Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1939072 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1939380 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1939942 -

"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
Re: libertarianism [Re: Autonomous]
    #1939971 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1940263 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1940313 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1940321 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1940392 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1940741 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1940817 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1940846 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1940888 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1940946 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1940993 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1941051 -

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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1941064 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1941074 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1941306 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: GazzBut]
    #1941332 -

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
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1941380 -

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
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,646 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 8,839 126 08/27/04 10:11 AM
by silversoul7
* Pure Capitalism
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Lallafa 11,219 76 12/25/01 11:30 PM
by Phred
* Questions about libertarians DigitalDuality 1,820 13 09/18/04 05:44 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Libertarians?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Libertine 15,381 156 08/17/08 05:28 PM
by ScavengerType
* Libertarian position on imprisonment? Aldous 713 7 09/27/04 08:56 PM
by hound
* (True) Libertarians Battle the Corporate State Evolving 1,542 3 04/10/04 05:16 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* greens, libertarians debate: monday, 1 pm on C-SPAN
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 1,893 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
12,722 topic views. 2 members, 630 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.