work elsewhere?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1924722 - 09/17/03 10:03 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Trouble is with no minimum wage the corporations pretty soon realise they don't have to pay worth a damn. It's called "the race to the bottom". If one corporation gets away with paying 10 cents an hour, all the others do too.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1924729 - 09/17/03 10:06 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

and they are then able to offer goods and services for much less money.

money is not the same as wealth. money is merely a means of exchange. forcing people to pay more money doesn't increase the amount of actual goods and services available.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1924732 - 09/17/03 10:08 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Not to the workers tho. I can't see many workers in Nike factories wearing top of the line Nike trainers.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1924740 - 09/17/03 10:14 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

what's your point? why sell nike shoes to indonesian laborers when you can sell them to wealthy americans?

it doesn't make economic sense. if you're a factory worker, you're not going to be able to afford the same pair of shoes as upper-middle class white collar suburbia... of course.

i contend that if there was no price support on labor, wages would indeed go down. i also think that prices on every single product and service would decrease as well.

because of increased efficiency, there would be a net increase in goods and services available to consumers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1924772 - 09/17/03 10:35 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Thats not a matter for debate that is a fact.



Sounds more like an opinion than a fact.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1924927 - 09/17/03 11:45 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Hey lds, you are a libertarian, explain this no minimum wage thing to us. I don't get it either.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1924960 - 09/17/03 11:59 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

because of increased efficiency, there would be a net increase in goods and services available to consumers.

Are you saying the best thing to do is pay workers as little as possible?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1925038 - 09/17/03 12:28 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Are you saying the best thing to do is pay workers as little as possible?

i never said anything like that... but it's something i'd agree with.

when you buy something, don't you usually try to buy it for as little money as you can?

if there were two carwashes in town and they both did just as good a job, i sure as hell wouldn't go to the one that was charging more for it. would you?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: shakta]
    #1925066 - 09/17/03 12:40 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

if labor costs more, everything produced by labor will cost more.

a minimum wage is a price support on labor. the only thing it ends up doing is jacking up the price of everything, along with pay, which doesn't make anyone wealthier. it also creates unemployment.

this is the practical reality of it.

the larger issue is that it's interference in a voluntary transaction.

if mr. smith is willing to mow my lawn for $4.00 an hour, and i'm willing to pay him that much, why the hell should anyone step in and tell us we're not allowed to do it? who is the victim in this criminal act we are commiting?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1925171 - 09/17/03 01:10 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

I see the point. I don't know if this reduction in the price of goods would actually happen though. Just because a company can make something cheaper does not mean they will sell it cheaper.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: shakta]
    #1925198 - 09/17/03 01:15 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Just because a company can make something cheaper does not mean they will sell it cheaper.

generally, yes, it does, provided that there is free competition and other companies can make it cheaper as well.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1925202 - 09/17/03 01:17 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

So in this libertarian society, would there still be protections against monopolies and such? What about price fixing?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: shakta]
    #1925210 - 09/17/03 01:20 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

no.

here's a good thread on that subject:

monopolies

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedomite
Puppet
Male User Gallery
Registered: 04/12/03
Posts: 2,978
Loc: Who's askin'?
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1925214 - 09/17/03 01:21 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

But during the time right after the industrial revolution, the factory workers made goods that were not sold to them, just exported, or sold to higer class people, as I could see happening if we had no minimum wage too. Also if there are little to no immigration laws, like the liberatarian party calls for, then there will very possibly be a huge amount of possible labor, wich could lead to mass unenployment. In the other side of this argument, money is already worth a certain amount right now, I doubt most employers are going to say:

"oh , by the way, bob, you are now being paid $0.3 an hour"
but it could be a possiblity in the lowest paying jobs that require the least amount of skill, particularyly if there is alot of immagration...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: domite]
    #1925235 - 09/17/03 01:28 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

No immigration laws? That sucks.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: libertarianism [Re: shakta]
    #1925263 - 09/17/03 01:38 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

shakta said:
I see the point. I don't know if this reduction in the price of goods would actually happen though. Just because a company can make something cheaper does not mean they will sell it cheaper.



They will if they wish to stay in business.

Think about how many cars are sold each year. If the wages go down as far as the "gloom and doomers" seem to think, how many cars will be sold? How many TV's? Stereos? Shoes?

Minimum wages have done little but fuck us.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1925558 - 09/17/03 03:03 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Say you owned a business producing tea cosies which u sold for $10 a throw. Would you feel right paying the people who made them 20cents and hour just because you could get away with it? Wouldnt you feel like you were exploiting them just a little bit?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1925572 - 09/17/03 03:10 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Depends.

What is the cost of materials?
How long does it take to make one?
Do they sell at $10 or are they just sitting on the shelf?
What is the cost of benefits?
Shipping costs?
Property taxes?
Insurance?
Business taxes?
Personal income taxes?
Do you have stock-holders who expect dividends?
Salesmans commisions?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1925580 - 09/17/03 03:14 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Well Id say if the answers to those questions dictated that you could only pay your workers 20 cent an hour then you wouldnt be able to be in business.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1925587 - 09/17/03 03:17 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
Well Id say if the answers to those questions dictated that you could only pay your workers 20 cent an hour then you wouldnt be able to be in business.



Why assume that? Perhaps after all that you're still making a profit for yourself of 40 cents per hour.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1927892 - 09/18/03 03:33 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

It was a simple question with no need for you to be so obstrcutive! Besides I was asking Mushmaster anyway.  :smirk: 


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1927960 - 09/18/03 03:56 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
It was a simple question with no need for you to be so obstrcutive!



Yes, it was a simple question. And the word is instructive.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1927983 - 09/18/03 04:08 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Lol! thats a good one. Still havent answered my simple question though.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1928014 - 09/18/03 04:21 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Actually.... I did.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1928029 - 09/18/03 04:26 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

You most deinitely did not. How old are you Luvvie? Is it possible senility has begun to set in?  :grin: 


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineseraphim
pugilist andstamp licker

Registered: 07/31/00
Posts: 441
Loc: brooklyn, ny
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: domite]
    #1928307 - 09/18/03 07:02 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

I have been toying with some libertarian ideas lately, too.
One of the things that make it hard for me to jump into is that a lot of libertarians seem to come from a right wing background, the opposite of mine.
That being said, there is a lot of interesting ideas in it. Try looking at reason magazine's website for some online info and updated news and a discussion permitted weblog.
Some of the questions I have are - what about basic regulations, like the FDA preventing (trying to, anyway)poison from being in my food - would a libertarian society not have that regulation and leave any offense like that in the hands of the consumer, so that they'd have to sue?
It's difficult to imagine a truly libertarian world beacuse we have never had one, and people have never had to act in the ways they could.


--------------------
trying to lose the monkey mind a little bit

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: seraphim]
    #1928329 - 09/18/03 07:27 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

I have been toying with some libertarian ideas lately, too.
One of the things that make it hard for me to jump into is that a lot of libertarians seem to come from a right wing background, the opposite of mine.


it's never a good idea to keep old beliefs simply because they're old beliefs. how long you've held a certain opinion, and how tightly you've held it, are not indicators of its validity. sadly, many people seem to act like they are.

Some of the questions I have are - what about basic regulations, like the FDA preventing (trying to, anyway)poison from being in my food - would a libertarian society not have that regulation and leave any offense like that in the hands of the consumer, so that they'd have to sue?

if someone poisons you, or unduly places you in danger of being poisoned, they've initiated force against you. certain safety regulations are permitted in a libertarian society (actually, they MUST be enforced). i think that when you buy food or drugs, it's implied by the manufacturer that it's safe to consume. if they are neglectful and their product is dangerous, i think that they're violating a consensual agreement, and should be held responsible. there may be other libertarians that say otherwise though.

It's difficult to imagine a truly libertarian world beacuse we have never had one

we were pretty close to it in the early days of our nation's history.

people have never had to act in the ways they could.

?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1928337 - 09/18/03 07:31 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

You didnt answer the question I asked you.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1928362 - 09/18/03 07:54 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

which one?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1928389 - 09/18/03 08:15 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Say you owned a business producing tea cosies which u sold for $10 a throw. Would you feel right paying the people who made them 20cents and hour just because you could get away with it? Wouldnt you feel like you were exploiting them just a little bit?

it would depend on alot of factors. how much competition is there? how are sales? what's the bottom line? are workers complaining of little pay? what's our employee turnover rate?

if times are tight, competition is, high, and we're barely getting by, i'd say no, i wouldn't have any problem paying those wages.

if business was booming, competition was scare, workers were frequently leaving to find new work or complaining about the pay, then i'd probably boost their pay.

it depends on the situation... but we're not talking about what's "right" to pay or what's "wrong" to pay based on my opinion or yours, or anyone else's. we're talking about whether it's right or wrong for the state to obstruct a mutual agreement between two consenting individuals.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 month, 8 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1928647 - 09/18/03 10:22 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

I would hire the workers for the lowest pay they will accept (the free-market price), and then I would share my profits with the most economically disadvantaged people. The workers might be included among these, but then again they might not be. At any rate this is a very different decision from the decision about what price to pay for labor.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1928719 - 09/18/03 11:06 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

I think it would be great if the state werent involved but thats only going to work if one of the parties involved isnt blatantly ripping off the other party just because they can.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1928862 - 09/18/03 12:07 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

if business was booming, competition was scare, workers were frequently leaving to find new work or complaining about the pay, then i'd probably boost their pay.

So what's your take on Nike with business booming and still paying slave wages?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1929123 - 09/18/03 01:34 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

So what's your take on Nike with business booming and still paying slave wages?

it's too bad that nike pays as little as they do. it'd be nice if they allocated a little more to the workers. but who am i to decide? nike and the workers have a voluntary agreement. it's none of my business, and it's none of yours.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1929201 - 09/18/03 01:48 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

I guess that's where we disagree. I don't like people being exploited and abused.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1929296 - 09/18/03 02:10 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

neither do i. there's alot of things i don't like seeing but which i wouldn't forcefully interfere with.

i don't like seeing a man be laid off from his job.

i don't like seeing a woman with 3 young kids and no job be divorced.

i don't like seeing parents teach their children that evolution is wrong.

i don't like seeing people waste their lives away hooked on drugs.

i don't like seeing people eat fast food every day.

i don't like it when people drive ugly cars.

i don't like it when women have sex with men for material ends.

i don't like it when... blah.

we've all got things we don't like, don't we? it's quite subjective.

initiating force on behalf of our personal preferences is absurd.

government means force, and the only rightful use of force is in defense from force.

if there was no such thing as coercion, we wouldn't need government. government would actually be impossible in that case.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1929492 - 09/18/03 03:13 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Another slow day?

You asked...
"Say you owned a business producing tea cosies which u sold for $10 a throw. Would you feel right paying the people who made them 20cents and hour just because you could get away with it? Wouldnt you feel like you were exploiting them just a little bit? "

I answered....
"Depends."

And then followed up with a bunch of questions, which while rhetorical in nature, were not answered. Some before you accuse me of being senile, look in the mirror.

I'd have thought you'd be tired of being wrong by now and would be more careful. I guess I was wrong.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineseraphim
pugilist andstamp licker

Registered: 07/31/00
Posts: 441
Loc: brooklyn, ny
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1929844 - 09/18/03 04:48 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

It's difficult to imagine a truly libertarian world beacuse we have never had one

we were pretty close to it in the early days of our nation's history.




Not so sure about that. The federal response to the Whiskey Rebellion took care of that. And much of our growth as a nation was behind the wall of tarifs.

Another concern I have with libertarian ideas is that they might get implemented halfway, with deregulation that doesn't go all the way and just increases the power of the companies - like cable deregulation did. It just allowed rising prices and hasn't really given rise to competition anywhere i have lived. This isn't a libetarian fault, I know - I just want to say that sometimes libertarian and deregulation gets all tied up and it just leads to badness.

Thanks for explaining that the idea that the FDA would still be around in some form. Sometimes it's hard to tell if even that would be tolerated, or is tolerated by libertarian societies/proponents.

I will say this - libertarians do have one of the best approach to civil liberties and the drug war. And for that we should glad.


--------------------
trying to lose the monkey mind a little bit

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1929853 - 09/18/03 04:51 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

here... you guys seem to be having some trouble so i'll throw you a bone...

taxation is an initiation of force. in a libertarian system, funding for the functions of government is supposed to come from non-coersive sources. now... while that may possibly work during times of peace and prosperity, i doubt that the government would be able to support its functions through peaceful means during something like an invasion, rebellion, or legitimate foreign war. i'm not sure how this would be dealt with.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedomite
Puppet
Male User Gallery
Registered: 04/12/03
Posts: 2,978
Loc: Who's askin'?
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1930439 - 09/18/03 08:27 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
So what's your take on Nike with business booming and still paying slave wages?

it's too bad that nike pays as little as they do. it'd be nice if they allocated a little more to the workers. but who am i to decide? nike and the workers have a voluntary agreement. it's none of my business, and it's none of yours. 




well, If youu are going to sponcer a given political party, you should agree with the outcome of their policisies, no?

If liberatarianism allows wage slavery, then it would be a reason for somone who does not support wage slavery not to vote for liberatarianism. That is why i think he was bringing this up, and I think I would have to agree with him that this is a reson to concider the merits of liberatarianism.

  At our current point in time, with corperations set up as they are, i could see this as possible. The existence of Unions would be a reason why this argument would be less true, but the government would need to provide some sort of protection, or possibly the unions would be able to handle their own shit becuase of the lack of gun control.  :evil:

In the end, its hard to say, but I think Liberatarianism is worth a shot, and is less risky than going for a marxist revolution :tongue: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: domite]
    #1930595 - 09/18/03 09:18 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

The whole "wage slavery" crap is just that -- crap.

It is just one more of a seemingly endless list of examples of linguistic inflation -- the deliberate attempt to apply the harshest possible term to a situation, with no regard for accepted definitions. In this case, paying a wage less than what the perenially indignant feel is acceptable (to the perenially indignant, of course -- heaven forbid the people looking for work be allowed to give their opinion on it) is termed "slavery" when it is in fact not even close. The words "slave" and "slavery" have clear and unambiguous definitions. A man who freely enters into an employment contract at an agreed-upon wage; a man who may quit his employment at will, is hardly a "slave".

Minimum wage laws, apart from the fact that they violate individual rights, are also bad economic practice. They cause unemployment and they keep the poor and unskilled in a poor and unskilled state.

Another bizarre theory associated with lack of minimum wage laws is that it inevitably leads to a "race to the bottom" -- that employers will pay less and less each year to their workers rather than more and more. The proponents of this theory ignore a couple things --

1) Minimum wage workers almost never stay minimum wage workers. Something like 9 out of 10 who made minimum wage two years ago are above that today -- sometimes substantially above that.

2) A very small percentage of workers older than teenagers make minimum wage, even in non-unionized workplaces. If the law requires that an employer pay minimum wage, why would any employer voluntarily pay his workers more than that? And yet they do.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1931064 - 09/18/03 11:36 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

initiating force on behalf of our personal preferences is absurd

I have a personal preference that corporations shouldn't be allowed to exploit and abuse people, destroy the environment and kill anyone who attempts to form a union or defend their people against exploitation. If that's absurd, then I'll have to be absurd I'm afraid.

If it takes an "initation of force" to stop people being murdered, abused and used as slaves then that's fine by me.

And if you can find me anyone happy to work for 10 cents an hour with no rights whatsoever please do so. Don't confuse the fact that there are people desperate enough to do something with the idea that they "must be happy" doing it.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1931662 - 09/19/03 05:48 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

I have a personal preference that corporations shouldn't be allowed to exploit and abuse people, destroy the environment and kill anyone who attempts to form a union or defend their people against exploitation. If that's absurd, then I'll have to be absurd I'm afraid.

alex, do you know the meaning of the word "initiate"? i said it was absurd to initiate force on behalf of one's personal preferences. i said that force was only to be used in response to force.

with one exception (the one i was refuting) all of your above charges would use force in defense from force, not initiate it.

If it takes an "initation of force" to stop people being murdered, abused and used as slaves then that's fine by me.

ah... it seems that indeed you don't understand what "initiate" means.

And if you can find me anyone happy to work for 10 cents an hour with no rights whatsoever please do so. Don't confuse the fact that there are people desperate enough to do something with the idea that they "must be happy" doing it.

is there an option to work elsewhere for better pay?

if not, you've got a hard case to prove that they are worse off with their job at company x than without it.... if they would be better off without the job, they can just leave. if they're better with it, they can stay and work. it's called voluntary association.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1931720 - 09/19/03 06:55 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

As long as people exploit other justs because they can get away with it i.e Paying 10c an hour becuae they know their workers cant earn more elsewhere, then povery will continue the world over and an ever decreasing minority will become obscenely rich. Oh what fun.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1932384 - 09/19/03 12:39 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

you won't eliminate poverty by forcing employers to pay more. you'll eliminate jobs. money is a means for exchanging wealth. it is not wealth.

this has gotten to the point of straw-grasping. your above statement is empty liberal buzzphrasing. it's a vague, untestable prediction with no foundation in economic theory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1932550 - 09/19/03 01:24 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

you won't eliminate poverty by forcing employers to pay more. you'll eliminate jobs

Nope. Another libertarian myth I'm afraid.

You really think paying 20 cents an hour instead of 10 cents is going to put corporations out of buisness?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1932562 - 09/19/03 01:27 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

One cannot answer that without having knowledge of the expenses and income of a company.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: Autonomous]
    #1932608 - 09/19/03 01:37 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Looks like Nike could afford to pay a little more:

Poor wages are by far the worst aspect of the sweatshop. Workers in China manufacturing Nike and Adidas trainers earn as little as 16 cents (US) a day, while the trainers sell for $100 or more in the US. More crucially, these workers are paid far less than the cost of living in their own countries. Development experts define a living wage as an amount, per hour, where a worker can afford to feed themselves and perhaps children, pay for basic clothing and accommodation, and have a little to spare to save or help with ageing parents. In China, these basics can be bought for just 87 cents an hour. The worker sewing shoes on a Nike assembly line is paid less than a quarter of that. Workers making Disney jackets and cuddly toys at the Megatex factory in Haiti make $2.15 a day, while their basics cost $6.12 a day.

Conditions in far off factories that manufacture goods for western consumption are notoriously harsh. Reports emerge of beatings, rape, fires and forced labour. Everyday conditions, which in the West would horrify, are more or less taken for granted: bans on socialising or even talking, monitored toilet breaks for which wages are deducted, stuffy and poorly ventilated factories, no protective gloves or masks, short term contracts with no consideration for sickness or redundancy pay.


Despite spending big bucks on a PR campaign to shed its sweatshop image Nike continue to subcontract in Indonesia, El Salvador and China. Labour abuses in these factories include low wages, excessive hours, including forced overtime and illegal wage deductions. For example, on International Women's Day in 1997 fifty six women working at a Nike factory in Vietnam were forced to run around the site in the hot sun as punishment for failing to wear regulation shoes. Nike recorded a profit of $8.7 billion in 1999.



http://www.ethicalmatters.co.uk/articles.asp?itemID=44&title=Exploitation


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1932710 - 09/19/03 01:56 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

The point is, you cannot look at Nike and generalize to all businesses. Many businesses operate on a much thinner profit margin. I have one friend who was forced to close his business because of government mandated expenses - it was no longer profitable for him. ALL the people who worked for him became unemployed and had to try to find work elsewhere. Is this the result that you desire? Granted this does not happen every time, but there is a consistent trait of many on the left when looking at economic issues to exhibit an inability or refusal to address unintended consequences.

A couple more...
1) What if instead of complying with a government mandate to raise wages, an employer determines it is more economical to automate processes and lay off employees?
2) Employers comply with the government mandate and raises wages. To cover expenses, they also raise the price of products and/or services. Price hikes work their way through every sector of the economy, the end result being that the higher wages received have the same purchasing power as before. A benefit (for the government) is that some people have been pushed into higher tax brackets - in real terms, their purchasing power has been reduced although they make more money.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: Autonomous]
    #1932738 - 09/19/03 02:03 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

But at what point would you draw the line tho? We all know that if a corporation is allowed to run it's factories like Auschwitz then it's gonna make a profit.

Is there some point where you say "No, we cannot allow people to be treated in this way"? Or do you just allow the "race to the bottom" to proceed until we all work in equivalent conditions to Auschwitz?

How do you prevent this happening with no government control on wages, a decent welfare system etc?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 month, 8 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1932761 - 09/19/03 02:10 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

For example, on International Women's Day in 1997 fifty six women working at a Nike factory in Vietnam were forced to run around the site in the hot sun as punishment for failing to wear regulation shoes.



This is horrible, but in fact it's not the worst thing that has happened to workers in Ho Chi Minh's proletariat-governed paradise.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1932762 - 09/19/03 02:10 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
But at what point would you draw the line tho? We all know that if a corporation is allowed to run it's factories like Auschwitz then it's gonna make a profit.



How can you logically compare someone freely deciding to work for someone with working in Auschwitz? Answer, YOU CAN'T.

Quote:

Or do you just allow the "race to the bottom" to proceed until we all work in equivalent conditions to Auschwitz?



Try to be a little less hysterical. Again, it is irrational to compare someone freely working for an employer to working in Auschwitz.

Could the workers at Auschwitz go home at the end of the day? Could they refuse to show up for work? Did they get paid?


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: Autonomous]
    #1932778 - 09/19/03 02:18 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

That's not really the point is it. The point is at what degree of exploitation do you draw the line. Reading about the conditions in western corporate backed "enterprise zones" is very reminiscent of Auschwitz. Working in horrendous conditions, beaten for the slightest thing etc.

Do you believe workers have any right to protection from these abuses whatsoever? Or do you think that as long as there's someone desperate enough to do it, you're perfectly justified in treating them like human garbage?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1932976 - 09/19/03 03:28 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Nope. Another libertarian myth I'm afraid.

it's not a myth, and it's recognized by economists across the board.

now... about all this "wage-slave" garbage. tell me... if the company "exploiting" these people did not exist would they be better off?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1933018 - 09/19/03 03:47 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
That's not really the point is it.



The point is that your examples do not apply. First of all, the conditions you describe are not in countries operating under a libertarian political system so using these examples as an argument against libertarianism is not warranted. Secondly, the comparison with Auschwitz is hysterical and hardly accurate.

Quote:

Reading about the conditions in western corporate backed "enterprise zones" is very reminiscent of Auschwitz.



I suggest you do a little more studying of history. Drawing unsupportable parallels between these two situations in an attempt to discredit an entirely different third situation is no way to make a valid point.

Quote:

... beaten for the slightest thing etc.



Beatings of workers would not be allowed under a libertarian political system. You fail to recognize that this is initiation of force and is in direct contradiction to libertarian principles.

If you are going to argue against libertarianism, it would help that you argue against it and not some statist system that violates libertarian principles.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Autonomous]
    #1933031 - 09/19/03 03:52 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

i wouldn't count on it. alex is rather notorious 'round these parts for his straw man building.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedomite
Puppet
Male User Gallery
Registered: 04/12/03
Posts: 2,978
Loc: Who's askin'?
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Phred]
    #1933097 - 09/19/03 04:23 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

I thought that term might have been a problem, I wont use it anymore, what I meant by wage slavery is a situation where there are generally horrible contiotions, where that person is paid barley enough or less than enough to take care of thier everyday needs, like food and shelter.


"Another bizarre theory associated with lack of minimum wage laws is that it inevitably leads to a 'race to the bottom'..."

I never said enevitably, but it is definatley possible. As for your evedence, it is rediculous to compare what exists our economy to what might exist if our economy was suddenly liberatarianst. There is a pretty notacable difference.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: Autonomous]
    #1933193 - 09/19/03 04:48 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

"Beatings of workers would not be allowed under a libertarian political system. You fail to recognize that this is initiation of force and is in direct contradiction to libertarian principles."

What about low wages? What about not providing workers with decent benefits?

What about monopolies? If you don't have restrictions on how large a company can grow, and how much it can control, what's to prevent it from replacing the government as a controlling force, and one that is run totally privately instead of by people who are elected by the public?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Phluck]
    #1933287 - 09/19/03 05:21 PM (20 years, 6 months ago)

A huge beucracy might as well be the government.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: Autonomous]
    #1934211 - 09/20/03 12:25 AM (20 years, 6 months ago)

First of all, the conditions you describe are not in countries operating under a libertarian political system so using these examples as an argument against libertarianism is not warranted

So what exactly would prevent a corporation behaving in exactly the same manner in a "libertarian" political system?

Secondly, the comparison with Auschwitz is hysterical and hardly accurate.

Nothing hysterical about it auto. Terrorising your workforce and making them work in horrendous conditions. You believe this didn't exist in Auschwitz? It's only to a matter of degree isn't it. With no government protection what would stop the corporations doing whatever they wanted? The cops?

Beatings of workers would not be allowed under a libertarian political system

I keep hearing this nonsense and no explanation of how. Could you explain HOW it would be stopped? By passing a law? You believe a 14 year old girl who lives in a shack and earns 10 cents an hour is going to go to the police and say "That billion dollar corporation beat me, please arrest them and send them all to jail"? I'm sorry but you're living in a dream world.

it would help that you argue against it and not some statist system that violates libertarian principles.

Once again, could you explain how when you take away any government protection whatsoever (which is what exists already in most of these third world countries to be honest) how you control the behaviour of corporations? Do you think if you pass a law saying "You cannot beat your workforce" everyone would obey it? Do you think it just might be possible for a billion dollar corporation to spray a few million at the head of police and get away with things? Or don't you think that is possible in a "libertarian" system?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1934816 - 09/20/03 04:20 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

If companies didnt take obscene profits for those at the top and distributed the profits fairly amongst the entire workforce then it would have a better chance of of easing poverty than if we continue in the current vein. Im talking about an attitude here anyway. Perhaps your heart chakra needs a little work before you are going to understand what Im talking about.

Quote:

this has gotten to the point of straw-grasping. your above statement is empty liberal buzzphrasing. it's a vague, untestable prediction with no foundation in economic theory.





What you mean sort of like "as long as your actions do not, by way of force, impede on the actions of another person, you are to be free to act as you wish, without interference by force.

the only role of government (legally recognized force) is to enforce this principle."



--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1935198 - 09/20/03 10:36 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

If companies didnt take obscene profits for those at the top and distributed the profits fairly amongst the entire workforce then it would have a better chance of of easing poverty than if we continue in the current vein.

if the companies did not exist would the people be better off than they are now?

Im talking about an attitude here anyway. Perhaps your heart chakra needs a little work before you are going to understand what Im talking about.

ah... finally you admit that your position is based not on reason, but emotion. are we getting into my personal life? if you really want to go there, i could entertain a few questions about the very numerous voluntary charity and public service projects i have voluntarily volunteered for...

this has gotten to the point of straw-grasping. your above statement is empty liberal buzzphrasing. it's a vague, untestable prediction with no foundation in economic theory.

What you mean sort of like "as long as your actions do not, by way of force, impede on the actions of another person, you are to be free to act as you wish, without interference by force.

the only role of government (legally recognized force) is to enforce this principle."


this statement is neither vague, nor an unpredictable prediction. it's a concise assessment on the nature of liberty and the role of government. try reading a little john locke, john stuart mill, or adam smith. if there is contradiction or fallacy in this view of liberty and government, i welcome you to expose it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1935226 - 09/20/03 10:50 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

So what exactly would prevent a corporation behaving in exactly the same manner in a "libertarian" political system?

cops and courts.

Nothing hysterical about it auto. Terrorising your workforce and making them work in horrendous conditions. You believe this didn't exist in Auschwitz? It's only to a matter of degree isn't it. With no government protection what would stop the corporations doing whatever they wanted? The cops?

are there gas chambers in these factories we're talking about? are people not permitted to leave?

"making them work in horrendous conditions"?

by "making", you mean force, right?

"terrorizing your workforce"?

you mean through fear of violent action against them?

... yes, alex, the cops.

I keep hearing this nonsense and no explanation of how. Could you explain HOW it would be stopped? By passing a law? You believe a 14 year old girl who lives in a shack and earns 10 cents an hour is going to go to the police and say "That billion dollar corporation beat me, please arrest them and send them all to jail"? I'm sorry but you're living in a dream world.

there are peaceful negotiations over wages and working conditions all the time. if beating your employees when they ask for a raise is just soo easy, why isn't everybody doing it?

Once again, could you explain how when you take away any government protection whatsoever (which is what exists already in most of these third world countries to be honest) how you control the behaviour of corporations?

we aren't talking about removing governmental protection. we're talking about removing everything EXCEPT protection, which is enforced absolutely, by an objective government with NO TIES to the businesses.

these countries you're talking about are run by corrupt politicians who are in bed with the large corporations. their police forces are puny and corrupt. they are nothing even remotely close to what a libertarian society would look like. they're quite the opposite.

how many times are you going to kill this straw man before you attack the flesh and bones argument?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1935292 - 09/20/03 11:25 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

*clap, clap, clap*

Well done.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1935318 - 09/20/03 11:39 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

If companies didnt take obscene profits for those at the top and distributed the profits fairly amongst the entire workforce then it would have a better chance of of easing poverty than if we continue in the current vein.

"Obscene" profits? I'm curious -- what is it you do for a living?

Have you ever taken the time to read a few annual corporate reports? There are very, VERY few corporations with a profit margin higher than ten per cent of revenue, and many, MANY highly successful ones with margins less than half that.

Note that in most manufacturing corporations, the typical ratio is roughly 30% cost of materials, 30% wages and benefits cost, and 30% taxes, plant infrastructure expenses, interest on loans, advertising, cost of compliance with government regulations, shipping expenses, etc., etc. If you are doing well -- EXTREMELY well -- in a given year there might be as much as 10% left over for reinvestment, expansion, and shareholder dividends. Of course, it is entirely possible that there is no profit at all, or even a loss, for several years at a stretch. Note that the employees get paid whether there is a profit or a loss.

And this is in corporations which manufacture things. In the case of corporations operating in the service industry, wages and benefits may exceed 70% of annual revenue.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: Phred]
    #1935495 - 09/20/03 01:09 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Note that in most manufacturing corporations, the typical ratio is roughly 30% cost of materials, 30% wages and benefits cost, and 30% taxes, plant infrastructure expenses, interest on loans, advertising, cost of compliance with government regulations, shipping expenses, etc., etc.




The heads of most corporations tend to grant themselves obscene salaries which obviously make the company figures a little less inspiring.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1935508 - 09/20/03 01:15 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

this statement is neither vague, nor an unpredictable prediction. it's a concise assessment on the nature of liberty and the role of government. try reading a little john locke, john stuart mill, or adam smith. if there is contradiction or fallacy in this view of liberty and government, i welcome you to expose it.





Ok I will! You said: "as long as your actions do not, by way of force, impede on the actions of another person"

If force were the only way to impede on the actions of another person you might not have a problem. But sadly this is not the case. You dont have to initiate force to negatively impede another. Who then decides what is to be considered impeding and what is not?

Quote:

try reading a little john locke, john stuart mill, or adam smith.




How do you know I havent? Perhaps I dont agree with everything they have to say? Perhaps I think they spoke well for their time but we that now live in a world so radically diferent to the one they inhabited as to make their ideas dated and not entirely useful?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1935544 - 09/20/03 01:33 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

If force were the only way to impede on the actions of another person you might not have a problem.

force or fraud is the only way to get someone to do something that they don't voluntarily consent to. the only way you can annul another individual's free will is through coercion.

How do you know I havent?

when i stated an observation once espoused by these gentlemen, you said the idea had no ground in economic theory.

Perhaps I think they spoke well for their time but we that now live in a world so radically diferent to the one they inhabited as to make their ideas dated and not entirely useful?

hardly an adequate refutation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Phluck]
    #1935605 - 09/20/03 01:54 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Phluck writes:

What about low wages?

What about them?

What about not providing workers with decent benefits?

Same question.

What about monopolies?

What about them? What's bad about a noncoercive monopoly? Who is harmed by a company which provides such great products in such abundance at such low prices that no one else can do any better? Is this not a good thing?

If you don't have restrictions on how large a company can grow...

Presuming for the sake of argument that a "large" company is intrinsically a bad thing, how large should it be allowed to grow? Who decides when that point is reached?

... and how much it can control ...

What do you mean, "control"? All companies do is buy stuff and sell stuff. They don't throw you in jail for smoking dope.

... what's to prevent it from replacing the government as a controlling force...

The fact that companies may not own police, courts, and armies.

... and one that is run totally privately instead of by people who are elected by the public?

See above.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1935711 - 09/20/03 02:55 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

... yes, alex, the cops.

I see. Looks like we've found the crux of our differences then mush. You believe cops will protect 14 year old girls living in shacks against billion dollar corporations.

I don't.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1935838 - 09/20/03 03:48 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

why not?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1936032 - 09/20/03 05:04 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

The problem with mushmaster's argument:

As explored in E. E. Schattshneider's "The Semi-Sovereign People" there is an extreme bias towards the rich in the abillity to organize. This results in having the leisure time as well as the money to influence people (through advertising and other ways of manufacturing consent, see Stuart Ewen's book "PR!") and politicians through campaign donations.
Additionally, corporations are already organized before the worker even fills out the job application. And they are organized between each other as well through organazations such as the National Association of Manufacturers.
Another thing mushmaster is overlooking is that a corporations goal is not to appease its workers. a corporation's (or rather when i speak of a 'corporation' i mean those who make its decisions, meaning its owners) goal is to make money FOR THEMSELVES. not for the entire company. the goal is to pay wokers as low as possible while still retaining them and their input. And the advantage in hiring goes to corporations. there are always people looking for work but how often in history has there just been 'too many openings and not enough people'. thus, since they know they'll find some desperate massichist to fill the position, they'll pay as low as they can get away with.
after all, back in the days before minimum wage what did we have? we had a ruling bourgeoisie who owned the means of production and made insane amounts of money off of paying workers next to nothing.

however, the citizen workers (thankfully) have one method of organization that is readily available to them--voting. thats how eventually minimum wages and other such laws came into being. I think there would be more if we didnt have this crappy two-party system where one-issue voters such as gun-rights advocates and pro-lifers are forced to vote for a party that also supports corporations' rights even though they may disagree with that, but they care too much about the above issues.

the bottom line is that these owners control the means of production and because of that, have a huge advantage over the worker and use this advantage (knowing the worker doesnt have many other options) to pay as little as possible. government and workers' rights have tried to even the playing field a bit, but to little avail.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1936059 - 09/20/03 05:17 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

The only solution is RAW's Guns and Dope party.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1936077 - 09/20/03 05:27 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

As explored in E. E. Schattshneider's "The Semi-Sovereign People" there is an extreme bias towards the rich in the abillity to organize. This results in having the leisure time as well as the money to influence people (through advertising and other ways of manufacturing consent, see Stuart Ewen's book "PR!") and politicians through campaign donations.

true. where's the problem?

as far as influencing politicians... if government was required to stay out of business, there would be no reason for businesses not to stay out of government.

Additionally, corporations are already organized before the worker even fills out the job application. And they are organized between each other as well through organazations such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

the point here being?

Another thing mushmaster is overlooking is that a corporations goal is not to appease its workers.

of course it isn't. nor is it the worker's goal to appease the corporations. everyone is looking out for their own best interests, and making voluntary actions that they believe they will benefit from.

a corporation's (or rather when i speak of a 'corporation' i mean those who make its decisions, meaning its owners) goal is to make money FOR THEMSELVES. not for the entire company.

the people who own the company profit only from its prosperity. why would they not make decisions in the best interest of the company? and furthermore, if they don't, who cares? they're the ones who will lose if the company falters.

however, the citizen workers (thankfully) have one method of organization that is readily available to them--voting. thats how eventually minimum wages and other such laws came into being.

rather than elect officials to use unjust force on their behalf, a more reasonable method of organization that is also readily available to them would be the labor union.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1936109 - 09/20/03 05:44 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

many here seem to harbor an underlying sentiment that something is owed to people just for being here.

you will be paid for your work (or anything else) only as much as it is worth to the person you are providing it for.

already we've got people being forced to pay more than they would voluntarily agree to... what's next, forcing companies to employ people they wouldn't otherwise hire?

a business is not a charity organization

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1936131 - 09/20/03 05:54 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

what's next, forcing companies to employ people they wouldn't otherwise hire?




Hiring quotas and AA already do that mushmaster.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1936431 - 09/20/03 09:09 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

my point is that since corporations are more organized than individual unempoyed workers, they can collectively drive down wages and the owners keep the profits. since the system inherently favors the corporations it is my opinion that something must be done to level the playing field, so that the worker is fairly compensated for the work they contribute.
The problem here is that, as with any policy controversy, there are competing public goods. In this case it is freedom of financial dealings versus social justice. Or to put it in Lockean terms, liberty versus the right to pursue happiness. The workers' right to pursue happiness is being threatened as corporations collectively drive down wages so that they can pocket more profits. The corporation's right to increase profit margins is being threatened by minimum wage. When it comes down to it, I think the priority goes to the impoverished worker over the CEO fat cat.
Personally the trouble with libertarianism for me is that it doesnt seem to recognize balance. It wants total freedom to do just about anything apart from physical harm. However, in the arena of competing public goods there has to be a balance, one public good cannot always trump the other. Privacy cannot always trump security and vice-versa. Freedom cannot always trump security either, and i mean security both in health and in the pursuit of happiness.

Quote:

rather than elect officials to use unjust force on their behalf, a more reasonable method of organization that is also readily available to them would be the labor union.




did you not read what i just said? corporations have much more of an advantage in organizing than individual employees or prospective employees. labor laws try to correct that imbalance in the interest of social justice.

personally i just can't see how the right of an owner to increase profit margins even further is more important than to make sure a worker has enough to put food on the table, roof over their heads and pay the bills.

and your example of paying someone to mow your lawn for $4.00 is irrelevant to the discussion. you CAN pay them that because no policeman is really concerned about these small financial dealings where the playing field is about equal, where the employer and employee are about equally organized. the problem lies between corporations and the individual unemployed.

for example lets say that someone is working at a corporation and is just earning enough to get by. Then his boss comes up to him and tells him that he's going to have to either be fired or else take a small pay cut. well the worker knows he couldnt afford to be out of a job for a month or two while looking for another one while the corporation could easily take the hit of the loss of production of one measily employee. So it knows the worker will take the pay cut and the owner will pocket a bit more money. And the corporations will adopt these policies if they can get away with it (though maybe not doing it so directly) because that is a corporation's only telos--to make more profits.



--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1936559 - 09/20/03 10:17 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

TaoTeChing writes:

my point is that since corporations are more organized than individual unempoyed workers...

You state this as if it is fact. It isn't. Besides, no matter how organized a business may be, its organization means exactly squat if it can't persuade people to accept employment with it.

since the system inherently favors the corporations...

Again, something stated as fact which isn't. In this case, the "system" we are discussing is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Such a system (more accurately lack of system) favors neither side.

...it is my opinion that something must be done to level the playing field...

See the recent thread titled "The Level Playing Field Act".

...so that the worker is fairly compensated for the work they contribute.

Since when is a thing worth anything other than what someone is willing to pay for it?

In this case it is freedom of financial dealings versus social justice.

False dichotomy. Why is it just for an employer looking to hire someone to be forced to pay more than he needs to? Are employers second class citizens? Are they to be accorded less justice than others?

Or to put it in Lockean terms, liberty versus the right to pursue happiness.

You have missed the key word in that phrase -- the right to pursue happiness. No one has the right to happiness, just as no one has the right to be paid a hundred and thirty dollars an hour for flipping burgers. One does however have the right to pursue the things that will bring him happiness, and the right to seek an employer willing to pay him a hundred and thirty dollars an hour for flipping burgers.

The workers' right to pursue happiness is being threatened as corporations collectively drive down wages so that they can pocket more profits.

Incorrect. Assuming for the sake of argument that corporations are acting in concert (an arbitrary statement unsupported by evidence, but let's assume for the moment it is true) to drive down wages, the worker has other options in pursuing happiness. He can start his own business, either by himself or with a group of like-minded individuals. He can seek employment with smaller existing businesses rather than with corporations. He can learn to juggle or perform magic tricks and be a street busker.

The corporation's right to increase profit margins is being threatened by minimum wage.

So sorry, this is incorrect. Corporations factor into their pricing the cost of wages. If the cost of wages go up, prices go up. The corporation's bottom line remains unaffected. What is threatened, however, is the chance of someone seeking a first job. It has been so well-documented that with every bump in the minimum wage there is a corresponding bump in people without jobs that it astonishes me when people try to argue this hoary old chestnut yet again. Minimum wage laws harm the young, the uneducated, the infirm and the unskilled far more than they harm corporations. This is not ivory-tower theory I'm talking here, my philosopher friend, this is easily verifiable fact.

When it comes down to it, I think the priority goes to the impoverished worker over the CEO fat cat.

Priority of what? Priority in choosing against which peaceful individual the initiation of force is to be applied? How can one who professes to be a philosopher justify such a thing?

Personally the trouble with libertarianism for me is that it doesnt seem to recognize balance.

A "balanced" use of force? How does that work?

However, in the arena of competing public goods there has to be a balance, one public good cannot always trump the other.

There is no such thing as a "public" good. The "public" is nothing more than several individuals. If something is bad for an individual, it is bad for the "public" as well.

Privacy cannot always trump security and vice-versa. Freedom cannot always trump security either, and i mean security both in health and in the pursuit of happiness.

No one in a Libertarian society is guaranteed security, health, or happiness. They are however left free to attempt to obtain all three.

did you not read what i just said? corporations have much more of an advantage in organizing than individual employees or prospective employees.

Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Corporations are not some monolithic entity marching in lockstep. Company A routinely tries to steal workers from company B. This is so common there are literally hundreds of firms out there who make a damn good living doing nothing BUT stealing workers from companies.

personally i just can't see how the right of an owner to increase profit margins even further is more important than to make sure a worker has enough to put food on the table, roof over their heads and pay the bills.

So you are saying a company should pay based not on the work performed, but on the number of dependents a worker has? How is that fair to the healthy single young woman who has chosen to live with three roomies in order to save for her future?

and your example of paying someone to mow your lawn for $4.00 is irrelevant to the discussion.

Incorrect. It is completely relevant. The principle being illustrated is that no one has the right to prevent you from exchanging your labor for a price you are willing (even eager) to accept. This is as true for a ten year contract as it is for a one hour contract.

for example lets say that someone is working at a corporation and is just earning enough to get by. Then his boss comes up to him and tells him that he's going to have to either be fired or else take a small pay cut.

You have never worked a day in your life, have you?

This scenario is far, FAR more common in tiny Mom and Pop businesses than it is in huge corporate environments.

well the worker knows he couldnt afford to be out of a job for a month or two while looking for another one while the corporation could easily take the hit of the loss of production of one measily employee.

If the corporation is in such dire straits that it is risking the loss of experienced employees, it is not in the best of shape, and can't "easily" take any hits. Corporations who produce less profit less.

So it knows the worker will take the pay cut and the owner will pocket a bit more money.

It "knows" no such thing. The employee may just shrug and say, "I quit. I've always wanted to try my hand at something else."

And the corporations will adopt these policies if they can get away with it (though maybe not doing it so directly)...

Arbitrary speculation, unfounded in fact. You are aware of course that Henry Ford, faced with a surfeit of available labor, nonetheless deliberately chose to pay his workers double the going rate of the day in order to assure himself a reliable pool of employees. Ford's goal was to make money... LOTS of money. He did.

...because that is a corporation's only telos--to make more profits.

There are more ways to make profits than to hire the cheapest possible employees -- as Henry Ford, Bill Gates, and thousands of other "fat cat CEOs" have proven so amply.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Phred]
    #1936751 - 09/20/03 11:49 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing writes:
my point is that since corporations are more organized than individual unempoyed workers...
You state this as if it is fact. It isn't. Besides, no matter how organized a business may be, its organization means exactly squat if it can't persuade people to accept employment with it.
since the system inherently favors the corporations...
Again, something stated as fact which isn't. In this case, the "system" we are discussing is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Such a system (more accurately lack of system) favors neither side.




did you read my last post? go read Schattshneider's Sem-Sovreign People, its an authority on political science theory from the 60's. Yes of COURSE theyre more able to organized if they have more money and are organized to begin with. Even Mush doesnt disagree with that one.

Quote:

...so that the worker is fairly compensated for the work they contribute.
Since when is a thing worth anything other than what someone is willing to pay for it?




I am of the opinion that if you do someone's bidding for 40 hrs a week youre entitled to adequate compensation, that being at least the lowest permitted by basic health and decency. These are real people we're talking about who have to feed their children (who shouldnt be punished for their father not being paid enough of a wage to live on). This is not determing the value of a personal cassette player or bag of potato chips.

Quote:

In this case it is freedom of financial dealings versus social justice.
False dichotomy. Why is it just for an employer looking to hire someone to be forced to pay more than he needs to? Are employers second class citizens? Are they to be accorded less justice than others?




As soon as I see middle-aged CEOs on the side of highway on-ramps begging for help to feed them and their children, i'll support helping them out too. Its called need-based aid.

Quote:

Or to put it in Lockean terms, liberty versus the right to pursue happiness.

You have missed the key word in that phrase -- the right to pursue happiness. No one has the right to happiness, just as no one has the right to be paid a hundred and thirty dollars an hour for flipping burgers. One does however have the right to pursue the things that will bring him happiness, and the right to seek an employer willing to pay him a hundred and thirty dollars an hour for flipping burgers.




First of all, as Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote (the scottish enlightenment being where so many of the American Consititution's ideas came from), one must have basic security before one can possibly hope to pursue
happiness. That is what MINIMUM wage is. Its supposed to be the MINIMUM one can reasonably hope to earn to lead a basic, very humble life. The fact that you had to fabricate such a ridiculous number as $135 an hour proves how unjust your point is. lets put it in the way the world ACTUALLY is: "Noone has the right to be paid $5.00 an hour for flipping burgers" (and incidentally, if you think working fast food is some slow-paced cush job, good god youve got another thing coming). Hmm, doesnt have quite the same effect when you use the truth does it?

Definition from infoplease.com of minimum wage:
Quote:

"The goal in establishing minimum wages has been to assure wage earners a standard of living above the lowest permitted by health and decency. The minimum has been set by labor unions through collective bargaining, by arbitration, by board action, and, finally, by legislation."




notice "lowest permitted by health and decency" i.e. NOT $135 an hour. And notice, Mush that labor unions DO come into it.

Also it says
Quote:

Since 1989, businesses earning less than $500,000 annually have not been subject to minimum-wage rules.




so it does NOT apply to mowing lawns and it does not apply to tiny companies struggling to make a profit. its about justice that those greed fat cats share some of their profits.

Quote:

The corporation's right to increase profit margins is being threatened by minimum wage.
So sorry, this is incorrect. Corporations factor into their pricing the cost of wages. If the cost of wages go up, prices go up. The corporation's bottom line remains unaffected. What is threatened, however, is the chance of someone seeking a first job. It has been so well-documented that with every bump in the minimum wage there is a corresponding bump in people without jobs that it astonishes me when people try to argue this hoary old chestnut yet again. Minimum wage laws harm the young, the uneducated, the infirm and the unskilled far more than they harm corporations. This is not ivory-tower theory I'm talking here, my philosopher friend, this is easily verifiable fact.




okay, so now you're saying that minimum wage laws are unfair to the unemployed? this is a completely different approach than from earlier. Sorry, but as an unskilled, uneducated (yet), unemployed person looking for a job, im much happier knowing that when I DO get a job i'll be able to support myself with it.

Quote:

When it comes down to it, I think the priority goes to the impoverished worker over the CEO fat cat.
Priority of what? Priority in choosing against which peaceful individual the initiation of force is to be applied? How can one who professes to be a philosopher justify such a thing?




priority of the workers right to feed his family by receiving a minimum wage versus a ceo's right to get him to accept a lower wage. And stop it with this "peaceful voluntary contract" stuff. we're talking about hiring unskilled workers who HAVE NO OTHER OPTION IF THEY WANT TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE. its not like those small buisnesses you talked about are always hiring, trust me, im looking for jobs at the moment, and in order to start a small business you need CAPITAL, which obviously they won't have. and if your only other option is to live as a street performer which is almost like begging for change than thats not really much of an 'option' is it? It's like putting a gun to someone's head and saying "either give me your money or get your brains blown out." then saying he voluntarily chose to give me his money instead of his other available options. These uneducated unskilled workers HAVE NO OTHER OPTION as much as you might like to tell yourself they do.

And since when is a philosopher automatically a libertarian? Jeez, you think Nietzche and St. Thomas of Aquinas can be grouped together holding similar overarching views just because theyre both philosophers?? A 'philosopher' does not determine one to hold one view over another. Get a dictionary.

Quote:

Personally the trouble with libertarianism for me is that it doesnt seem to recognize balance.
A "balanced" use of force? How does that work?




Not forcing the corporation to pay him $135 an hour to flip burgers but not letting them get him try to accept less that that which he could live off demanded by basic health and dignity.
Other "balanced" uses of force? Policemen taking someone in custody while respecting the criminals rights.
Interrogating and imprisoning a suspect but not torturing them.
Warring with an enemy but not violating the Geneva convention.
Is this really that hard an idea to understand or do you need more examples?


Quote:


for example lets say that someone is working at a corporation and is just earning enough to get by. Then his boss comes up to him and tells him that he's going to have to either be fired or else take a small pay cut.
You have never worked a day in your life, have you?



don't be stupid.

It was an analogy to what happens on the unemployment market, the corporations are more equipped financially to deal with not hiring a worker than a worker is financially equipped to go unemployed another indefinate amount of time. And why is this race to the bottom so hard to understand when it is currently happening globally because of free trade? Lets say there are 200 unskilled, uneducated people looking for jobs. Corporation A hires 50 of them for $7 an hour and Corporation B gives out a notice offering to pay 50 workers $5 an hour for any of those remaining 150 who want to work. Rather than face unemployment, they will be SOME who just want to get a job (there ALWAYS are). Then Corporation A looks over at B and decides the next crop they'll hire they'll offer $5 an hour. After all, who else are they going to go to? Corp B?
Remember the key in these minimum wage scenarios is that there is NO COMPETITION amongst corporations for unskilled workers. There is a sea of them and they're a dime a dozen.

Quote:

There is no such thing as a "public" good. The "public" is nothing more than several individuals. If something is bad for an individual, it is bad for the "public" as well.




A 'public' good is something that is given to all the public such as minimum wage or civil liberties or other forms of security in health, privacy and safety. As for if something is bad for AN individual, it is bad for the public, i dont agree. Now if it is a significant number of individuals then it is a threat to that public good. What is a 'significant number'? thats where policymakers come in and try to make a fair decision.

Quote:

Privacy cannot always trump security and vice-versa. Freedom cannot always trump security either, and i mean security both in health and in the pursuit of happiness.
No one in a Libertarian society is guaranteed security, health, or happiness. They are however left free to attempt to obtain all three.



Exactly, this is where our ideologies diverge. Personally i'd rather be guaranteed enough food to survive should anything happen to me rather than be guaranteed the freedom to attempt to obtain food. But thats an opinion and is why we have different ideologies. What I don't like is when libertarians focus on all these liberties and then pretend that once put in place, the public will receive even more money and other benefits. Like some magic cake that you can have and eat it too.

As for what a corporation's purpose is, this is not some wildly fanatical liberal cock and bull. A corporation is a group of people getting together during the day time to help each other make money to spend in their off time. Thats just what it is. Although there might be exceptions when some CEOs are so unimaginably rich that money loses all meaning (such as your examples), for the rest of them, if they can get the same thing out of their workers by paying them less as by paying them more, why wouldnt they pay them less? Not unless the CEO is Jesus or the Dalai Lama or some other altruist. There some rare examples of CEOs doing something besides making a profit, but thats not usually the purpose of a corporation. My point is that its not a monolithic structure hell-bent on planetary doom, its just a sort of support group for people who want to make money, so thats what they try to do.

Blech, thats enough for me, i cant believe i just wrote all that (or that someone might be bothered to read it)


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDrugAgainstWar
Shroom Padawan

Registered: 09/16/03
Posts: 5
Re: libertarianism [Re: Phred]
    #1936774 - 09/20/03 11:58 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

I don't really wish to step into this political shit storm, but I have to say that although I was once intrigued with libertarian ideas, I have since decided that I quite strongly disagree with them.

Complete deregulation and privatization of our society just doesn't seem like a good idea. In my opinion, it seems as if this would do nothing but create an even bigger polarization of wealth.

In my opinion, it all boils down to the value of human life. Are all humans equal? If not, should they be? If so, what constitutes equality?

I see no equality in a capitalist system, and I have grown to find that libertarianism encourages capitalism of the worst kind. What makes a CEO worth more than the worker on the assembly line who makes the products?

Imagine completely privatized schools and health care - components of a libertarian system, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think I would like my children (should I ever have any) to be "educated" by whatever corporation has a monopoly over schools. Is the corporation's chief goal to educate my child or make money? Also, I would hope that, should I get terribly ill, I would be treated at a hospital even if I was unable to support my stay financially. Would the refusal of a sick patient be considered an act of force if illness or death could have been easily prevented?

It's as if one is saying, "Sure, you can have an education and health if you can afford them." In my opinion, that's a step in the wrong direction.

Our government is pretty much run by the big corporations anyway. It just seems that libertarianism would make this worse by effectively recognizing these corporations as having more power than the government. Where is protection then?

Those who disagree with me are probably pleased with the fact that I'm too tired to formulate my response into a PREMISE-PREMISE-PREMISE-CONCLUSION format to keep playing the logic game. Issues such as these are meant to be the topic of disagreement as they are largely based on opinion. Differing opinions will lead to differing interpretations of fact. I'm a little too tired for trolling.


--------------------
Yabba dabba doo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMusicSucks
Illegal Smile
Registered: 08/05/03
Posts: 35
Re: libertarianism [Re: DrugAgainstWar]
    #1936967 - 09/21/03 01:11 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Complete deregulation and privatization of our society just doesn't seem like a good idea. In my opinion, it seems as if this would do nothing but create an even bigger polarization of wealth.

A completely libertarian society is rather utopian, but any movements in its direction are all right by me.

In my opinion, it all boils down to the value of human life. Are all humans equal? If not, should they be? If so, what constitutes equality?

All human life is equal in its value, though not everyone is equal. No two people are equal, as, to me, equality would constitute absolute similarity.

I see no equality in a capitalist system, and I have grown to find that libertarianism encourages capitalism of the worst kind. What makes a CEO worth more than the worker on the assembly line who makes the products?

There is no equality in a corrupted capitalist system. Again, an aspect of society which is in need of massive overhaul, which is made extremely difficult by people's general apathy towards working for a better society.

Our government is pretty much run by the big corporations anyway. It just seems that libertarianism would make this worse by effectively recognizing these corporations as having more power than the government. Where is protection then?

This is true. Too many people would jump at the chance to exploit a libertarian economy. Socially, however, I think that we can (and should, and will) gravitate towards more libertarian ideals. Says a lot about society that an economic system is not currently feasable due to the existence of the kind of people that would be all to eager to exploit (and destroy) it for their own personal gains. What makes the human race so great again?


--------------------
There is no dark side of the moon really... Matter of fact, it's all dark.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1937039 - 09/21/03 01:47 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

As soon as I see middle-aged CEOs on the side of highway on-ramps begging for help to feed them and their children, i'll support helping them out too. Its called need-based aid.

Excellent post Tao. You've comprehensively demolished any libertarian arguments put so far.

I must admit I'd find it a little easier believing libertarians alledged concern for the treatment of workers if I'd ever heard anyone who wasn't to the right of Atilla the Hun espousing libertarian values. As it is, it sounds like a good way of giving corporations supreme power and reducing everyone else to slavery. Our forefathers fought and died just to get their children the right to an education and decent working conditions. The corporations didn't give us rights out of the kindness of their heart. Poor people had to fight and die for them.

I see no equality in a capitalist system, and I have grown to find that libertarianism encourages capitalism of the worst kind.

Amen  :thumbup:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: Phred]
    #1937203 - 09/21/03 03:31 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

my point is that since corporations are more organized than individual unempoyed workers...

You state this as if it is fact. It isn't. Besides, no matter how organized a business may be, its organization means exactly squat if it can't persuade people to accept employment with it.




Can you give me one example of a coroporation that is not more organised than individual unemployed workers??


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1937208 - 09/21/03 03:37 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Thanks, glad to know it was appreciated.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1937706 - 09/21/03 11:18 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

TaoTeChing writes:

Yes of COURSE theyre more able to organized if they have more money and are organized to begin with. Even Mush doesnt disagree with that one.

An individual corporation is "organized" only in the sense that the various people who work for it do their various jobs in an efficient and logical manner. This is self-evident -- if tasks were done at random the corporation wouldn't last long. You have failed to show how this internal organization of individual corportions allows them to "collectively" drive down wages.

I am of the opinion that if you do someone's bidding for 40 hrs a week youre entitled to adequate compensation, that being at least the lowest permitted by basic health and decency.

You dodged the question. I repeat -- since when is a thing worth other than what someone is willing to pay for it?

These are real people we're talking about who have to feed their children...

I ask again... if the money paid for labor is to be based on the number of dependents of the one supplying the labor, are you in favor of paying a single mother with six kids more than a single teenager fresh out of high school with no kids? If not, why not?

As soon as I see middle-aged CEOs on the side of highway on-ramps begging for help to feed them and their children, i'll support helping them out too. Its called need-based aid.

Neither I nor any other Libertarian I have ever met is against you or anyone else helping the needy -- with your own money. We want the freedom to be allowed to choose the recipients of our charity.

First of all, as Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote (the scottish enlightenment being where so many of the American Consititution's ideas came from), one must have basic security before one can possibly hope to pursue happiness.

It may surprise you to hear that I have read Bentham. Not everything he theorized was correct. However, to address this specific premise of his -- he is incorrect. Human happiness comes and goes. Many people with little to no basic security are capable of great happiness while others with rock solid security are incapable of happiness. However, let's temporarily presume for the sake of argument that his premise is correct. How does this justify seizing by force the products of the effort of others? How does this justify preventing by force someone from agreeing to trade his effort for goods or currency at a mutually agreed-upon rate?

Its supposed to be the MINIMUM one can reasonably hope to earn to lead a basic, very humble life.

And who decides what this minimum is to be? Those who have six dependents or those who have none? Some politician in a thousand dollar suit who has never flipped a burger in his life? If someone calculates that he needs just $4 an hour to lead his basic very humble life, why must he be prevented by force from obtaining this $4 an hour?

The fact that you had to fabricate such a ridiculous number as $135 an hour proves how unjust your point is. lets put it in the way the world ACTUALLY is: "Noone has the right to be paid $5.00 an hour for flipping burgers"...

But that is the case. No one has the right to be paid $5 an hour. Or $6 or $7 or $70 or $700. One does however have the right to try to persuade a potential employer that one's effort is worth to them $5 or $7 or $70. Similarly, no one has the right to receive $5 or $7 or $70 for each hamburger one offers for sale. One does however have the right to try to persuade one's potential customers that one's hamburger is worth $5 or $7 or $70.

...(and incidentally, if you think working fast food is some slow-paced cush job, good god youve got another thing coming).

I think no such thing. I worked in a bar for many years. Ten hour shifts with NO breaks -- not even to go to the bathroom. Stretches of three or four hours with literally not enough time to light a cigarette. When I was working in the computer sales world, my three best salesmen, switchboard operator, inventory control guy, service department head, and secretary all had worked at MacDonalds. They were some of the best people I have ever had the privilege to work with. The company I worked for paid all of them far, FAR higher than minimum wage, despite the fact the company was not unionized. So much for "the race to the bottom".

notice "lowest permitted by health and decency" i.e. NOT $135 an hour. And notice, Mush that labor unions DO come into it.

Why do you believe labor unions are forbidden by Laissez-faire Capitalism? They are not. Obviously, just as an employer has the right to decline to hire an employee for more than he is willing to pay, a union member (and even a non-union member) has the right to decline an offer of employment for less than he is willing to work for.

so it does NOT apply to mowing lawns and it does not apply to tiny companies struggling to make a profit.

News flash -- it is quite possible to be very profitable on revenues of less than $500,000 a year.

its about justice that those greed fat cats share some of their profits.

News flash -- many businesses pay part of their compensation through profit-sharing. What do you think bonuses, commissions, stock options, etc. are? Notice that they are not required by law to do so, yet they do so anyway. So much for the "race to the bottom".

You speak of profits as if they were assured. They are not. Note that the employees get paid their wages whether a company makes any profits at all, even if a company loses money several years running. I know of many, MANY companies who would gladly pay their employees a percentage of the company profit, if the employees would absorb the same percentage of the losses. Surprisingly, there are astonishingly few candidates willing to accept this deal.

okay, so now you're saying that minimum wage laws are unfair to the unemployed? this is a completely different approach than from earlier.

There are often several arguments against bad ideas. Apart from the fact that minimum wage laws violate individual rights, they are bad economically as well. And I am not "saying" that minimum wage laws are unfair to the unemployed, I am reporting it. It is well-documented fact that raising the minimum wage slows the economy and increases unemployment. This has been demonsrated over and over again. It is also fact that those hardest hit are those with the least job experience and the least job skills.

Sorry, but as an unskilled, uneducated (yet), unemployed person looking for a job, im much happier knowing that when I DO get a job i'll be able to support myself with it.

I'm happy to hear that. As long as you don't mind looking a lot longer for that job than you would have to if the minimum wage was lower, more power to you.

priority of the workers right to feed his family by receiving a minimum wage versus a ceo's right to get him to accept a lower wage.

So your personal philosophy states that it is not only allowed, but mandatory, that a bunch of fat cat, highly-paid politicians forcibly prevent a job seeker from accepting work at the rate he is willing (perhaps even eager) to accept?

And stop it with this "peaceful voluntary contract" stuff.

Someone is forcing the job seeker to sign a contract? Who?

we're talking about hiring unskilled workers who HAVE NO OTHER OPTION IF THEY WANT TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.

I listed a few other options. You chose to dismiss them out of hand.

its not like those small buisnesses you talked about are always hiring, trust me, im looking for jobs at the moment, and in order to start a small business you need CAPITAL, which obviously they won't have. and if your only other option is to live as a street performer which is almost like begging for change than thats not really much of an 'option' is it?

Here's a question for you -- what is our theoretical job seeker to do in a small town? One where the only businesses are small businesses? You seem to be of the opinion that it is the obligation of corporations to set up shop wherever there are people looking for work.

It's like putting a gun to someone's head and saying "either give me your money or get your brains blown out." then saying he voluntarily chose to give me his money instead of his other available options.

So sorry, but the two situations are fundamental opposites. One involves coercion, the other does not.

These uneducated unskilled workers HAVE NO OTHER OPTION as much as you might like to tell yourself they do.

If you mean there is no other option for man to further his existence than expending productive effort, we are in agreement. If you mean the existence of unemployed means that others have the obligation to not only employ them, but employ them at a rate they are unwilling to pay, we are in disagreement. To paraphrase mushmaster, the fact that you happen to be here doesn't mean others have an obligation to do your bidding.

And since when is a philosopher automatically a libertarian? Jeez, you think Nietzche and St. Thomas of Aquinas can be grouped together holding similar overarching views just because theyre both philosophers??

A philosopher who uses emotions as tools of cognition rather than applying logic to observable reality is a piss poor "philosopher".

Not forcing the corporation to pay him $135 an hour to flip burgers...

Try to think in basic principles for a moment. It's like an algebraic equation. The number doesn't have to be $135 or $13.50 or even a buck thirty-five. It could be ANY number. The principle being illustrated here is that no man or group of men has the right to forcibly prevent another man from accepting employment at a wage he agrees to.

...but not letting them get him try to accept less that that which he could live off demanded by basic health and dignity.

If he wants to accept less than what you believe he can live off, why do others have the right to prevent him from doing so? What if he has a second job? What if he does baby-sitting or dog-walking on the side? What if he has a gig at the local pub on weekends in addition to his day job? What if his wife is also working? What if his hobby (selling the gourmet mushrooms he grows or the tropical fish he raises) brings him additional income? What if he lives rent free with his parents?

The fact of the matter is you have no idea how much he "needs" in order to maintain his life. As for "dignity", what has that to do with anything?

Other "balanced" uses of force? Policemen taking someone in custody while respecting the criminals rights.
Interrogating and imprisoning a suspect but not torturing them.
Warring with an enemy but not violating the Geneva convention.

Is this really that hard an idea to understand or do you need more examples?


The examples you provide are consistent with Libertarian principles.

don't be stupid.

So you have never worked a day in your life?

It was an analogy to what happens on the unemployment market, the corporations are more equipped financially to deal with not hiring a worker than a worker is financially equipped to go unemployed another indefinate amount of time.

An unproven arbitrary assumption. Depending on the employee in question, corporations have been known to fail over the loss of a single employee. This is why insurance companies sell "key man" insurance, and why many corporations buy it.

And why is this race to the bottom so hard to understand when it is currently happening globally because of free trade?

Please give us an example of a Libertarian country in which this is happening. Thank you.

Lets say there are 200 unskilled, uneducated people looking for jobs. Corporation A hires 50 of them for $7 an hour and Corporation B gives out a notice offering to pay 50 workers $5 an hour for any of those remaining 150 who want to work. Rather than face unemployment, they will be SOME who just want to get a job (there ALWAYS are). Then Corporation A looks over at B and decides the next crop they'll hire they'll offer $5 an hour. After all, who else are they going to go to? Corp B?

What's your point? That Corporation A overpaid their employees? So what? Happens all the time.

Let's say that corporation A and corporation B each made 100 electric cars for a total of 200. Corporation A sells 50 of them at $70,000 each. Corporation B gives out a notice offering to sell their cars at $50,000 for anyone who wants to buy one. Rather than face a stack of unsold cars, there will be SOME on the board of corporation A who just want to sell them off and move on (there ALWAYS are). Those remaining 150 cars, if they are to be sold at all, must be sold at $50,000 each. Presuming of course that either corporation can find enough people willing to buy them at even that price.

Remember the key in these minimum wage scenarios is that there is NO COMPETITION amongst corporations for unskilled workers. There is a sea of them and they're a dime a dozen.

I suggest you read a bit about the law of supply and demand.

A 'public' good is something that is given to all the public...

Given by whom? Obtained by what methods from which individuals?

... such as minimum wage or civil liberties or other forms of security in health, privacy and safety.

In other words, you advocate the use of force against those who have initiated none.

-- minimum wage: the use of force to prevent people from trading their productive effort for currency.
-- civil liberties: these cannot be "given" by anyone to anyone. They can only be recognized.
-- health: you cannot "give" anyone health. All you can do is seize by force the property of one individual to pay another individual to attempt to improve the health of a third individual.
-- privacy: How is it possible to "give" someone privacy? All one can do is not to intrude upon it -- for example the private transactions between buyer and seller.
-- safety: how is it possible to "give" someone safety?

As for if something is bad for AN individual, it is bad for the public, i dont agree. Now if it is a significant number of individuals then it is a threat to that public good. What is a 'significant number'? thats where policymakers come in and try to make a fair decision.

Again, you advocate the initiation of force -- just so long as you don't initiate it against "too many" people.

Personally i'd rather be guaranteed enough food to survive should anything happen to me rather than be guaranteed the freedom to attempt to obtain food. But thats an opinion and is why we have different ideologies.

Indeed it is. Your personal philosophy holds that it is acceptable to force others to provide food for you. Mine does not.

What I don't like is when libertarians focus on all these liberties and then pretend that once put in place, the public will receive even more money and other benefits. Like some magic cake that you can have and eat it too.

Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You pretend that once your system of institutionalized force is fine-tuned enough to put into place, the public will receive even more money and other benefits (from whom, by the way?). Like some magic cake that you can have and eat it too. Does the term "socialism" ring a bell?

A corporation is a group of people getting together during the day time to help each other make money to spend in their off time.

And this differs from a labor union in which way?

...if they can get the same thing out of their workers by paying them less as by paying them more, why wouldnt they pay them less?

News flash, philosopher king. For whatever reason, they do pay them more than minimum wage, even those with no unions. Every single person who worked for the computer company I mentioned earlier was paid more than minimum wage, even the janitors. The same was true of all the companies who directly competed with us. No exceptions.

There some rare examples of CEOs doing something besides making a profit, but thats not usually the purpose of a corporation.

I suggest you read some corporate annual reports and then get back to me. Or talk to the head of the personnel departments of some corporations chosen at random. It will be instructive to see how few employees are paid minimum wage, and of those who are, how few STAY at the minimum wage level for more than a year or two.

My point is that its not a monolithic structure hell-bent on planetary doom, its just a sort of support group for people who want to make money, so thats what they try to do.

And this differs from unions exactly how?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1937714 - 09/21/03 11:31 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

did you read my last post? go read Schattshneider's Sem-Sovreign People, its an authority on political science theory from the 60's. Yes of COURSE theyre more able to organized if they have more money and are organized to begin with. Even Mush doesnt disagree with that one.

of course a large corporation is more organized than a single individual. this is irrelevant to the discussion. i could point out many differences between a corporation and a single laborer, few of which have any bearing here. so what?

I am of the opinion that if you do someone's bidding for 40 hrs a week youre entitled to adequate compensation, that being at least the lowest permitted by basic health and decency.

you're not "entitled" to any more than your work is worth.

As soon as I see middle-aged CEOs on the side of highway on-ramps begging for help to feed them and their children, i'll support helping them out too. Its called need-based aid.

you missed the point. why should someone who wants to hire someone else be forced to pay them more than they would voluntarily agree to?

First of all, as Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote (the scottish enlightenment being where so many of the American Consititution's ideas came from), one must have basic security before one can possibly hope to pursue First of all, as Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote (the scottish enlightenment being where so many of the American Consititution's ideas came from), one must have basic security before one can possibly hope to pursue happiness. That is what MINIMUM wage is. Its supposed to be the MINIMUM one can reasonably hope to earn to lead a basic, very humble life. The fact that you had to fabricate such a ridiculous number as $135 an hour proves how unjust your point is. lets put it in the way the world ACTUALLY is: "Noone has the right to be paid $5.00 an hour for flipping burgers" (and incidentally, if you think working fast food is some slow-paced cush job, good god youve got another thing coming). Hmm, doesnt have quite the same effect when you use the truth does it?

thank you for the history lesson, definition of minimum wage, and reassurance that fast food is hard work.

again, no relevance to the discussion at hand.

And notice, Mush that labor unions DO come into it.

which i have no problem with. the part where it says, "legislation" is where the problem is. when you legislate, people are forced against their will. when you negotiate, people are persuaded to act voluntarily.

okay, so now you're saying that minimum wage laws are unfair to the unemployed?

absolutely true. let's say i want to work but can't find employment. if i'm willing to work for less than the other guy (who gets $5.15\hour), shouldn't i be able to use that to my advantage when seeking employment?

priority of the workers right to feed his family by receiving a minimum wage versus a ceo's right to get him to accept a lower wage.

you've got a rather loose definition of the word "right". you've got no "right" to have food just put on your table for you. you've got to go out and earn it. if you cannot earn it without stealing, you're out of luck.

alright... it's getting downright tedious to wade through your arguments... i'm too lazy right now to keep going.

i will say this...

your arguments are not very concise. you've written alot of volume, and not much of it is relevent.

you seem to harbor several false notions.

one is that businesses are charities.

another is that people are owed something economically from others simply because they exist.

a third is that economic equality is normal and natural.

you also do not seem to understand the philosophy of the opposing argument, and when offering rebuttals, do not really address the argument you're refuting. in most cases, it seems like you don't understand it.

when you talk about using force to acheive economic ends, you are talking about theft.

if you think that theft is rightous as a means for creating economic equality (and it seems you do) then we've gotten to the fundamental difference between socialists and capitalists...

and there's really nowhere to go from there. you and your fellow socialists think it's ok to steal; i think it's not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1937754 - 09/21/03 11:43 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Excellent post Tao. You've comprehensively demolished any libertarian arguments put so far.

hahaha. oh man alex... i seriously laughed out loud when i read that. keep it up.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: DrugAgainstWar]
    #1937759 - 09/21/03 11:48 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

DrugAgainstWar writes:

I don't really wish to step into this political shit storm...

But as long as you're here...

Complete deregulation and privatization of our society just doesn't seem like a good idea. In my opinion, it seems as if this would do nothing but create an even bigger polarization of wealth.

Assuming it is inherently evil for one individual to earn more stuff than another individual (which it isn't), by what process do you believe that free people will be allowed to accumulate wealth more quickly than enslaved people? Which factors permit some free people to prevent other free people from accumulating as much as they are able?

Are all humans equal?

In terms of individual rights? Yes. In terms of individual abilities? No.

If not, should they be?

In terms of individual rights? Yes.

If so, what constitutes equality?

A situation wherein all individuals are equally free to expend their efforts in anything other than the initiation of force against others.

I see no equality in a capitalist system...

Perhaps because your idea of "equality" doesn't allow you to.

What makes a CEO worth more than the worker on the assembly line who makes the products?

The fact that any CEO can bolt a fender to a car, but few assembly line workers can successfully run a giant corporation. Supply and demand.

Imagine completely privatized schools and health care - components of a libertarian system, if I'm not mistaken.

Private schools have always existed, and exist today. Private medicine has always existed -- it was socialized even in Canada less than fifty years ago. It is not necessary to imagine it, merely to examine it.

I don't think I would like my children (should I ever have any) to be "educated"... by whatever corporation has a monopoly over schools.

But you have no objection to them being indoctrinated by the monopolistic government schools.

...by whatever corporation has a monopoly over schools.

Why do you believe a single corporation would obtain such a monopoly?

Is the corporation's chief goal to educate my child or make money?

They make their money by educating your children. If they do a poor job at it, surely you would enroll them in a different school, no?

Also, I would hope that, should I get terribly ill, I would be treated at a hospital even if I was unable to support my stay financially. Would the refusal of a sick patient be considered an act of force if illness or death could have been easily prevented?

Is the refusal to assist someone being attacked by a mugger an act of force?

It's as if one is saying, "Sure, you can have an education and health if you can afford them."

That is what is being said. Similarly, you can have food, shelter, a bicycle, clothes... if you can afford them.

In my opinion, that's a step in the wrong direction.

But in your opinion, forcibly seizing the products of the efforts of others is a step in the right direction?

Our government is pretty much run by the big corporations anyway.

If true, what more compelling argument is there to be made for not allowing government any say in economic matters?

It just seems that libertarianism would make this worse by effectively recognizing these corporations as having more power than the government. Where is protection then?

Libertarianism recognizes no such thing. Corporations have no cops, no courts, no military. All corporations do is buy stuff, make stuff, and sell stuff.

Those who disagree with me are probably pleased with the fact that I'm too tired to formulate my response into a PREMISE-PREMISE-PREMISE-CONCLUSION format to keep playing the logic game.

Some believe the initiation of force against others should be decided by emotions and/or the whim of the majority. Others believe logic and principle must enter into the equation. Diversity makes the world go round, I guess.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1937784 - 09/21/03 12:00 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Well Tao, I'm not as nice as some of the others so I'll just sum up your arguments thusly.....

You have no skills,
you have no talents,
you have no clue how business functions....
yet they should pay you a shit-load of money anyway.

Good luck with that. If you're not too weak from hunger let us know how that works out for you.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1939072 - 09/21/03 09:58 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
Also it says
Quote:

Since 1989, businesses earning less than $500,000 annually have not been subject to minimum-wage rules.







You REALLY need to check your sources.

** Edit ** I retract my earlier statement. Your quote is misleading. Wherever State wages laws are in effect, the stricter laws are the minimum standard. The minimum wage always applies to employees of federal, state or local government agencies, hospitals and schools. Domestic service workers (such as housekeepers, full-time babysitters, and cooks) are normally covered by the minimum wage. Anyone whose work regularly involves them in commerce between States ("interstate commerce") is covered by the minimum wage. "Examples of employees who are involved in interstate commerce include those who: produce goods (such as a worker assembling components in a factory or a secretary typing letters in an office) that will be sent out of state, regularly make telephone calls to persons located in other States, handle records of interstate transactions, travel to other States on their jobs, and do janitorial work in buildings where goods are produced for shipment outside the State." (Source: U.S. Department of Labor Website, www.dol.gov)

In other words, it is next to impossible in the modern age to qualify for this exception, unless you're an Amish businessman.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Edited by Autonomous (09/22/03 02:23 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1939380 - 09/21/03 11:51 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

which i have no problem with. the part where it says, "legislation" is where the problem is. when you legislate, people are forced against their will.

"Legislate" what exactly? The right for someone to join a union? Without legislation allowing that right what is to stop a corporation simply firing or beating up anyone who suggests it? As they do throughout south east asia, africa, mexico, south america etc. Your argument simply makes no sense.

absolutely true. let's say i want to work but can't find employment. if i'm willing to work for less than the other guy (who gets $5.15\hour), shouldn't i be able to use that to my advantage when seeking employment?

No, because then conditions for everyone else fall through the floor. There will always be someone so desperate they will do anything. You cannot base a society on what the most desperate member of it will do for christs sake. Can't you see that? It's called the "race to the bottom" the effects of which can be seen throughout the third world.

if government was required to stay out of business, there would be no reason for businesses not to stay out of government.

How naive. At the end of the day someone with a billion dollars is always going to have enormously more power than someone on 10 cents an hour. I repeat, with no government who is going to stop the corporation doing whatever it wants to the environment or union organisers? Your idea that "the cops" will save us is ludicrous. Are you familiar with the concept of "pay-offs"?

you also do not seem to understand the philosophy of the opposing argument, and when offering rebuttals, do not really address the argument you're refuting. in most cases, it seems like you don't understand it.

Nah, Tao understands the argument perfectly. And his summation that libertarianism would lead to the worst form of capitalism imaginable is spot on. If you can give me one reason why it wouldn't, please do so.





--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1939942 - 09/22/03 05:39 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

"Legislate" what exactly? The right for someone to join a union? Without legislation allowing that right what is to stop a corporation simply firing or beating up anyone who suggests it? As they do throughout south east asia, africa, mexico, south america etc. Your argument simply makes no sense.

let's see if we can figure this out? I was responding to taoteching. since I quoted the statement I was responding to, it should be easy to figure out what he was talking about? here it is...

he said, " notice, Mush that labor unions DO come into it.".

now? what was he talking about? Let's go back and read his post. Ah? there it is.

" Definition from infoplease.com of minimum wage:

"The goal in establishing minimum wages has been to assure wage earners a standard of living above the lowest permitted by health and decency. The minimum has been set by labor unions through collective bargaining, by arbitration, by board action, and, finally, by legislation." "

so we were talking about legislating a minimum wage, not legislating the right for people to organize into a labor union. you will see that because organizing a labor union is not an initiation of force, it is a right.

if you thought i was against the right to form a labor union, and i being a libertarian, and you being an intelligent debator, you probably would have asked how the hell forming a union was an initiation of force. it's plain to see that it isn't, and such a position would have been a glaring contradiction. the fact that you didn't seize upon a such an inconsistancy certainly says something for understanding of the libertarian argument, if not for your ability to reason and spot logical contradictions in general. keep working on it. anyway... the point is moot because i wasn't talking about that, i was talking about minimum wage.

of course people have a right to organize and operate a union, and of course the government has an obligation to protect them from force while they're doing so.

what the government does NOT have an obligation (or even a right) to do is force employers (or anyone else) to pay more for labor (or anything else) than they would voluntarily agree to.

that wasn't so hard, was it? make sense now?

No, because then conditions for everyone else fall through the floor. There will always be someone so desperate they will do anything. You cannot base a society on what the most desperate member of it will do for christs sake.

so instead, i will have no job and no income at all so that others can be paid more than i would work for? forcefully keeping some people unemployed (and earning nothing) so that others can be employed and earn an inflated wage is your policy? hardly sounds like fairness and equality to me.

How naive. At the end of the day someone with a billion dollars is always going to have enormously more power than someone on 10 cents an hour. I repeat, with no government who is going to stop the corporation doing whatever it wants to the environment or union organisers? Your idea that "the cops" will save us is ludicrous. Are you familiar with the concept of "pay-offs"?

we've got unions here in america. we have alot of them, and many of them are very powerful. corporations do not simply kill or intimidate anyone involved in organizing unions because they would be arrested and prosecuted if they did so (by the cops). your prediction is inconsistant with observable reality. (which usually means you're wrong).

Nah, Tao understands the argument perfectly. And his summation that libertarianism would lead to the worst form of capitalism imaginable is spot on. If you can give me one reason why it wouldn't, please do so.

i've done so many times, but reason seems to be falling on deaf ears.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: Autonomous]
    #1939971 - 09/22/03 06:22 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

You REALLY need to check your sources. Spreading lies to make your case doesn't make your case.





Surely you should provide a source to refute the claim?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1940263 - 09/22/03 10:11 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

what the government does NOT have an obligation (or even a right) to do is force employers (or anyone else) to pay more for labor (or anything else) than they would voluntarily agree to.

In other words, corporations will pay as little as they can and take all profits for the few at the top. What is the difference between this and tao's statement that libertarianism will result in the worst form of capitalism imaginable?

so instead, i will have no job and no income at all so that others can be paid more than i would work for?

This assumes the minimum wage destroys jobs. It doesn't.

we've got unions here in america. we have alot of them, and many of them are very powerful. corporations do not simply kill or intimidate anyone involved in organizing unions because they would be arrested and prosecuted if they did so (by the cops).

Sorry, but you really do need to read up on some basic union history. Intimidation of unions, killing of organisers was commonplace for decades. It took many years of poor people fighting and dying for the right to form unions. Do you think unions somehow magically appeared one day? Don't just look at a situation as it exists now - try and look at why the situation is as it is. One things for sure, the biggest enemies of the unions have always been the corporations and the cops. I come from the North of england where the cops were sent in to destroy the miners in 1984. I saw union members and their wives being beaten on a daily basis. Not a single cop was ever prosecuted. The idea that we should rely on the cops to protect unions is laughable. It could only come from someone with absolutely no knowledge of the reality of working class life.

i've done so many times

Not really, you've just given some far-fetched theories that the cops will somehow protect unions from multi-billion dollar corporations and the rich will have exactly the same rights as the poor. Somehow pay offs and backhanders to gain influence and power will magically vanish. You have yet to explain precisely how a 14 year old child on 10 cents an hour will get the same rights as a multi-billion dollar corporation. Do you really think the child could go to the cops and say "They beat me up, arrest them"? I'm sorry, but it's laughable at best.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1940313 - 09/22/03 10:37 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

In other words, corporations will pay as little as they can and take all profits for the few at the top.

do you know who owns the corporations? stockholers do... anyone with a 401k, IRA, mutual fund, or shares in a company. these people are not "at the top". they're ordinary citizens.

i would say that the worst form of capitalism imaginable is one in which well-meaning, but inept, ineffective, and self-defeating government interferences reduce efficiency and infringe upon such basic freedoms as freedom of association and voluntary exchange.

This assumes the minimum wage destroys jobs. It doesn't.

it absolutely does. learn something about the laws of supply and demand. look up the definition of equilibrium price. it is observable fact that price floors cause surplusses.

Not really, you've just given some far-fetched theories that the cops will somehow protect unions from multi-billion dollar corporations and the rich will have exactly the same rights as the poor. Somehow pay offs and backhanders to gain influence and power will magically vanish. You have yet to explain precisely how a 14 year old child on 10 cents an hour will get the same rights as a multi-billion dollar corporation. Do you really think the child could go to the cops and say "They beat me up, arrest them"? I'm sorry, but it's laughable at best.

no matter how many times you repeat this, it will remain an unprovable assumption with no relevence to the discussion at hand.

the government's lack of interference in economic matters has nothing to do with its ability to enforce laws against assualt, murder, and harassment.

" and the rich will have exactly the same rights as the poor."

it's too bad that that sounds far-fetched to you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1940321 - 09/22/03 10:40 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

oddly enough, my economics lecture today was about governmental interference in the market and its effects. the professor spoke mostly about price floors and price ceilings.

he gave several examples of each and why each one failed to help the people it was supposed to help and caused unintended (but completely forseeable to anyone with any knowledge of economics) consequences.

time ran out just as he was getting to minimum wage. he'll pick up again on friday. i'll make sure to report back to you guys then.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 month, 8 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1940392 - 09/22/03 11:11 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

In other words, corporations will pay as little as they can and take all profits for the few at the top.



How exactly do you calculate what the profit is and who receives some of it?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1940741 - 09/22/03 01:03 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

i'd like to recapitulate the philosophy that libertarianism is founded on. from the looks of this thread one who is unfamiliar with it might assume that it's simply a war against minimum wage, or just against governmental interference in the market in general.

the idea is this:

as an individual with free will, you make decisions that you believe are in your best interest, and you follow them out with actions. all sentient beings have this freedom to make decisions and act as they see fit.

it follows then that you have the freedom to act as you see fit, so long as it does not infringe upon another's freedom to act as they see fit. the only way you can infringe upon this free will is through force.

the trouble is that some people will not recognize this and will initiate force on other individuals. if it were not for this, there would be no need for government. because there are individuals that do initiate force, an organization employed to objectively respond to and prevent such force, by way of opposing force, is necessary. we call this government.

this is a drug site, and many here are good about recognizing what they would call "personal freedom", "civil liberties" or what have you. they are correct in acknowledging that one has a right to use drugs if one wishes. most of them are also against laws prohibiting things like consensual homosexual relations, prostitution, and gambling. none of these actions or transactions are initiations of force. none of them infringe upon another person's free will. no one has any place in forcefully prohibiting them.

the inconsistancy in many peoples' outlook is that this freedom becomes null and void once we start talking about transactions between multiple individuals. they make a false dichotomy between "personal freedom" and "economic freedom". the same rules apply to both.

when engaging in a transaction with another individual, if the transaction is based on mutual consent, there is no more reason to prohibit or infringe upon it than to infringe upon the aforementioned "personal freedoms"; there is no initiation of force, no coercion, no victim in the crime.

whether acting alone, or in groups, people have a right to do as they see fit, provided that they don't forcefully prevent others from doing the same.

not only does this make sense philosophically, it is economically expedient. the market functions better when you don't try to force it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1940817 - 09/22/03 01:24 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

So it's not just so rich people get to avoid paying any tax?

Here's an interesting take on it:

The Libertarian Playbook: fantasy and free rides

What Libertarians have the luxury of doing is sitting back and saying "All the problems will be solved if we just let Jesus, err, property into our hearts, err, politics". What they do tactically is to focus on incidents or areas where the political process is at its worst, and peddle their snake-oil theory, contrasting the gritty reality with their pristine fantasy. Of course the fantasy looks better then!
The reason they get away with this is partly that there is no Libertopia, so we don't have a constant series of rile-'em-up stories to point out where Libertopia is an atrocity. Sometimes I think of writing a fictitious "Dispatches from Libertopia" for this sort of stuff. Such as:

"Today, Judge Rand ruled that the so-called "child-slavery" provision of the standard employment contract between MegaCorp and all employees was valid. As parents have the control of their children until eighteen, the signing-over of their labor until age 18 to MegaCorp was ruled a valid exercise of parental authority. Judge Rand, in his opinion, stated "The government is not to interfere with economic arrangements, absent a showing of fraud or force, as per the Fundamental Law of Libertopia. All parties with the legal right to contract consented, and that is the sole standard of evaluation. The fact that MegaCorp said it would fire any worker who did not agree to this provision is of no consequence, as that is entirely the right of MegaCorp."

"The separate individual child contracts were also ruled to be valid. Although the children were told if they did not sign, Mommy and Daddy would lose their jobs and the whole family might starve, this was regarded as simply the employer's right to hire and fire as he or she sees fit. No force, coercion, or fraud within the meaning of Libertopia Law was applied." Junior Warbucks, a MegaCorp spokesman, said "Do you make your children do chores? What's the difference?"

But of course this can be attacked in various ways, because Libertopia is pure fantasy, and the real-world rarely stacks up well to a fantasy, especially a political one.

A Libertarian can blithely argue that all problems would be solved by private charity, by people of goodwill, or if government would just get out of the way. It's a common tactic:

If there's a problem, our first question is not, "How can government solve this problem," but "What government program must be eliminated to improve this situation?"
Since there's no Libertopia, they never have to admit being in error as to what will happen under their proposed regime. That's a great debating advantage.



http://www.sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1940846 - 09/22/03 01:30 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Another interesting take:

We tried it, and it failed

We used to have a government which was within spitting distance of the libertarian ideal. Business could do what it wanted-- and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organizers, filth in our food, a punishing business cycle, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly, gunboat diplomacy in support of business interests.

It's not likely that you can argue a libertarian out of his position, any more than you can out-argue a religious zealot or an Esperantist. But it may help to counter with a different and hopefully more advanced morality.

Libertarianism is essentially the morality of a thug. It's a worship of the already successful, privileging money and property above everything else-- love, humanity, justice. And let's not forget that lurid fascination with firepower.

It's also the philosophy of a snotty teen, someone who's read too much Heinlein, absorbed the sordid notion that an intellectual elite should rule the subhuman masses, and convinced himself that reading a few bad novels qualifies him as a member of the elite.

I have my own articles of faith. For instance, I think a political philosophy should

benefit the entire population, not an elite of whatever flavor
offer a positive vision, not just hatred for another philosophy
rest on the best science and history can teach us, rather than science fiction
be modified in the light of what works and what doesn't
produce greater freedom and prosperity the closer a nation comes to it.

On all these counts, libertarianism simply doesn't stack up. Once people are able to be rational about politics, I expect them to toss it out as a practical failure and a moral mess.



http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1940888 - 09/22/03 01:42 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

the only way you can infringe upon this free will is through force.






This sounds a bit vague. Could you be a little more specific about what force actually means in this context?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1940946 - 09/22/03 01:53 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

physical force (and by extension, fraud).

if you can give some other way to anull someone's free will without using force or fraud, i'd like to hear it.

the only way to get someone do something involuntarily is to physically force them or trick them through fraud.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1940993 - 09/22/03 02:04 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

the first article is written by seth finkelstien... a computer programmer and anti-censorship activist. the article is merely an editorial by a non-authority, and a poor one at that.

he doesn't understand libertarianism. for one, he criticizes it as a utopian dream, when it is not. libertarians acknowledge that no system of government will end the problems of humanity and create perfect social harmony. the only thing a government can do is employ force, and the only rightous use of force is to defend against force.

other than that, his cheif argument centers around the assumption that "libertopias" as he calls them will permit child labor. this is totally off-base.

can't you dig up something better than that?

now for the other article...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1941051 - 09/22/03 02:13 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

So who decides on the rules when there is no government?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1941064 - 09/22/03 02:16 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

We used to have a government which was within spitting distance of the libertarian ideal. Business could do what it wanted-- and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organizers, filth in our food, a punishing business cycle, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly, gunboat diplomacy in support of business interests.

half of these are inconsistant with libertarian ideals.

the ones that aren't:

robber barons

one individual is very wealthy. what's wrong with that? if this 'robber baron' individual had never been born, would anyone else be better off for it?

monopolistic gouging

the only way a monopoly can be maintained without coersion is through offering the best service at the lowest price. other than force, there is no other way to keep down the competition than to be better than them. so what's wrong with a non-coersive monopoly?

punishing business cycle

too vague.

starvation among the elderly

starvation has existed in every single society that has ever existed... starvation is a fact of nature. hardly a solid footing to base a critique from.

It's not likely that you can argue a libertarian out of his position, any more than you can out-argue a religious zealot or an Esperantist. But it may help to counter with a different and hopefully more advanced morality.

such as?

Libertarianism is essentially the morality of a thug.

using force only in response to force? i'd say that the one initiating force would be the thug.

And let's not forget that lurid fascination with firepower.

please.

It's also the philosophy of a snotty teen, someone who's read too much Heinlein, absorbed the sordid notion that an intellectual elite should rule the subhuman masses, and convinced himself that reading a few bad novels qualifies him as a member of the elite.

please.

I have my own articles of faith. For instance, I think a political philosophy should

benefit the entire population, not an elite of whatever flavor
offer a positive vision, not just hatred for another philosophy
rest on the best science and history can teach us, rather than science fiction
be modified in the light of what works and what doesn't
produce greater freedom and prosperity the closer a nation comes to it. .


does that make sense to anyone else?

On all these counts, libertarianism simply doesn't stack up. Once people are able to be rational about politics, I expect them to toss it out as a practical failure and a moral mess.

i'd like to see a little more rational thought as well!

again.. what a shitty article...

alex, even you can come up with something better than that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1941074 - 09/22/03 02:18 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

So who decides on the rules when there is no government?

i'm not sure i follow you...

are you referring to my statement that if there were no such thing as people initiating force, we wouldn't need government?

if so...

if there were no one initiating force, we wouldn't need rules.

(what would they prohibit, and how would they be enforced anyway?)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1941306 - 09/22/03 03:26 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Wasnt very clear. I meant no government intervention in trade other than to act against force. Who looks after workers rights and environmental issues such as pollution?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1941332 - 09/22/03 03:33 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

The cops... :rolleyes:

Yep, those incorruptible guys making $40,000 plus benefits are going to fight for the rights of someone on 10 cents an hour. And they certainly arn't going to accept bribes because in libertarian utopia that can't exist.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1941380 - 09/22/03 03:43 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Could you address this point mush? (love the judge "rand"!!)

Today, Judge Rand ruled that the so-called "child-slavery" provision of the standard employment contract between MegaCorp and all employees was valid. As parents have the control of their children until eighteen, the signing-over of their labor until age 18 to MegaCorp was ruled a valid exercise of parental authority. Judge Rand, in his opinion, stated "The government is not to interfere with economic arrangements, absent a showing of fraud or force, as per the Fundamental Law of Libertopia. All parties with the legal right to contract consented, and that is the sole standard of evaluation. The fact that MegaCorp said it would fire any worker who did not agree to this provision is of no consequence, as that is entirely the right of MegaCorp."

"The separate individual child contracts were also ruled to be valid. Although the children were told if they did not sign, Mommy and Daddy would lose their jobs and the whole family might starve, this was regarded as simply the employer's right to hire and fire as he or she sees fit. No force, coercion, or fraud within the meaning of Libertopia Law was applied." Junior Warbucks, a MegaCorp spokesman, said "Do you make your children do chores? What's the difference?"



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1941837 - 09/22/03 05:46 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Who looks after workers rights and environmental issues such as pollution?

workers (and everyone else's) rights are protected by the government. what rights are you referring to?

if someone poisons the air you breathe, the water you drink, or dumps waste on your land without your permission, they've initiated force against you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1941880 - 09/22/03 06:00 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Yep, those incorruptible guys making $40,000 plus benefits are going to fight for the rights of someone on 10 cents an hour. And they certainly arn't going to accept bribes because in libertarian utopia that can't exist.

we're not talking about a utopia here.

police corruption is, if anything, increased by a minimum wage.

the more you're required by law to pay your people, and the greater the disparity between this and how much they would voluntarily work for, the greater the economic incentive to bribe the police into letting you keep workers on for less than minimum wage, amongst other things.

when you attempt to control the market on any major scale, a black market always springs up.... you should already know what sort of police conduct is involved when it comes to the black market.

this corruption argument is totally assinine.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1941889 - 09/22/03 06:03 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Could you address this point mush?

sure. child labor is not permitted in a libertarian system.

you'll note that the author was not quoting an actual court session, but a fictitious anecdote based on a false assumption about libertarianism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1942038 - 09/22/03 06:46 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

now i'm sure alex isn't the only one here with reservations about libertarianism... anyone else wanna speak their mind on this?

what do you think of all this?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1942115 - 09/22/03 07:08 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

I have many of those same reservations. Nothing has convinced me so far that pure libertarianism would not work without a few socialist safeguards.

I just don't feel like argueing economics all day as it is most likely a choatic system and long term forcasts,as with the weather,are futile.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1942159 - 09/22/03 07:20 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

recommended reading (if you're into that sort of thing):

The Law by Frederick Bastiat

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Two Treatises Of Government by John Locke

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 month, 8 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1943277 - 09/23/03 01:09 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Some good online reading material:

Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine

Price Theory by David D. Friedman

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,625
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 25 minutes
Re: libertarianism [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1943448 - 09/23/03 03:55 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Would corporations still be allowed to exist under a libertarian system?

Would they still be allowed special rights like they are today? Would they still be fiscal entities?


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1943632 - 09/23/03 07:33 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Would corporations still be allowed to exist under a libertarian system?

yes.

Would they still be allowed special rights like they are today?

no.

Would they still be fiscal entities?

what do you mean?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,625
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 25 minutes
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1944843 - 09/23/03 02:53 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Corporations are legally an "entity" like a person. This protects the owners from liablity from anything the business does.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1944856 - 09/23/03 02:58 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

that sounds like it falls under special legal rights...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: libertarianism [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1944942 - 09/23/03 03:26 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
Corporations are legally an "entity" like a person. This protects the owners from liablity from anything the business does.



Therein lies the problem. The owners should be held liable just as if they were unincorporated. Corporate laws give privileges to businesses that individuals do not enjoy. They in effect elevate corporations legally above individuals. Tax laws also favor corporations above individuals, at least in terms of what can be written off as expenses and to what extent such expenses can be written off (health care expenses are the first that come to mind).


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,603 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* roll call... do libertarians support child labor?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Anonymous 8,497 126 08/27/04 10:11 AM
by silversoul7
* Pure Capitalism
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Lallafa 10,795 76 12/25/01 11:30 PM
by Phred
* Questions about libertarians DigitalDuality 1,719 13 09/18/04 05:44 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Libertarians?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Libertine 14,597 156 08/17/08 05:28 PM
by ScavengerType
* Libertarian position on imprisonment? Aldous 697 7 09/27/04 08:56 PM
by hound
* (True) Libertarians Battle the Corporate State Evolving 1,491 3 04/10/04 05:16 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* greens, libertarians debate: monday, 1 pm on C-SPAN
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 1,845 21 09/09/04 12:59 AM
by DigitalDuality

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
11,631 topic views. 1 members, 9 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.066 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 14 queries.