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

Sporeworks
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!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  [ show all ]
The young are becoming less liberal
    #2071362 -

This is a long but very well done look at the reasons more and more of todays youth are less left-leaning than was the case even a few years ago.

The author identifies three areas in the media where the grip of the libbie-left is being challenged, and correlates it to the decreasing percentage of young people who classify themselves as liberals.

1) Cable TV -- with the advent of FOX News and shows such as South Park, liberal ideas are no longer being left unchallenged. Young people in general are more open-minded than older people and receptive to new ideas. Cable TV is one conduit for such ideas.

2) The Net -- in particular the Blogosphere. Blogs are everywhere, and act as a counterbalance to the mistakes, omissions, and excesses of traditional media such as newspapers, newsmagazines, and TV news broadcasts. As well, the ability to pull up in seconds works by folks from Bastiat to Paine to Aristotle helps the flow of ideas.

3) The book publishers. Publishers have recently discovered political commentary books sell -- and sell big. A surprising number of these books are bought by young people (as opposed to middle-aged or seniors).

The author barely mentions talk radio in passing, but with the exception of some shows on NPR, there's not a lot of libbie-left talk shows out there.

All is not lost!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004245

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2071387 -

the MEDIA is slanted RIGHT not LEFT

and south park huh??

Well I remember something about HATE crimes on there the other day and BEFORE that show I would have said HATE crime laws are stupid

and after that show I think they are not only stupid but VERY funny when looked at in the right light

and you would call me a liberal, but I am not liberal or a conservative


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2071391 -

With more home schooling at least a certain portion of the youth aren't subjected to the propoganda that is passed off as 'education.' There is some hope from that area as well.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Psilocybeingzz]
    #2071400 -

Psilocybeingzz said:
the MEDIA is slanted RIGHT not LEFT


Did you know that you and Fidel Castro share the same opinion on this subject?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Evolving]
    #2071408 -

the idea of a surge of libertarianism in
todays youth, even just a deep seeded
loathing of big government, brings a
tear of joy to my eye.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: afoaf]
    #2071424 -

big government bothers you

but not corporations ruling EVERYTHING
strange huh


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Psilocybeingzz]
    #2071434 -

Quote:
the MEDIA is slanted RIGHT not LEFT


No, it doesn't lean either way. It leans toward stupidity, laziness, and mob mentality, among other things. Anyway, it's sad to see my generation getting sucked in by all this stupid pro-war, pro-Bush, anti-freedom propaganda.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2071460 -

silversoul7 said:
Anyway, it's sad to see my generation getting sucked in by all this stupid pro-war, pro-Bush, anti-freedom propaganda.


Because that is exactly what us right wingers stand for. (assuming I am one so hard to tell these days)


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Psilocybeingzz]
    #2071497 -

presumptuous


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: z@z.com]
    #2071502 -

If you are a Libertarian (as described by the Libertarian party), then by the standards of the majority of the lefties posting here, you are indeed a rightie.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2071505 -

South Park hardly leans to the right.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2071510 -

If young people were more libertarian, I wouldn't be too worried. But the current pro-Bush atmosphere is sickening.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2071530 -

Apparently you aren't too familar with Matt Stone and Trey Parker...they are far from right.

And big deal,the current administration is right, so more people lean that way. It'll turn the other way again in a few years.


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

Edited by monoamine (11/04/03 10:02 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2071533 -

silversoul7 said:
If young people were more libertarian, I wouldn't be too worried. But the current pro-Bush atmosphere is sickening.


I have a lot of "conservative" friends (mostly between the ages of 19 and 25). I don't have but one friend I would actually call a fan of Bush. Most of my friends don't really care for Bush. Remember not hating someone doesn't mean you particularly care for them.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: z@z.com]
    #2071542 -

Doesn't surprise me too much. I would think that any true conservative(anti-big government, anti-spending, pro-privacy, pro-constitution) would be appalled at the Bush administration. It's the Neo-Cons that have taken over America.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2071548 -

I have a fantastic idea: let's stop all this rhetorical left-right bullshit and actually discuss issues.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2071550 -

Welcome, new person! We are honored you chose to make your very first post here at the Shroomery in the Politics, Activism, and Law forum. Not often we see that.

As for your comment about South Park, here's an excerpt from the article:

Many conservatives have attacked South Park for its exuberant vulgarity, calling it "twisted," "vile trash," a "threat to our youth." Such denunciations are misguided. Conservative critics should pay closer attention to what "South Park" so irreverently jeers at and mocks. As the show's co-creator, 32-year-old Matt Stone, sums it up: "I hate conservatives, but I really f---ing hate liberals."

Not for nothing has blogger and former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan praised the show for being "the best antidote to PC culture we have." "South Park" sharpens the iconoclastic, anti-PC edge of earlier cartoon shows like "The Simpsons" and "King of the Hill," and spares no sensitivity. The show's single black kid is called Token. One episode, "Cripple Fight," concludes with a slugfest between the boys' wheelchair-bound, cerebral-palsy-stricken friend, Timmy, and the obnoxious Jimmy, who wants to be South Park's No. 1 "handi-capable" citizen (in his cringe-making PC locution). In another, "Rainforest Shmainforest," the boys' school sends them on a field trip to Costa Rica, led by an activist choir group, "Getting Gay with Kids," which wants to raise youth awareness about "our vanishing rain forests." Shown San Jos?, Costa Rica's capital, the boys are unimpressed:


Cartman: [holding his nose] Oh my God, it smells like ass out here!

Choir teacher: All right, that does it! Eric Cartman, you respect other cultures this instant.

Cartman: I wasn't saying anything about their culture, I was just saying their city smells like ass.

But if the city is unpleasant, the rainforest itself is a nightmare: The boys get lost, wilt from the infernal heat, face deadly assaults from monstrous insects and a giant snake, run afoul of revolutionary banditos, and--worst of all--must endure the choir teacher's New-Agey gushing: "Shhh! Children! Let's try to listen to what the rainforest tells us, and if we use our ears, she can tell us so many things." By the horrifying trip's end, the boys are desperate for civilization, and the choir teacher herself has come to despise the rainforest she once worshiped: "You go right ahead and plow down this whole f---in' thing," she tells a construction worker.

The episode concludes with the choir's new song:

Doo doo doo doo doo. Doo doo doo wa.
There's a place called the rain forest that truly sucks ass.
Let's knock it all down and get rid of it fast.
You say "save the rain forest" but what do you know?
You've never been there before.
Getting Gay with Kids is here
To tell you things you might not like to hear.
You only fight these causes 'cause caring sells.
All you activists can go f--- yourselves.
As the disclaimer before each episode states, the show is so offensive "it should not be viewed by anyone."

One of the contemporary left's most extreme (and, to conservatives, objectionable) strategies is its effort to draw the mantle of civil liberties over behavior once deemed criminal, pathological or immoral, as a brilliant "South Park" episode featuring a visit to town by the North American Man-Boy Love Association--the ultraradical activist group advocating gay sex with minors--satirizes:

Nambla leader: Rights? Does anybody know their rights? You see, I've learned something today. Our forefathers came to this country because they believed in an idea. An idea called "freedom." They wanted to live in a place where a group couldn't be prosecuted for their beliefs. Where a person can live the way he chooses to live. You see us as being perverted because we're different from you. People are afraid of us, because they don't understand. And sometimes it's easier to persecute than to understand.

Kyle: Dude. You have sex with children.

Nambla leader: We are human. Most of us didn't even choose to be attracted to young boys. We were born that way. We can't help the way we are, and if you all can't understand that, well, then, I guess you'll just have to put us away.

Kyle: [slowly, for emphasis] Dude. You have sex. With children.

Stan: Yeah. You know, we believe in equality for everybody, and tolerance, and all that gay stuff, but dude, f--- you.

Another episode--"Cherokee Hair Tampons"--ridicules multiculti sentimentality about holistic medicine and the "wisdom" of native cultures. Kyle suffers a potentially fatal kidney disorder, and his clueless parents try to cure it with "natural" Native American methods, leaving their son vomiting violently and approaching death's door:


Kyle's mom: Everything is going to be fine, Stan; we're bringing in Kyle tomorrow to see the Native Americans personally.

Stan: Isn't it possible that these Indians don't know what they're talking about?

Stan's mom: You watch your mouth, Stanley. The Native Americans were raped of their land and resources by white people like us.

Stan: And that has something to do with their medicines because?.?.?.?

Stan's mom: Enough, Stanley!

"South Park" regularly mocks left-wing celebrities who feel entitled to pontificate on how the nation should be run. In one of the most brutal parodies, made in just several days during the 2000 Florida recount fiasco, loudmouth Rosie O'Donnell sweeps into town to weigh in on a kindergarten election dispute involving her nephew. The boys' teacher dresses her down: "People like you preach tolerance and open-mindedness all the time, but when it comes to middle America, you think we're all evil and stupid country yokels who need your political enlightenment. Just because you're on TV doesn't mean you know crap about the government."

"South Park" has satirized the 1960s counterculture (Cartman has feverish nightmares about hippies, who "want to save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad"), anti-big-business zealots (a "Harbucks" coffee chain opens in South Park, to initial resistance but eventual acclaim as everyone--including the local coffee house's owners--admits its bean beats anything previously on offer in the town), sex ed in school (featuring "the Sexual Harassment Panda," an outrageous classroom mascot), pro-choice extremists (Cartman's mother decides she wants to abort him, even though he's eight years old, relying on the "it's my body" argument), hate-crime legislation, antidiscrimination lawsuits, gay scout leaders and much more. Conservatives do not escape the show's satirical sword--gun-toting rednecks and phony patriots have been among those slashed. But there should be no mistaking the deepest political thrust of "South Park."




pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2071571 -

Token?!

ha!

damn, I haven't watched that show
in years...



--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2071573 -

South Park, like the Simpsons, seems to go after everyone. That's why I love it so much.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2072040 -

If young people were more libertarian, I wouldn't be too worried. But the current pro-Bush atmosphere is sickening.

I see more evidence of the young leaning to the left these days than ever before. Certainly can't remember anything like Seattle or the anti G8 summits happening during Reagans far right time in the 80's. The march against the Iraq invasion earlier this year was the biggest demonstration the UK has ever seen - certainly far bigger than anything that happened in the 60's.

Governments are leaning more and more to the right, while the people are leaning more and more to the left.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2072142 -

I think the young are very polarized, like never before. Being on the leftcoast, I only came into contact with a handful of young folk that were right wing. And most of them distrusted govt... Corporations, on the other hand, they werent sure of. Probably because they havent hit the job market yet and realized there are no jobs.

Things are a changing.. oh goodness, if they reinsitute the draft, just imagine what will happen! Like soccer moms are going to let their little spoiled brats go off and die? NO WAY. Like the slacker generation is going to go get killed? Fuck that, they'll take gta vice city, thank you very much.

Powerful things are on the horizon. Fuck the polls and all the old folk that think they know. The under 25 generation is a generation like never before.. and the younger kids, guess who they will be following, as their eyes begin to be opened from MTV?

There is definately hope. The young shall lead.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2072235 -

I think that as usual, most youths don't really care about politics right now. I'm not sure if I believe that youth is becoming substantially more conservative, but I'm sure it's becoming more polarized... I've heard from a couple places that right now the country is more polarized than it's been in a long time. This really came out because of the Iraq war and all the shouting matches it inevitably caused nation- and world-wide. And Mark, as for those three media you mention, I think one could make a case with those criteria that supports the left to a greater degree than the right.

1) Cable TV-- you got me here... the right definitely outweighs the left in all three of the major 24 hr. news channels, especially FOX, and that can be influential.

On the note of South Park, as a progressive liberal who hates PC, I very much enjoy South Park and always have, but I have a question. What is Trey Parker or Matt Stone who was in Bowling for Colombine? If it was Matt Stone, he apparently has no problem contributing to the work of and conversing with a strong liberal.

2) The Net- I think this serves as a counterbalance even moreso in favor of the left. There are probably hundreds of blogs devoted to pointing out lies of Bush, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and of course, the woman every conservative I have respect for should consider an outrage to their side: Ann Coulter.

3) Books- Political books are huge. However, I think there are more major liberal books released than conservative, and they spend their share of time at the top. Just look at the unbelievable sales of "Stupid White Men," and I'm sure tons of young people bought that, including myself. Just look at the newest nonfiction NYT bestseller list top 3:

1. DUDE, WHERE'S MY COUNTRY? by Michael Moore
2. LIES (AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM), by Al Franken
3. WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YOU? by Bill O'Reilly

Three huge political voices represented here, all releasing books around the same time. The fact that the #1 and 2 books are both from the left shows how much interest they generate.

And I'd like to recommend Franken's book... he's HILARIOUS and I challenge someone to find a lie in his book while he points out the lies of the author of #3 as well as others.


--------------------
Anything stated above is fictional roleplay dialog by the character that is Slapnut Rob, in no way representing the actions or beliefs of the man behind the keys.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2072319 -

Quote:
The young are becoming less liberal


It's about time but it meshes with what I've said about the dying Democratic party.

It's just too bad that for so many years the schools have been heading so many students down a dead end path.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2072324 -

I'm waiting...











...it's all the democrats and libbies and their PC agenda,right?


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: SlapnutRob]
    #2072328 -

I think one of the most amusing things about the neocons these days is that even they've realised they can't sell their lunatic philosophy to the people. When Bush and the crazies were trying to gain support for the Iraq war they all had to avoid saying what they really believed - "We will protect the oil refineries, we will make Iraq safe for corporate investors..". Instead they had to spout bullshine about "freedom" and "the poor and suffering of Iraq" because they know that leftist talk goes over with the public. It must've really stuck in their craws.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2072643 -

we can only hope so. it's still fashionable for young people to be liberal... those not too keen on thinking for themselves almost always seem to lean that way without a second thought. hopefully that'll change over the years.

i'm not too happy with what is more and more commonly being called "conservative" nowadays though...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: SlapnutRob]
    #2072957 -

SlapnutRob writes:

The Net- I think this serves as a counterbalance even moreso in favor of the left. There are probably hundreds of blogs devoted to pointing out lies of Bush, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and of course, the woman every conservative I have respect for should consider an outrage to their side: Ann Coulter.

You should read the article I linked. I gave just the very briefest of overviews. Yes there are hundreds of leftist blogs. What counts is how many of them are read -- the "hit" factor.

However, I think there are more major liberal books released than conservative, and they spend their share of time at the top. Just look at the unbelievable sales of "Stupid White Men," and I'm sure tons of young people bought that, including myself. Just look at the newest nonfiction NYT bestseller list top 3:
1. DUDE, WHERE'S MY COUNTRY? by Michael Moore
2. LIES (AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM), by Al Franken
3. WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YOU? by Bill O'Reilly

You have to take the NYT bestseller list with a grain of salt. Book publishers have known for decades that this list is not even close to giving an accurate picture of nationwide book sales -- it is a marketing tool. A much more accurate source is Barnes & Noble or Amazon.

For example, the New York Times had had Shrillary's book on their bestseller list for at least sixteen weeks at the time this observation was made -- (from http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004133 )

"Living History," Hillary Clinton's memoir, is the No. 10 nonfiction book on the most recent New York Times bestseller list, and it's been on the list for 16 weeks. But here's something odd. The Barnes & Noble Web site has its own list of "Year-to-Date Bestseller"--the "top 100 bestselling books for Barnes & Noble stores and Barnes & Noble.com, for January-September, 2003." Atop the list sits "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," followed by "The Da Vinci Code" and "The South Beach Diet." The list does include political books, including Ann Coulter's "Treason" (No. 41) and Al Franken's "Lies" (No. 42).

But Hillary's book is nowhere to be found. The list only goes to No. 100, so there's no telling where she ranks, but it is below the No. 95 book, which is called--we kid you not--"Captain Underpants and the Big, Bad Battle of the Bionic Booger Boy, Part 1."

Note that at the time that list was published, Coulter's "Treason" was ahead of Franken's "Lies". Even if we do accept the NYT list as an accurate representation of nationwide sales, note that Bill O'Reilly's book was listed number 3.

The author's point is not that political books by non-Liberals are outselling political books by Liberals (although obviously many are) but that they are being published in such numbers and doing so well. Ten years ago you couldn't get a publisher to touch a conservative publisher -- there was no money in it for the publisher. That is not the case today.

If you haven't yet read the article, I suggest you do. Yes, it's long, but it's very interesting.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2072966 -

The administrators have determined that "cheeseking" was a puppet of SquattingMarmot. The account "cheeseking" has been perma-banned.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2072995 -

sheesh...and you even gave him such a warm welcome!

:smirk:


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: afoaf]
    #2073287 -

Quote:
The young are becoming less liberal


If by "less liberal", you mean "more fascist", then I would agree.

(Note: I am not equating conservatism with fascism, nor am I equating liberalism with libertarianism)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2073434 -

What is your definition of the term "fascist"?

Can you give us some idea of which fascist principles (according to your own definition) young people find most appealing?

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2074932 -

hmmmm... well, I guess I can see how you might think that i misused the term.

Here's my proposition: Fascism takes two parties. The opressor and the opressee. In order to have fascism, you need a shit talker to sell the lie, and a shit eater to buy it.

I tend to hold the opressees just as responsible for fascism as the dictators and fascist governments.

So anyway, I have come to use the term 'fascist' as a word for both a person who makes bad rules and a person who respects bad rules.

In a fascist society, even the proletariat obeys and enforces bad rules. He participates in and facilitates that system, and is just as much to blame as the dictator.

As for the children of today, I think they are way to obedient and unquestioning. And they can be very bigoted in some ways. Thoughts of the junior spy league come to mind. *shudder* They seem to have too much respect for the rules, to the level of downright silliness. Worse yet, they have been programmed by television to be little consuming machines, some wearing designer clothes to school before their 10th birthday.

Not all the kids are like this, but a lot of them are, moreso than previous generations, IMO

You see the youth as conservative. I see the youth as blindly agreeing with and obeying institutionalized authority, which happens to be conservative at the moment. And I would be just as worried if the current administration was liberal, and the youth agred with it without a second thought, or for that matter, a first.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2075152 -

DoctorJ writes:

So anyway, I have come to use the term 'fascist' as a word for both a person who makes bad rules and a person who respects bad rules.

So you have formed your own unique and idiosyncratic definition of an existing and well-defined word and expect the rest of us to know by ESP that you don't really mean "fascist" when you type it, you mean a "bad-rule-maker-and/or-bad-rule-obeyer". Glad we got that cleared up.

You see the youth as conservative.

No, I don't. Conservatism in youth is still not the norm. However, in the last few years, the young people (under-thirties) I see in my little corner of the world (tourists from Europe, North and South America, Australia, the Caribbean, but not Asia or Africa) as a whole seem less left-leaning than those of the same age I saw here ten years ago.

I see the youth as blindly agreeing with and obeying institutionalized authority, which happens to be conservative at the moment.

Then I guess the young people I meet are different than the ones you do. Almost none I meet would fit that description.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2075267 -

As we all do, perhaps you're seeing what you want to see. Just a thought.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Le_Canard]
    #2075316 -

ToiletDuk writes:

As we all do, perhaps you're seeing what you want to see. Just a thought.

And one I have thought of myself. The thing is, ten years ago, I wanted to see young people becoming less liberal. Back then it was more important to me than it is now. Now that I don't really give a damn any more, it is impossible to ignore. For what it's worth, my girlfriend has noticed the same thing.

Again, this is judging only from the young people I (and the gf) meet here. For all I know, the younguns who choose to come here today are less representative than the younguns who chose to come here a decade ago. I don't know why that would be, but I can't rule out the possibility.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Le_Canard]
    #2075325 -

I'll try to get around to reading that article, Mark... I don't know if I'm gonna come back to this thread, but let me give one last thought....

Although I would argue that the left is the more open-minded side of the equation (just look at the name conservative... it's about conserving old values, which doesn't include things like rap music or gay people) I am certain that there are those with integrity on both sides of the aisle, and those are the people I want leading this country. I would have given my left nut to have seen McCain vs. Bradley in 2000 rather than Bush vs. Gore. I don't think any real conservative could argue that Bush is a respectable truthful man of integrity (unless they're lying or just being ignorant) and the same goes for the left with Al Gore.

There are those that are full of shit on the left, like Hillary Clinton and there are those that are full of shit on the right like Bill O'Reilly... and there are respectable voices on both sides like Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchanan.

Anyway, even though I hope our youth emerges more liberal, above all I want our youth to emerge knowing and caring for the truth. Nothing good can come from people just not giving a shit.

Too bad we don't have better media in America....



--------------------
Anything stated above is fictional roleplay dialog by the character that is Slapnut Rob, in no way representing the actions or beliefs of the man behind the keys.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2075333 -

Well, this is true. But, having gone to High School in the mid to late '80's (I'm sort of dating myself here :grin:) there were lots of kids who were conservative back then as well! I think the same can said today. As someone once said: "There is nothing new under the sun". 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Le_Canard]
    #2075348 -

ToiletDuk said:
As someone once said: "There is nothing new under the sun".


That someone would be Solomon.
Ecclesiastes 1:9


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2075470 -

Its obvious then our young ones are just getting stupid. hehe :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2076831 -

All is not lost!

oh yes. as long as there are young conservatives watching FOX news and South Park and reading Ann Coulter, there is hope!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2077326 -

Its obvious then our young ones are just getting stupid. hehe <<<

That was really offensive. On the offence even when not attacked, I see?


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: rommstein2001]
    #2077388 -

:wtf:


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2077397 -

I think the democrats are a dying party imo, I think they are dieing cause they cant unite like the republicans do. Democrats are to busy quarreling with each other to unite and try to defeat the Republicans.


And plus a factor with young people being less liberal has to do with their parents also. Their Parents influence most of their political ideals. Parents who grew up in the 70's and 80's are probably more likely to be conservative anyway.


Or itleast thats what i think correct me if im wrong.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #2077432 -

Frankly, I'm glad the Democrats aren't united. They're the party of diversity and I like it that way. The Republicans are united because they're basically representing the same group of people: rich, white, religious, conservative business-owners(most of them are at least one of those things anyway). The Democrats represent pretty much everyone else. If they became united, they'd be leaving out major parts of their constituency.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #2077502 -

Quote:
I think the democrats are a dying party imo


You are correct.


Quote:
I think they are dieing cause they cant unite like the republicans do.


Nah, it's because mainstream America has grown tired.

Tired of light prison sentences.
Tired of high taxes.
Tired of illegal immigrants.
Tired of bilingual education.
Tired of losing control of property rights.
Tired of PC shenanigans.
Tired of.... well tired of pretty much everything the Democrats stand for.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2077537 -

Nah, it's because mainstream America has grown tired.

Nah, don't just list the things you're tired of and say "mainstream america" is tired of them. That's ludicrous.

Mainstream america didn't even vote this prick into power.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2077553 -

You wouldn't know mainstream America if it bit you on the ass, any more than I could claim to speak for average Brit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: wingnutx]
    #2077594 -

Neither would you - which is why it's silly to say "mainstream america" supports your own personal right-wing agenda. The last election wasn't exactly resounding proof of what "mainstream america is tired of" was it.



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2077626 -

Southpark Republicans are coming into their own. THAT is mainstream as hell.

Thank you Andrew Sullivan :smile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2077774 -

"I have a fantastic idea: let's stop all this rhetorical left-right bullshit and actually discuss issues."

YES!!!!!!!!!!

this book I read called the unconcious civillization talks all about that, and about the fact we dont have TRUE capitalism anymore etc.....

check this shit out !!!!!!!

http://www.batemanideas.com/saul.html
http://www.geocities.com/radiochomsky/unconscious-civilization.html

this book is great



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2078027 -

silversoul7 said:
The Republicans are united because they're basically representing the same group of people: rich, white, religious, conservative business-owners(most of them are at least one of those things anyway).


RICH> I've yet to meet any real "rich" conservatives. Everyone rich I've ever met has been a liberal democrat. I don't consider $50k per year rich either, $50k with 4 kids, a wife, and a house just big enough to keep it all will leave most families that size making it from paycheck to paycheck

White> While you are right, the majority are white, But do you REALLY think that's why we're organized?

Religious> There are quite a few right winged people that aren't religious. You are taking what you see on TV as truth. The truth is not many of the conservatives believe in keeping the 10 commandments in court houses or any other church/state merge.



Business owners> And I've only yet met 1 conservative business owner, and he had to close down shop and is now living off of $20k per year. If the majority of us owned businesses it'd have to be a very much smaller party.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: rommstein2001]
    #2078122 -

Alright, I'm generalizing a little too much, but my point is that Republicans generally have the same interests in mind(at least more so than the Democrats).


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2078132 -

the conservativism of fox news and southpark is of the worst sort.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2078208 -

Quote:
the conservativism of fox news and southpark is of the worst sort.


southpark? conservative??? what are talking about?

and expand what you meant by that, what 'sort' of conservatism.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Tao]
    #2078227 -

South Park is neither liberal nor conservative. It's countercultural.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Tao]
    #2078234 -

Quote:
southpark? conservative??? what are talking about?


I second that. I only seeing them moking conservative views... and just making fun of them.

Its hallarious because you're like...did cartman just say that?! Its so stupidly right-winged that its funny... and I don't think they are doing it because they are getting a point across, they are doing it on sarcasam.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Tao]
    #2078239 -

what are talking about?

southpark is not politically correct. i suppose for some, this is enough to label it "conservative". i'd say only that it doesn't push the same liberal values as most broadcast television, but that's not saying much. silversoul is right in that it's really not liberal or conservative.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2078444 -

The last election wasn't exactly resounding proof of what "mainstream america is tired of" was it.

the fact that the dems couldn't put anyone up who could beat bush in a landslide says alot. if they couldn't win decisively against dubya, i don't know who they're going to win against. unless they can find themselves another smooth-talker, i don't think we'll be seeing another democrat president for a while.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2078506 -

why is the democratic party dying?

because for far too long, they have relied on votes bought with stolen money to get themselves into office.

because their policies do not build, they merely re-appropriate. their policies are not sound economically, and people are starting to realize it. at the end of the day, that's what most people are concerned with.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2078547 -

whereas trickle-down economics is a flawless economic policy....... :P


mushmaster--its not about what will maximize our already-sufficient incomes, its about helping people in danger of starvation, homelessness and not receiving health-care. i dont vote for them because i want anyone's money, i'll be fine economically when i have a career, i just believe that we as a society should pool some of our already-sufficient money together to help those in need, and i use my vote to show that idea. your obsession with economic freedom and maximizing potential blinds you from a much greater cause: the basic needs of impoverished individuals' lives.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Tao]
    #2078555 -

We libertarians have no problem with helping people. We like to help people (well a lot of us do anyway), but what we don't like is to be forced to help people.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Tao]
    #2078590 -

its not about what will maximize our already-sufficient incomes, its about helping people in danger of starvation, homelessness and not receiving health-care.

and who doesn't want to do that?

p.j. o'rourke put it well:

"There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't?"

mr. jones used to be a shoemaker, but business has been slow and he had to shut down shop. he is now on unemployment. the government takes money away from mr. smith and gives it to the unemployed shoemaker mr. jones. too bad for mr. smith... now he won't be able to afford that new pair of shoes he wanted...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2078611 -

Quote:
mr. jones used to be a shoemaker, but business has been slow and he had to shut down shop. he is now on unemployment. the government takes money away from mr. smith and gives it to the the unemployed shoemaker mr. jones. too bad for mr. smith... now he won't be able to afford that new pair of shoes he wanted...


HA! Like the taxes on the rich would inhibit them from making a purchase like that! Could you maybe give a more realistic example?


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2078629 -

HA! Like the taxes on the rich would inhibit them from making a purchase like that! Could you maybe give a more realistic example?

think in terms of general principles.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2078633 -

I see it as an investment club. we have our money in a pool and decide where we want to spend the money--some to military, some to police and some to the poor. if you dont like the way the investment club is spending your money, then you can leave and go elsewhere.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Tao]
    #2078636 -

why not just take your money out of the pool?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Tao]
    #2078685 -

Quote:
TaoTeChing said:
... its about helping people in danger of starvation, homelessness and not receiving health-care... your obsession with economic freedom and maximizing potential blinds you from a much greater cause: the basic needs of impoverished individuals' lives.


Ever heard of 'The War on Poverty?' Do you realize how long these policies begun under Lyndon Johnson have been going on and how UNSUCCESSFUL they are in lifting people out of poverty? Has it ever occured to you that government handouts have created a permanent underclass, generations of people who are dependant upon the state? You cannot realistically (given the track record and human nature) to continue to throw money at the problem and expect it to change if it has not changed in 40 years with the same tactics. That is the utilitarian side of things - perhaps what's needed are new ways of addressing these old problems (that have been with us since time immemorial).

The moral side is this, it is wrong for anyone to extort/rob/steal from another.

If I assault you on the street with a gun and demand money, if I give to you as my excuse that I will give the money to the homeless, does this change the morality of my actions of robbing you?

Wait, there's more. What if I take 90% off the top after robbing you and only give 10% to the bum at the end of the alley while you are watching? Then I go and rob your neighbor, continuing down your street till everybody has been forced to give money to the poor (while the poor never see 90% of what was taken).

Now, here's the end result, the bum will remain a bum. He has not learned nor been given incentives to change his position in life. In fact, he sees that as long as I rob everyone in the neighborhood, he only has to sit there and provide a justification for me to transgress against you and your neighbors. His position is secure, he is my cheerleader, if I were running for office he would vote for me.

That is the essence of government charity


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Evolving]
    #2078716 -

if the government quit impeding upon the functioning of the market, so few people would end up truly lacking the basic necessities that voluntary charity alone would be enough for these people. how much starvation and homelessness was occuring in america in the mid 1800's?

liberal "reforms" are well-meaning, but ultimately self-defeating. they fail to see past deceptive superficialities and understand the interconnectedness of the market and the deeper consequences of their legislation. (or maybe they just don't care... they're getting in office for it, right?)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2079096 -

Quote:
think in terms of general principles.


general principles are bunk


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2079106 -

Quote:
liberal "reforms" are well-meaning, but ultimately self-defeating. they fail to see past deceptive superficialities and understand the interconnectedness of the market and the deeper consequences of their legislation. (or maybe they just don't care... they're getting in office for it, right?)


Judging by the way the economy's been handled under Reagan and both Bushes, I have trouble believing that conservatives understand the economy any better than liberals.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2079121 -

the fact that the dems couldn't put anyone up who could beat bush in a landslide says alot.

Not really. More likely they'd just had 8 years of the same government and a few decided they'd like a change. With such a chronically low voter turnout I think the clearest thing you can say is mainstream america has little interest in who is in the white house. It's not like the democrats were offering any alternative to Bush is it. Corporate welfare went up as fast under Clinton as it did under Reagan and Bush.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2079132 -

if the government quit impeding upon the functioning of the market

Then we'd be at the mercy of robber barons just like the population are in South east asia, Africa and south america. Working for 10 cents an hour, our children working alongside us, with a ferocious beating or hanging reserved for anyone who spoke the word "union".


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2079395 -

The Daily Show is the best thing to happen to news


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Shroomism]
    #2079576 -

It's sad when your most real source of news and common sense is a comedy show.

Long live John Stewart :smile:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2080024 -

Then we'd be at the mercy of robber barons just like the population are in South east asia, Africa and south america. Working for 10 cents an hour, our children working alongside us, with a ferocious beating or hanging reserved for anyone who spoke the word "union".

must we go through this again?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2080086 -

Alex is right. At the moment government is needed to look after the welfare of the individual in society as we have not evolved to a state where we can be trusted to look after each other without intervention. As the government is, in a limited fashion, answerable to the people then they will to a degree protect the individuals rights from other individuals who would use their economic power to imporve their own situation at the expense of others.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2080093 -

Quote:
why not just take your money out of the pool?



Because you will still be using things that the money in the pool pays for.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2080326 -

Then we'd be at the mercy of robber barons just like the population are in South east asia, Africa and south america. Working for 10 cents an hour, our children working alongside us, with a ferocious beating or hanging reserved for anyone who spoke the word "union".

i'm afraid not. citing examples of deviation from capitalistic principles is hardly a good way to make a sound argument against capitalism.

i'll address the unions\beatings argument:

it seems that the argument you're trying to make with that is that coercive means of establishing minimum wages, hours, benefits, and the like, are necessary, because there isn't a way for people to negotiate for them effectively without being targetted and attacked by anti-union thugs. correct me if i'm wrong here... i don't want to put words into your mouth. is the argument that the government must do the "negotiating" (note that it ISN'T negototiation) for the workers, because if they set out to do it themselves they'd only be beaten down?

if so, you'll have a hard time explaining the myriad of concessions that businesses and unions have made in the united states over the years. if peaceful negotiations are such a dangerous foray, it is rather curious that unions in america have persuaded business to voluntarily agree to countless regulations, wage guarantees, pensions, and benefits. it would be hard to explain why the minimums set by the US government pale in comparison to the agreements negotiated by the unions.

the situation in the countries you mentioned is so poor because they lack honest leadership and sufficient police power. if the system of voluntary collective negotiation was what was to blame, we'd see the same sort of thing happening in america... after all, it's not as though the minimum wage and 40 hour work week absolve the need for union negotiations... union negotiations are alive and well in america. why? is it because the government guarantees certain minimums? no. they have nothing to do with it. it's because we have police, and they actually uphold the law. this cannot be said of the places you're mentioning.

let's say we've got a $5 an hour price floor on labor set by government in america. then unions come along and start negotiating for $10 an hour... the unionizers don't get beaten down like unionizers arguing for a $5\hour minimum might in some third world nation, where there is no minimum. why? the minimum has got nothing to do with it. in both cases, people are collectively bargaining for better pay. the difference is that we actually have a real police force, not just some group of ragtag, poorly equipped, underpaid, corrupt enforcers lead by corrupt politicians in the pocket of rich foreign corporations.

what does the government set minimum have to do with whether or not unionizers are allowed to unionize wihout being intimidated, murdered, or beaten?

nothing.

about the child labor:

allowing people to sell their children off to go work at a factory is against free-market principles to begin with... not that there would even be a threat of it happening at all. in developed countries with efficient economies, child labor isn't even practical. we have too many adult workers as it is... it's called unemployment.

capitalism is not what's responsible for the conditions of workers in the third world.... it's having poor, backwards economies; economies that can't do as much as support an honest police force. what we see in the third world is NOT capitalism. individual rights are NOT protected. i thought we'd already covered this.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2080332 -

Because you will still be using things that the money in the pool pays for.

would you be opposed to individuals only paying for government services that they themselves actually use?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2080402 -

Interesting idea but that could only apply to a limited amount of services. Which ones would you have in mind?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2080406 -

i'm not sure but i think we can both see that welfare, medicare, social security, corporate subsidies, and the like are all excluded.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2080535 -

union negotiations are alive and well in america..it is rather curious that unions in america have persuaded business to voluntarily agree to countless regulations, wage guarantees, pensions, and benefits.

But you are aware of the history and *slight difficulty* people had in "persuading" the corporations to give them any working rights, to pay a decent wage or allow unions? Do you think business simply handed over workers rights out of the kindness of their heart? It took a hundred years of violent struggle in the face of ferocious intimidation by corporate power, ably assisted by the police (that you claim we should rely on to protect us..) to get these laws and rights.

To simply demolish government and hope the robber barons and police will look after workers rights is ludicrous. Our only protection is a government strong enough to enforce these laws that is accountable to us and can be VOTED out of power - NOT to rely on a utterly unaccountable corporate structure assisted by a police force that can be bought and paid for by anyone with enough money to do so.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2080650 -

Did you read what mushmaster wrote alex?


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2080656 -

But you are aware of the history and *slight difficulty* people had in "persuading" the corporations to give them any working rights, to pay a decent wage or allow unions? Do you think business simply handed over workers rights out of the kindness of their heart? It took a hundred years of violent struggle in the face of ferocious intimidation by corporate power, ably assisted by the police (that you claim we should rely on to protect us..) to get these laws and rights.

alex... the reason that there was so much trouble back then, and not as much now, has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT CERTAIN MINIMUMS ARE GUARANTEED BY GOVERNMENT. we have better police protection now. that's the only difference.

it would be one thing if the minimums set by the government meant that unions no longer existed. the fact is, unions do. they are just as active in their bargaining today as they were 100 years ago. unions are still campaigning for greater wages than those guaranteed by the government, greater benefits than those guaranteed by government, and better hours than those guaranteed by government, just like they were 100 years ago . so why are they no longer beaten and harassed?

To simply demolish government and hope the robber barons and police will look after workers rights is ludicrous.

a blatant STRAW MAN.

here:
_________________________________________________________

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
________________________________________________________

read up. i never said ANYTHING about "demolishing government" or leaving the "rights" of the workers in the hands of the "robber barons".

NOT to rely on a utterly unaccountable corporate structure assisted by a police force that can be bought and paid for by anyone with enough money to do so.

straw man, alex, straw man. that is not what i'm suggesting and you know it. that's EXACTLY what exists in your third world country examples, and it is NOT free market, it is NOT capitalism, it is NOT what i'm proposing, and it is NOT the result of the system i AM proposing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2081027 -

So are you saying governments are unnecessary because Unions have successully lobbied companies directly in the past?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2081055 -

So are you saying governments are unnecessary because Unions have successully lobbied companies directly in the past?

no. i am saying that violence is not a part of the free market, and that a government's lack of interference in the free functioning of the market in no way signifies, indicates, predicts, or causes a lack of protection of individuals from force.

on the contrary, in order to preserve the free funcioning of the market, the government MUST protect individuals from violence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2081097 -

has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT CERTAIN MINIMUMS ARE GUARANTEED BY GOVERNMENT. we have better police protection now. that's the only difference.

Having the right to join a union or get paid a minimum wage has nothing to do with the government passing a law giving you that right? Then what is it to do with? Do you seriously think a corporation is going to give you that right for any other reason? Then why havn't they done so in south east asia?

South east asia wouldn't benefit by a government passing a law giving them the right to form unions and get paid a minimum wage? All they need is "better police protection"? I don't think "police protection" is what they need at all. Police can be bought. What they need is government laws ensuring minimum rates of pay and massive corporate fines if these laws are not met. Lawyers and accountants would be more effective at enforcing minimum wages, not policemen.

just like they were 100 years ago . so why are they no longer beaten and harassed?

Not sure where you're coming from. Why arn't they beaten and harrassed in the US? Because US workers already fought for and died for those rights? Obviously in south east asia there is still brutal oppression and ferocious intimidation being implemented by the same western corporations who operate in the US. They clearly behave differently in the US for some reason - I would suggest the power of the government to affect the operation of their business is the major reason. Along with union power.

Do you come from a working class area mush? I come from an area right on the front line during the 1984 miners strike. I saw on a regular basis precisely how the police protected workers rights. With truncheons and size 10 boots down quiet alleyways. Perhaps the police might protect workers in libertarian textbooks, the real world is a little different.

and it is NOT the result of the system i AM proposing.

Then what are you proposing? At the moment you seem to be saying remove power from the government and hand it to the police.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2081173 -

Having the right to join a union has nothing to do with the government passing a law giving you that right? Then what is it to do with?

no alex. the minimums i was referring to were forced minimum wages, benefits, pensions, etc. i was not refering to ones right to form a union. forming a union is a voluntary, non-coersive activity. therefore, individuals have a right to be defended from force while doing so. never did i suggest otherwise. if i did suggest that individuals were not guaranteed the right to form a union (a non-coercive activity) it would be quite a deviation from the principles of liberty i have been arguing for. we've had this exact discussion before in previous threads, and you are using the exact same arguments, remember? they are just as fallacious now as they were then.

South east asia wouldn't benefit by a government passing a law giving them the right to form unions and get paid a minimum wage?

unions- see above comments.

not a minimum wage law. a minimum wage does not increase production. it does not increase efficiency. it does not increase the amount of goods and services available to the people. it does not alleviate poverty. it just moves money from one place to another in a way that is to the detriment of all.

All they need is "better police protection"?

to protect people from violent acts, what else is there?

Police can be bought.

all more easily if they are in a backwards thirdworld country with a stifled economy.

What they need is government laws ensuring minimum rates of pay and massive corporate fines if these laws are not met.

and the corrupt police services would enforce these laws because...?

Lawyers and accountants would be more effective at enforcing minimum wages, not policemen.

wrong. lawyers and accountants cannot enforce anything. that is the job of the police.

Not sure where you're coming from.

i can tell.

Why arn't they beaten and harrassed in the US? Because US workers already fought for and won rights?

and are they not still fighting for better pay, conditions, and benefits today?

Obviously in south east asia there is still brutal oppression and ferocious intimidation being implemented by the same western corporations who operate in the US.

correct.

They clearly behave differently in the US for some reason - I would suggest the power of the government to affect the operation of their business is the major reason.

correct again... if in the "operation of their business" you are including forceful intimidation of unionizers.

Then what are you proposing? At the moment you seem to be saying remove power from the government and hand it to the police.

no. the hand of government's power IS the police. all laws passed by government are enforced by the police. i say they should enforce laws against violence. you say they should use violence to enforce laws against paying what you feel is too little.

you say the police will not enforce laws against violence, but they'll enforce a minimum wage. why would the same cops who are in the pocket of a western corporation who beat down unionizers suddenly turn and enforce a minimum wage? jeeze. think about things.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2082125 -

I'd just like to point out that while that map of the counties was very interesting

GORE STILL WON THE POPULAR VOTE, GOD DAMN IT


This country isn't mostly liberal or conservative... I think it's pretty much right down the middle. Half are fed up with high taxes, half are fed up with high prescription drugs... and so on.... and so on.. and so on....


--------------------
Anything stated above is fictional roleplay dialog by the character that is Slapnut Rob, in no way representing the actions or beliefs of the man behind the keys.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2083049 -

no alex. the minimums i was referring to were forced minimum wages, benefits, pensions, etc.

You're forgetting that 99% of the benefits were put in place thanks to unions tho. You don't find too many benefits and workers rights in south east asia right? Or is it just coincidence those are the places where unions are most heavily oppressed and brutalised?

it does not alleviate poverty

So paying some kid a dollar an hour instead of 10 cents an hour isn't going to alleviate his poverty? It's sure gonna help don'tcha think?

and the corrupt police services would enforce these laws because...?

The government that owns them would be voted out of power if they didn't?

wrong. lawyers and accountants cannot enforce anything. that is the job of the police.

So you expect old cop Joe down the street to go into a multi-billion dollar corporation and say "Y'all better be paying all those workers the correct benefits and pension rights y'heah"?

No, we need more lawyers who can fight multi-million dollar court cases to enforce workers rights. Not cops on the beat.

you say the police will not enforce laws against violence, but they'll enforce a minimum wage.why would the same cops who are in the pocket of a western corporation who beat down unionizers suddenly turn and enforce a minimum wage?

No, I'm saying the GOVERNMENT will enforce the minimum wage. If the cops don't do what the GOVERNMENT tell them to do then the government will hold the police accountable otherwise the government will be voted out of power.

The GOVERNMENT is the key here mush. Because it's accountable - if it doesn't do what you want, it gets voted out of power. If the corporations don't do what you want they arn't accountable. It's about accountability.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2083217 -

i am saying that violence is not a part of the free market

Could you explain what you mean by "free market"? It's a right-wing buzzword that doesn't mean anything. No corporation wants a "free market". What every single corporation on earth wants is the market all to themselves.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2083239 -

YES

First, there is an assertion that natural processes are self-regulating. And this is a valid truth. We see it at work in nature, for example, where the renewal of life in spring comes on its own. Where we mate for our own pleasure ? and in so doing help in the rebirth of the world. In like manner, we serve the economic polity best by serving ourselves. The drive to make money is what gets us out of bed in the morning, and brings us to do our part in holding the world together. Our economic drives are part of the natural order, and are trustworthy. We do well to take comfort in this assertion.

But invisibly imbedded in free market ideology is a second assertion: that corporate and trade governance structures embody the natural order. And this assertion does not follow logically from the first. For it glosses over the institutionalized power of corporations, and of wealth. To call the stockholder-centered corporate structure "natural" is reminiscent of the ancient claim that the monarchy was the only "natural" way to structure government.

A truly natural free market would free all groups to compete equally, to have a chance to pursue their own self-interest, to have an opportunity for their voices to be heard and their needs considered. Real free markets are not about enshrining the self-interest of one group alone in law. Privilege like that has no place in a free market. Even in an imaginary one.



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Psilocybeingzz]
    #2083255 -

I like the sound of that psilo. If free means everyone gets the chance to make whatever they want and put it on the market at whatever price they want, as opposed to giving large corporations the power to undercut and drive competitors out of business, arrange secret monopolies amongst themselves etc then I'm all for the free market.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2083347 -

in the book I posted about and my other thread

you can see the signs again and again

We dont have real capitalism anymore, Adam Smith would be ashamed !
Free market?
Free trade???

well first of all alot of the time its FORCED trade with CONDITIONS, which makes it hardly free.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2083355 -

What I meant is are you saying that it is not necessary for government to involve themselves in enforcing minimum wages, workers rights etc because unions have been doing this more successfully by themselves?

I thought that was what you meant when you said:

Quote:
if so, you'll have a hard time explaining the myriad of concessions that businesses and unions have made in the united states over the years. if peaceful negotiations are such a dangerous foray, it is rather curious that unions in america have persuaded business to voluntarily agree to countless regulations, wage guarantees, pensions, and benefits. it would be hard to explain why the minimums set by the US government pale in comparison to the agreements negotiated by the unions.




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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2083755 -

You're forgetting that 99% of the benefits were put in place thanks to unions tho.

simply not true. business pay for labor like they do for anything else they buy... by paying the market price. collective bargaining helps raise the price a little, but not by much.

You don't find too many benefits and workers rights in south east asia right? Or is it just coincidence those are the places where unions are most heavily oppressed and brutalised?

that certainly has something to do with it, but not everything. the areas you talk about are poor. they have backwards economies that produce little wealth per capita. they have a low standard of living. there are many, many uneducated, unskilled laborers for hire. a lack of a minimum wage does NOT cause poverty, nor does the existence of one eliminate it. as long as those nations are overflowing with unskilled laborers and have unproductive economies, there will be poverty.

So paying some kid a dollar an hour instead of 10 cents an hour isn't going to alleviate his poverty? It's sure gonna help don'tcha think?

giving one person a 1000% raise would certainly help that one person, but things are a little different when you give everyone such a raise, especially when that raise is forced and is set above the market price. when you're looking at economics, you cannot just look at the short-term effects on ONE individual.

suppose this guy's labor just isn't worth $1 per hour to the company. well then they certainly aren't going to keep him around and pay him a dollar an hour 'cause the gov't said so... he'll be fired.

it simply is not that easy. if it was, we could elliminate poverty tomorrow if we enacted a mandatory $20 an hour minimum wage. there are very real market consequences for such laws, consequences that you do not seem to understand, or at least haven't yet considered.

here is a short peice that pretty objectively sums up what minimum wages can and cannot do. you would do well to read it:

________________________________________________________

Minimum Wage Laws

WE HAVE already seen some of the harmful results of arbitrary governmental efforts to raise the price of favored commodities. The same sort of harmful results follows efforts to raise wages through minimum wage laws. This ought not to be surprising; for

a wage is, in fact, a price.
It is unfortunate for clarity of economic thinking that the price of labor's services should have received an entirely different name from other prices. This has prevented most people from recognizing that the same principles govern both.

Thinking has become so emotional and so politically biased on the subject of wages that in most discussions of them the plainest principles are ignored. People who would be among the first to deny that prosperity could be brought about by artificially boosting prices, people who would be among the first to point out that minimum price laws might be most harmful to the very industries they were designed to help, will nevertheless advocate minimum wage laws, and denounce opponents of them, without misgivings.

Yet it ought to be clear that a minimum wage law is, at best, a limited weapon for combating the evil of low wages, and that the possible good to be achieved by such a law can exceed the possible harm only in proportion as its aims are modest.

The more ambitious such a law is, the larger the number of workers it attempts to cover, and the more it attempts to raise their wages, the more likely are its harmful effects to exceed its good effects.
The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall be paid less than $50 for a forty-hour week is that no one who is not worth $50 a week to an employer will be employed at all.

You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less.
You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.

The only exception to this occurs when a group of workers is receiving a wage actually below its market worth. This is likely to happen only in rare and special circumstances or localities where competitive forces do not operate freely or adequately; but nearly all these special cases could be remedied just as effectively, more flexibly and with far less potential harm, by unionization.

It may be thought that if the law forces the payment of a higher wage in a given industry, that industry can then charge higher prices for its product, so that the burden of paying the higher wage is merely shifted to consumers.

Such shifts, however, are not easily made, nor are the consequences of artificial wage-raising so easily escaped. A higher price for the product may not be possible: it may merely drive consumers to the equivalent imported products or to some substitute.

Or, if consumers continue to buy the product of the industry in which wages have been raised, the higher price will cause them to buy less of it. While some workers in the industry may be benefited from the higher wage, therefore, others will be thrown out of employment altogether. On the other hand, if the price of the product is not raised, marginal producers in the industry will be driven out of business; so that reduced production and consequent unemployment will merely be brought about in another way.

When such consequences are pointed out, there are a group of people who reply: "Very well; if it is true that the X industry cannot exist except by paying starvation wages, then it will be just as well if the minimum wage puts it out of existence altogether." But this brave pronouncement overlooks the realities. It overlooks, first of all, that consumers will suffer the loss of that product. It forgets, in the second place, that it is merely condemning the people who worked in that industry to unemployment. And it ignores, finally, that bad as were the wages paid in the X industry, they were the best among all the alternatives that seemed open to the workers in that industry; otherwise the workers would have gone into another. If, therefore, the X industry is driven out of existence by a minimum wage law, then the workers previously employed in that industry will be forced to turn to alternative courses that seemed less attractive to them in the first place. Their competition for jobs will drive down the pay offered even in these alternative occupations. There is no escape from the conclusion that the minimum wage will increase unemployment.

A nice problem, moreover, will be raised by the relief program designed to take care of the unemployment caused by the minimum wage law. By a minimum wage of, say, $1.15 an hour, we have forbidden anyone to work forty hours in a week for less than $46. Suppose, now, we offer only $30 a week on relief. This means that we have forbidden a man to be usefully employed at, say $40 a week, in order that we may support him at $30 a week in idleness. We have deprived society of the value of his services. We have deprived the man of the independence and self-respect that come from self-support, even at a taw level, and from performing wanted work at the same time as we have lowered what the man could have received by his own efforts. These consequences follow as long as the relief payment is a penny less than $46. Yet the higher we make the relief payment, the worse we make the situation in other respects. If we offer $46 for relief, then we offer many men just as much for not working as for working...

... We cannot distribute more wealth than is created. We cannot in the long run pay labor as a whole more than it produces.

The best way to raise wages, therefore, is to raise labor productivity.
This can be done by many methods: by an increase in capital accumulation--i.e., by an increase in the machines with which the workers are aided; by new inventions and improvements; by more efficient management on the part of employers; by more industriousness and efficiency on the part of workers; by better education and training.

The more the individual worker produces, the more he increases the wealth of the whole community. The more he produces, the more his services are worth to consumers, and hence to employers. And the more he is worth to employers, the more he will be paid.

Real wages come out of production, not out of government decrees.

-Henry Hazlitt

________________________________________________________

So you expect old cop Joe down the street to go into a multi-billion dollar corporation and say "Y'all better be paying all those workers the correct benefits and pension rights y'heah"?

i don't know who you think enforces laws if not the police.

No, we need more lawyers who can fight multi-million dollar court cases to enforce workers rights. Not cops on the beat.

of course, lawyers are a part of it. again... why you think that cops, courts, and lawyers will be any more able to go after a corporation for paying a voluntarily agreed upon, but illegal wage, but not after them for sicking their security men on unionizers, is beyond me.

No, I'm saying the GOVERNMENT will enforce the minimum wage. If the cops don't do what the GOVERNMENT tell them to do then the government will hold the police accountable otherwise the government will be voted out of power.

see above response. why do you think cops, lawyers and courts would do better at enforcing a law against voluntary transactions between consenting individuals than they would at enforcing laws with real victims to turn up dead or beaten?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2083798 -

Could you explain what you mean by "free market"?

a market structure in which individuals are free to make voluntary transactions without forceful intervention.

It's a right-wing buzzword that doesn't mean anything.

actually, the definition is pretty specific. see above.

No corporation wants a "free market". What every single corporation on earth wants is the market all to themselves.

and if that market share is indeed not held through peaceful means, and it is indeed a deviation from free market ideals, then they are in violation of the law and shall be held accountable.

so the free market does not pander to the desires of a few would-be forcefully-monopolizing thugs. how is that an argument against free market capitalism?

so a few people would rather steal, defraud, and intimidate their way to market dominance... the law exists to stop these people.

what's your point?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Psilocybeingzz]
    #2083822 -

To call the stockholder-centered corporate structure "natural" is reminiscent of the ancient claim that the monarchy was the only "natural" way to structure government.

a claim is made. nothing whatsoever is done to back it up. you may think that has a nice ring to it, but it's a totally baseless statement. WHY is that true?

A truly natural free market would free all groups to compete equally, to have a chance to pursue their own self-interest, to have an opportunity for their voices to be heard and their needs considered.

yes.

Real free markets are not about enshrining the self-interest of one group alone in law.

correct again.

Privilege like that has no place in a free market.

yep.

hey, you forgot to include the link for this bit of cut-and-paste action:

http://www.divinerightofcapital.com/newpage14.htm.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2083840 -

Quote:
Alex123 said:
No corporation wants a "free market".


You are wrong, and you have no way to back up your statement.

Quote:
What every single corporation on earth wants is the market all to themselves.


You have no way of knowing what every single corporation on earth wants.

Please refrain from making specious claims.



--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2083844 -

what i meant when i said:

if so, you'll have a hard time explaining the myriad of concessions that businesses and unions have made in the united states over the years. if peaceful negotiations are such a dangerous foray, it is rather curious that unions in america have persuaded business to voluntarily agree to countless regulations, wage guarantees, pensions, and benefits. it would be hard to explain why the minimums set by the US government pale in comparison to the agreements negotiated by the unions.

is that its absurd to make the claim that minimum wage laws are what are responsible for a safer environment for collective negotiations. alex seems to be stating that by enforcing a minimum wage, the burden on unions to negotiate for themselves (where they'd only be beaten by anti-union thugs) is eliminated, or greatly reduced, or something of that matter. at least that's what it seems like he's arguing. it's sort of hard to tell.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2083898 -

So in what ways do you think the goverment should be able to impede upon the market?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2083925 -

as long as by "market" we mean voluntary exchange, none really.

there are a few things i'm not entirely sorted out about though, and they've all got to do with the fact that we are living here on earth.

for one, natural resources are not infinite. the idea that natural resources can just be claimed by people on a 'first come first serve' basis doesn't sit entirely right with me.

also, this place we are living has an ecosystem, and we are a part of it. in a libertarian system, pollution is only regulated so as to not cause involuntary harm to individual human beings. now... it's quite clear when someone dumps waste on your property, poisons a river that people fish from, or something like that. the thing is that every bit of pollution, right down to a guy smoking a cigarette, does indeed affect everyone, if only to a very small extent. where do we draw the line? we as humans pollute. we've been doing it since we learned to make fire... hell... longer than that... ever since we've been shitting. so how we draw the line as to how much pollution is acceptable is problematic for me... also, if there were only one human being on earth, obviously his actions could not infringe upon the rights of another human being... but i don't think it would be right for him to go and trash the planet just because there weren't any other humans around to protest... these are some unsettled issues i have, but that's really the extent of it.

when it comes to fooling around with subsidies, price controls, tariffs, and all that bullshit, the government hasn't got an excuse at all. all of that stuff is, however well-intentioned it may be, misguided and really ineffective from an economics standpoint (to say nothing about liberty and coercion).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: SlapnutRob]
    #2084052 -

Quote:
GORE STILL WON THE POPULAR VOTE, GOD DAMN IT


And if we ever start using strictly the popular vote, that might count for something.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2084060 -

What does the popular vote mean exactly?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2084064 -

GazzBut said:
What does the popular vote mean exactly?


It means that, in this case more individuals (not counting fraudulent votes) voted for Gore.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2084084 -

yeah, and it isn't the first time that sort of thing has happened, or even the most extraordinary.

"Each state gets as many electoral votes as it has seats in Congress--California has 54, New York has 33, the seven least populated states have 3 each; the District of Columbia also has 3. These 538 votes actually elect the president. And the electors who cast them don?t always choose the popular-vote winner. In 1888, the classic example, Grover Cleveland got 48.6 percent of the popular vote versus Benjamin Harrison?s 47.9 percent. Cleveland won by 100,456 votes. But the electors chose Harrison, overwhelmingly (233 to 168). They were not acting perversely. According to the rules laid out in the Constitution, Harrison was the winner.

Some reversals have been more complicated. In 1824, Andrew Jackson beat his rival, John Quincy Adams, by more popular and then more electoral votes--99 versus 84--but still lost the election because he didn?t win a majority of electoral votes (78 went to other candidates). When that happens, the House of Representatives picks the winner. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden lost to Rutherford B. Hayes by one electoral vote, though he received 50.9 percent of the popular vote to Hayes?s 47.9 percent; an extraordinary commission awarded 20 disputed electoral votes to Hayes. We?ve also had some famous close calls. In 1960, John F. Kennedy narrowly beat Richard Nixon in the popular voting, 49.7 percent to 49.5 percent, a smaller margin than Cleveland had over Harrison. But wait: Nixon won more states (Nixon 26, Kennedy and others 24). But no: Kennedy, who won bigger states, went on to win the electoral balloting, 303 to 219. This time we, the people, did not strike out. The popular-vote winner became president."

http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2084098 -

Ok. So there would only be unions to negotiate thinks like minimum wage? Would people still be able to take companies to court for unfair dismissal?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2084110 -

So in effect the will of the people is not achieved. Isnt that a flawed system?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2084113 -

Ok. So there would only be unions to negotiate thinks like minimum wage?

anyone could negotiate prices. no one could force them.

Would people still be able to take companies to court for unfair dismissal?

unless there is a violation of a contract, no.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2084118 -

So in effect the will of the people is not achieved. Isnt that a flawed system?

click on that link in the post i made about elections. there's an article on the subject there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2084124 -

Quote:
GazzBut said:
So in effect the will of the people is not achieved. Isnt that a flawed system?


It is not a flawed system it works as it was designed to in this regard. The United States was set up as a federation of states. The electoral college is a system of state electors who represent the states.

So, the states choose the president, the people choose their senators to represent the states in the senate, and the people choose their representatives to represent themselves in the house of representatives.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2084230 -

GazzBut said:
So in effect the will of the people is not achieved. Isnt that a flawed system?

Not at all. The system is designed and rightly so, to spread the peoples power out across the country to keep the major population centers from running roughshod over the rest of the country.

Do some reading on it as it's actually a fairly well thought out system.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Evolving]
    #2084239 -

Evolving said:
It is not a flawed system it works as it was designed to in this regard. The United States was set up as a federation of states. The electoral college is a system of state electors who represent the states.

So, the states choose the president, the people choose their senators to represent the states in the senate, and the people choose their representatives to represent themselves in the house of representatives.


Yeah, and isn't it funny how nobody gives a shit about local elections anymore? Ever since the advent of mass media, all people care about is who gets elected president. The federal government was originally set up as a means to mediate power between the states. People were much more concerned about who was representing them in their local governments back then. The industrial revolution blew that all to hell though. You can't have people getting excited about their communities when they have 10,000 neighbors that all live in the same city block.


--------------------
Just another animal embeded in a technological coral reef extruded psychic objects...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2084275 -

Quote:
there's an article on the subject there.


Nice.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2084689 -

Wouldnt unions lose a large part of their power if governments no longer imposed themselves on the market? It would seem to leave the worker in a potentially weak posistion from which to negotiate satisactory terms and conditions.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2084697 -

Wouldnt unions lose a large part of their power if governments no longer imposed themselves on the market?

no. unions derive none of their "power" from any sort of government endorsement.

It would seem to leave the worker in a potentially weak posistion from which to negotiate satisactory terms and conditions.

why?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2085930 -

as long as by "market" we mean voluntary exchange, none really.

So who enforces rules against monopolies etc? Obviously no corporation is interested in a free market for competitors they are interested in the market all to themselves. Who has the power to stop this? Who for instance would have attempted to bring microsoft into line except the government?

so how we draw the line as to how much pollution is acceptable is problematic for me...

It isn't that hard. Someone dropping a cigarette doesn't really compare to a factory dumping toxic poisons in a river.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2085933 -

no. unions derive none of their "power" from any sort of government endorsement.

Nah, the government can affect the power of unions enormously. From personal experience I remember Thatcher passing a law preventing flying pickets during the 1984 strike and trying to seize their assets through the courts for example. That effectively crippled the union during the strike.

Without a strong government what's going to stop a corporation behaving exactly like they do in south east asia? Or how they did in the west 100 years ago? Sure "the law" might say it's against the law to beat a 12 year old half to death but who the fuck is going to bother taking the side of a 12 year old against a multi-billion dollar corporation? Go and complain and they're going to be laughed out of the cop station.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2086134 -

Quote:
no. unions derive none of their "power" from any sort of government endorsement.



If that is true, why do unions spends so much time lobbying governments? The fact that unions can go to a 3rd party who have considerable influence over the corporations gives the unions more scope for achieving their aims than if they only have one option which is to negotiate with a company directly.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2086353 -

So who enforces rules against monopolies etc?

are we talking about coercive monopolies or non-coersive monopolies?

Someone dropping a cigarette doesn't really compare to a factory dumping toxic poisons in a river.

ok... so the line is drawn somewhere between cigarette smoke and toxic factory effluent... not that hard indeed :smirk:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2086358 -

Nah, the government can affect the power of unions enormously. From personal experience I remember Thatcher passing a law preventing flying pickets during the 1984 strike and trying to seize their assets through the courts for example. That effectively crippled the union during the strike.

sounds like a law violating free speech... which would be a violation of capitalist ideas. flying pickets is just fine.


Without a strong government what's going to stop a corporation behaving exactly like they do in south east asia? Or how they did in the west 100 years ago? Sure "the law" might say it's against the law to beat a 12 year old half to death but who the fuck is going to bother taking the side of a 12 year old against a multi-billion dollar corporation? Go and complain and they're going to be laughed out of the cop station.

you can restate the same argument as many times as you wish, using different words, but it will still be invalid. i've already responded to this argument. refute what i've said, don't just keep repeating the same argument in different words.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2086366 -

i've already responded to this argument. refute what i've said

You mean the one about we trust the police to protect us? I think i've refuted that one several times already.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2086369 -

If that is true, why do unions spends so much time lobbying governments? The fact that unions can go to a 3rd party who have considerable influence over the corporations gives the unions more scope for achieving their aims than if they only have one option which is to negotiate with a company directly.

i hadn't really thought about that. when i say the "power" of the unions, i'm not talking about power they might obtain by enlisting the government to unfairly force businesses to comply with offers they wouldn't voluntarily accept. unions are good because they represent a means for workers to have a unified voice in the process of negotiations with thier employers. when they enlist the government to force things upon their employers, and the government complies, both the unions and the government have completely stepped outside the pathways of voluntary negotiation. what if businusses all got together and got the government to enact a "maximum wage"? it'd be a load of shit, just like the minimum wage is.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2086375 -

You mean the one about we trust the police to protect us? I think i've refuted that one several times already

see this thread:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Forum14&Number=2083755&Forum=Forum14&Words=business%20pay%20for%20labor%20&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=1week&Main=2071362&Search=true#Post2083755

you addressed none of my arguments. you also seem to have ignored the peice in there about the economic realities of the minimum wage. so go back, read that post, and answer the questions i asked. while you're at it, read the article, and if you still think the minimum wage is a good thing when you're done, please come back and tell us what's wrong with the observations made in the article.

when there are issues of economics to be discussed in these debates, you really, really seem to be lacking any knowledge of the topic whatsoever. i suggest that until you've learned at least some of the basics of economics, stick to bush bashing and posting about WMD's. you're better at it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2086377 -

i'm not talking about power they might obtain by enlisting the government to unfairly force businesses to comply with offers they wouldn't voluntarily accept.

Has anyone in your family ever been on a strike mush? Do you know the suffering it entails? Do you know how incredibly difficult it is and what courage it takes?

If having government enforced rules prevents ordinary people having to come out on strike and go hungry it can only be a good thing. You talk as if there is an even balance of power between employer and employee here.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2086382 -

you also seem to have ignored the peice in there about the economic realities of the minimum wage

I havn't ignored it, i simply consider it to be right wing bullshit. You seem to have ignored the article I've posted many times below. This time I suggest you read it.

i suggest that until you've learned at least some of the basics of economics

I've lived through a strike mush, have you? I know the reality of union-employer negotiations. I know your fanciful libertarian textbook fantasies for the bullshit they are. One day you'll learn that textbook fantasy isn't the real world. The sooner you learn it the better. Your "knowledge" is the knowledge of a child with little understanding of the real world. I find it impossible to take you seriously.

HOW WELFARE HELPS "THE REST OF US"
-- Nathan Newman, newman@socrates.berkeley.edu

The current debate on welfare is stale, tired and, ultimately,
missing the economic point.

Let's be clear what welfare is and is not. Welfare is not charity.
Welfare is a system of payments made to the poor not to take any job if
its pay is so low that it underbids wages for those who have jobs. When
linked to other policies like the minimum wage, welfare is (and should be
seen as) an economic tool by society to keep wages high.

Progressives need to stop appealing just to the compassion of the
public in defending welfare and start playing on their self-interest. The
economic reality is that decent wages for "the rest of us" depend on
having a decent welfare system. Without that welfare system, all wages go
down under a flood of workers desperate to take jobs at any wage in order
to keep their families from starving.

Conservatives try to argue that even if kicking people off welfare
causes some erosion in wages, it's cheaper than increasing the taxes
needed to pay people on welfare. The obvious response is to point out how
small a portion of the federal budget is taken up by programs like AFDC
and other payments to the non-working poor. Out of a $1.6 trillion
federal budget, only $19 billion goes to AFDC, just over 1% of every
federal dollar spent.

But that's a defensive argument and progressives have to get off the
defense and on the offense. We have to sketch exactly how supporting the
welfare system, even expanding it, can be used to reverse the wage erosion
workers have faced in the last two decades.

Let's start with the minimum wage. Conservatives use the fear of
unemployment to oppose it. In the recent debate on the minimum wage,
opponents of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour have
argued that employers would lay off hundreds of thousands of workers
(roughly 1-2% of minimum wage workers in their estimates) if forced to
raise wages for the rest. Now, a number of solid economic studies, most
recently by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, have shown that modest
raises in the minimum wage actually have no effect on employment.

But, for the sake of argument, let's ignore those economic studies
and target our economic program at those who might buy conservative
arguments that 1-2% of minimum wage jobs will be lost if the minimum wage
is raised. Even with that assumption, if we create a strong welfare
system, everyone, including the taxpayer, gains from the increase in the
minimum wage. Follow the math on this and you'll have the strongest
argument in countering conservatives attacks on both welfare and the
minimum wage.

Buying the conservatives' assumptions of 2% unemployment, it means
that for every 100 minimum wage workers initially making $4.25 per hour,
we will end up with 98 workers making the new minimum wage of $5.15 per
hour and 2 workers unemployed.

Breaking that down by hour, week and year, for every 100 workers
who initially make $4.25 per hour ($170 per 40-hr week, $8840 per year),
the total combined wages of all 98 workers who stay employed initially
equals: $866,320 per year ($8840 per year x 98 workers).

After the raise in the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour ($206 per
week, $10,712 per year), total wages will increase to $1,049,776 per year
($10,712 per year x 98 workers). Those 98 workers will see an individual
gain of $1872 per year in wages and an com bined gain of $165,776 in
wages.

If the two newly unemployed people are supported with welfare
payments equal to their previous yearly wage of $8840 (much more generous
than present welfare systems), the total cost will be $17,680--far less
than the $165,776 net gain in wages for the other 98 workers. In fact,
that $17,680 is far less than what the federal government would receive in
increased income and payroll taxes on those increased wages.

So even using the conservatives' own estimates of job loss, the
minimum wage with a strong welfare system can be used to increase wages
while protecting the incomes of those left unemployed.

To translate this into the slightly messier real numbers of the
overall US economy, there are 12.3 million workers who make less than the
proposed new minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. They make an average of
$4.67 per hour, so if 98% of those workers have their wages increased to
the new minimum wage, the aggregate increase in wages will be $12 billion
yearly. This is far more than any welfare costs that might be needed for
income and training funds if any workers are left unemployed.

These numbers have all assumed the rather miserly increase in the
minimum wage proposed by Clinton. If instead of $5.15 per hour, we
increased the minimum wage another dollar to $6.15 per hour (about the
inflation-adjusted level back in 1969), we can see even more dramatic
effects.

There are 20.8 million Americans making less than $6.15 per hour. If
all of these workers (with an average wage of $5.10 per hour) had their
wages increased to a $6.15 per hour minimum wage, the net increase in
wages would be $45.6 billion annually. Even if we assumed a worst-case
assumption of 10% of those workers were left unemployed, this would still
leave a potential $40 billion for welfare and retraining funds--an amount
DOUBLE the entire present AFDC budget.

In fact, all these numbers understate the overall gains in wages,
since it ignores the effect of the minimum wage on higher wage workers.
But the reality is that the mass of workers making a bit more than any new
minimum wage are able to demand a wage increase to maintain a "spread"
between them and less skilled workers now making what they used to make.

So where are these increased wages coming from? Some of it comes
from increased growth due to higher consumer demand, some from increased
costs passed onto consumers, but in the end, in highly competitive markets
employing minimum wage workers, the largest chunk come out of the profits
and executive compensation of corporate stockholders. And there's the
reason why both welfare payments and the minimum wage are opposed so
vociferously by corporations and their legislative allies.

It's no coincidence that conservatives support both eliminating
welfare payments and lowering the minimum wage. Moving people from
welfare into the workplace drives down wages, and the last thing
conservatives (supported massively by low-wage employers) want is to have
the government prevent wages from falling. And by keeping welfare payments
low or non-existent, they can create fear of unemployment from raising the
minimum wage or supporting other policies to raise wages.

Of course, there are ways to improve welfare, including providing
work instead of income payments, but that work has to be at a living wage
that, instead of driving down wages, helps to bolster wages in society
while delivering services that the market fails to provide.

Look at the debate over Wisconsin's proposed welfare plan, a plan to
end welfare for everyone in the state and replace it with work
requirements. Where is the headline-grabbing debate over the fact that
this flood of new additions to the workforce will be making less than
minimum wage and even replacing workers who previously made much higher
wages?

The enthusiasm for welfare "reform" would chill significantly if
people recognized that shredding the safety net also meant shredding their
own wages. If the Wisconsin-style plan was extended nationally, the
effects would trash wages across the coun try. Even as welfare payments
have declined in the last two decades, average hourly wages have dropped
by over 10% and wages for less-skilled job have fallen even more. Imagine
all four million plus adult recipients of AFDC being dumped in the labor
market tomorrow on top of present unemployment, or even gradually over a
year or two.

The key thing for progressives to argue is that unless the policy
is to spend MORE to provide real jobs for all, it's cheaper for working
families to pay people not to work than to force them to work at wages
that drive down pay for all of us.



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2086446 -

Although you dont agree with the fact that unions and governments can get together to force laws upon companies, do you agree that by removing that option you are limiting the influence that unions hold over companies? I cant really see how you can deny this...So how do you propose the balance is restored? How can unions remain as influential without government?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2086598 -

Quote:
Alex123: From personal experience I remember Thatcher passing a law preventing flying pickets during the 1984 strike and trying to seize their assets through the courts for example. That effectively crippled the union during the strike.

Mushmaster: sounds like a law violating free speech... which would be a violation of capitalist ideas. flying pickets is just fine.



And why, mushmaster, do you think Thatcher passed the law? Could it be that she had nothing to personally gain from that act, and she did it because she thought it was the right thing to do? I find that hard to accept.

I think Thatcher was doing a little return back scratching. So here, we see an instance of Big Business influencing the process of government in order to deprive people of their basic liberties.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2086881 -

And why, mushmaster, do you think Thatcher passed the law? Could it be that she had nothing to personally gain from that act, and she did it because she thought it was the right thing to do? I find that hard to accept.

me too. it wasn't the right thing to do. it's not right when government sides with businesses and restricts peaceful, voluntary action such as holding up signs... it's wrong, and it is a violation of what capitalism means...

just as it is wrong when government sides with the workers (though we have seen that the workers really are not helped) and restricts peaceful action such as employing people for $4 an hour.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2087490 -

Although you dont agree with the fact that unions and governments can get together to force laws upon companies, do you agree that by removing that option you are limiting the influence that unions hold over companies? I cant really see how you can deny this...So how do you propose the balance is restored? How can unions remain as influential without government?

for a minimum wage law to have any effect on wages above that which a union could peacefully negotiate for, the minimum wage must be set above the market price... it must be set above what employers would voluntarily pay.

the result is unemployment and decreased production.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2087568 -

I havn't ignored it, i simply consider it to be right wing bullshit. .

so... you aren't going to tell us why you think it's wrong, just that its "right wing bullshit"?

i didn't think you would. moving on...

You seem to have ignored the article I've posted many times below. This time I suggest you read it

it's strange that you say that alex. out of the 5 times you've posted that article, twice i've read it and refuted it. both times, you even responded to my posts. strange that you do not remember.

here

and

here

this article is indeed genuine bullshit. instead of just leaving at that however, i'll tell you why (again):

the premise of the article is that by taking money away from some and giving it to others, the government limits the labor pool and supports wages, to the benefit of all.

now, to most thinking people, this whole idea will immediately seem intuitively flawed. how is it that some people will benefit by having their money forcefully taken from them and given to others? the author goes on to explain. his case is pretty well stated, and some people will probably come away from it thinking "damn... this guy's right"... he certainly sounds right...

but he isn't. if simply making each person be paid more money was all it took to make everyone richer, then we could solve poverty tomorrow by cranking up the presses and rolling out stacks and stacks of cash for everyone. it doesn't work that way. the amount of goods and services you can actually buy with your money is what's important here, and that is dependent on the actual amount of goods and services produced and available for consumption... not how many dollars, pounds, or whatever each person is getting paid. there is a difference between wealth and money, a difference that both you and mr. newman seem to overlook.

for real wages to increase for everyone, there must be an increase in the total amount of actual goods and services produced. perhaps his policy will allow everyone to be paid more, but that is rather deceptive. they get paid more, but real wages are not increased. worse, because the idea rests on the premise of limiting the number of laborers available to work, it will in fact only result in a reduction of goods and services produced, and a corresponding reduction of real wages across the board.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2088326 -

the result is unemployment and decreased production.

No it isn't. Open your eyes and read the article above.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2088336 -

it will in fact only result in a reduction of goods and services produced, and a corresponding reduction of real wages across the board.

But do you have any solid evidence for any of this? The guy explains in painstaking mathmatical detail why you are wrong. All you offer is opinion, he offers reasoned fact. I'm afraid I find his argument far more convincing than yours.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2088363 -

what i don't buy about the "minimum wage causing unemployment/less jobs" is that if you have a profiting company that has to raise its very lowest wages by a dollar an hour, the hit to the company is going to come out of the places where its expendable--from the ceo's, the profits of the various owners, top management and perhaps stockholders (though i doubt in most cases it would really make that much of a hit, i mean paying someone 6 dollars an hour instead of 5 compared to what a lot of these top guys make...). i don't see how the hit would come from the necessary inputs at the bottom level. as an analogy, lets say you have a car that suddenly needs a new tire. meanwhile your leather seats are splitting slightly. you can only repair one, which is it going to be? it would seem to me that firing slews of people would hurt the company more ususally than cutting profit margins slightly.

the other contradictory part of libetarianism i believe is how they claim that in a free market an employer will pay a worker what they are 'worth'. in reality, this means they will pay the worker as little as they can get away with while still getting someone to take the job that is at least trainable. libertarians will argue this is the same thing (i.e. what is someone worth other than what the employer is willing to pay for them). but i say that these are different things, the amount of money someone contributes to a company versus what they are compensated for doing so. in the same sense there is an enormous difference between what an employer is willing to pay for an employee and what an employer thinks he/she can get away with paying an employee.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2088516 -

Set aside the minimum wage issue for a moment. There are other issues that a union can lobby government to try and change. Do you concede that without government intervention a unions potential to influence companies etc is considerably reduced?
What is to stop large companies deciding to simply not employ anyone who belongs to a union thus denying people any chance to negotiate better working terms?
What happens if a company lets somebody go because they are trying to unionize the workforce with just cause? What happens to these people once they have been fired. Am I correct in assuming under your system people wont contribute to welfare, social security etc. How are the unemployed supposed to support themselves?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2089080 -

What is to stop large companies deciding to simply not employ anyone who belongs to a union thus denying people any chance to negotiate better working terms?

This is what went on all the time before unions gained some semblance of protection from the government. If you went on strike the corporation simply sacked you all or starved you back to work.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2089385 -

No it isn't.

yes it is alex. we have now reached the point where you are refuting positive economic facts. it is a fact that effective price floors create surplusses. this is a corollary of the laws of supply and demand. this is exactly what i mean when i say your grasp of economics is deficient.

in the article, the only mention of a minimum wage's effect on unemployment is this:

"Now, a number of solid economic studies, most recently by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, have shown that modest raises in the minimum wage actually have no effect on employment."

note the word "modest". now, it is correct that in some circumstances a minimum wage can be beneficial. this occurs when because of whatever reason, wages paid to workers in certain geographic areas or industries happen to be below the market clearing price. in these cases, a minimum wage will help them, and will not hurt employment. this however, is the exception rather than the rule, and mr. newman overstates the idea enormously, which leaves a reader ignorant of economics (such as youself) with the impression that minimum wages are just fine for employment. the fact is that they're not.

fortunately for us he doesn't just leave us with that, but continues with the "assumption" that minimum wages don't create unemployment. this is where he breaks out the welfare-supports-wages argument. his argument here is true. welfare and the minimum wage do indeed work together to increase wages. what he does not consider is that the actual numerical amount currency you are paid (look at all those dollar signs in the article) is not really what's important. what's important is the real goods and services you can buy with that money. this is known as real wages.

this is something of terrific importance that mr. newman doesn't even mention in the article. he has shown that his system increases wages. that much he is right about. however, for an increase in wages to actually mean that people can buy more things (i.e. for it to actually matter) there must be a corresponding increase in the amount of goods and services produced and available for consumption. otherwise, people will have more money, but it will not allow them to buy anything more than they could have before.

But do you have any solid evidence for any of this? The guy explains in painstaking mathmatical detail why you are wrong. All you offer is opinion, he offers reasoned fact. I'm afraid I find his argument far more convincing than yours.

and i'm not disputing his mathematical details. what i am disputing is his assumption that an increase in wages automatically means an increase in buying power. the fact is that it doesn't. there must be additional goods and services produced. in his model, there is not. there is actually less.

mr. newman has shown us how paying people not to work can increase the amount of money each person is paid. i now welcome you to show us how paying people not to work can increase the amount of actual goods and services produced and available for consumption. if you can do that, you've got a case... however, this is not something mr. newman has argued for, and i doubt that it's soemthing you'll be able to argue for.

i don't know how much more clear i can be about this... but i sure have wasted alot of my time stating and restating the same rebuttals to your repeated arguments... perhaps you could just do me a small favor and take some of your own time and tell why you think the article i posted above is "right wing bullshit"...

Edited by mushmaster (11/10/03 01:03 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2089413 -

So you believe paying people as little as you can get away with does them good? You believe paying 10 cents an hour to a child in a factory in south east asia does him more good than paying a dollar an hour? Seriously?

I'm sorry but I favour Newmans argument. I'd try and widen your knowledge of economics from the strict right-wing libertarian view.

fortunately for us he doesn't just leave us with that, but continues with the "assumption" that minimum wages do create unemployment

He says the complete opposite actually. Have you read the article?

How Minimum Wage Increases Employment

Here's the problem with the simplistic argument that minimum wage laws automatically cut jobs. It's based on Economics 101 for commodity markets that says if prices rise, demand falls. But labor markets are not like commodity markets for a number of reasons:

1) When demand falls for one item, the demand shifts to other items, which in commodity markets inevitably hurts the item where demand falls. Not necessarily so for labor markets. If apples get too expensive, you can't convert them into more appealing oranges. Workers can shift into different jobs, so a fall in demand for one kind of work can still lead to the workers getting jobs in a new venue.

2) More importantly, labor is not a static commodity-- it's human beings whose skills on the job improve over time, so substituting new workers for old has far more serious costs. There is a real tension betweeen looking for the cheapest labor and paying a premium price to reduce turnover and maintain skills.

3) Since the minimum wage applies across the labor market, there is by definition no alternative low-wage labor to substitute for the now more expensive labor. To assume lost employment, you have to assume an overall drop in consumption across the whole population or the substitution of capital for labor costs in that particular industry -- which in turn drives new employment in other sectors to produce the needed capital goods.

4) Crucially in thinking about the minimum wage, work is not done in a single system of production, even when producing the same goods, so raising the price of labor may cut production in a low-wage version of production but increase it in a higher skill, higher-wage version of production for that same commodity.

5) Labor is the one commodity that in turn consumes itself-- ie. workers go home and buy other goods which in turns drives demand for more labor. So raising the minimum wage puts money in the pockets of consumers living in low-wage communities, thereby driving employment through worker consumption, a kind of localized Keynesian expansion of jobs in the low-wage sector.


The Debate: The empirical case for the minimum wage is best argued in David Card and Alan Krueger's Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage. The classic response is by Neumark and Wascher who argue for the more classic effects of decreased employment. Folks should wade through the literature to be convinced one way or the other on the empirical results, but the key is to understand why the Econ 101 simplistic model does not necessarily hold or why other factors partly or fully counterbalance the effects of classical models.

The key here is to understand that the minimum wage very well may at times decrease employment IN PARTICULAR FIRMS using PARTICULAR SKILL MODELS-- but don't mistake the loss of jobs in particular firms for loss across the economy. Further, because of incomplete information, search costs and other imperfections in the labor market, even individual firms won't always follow classic responses to rise in costs of labor.

Card & Krueger model: Card & Krueger illustrate a more complex understanding of labor markets that I can only roughly describe here (read the last chapter of their book), but the key is based on the heterogenity of labor in the market indicated above. Rather than decreasing employment, a rise in the minimum wage encourages the substitution of higher-skilled labor for lower-skilled labor.

Further, even many particular firms have large "sunk costs" of capital that will be wasted if employment is reduced. For such firms, it is irrational to cut employment since they would lose more profits by cutting production than they lose from increasing the wages.

Card & Krueger also discuss the problem of turnover in low-wage labor markets, which prevents employers from being assured of being able to buy labor in the marketplace on demand in the same way as other commodities. The implication of this, counterintuitively, is that a modest increase in the minimum wage will INCREASE overall employment because employers will be able to fill vacancies that had been left open due to the churn of turnover.

Other models: Other models look at workers' willingness to take jobs from a bargaining viewpoint which implied that most workers are more productive than their initial wage, so an increase in the minimum wage will not lead to cuts in employment but in fact will often lead to some increase in employment because of better matching of employee productivity to wage, thereby reducing turnover.

All of these alternative models imply a better job situation for moderate minimum wage increases, although the employment losses do start to occur with large increases in the minimum wage.

So the point is not that some debate on the proper level of the minimum wage is not warranted. However, the simple equation that raising the minimum wage inevitably leads to some loss in employment is disputed both empirically and theoretically.

Increases in demand: It's also worth noting that these models look at particular industries, so the overall effects of the minimum wage on the larger economy may be even more positive. While particular low-wage industries might lose out from a rise in the minimum wage, the boost in worker income may drive expansion of other low-wage sectors. If wages increase more than any wages lost to unemployment, then this will often feed expansion of jobs that service those low-wage workers, often themselves staffed by low-wage employees. So again, the effects of the minimum wage need to account for more than the classic microeconomic models but recognize that employees are not typical commodities but integral parts of a more complex set of economic relationships.

And my bottom-line is this-- as long as the evidence is ambiguous, I go with raising the minimum wage, since the obvious empirical benefits for the workers effected are clear while the supposed downside is unproven and disputed theoretically.

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001104.shtml


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2089419 -

"fortunately for us he doesn't just leave us with that, but continues with the "assumption" that minimum wages do create unemployment

He says the complete opposite actually. Have you read the article? "

typo. i've edited my post.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2089551 -

So you believe paying people as little as you can get away with does them good? You believe paying 10 cents an hour to a child in a factory in south east asia does him more good than paying a dollar an hour? Seriously?

no alex. what i've been refuting here is mr. newman's assertion that everyone benefits from minimum wages and price floors on labor. i would never be so foolish as to say that no one does. certainly, some people will benefit, but at a cost to everyone else. overall, the effect is negative. it is negative for the people for whom the resulting increase in prices of goods and services isn't offset by the increase in wages. it is negative for all the workers who will be laid off because their labor is just not worth as much as you'd legislate it to be... but certainly, there are some people who will indeed see an increase in real wages as a result of the minimum wage. any workers who were previously getting paid very little and managed to keep their jobs after the law went into effect would of course benefit. that's not something i'm refuting. what i am refuting is newman's false notion that such a policy benefits everyone.

I'm sorry but I favour Newmans argument.

that's fine, but newman's argument is flawed.

I'd try and widen your knowledge of economics from the strict right-wing libertarian view.

what i've said is factual. it is observable reality. it is not normative economics, there are no value statements here... the things i'm saying can be found in any elementary economics textbook. the things you're saying are only found on this left-wing website of nathan newman, who is a staunch leftist and is a sociologist/lawyer, not an economist... but then it is nothing new for you to latch onto the testimony of one "expert" even when they are contradicted by scores of better qualified authorities, and in certain cases (like this one), even observable objective reality.

But labor markets are not like commodity markets for a number of reasons:

let's have a look at this...

1) When demand falls for one item, the demand shifts to other items, which in commodity markets inevitably hurts the item where demand falls. Not necessarily so for labor markets. If apples get too expensive, you can't convert them into more appealing oranges. Workers can shift into different jobs, so a fall in demand for one kind of work can still lead to the workers getting jobs in a new venue.

ridiculous... here he actually seems to acknowledge that a minimum wage in a particular trade causes a reduction in jobs in that trade. his assertion seems to be that because workers can be trained for different things, those who lose their jobs to the minimum wage can just transfer to a new "venue".

ignoring for a moment the practical issues here, i'll just be blunt and remind you that a minimum wage does not only affect one industry. we're not talking about a minimum wage on only grocery store clerks... if that was the case, yes, those laid off from their grocery store job could become carwashers or something... but wait... the carwash too just laid off a quarter of its staff in response to the minimum wage... i guess they're not a good place to look for work either... and so on.

so the surplus of laborers created by the laying-off of workers in one unskilled laborer 'venue' can't just be absorbed by another venue... they'll be cutting back as well.

2) More importantly, labor is not a static commodity-- it's human beings whose skills on the job improve over time, so substituting new workers for old has far more serious costs. There is a real tension betweeen looking for the cheapest labor and paying a premium price to reduce turnover and maintain skills.

correct. this does nothing for his case though. if there is a $5 an hour minimum wage enacted, any workers who are not worth $5 an hour will be fired. true, maybe some workers are not yet worth that much, but with training and skills aquisition they will be... companies will do a little cost\benefit analysis and decide if it's worth holding onto such people... and maybe for some people, it will be. this is something the businesses are already considering.

however, one should not neglect the fact that some workers, no matter how good they get at what they do, will never be worth that much. don't forget that we are talking about menial labor here. those ones will lose their jobs.

3) Since the minimum wage applies across the labor market, there is by definition no alternative low-wage labor to substitute for the now more expensive labor. To assume lost employment, you have to assume an overall drop in consumption across the whole population or the substitution of capital for labor costs in that particular industry -- which in turn drives new employment in other sectors to produce the needed capital goods.

here newman is saying that those laid off by the minimum wage will be able to find employment in the newly bolstered industry of providing capital to replace workers. if that's not presumptous and short-sighted, i don't know what is.

4) Crucially in thinking about the minimum wage, work is not done in a single system of production, even when producing the same goods, so raising the price of labor may cut production in a low-wage version of production but increase it in a higher skill, higher-wage version of production for that same commodity.

this may be true for a very few goods and services, but not most, especially not the ones created by unskilled, low-paid labor. in cashiering, fast food, mopping floors, bussing tables, etc., there is but a single "system of production".

5) Labor is the one commodity that in turn consumes itself-- ie. workers go home and buy other goods which in turns drives demand for more labor. So raising the minimum wage puts money in the pockets of consumers living in low-wage communities, thereby driving employment through worker consumption, a kind of localized Keynesian expansion of jobs in the low-wage sector.

but if you FORCE person A to pay person B more than his work is actually worth, person B will not be producing as much as he will be able to consume.

mr. newman has cited examples of how pricing on labor is different for pricing on labor for other things. what he doesn't seem to understand is that these things are not ignored when prices on labor are considered. they are all considered and accounted for when a company determines the value of its laborers. they are already a part of the equation, and the equation is quite clear in its conclusion that effective price floors on labor, like on anything else, create a surplus.

And my bottom-line is this-- as long as the evidence is ambiguous, I go with raising the minimum wage, since the obvious empirical benefits for the workers effected are clear while the supposed downside is unproven and disputed theoretically.

pbtbhtbhtbbbbbtthh... please.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2091053 -

certainly, some people will benefit, but at a cost to everyone else.

Lets get specific here. Explain to us how Nike paying 30 cents an hour instead of 10 cents an hour is going to ruin the economy of south east asia. In what way is this going to affect "goods and services"?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2091291 -

Any chance of an answer to my questions?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2091708 -

Lets get specific here. Explain to us how Nike paying 30 cents an hour instead of 10 cents an hour is going to ruin the economy of south east asia. In what way is this going to affect "goods and services"?

i have already been quite specific. if you enact a minimum wage law of 30 cents, any worker not worth 30 cents will be laid off. this will not benefit them. also, by boosting production costs, you shift the supply curve to the left, which increases prices and lowers production of the good. this is all very basic economics.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2091744 -

Do you concede that without government intervention a unions potential to influence companies etc is considerably reduced?

this is like asking, "without a shotgun, don't you think a man's ability to persuade his neighbor to let him borrow his lawnmower is reduced?".

What is to stop large companies deciding to simply not employ anyone who belongs to a union thus denying people any chance to negotiate better working terms?

nothing, as it should be. if $4 an hour is enough for me, i have every right to work for that amount... especially if the alternative is unemployment. the fact that i've decided not to join a union should not preclude me from employment either.

What happens if a company lets somebody go because they are trying to unionize the workforce with just cause?

hopefully they can find work elsewhere.

How are the unemployed supposed to support themselves?

voluntary charity services will be enough to take care of the unemployed. if the government would get off everyone's backs and let the market do its thing, we'd see a whole lot less unemployment.

there seems to be a sentiment here that the unions are holy, and that the unions are what are responsible for increases in the standard of living of working-class people over the years. the reality is that their impact is not nearly as significant or beneficial as it would seem.

unions or no unions, workers will only be paid as much as their work is worth. if investments in training and capital (which happen as a result of capital accumulation on the part of their employers) increase the amount their labor can produce and is worth, they will be paid more. this is where increases in the real wages and standard of living come from. unionization does not increase the value of the labor... it's role is really like a cartel... it's like price fixing on the part of the workers, and in the long run, it does not really benefit them.

when they use their influence to negotiate for wages higher than they need to be, the only thing they're doing is sucking their employers of money that could have been spent on capital investments, which would actually increase the real value of labor, or preventing them from hiring more workers. it also sets them up quite nicely for massive lay-offs when whole factories move overseas where there is cheaper labor to be found.

workers are never paid more than they're worth (unless someone's using force that is). a union can boost pay only so much, and the overall effect of this boost in pay is a reduction in investment, production, and employment, which actually hurts workers in the long run.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Evolving]
    #2091807 -

BTW, I agree the young are less liberal. I know so many conservative teens its ridiculous.

That is a fallacious arguement
Extended Analogy:

A person who advocates a particular position (say, about gun control) may be told that Hitler believed the same thing. The clear implication is that the position is somehow tainted. But Hitler also believed that window drapes should go all the way to the floor. Does that mean people with such drapes are monsters?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2092109 -

the arguments of those who believe in governmental price fixing rest on the fantasy that simply through an act of legislation, we can make something become worth more (or less) than what someone would voluntarily exchange for it.

what they need to understand is that things do not work that way, and that when you legislate prices, the consequences of your policies will never be contained only to the goals you have in mind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2092240 -

Quote:
voluntary charity services will be enough to take care of the unemployed.


no way in hell, thats bullshit. you obviously don't have a grasp of the selfishness of rich people. the fact that you believe this expemplifies where libertarians get into this fantasy utopia land where everything is fixed. you can't have your cake and eat it too.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Tao]
    #2092316 -

no way in hell, thats bullshit.

well welfare certainly isn't working.

the fact that you believe this expemplifies where libertarians get into this fantasy utopia land where everything is fixed.

no. i really do think that if the market were not so fucked around with, there would be so few people without jobs that voluntary charity would be able to take care of them... wait a minute... look what sparked this whole debate... it was me making that exact same statement.

subsidizing unemployment does not help the poor. it just doesn't. now, i believe that if we stopped with all of our harmful meddling in the free exchanges between individuals, we'd see a much healthier economy and much less unemployment. i also think that people are caring and generous enough to take care of most of the few people who would not be able to find work.

however, i'm not going to say that everyone will be able to heat and eat. you know... we are animals... some of us are destined to starve, to die of exposure and disease, or not to live to adulthood. we're a part of the natural world, and that's how the natural world works. some organisms don't make it...

you want to see a massive lower class underworld of low real wages and abysmal living conditions? just keep on subsidizing the poor with just enough to survive and multiply.

this isn't about building a utopia, it's about facing reality and making good policies based on reason, not bad ones based on emotion... the real utopian fantasy land is one where the ills of society and the realities of nature can be overcome by legislation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2092362 -

Quote:
this is like asking, "without a shotgun, don't you think a man's ability to persuade his neighbor to let him borrow his lawnmower is reduced?".




I'll take that as a yes then! So how do you suggest the unions or individuals balance this loss of influence over their employers? It seems your philosophy has alot to do with the rights of individuals but to me it seems it would simply empower a minority of individuals in society at the expense of the vast majority.To use your own analogy, when you take away the government from the market you simply hand the shotgun to the companies and leave the workers practically defenseless.

Quote:
nothing, as it should be. if $4 an hour is enough for me, i have every right to work for that amount... especially if the alternative is unemployment.




Im not actually saying the minimum wage is a particularly great idea. I dont know enough to say either way. I am simply interested in how workers are able to try and stay on a level footing when negotiating with all powerful companies and corporations when agreeing the terms of their voluntary agreements i.e Contracts. You see, a voluntary agreement does not mean both sides are fully satisfied and it does not mean one side hasnt used its advantage over the other side to negotiate a voluntary agreement that is far more suitable to their needs than it is to the other side.

Quote:
by definition, they don't. voluntary charity services will be enough to take care of the unemployed. as i've stated before, if the government would get off everyone's backs and let the market do its thing, we'd see a whole lot less unemployment.




This idea seems very ill considered. For starters some people may not contribute at all, others with conscience may contribue far more. How is that actually fair?
As for the idea that you dont owe any responsibility to those worse off in society, I would say the only way you could fairly claim it to be true would be if the society we lived in could be proven to have the capability of providing work for every single member. If this cannot be proven then the system which we are all a part of is at fault. Since those in employment are benefitting from the system surely they should be required to pass on some of this benefit to those who are not?
There is no way that every single person currently unemployed in the west is a lazy bum who doesnt want to work. If it could be proven that there was work for everyone and all those who were unemployed were so because of their own choice then your arguement might be a little stronger.

Quote:
there seems to be a sentiment here that the unions are holy, and that the unions are what are responsible for increases in the standard of living of working-class people over the years. the reality is that their impact is not nearly as significant or beneficial as it would seem.




The case for unions can be overstated but it can also be understated.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2092400 -

To use your own analogy, when you take away the government from the market you simply hand the shotgun to the companies and leave the workers practically defenseless.

more like taking away the shotgun altogether...

you do raise some goods points though. excluding government-enforced wage rates and the like, there are government policies which infringe upon individual liberty solely for the purpose of making sure unions can exist. perhaps without these restrictions, there would be more of the sort of blacklisting and things we saw in the earlier days. without government interferences, unions would have a more difficult time forming and existing. i can see that.

what i don't believe though is that this is necessarily a bad thing. i don't think that unions actually help very much, and in many cases they cause harm. if i didn't think that, then i'd have to seriously consider the case for government to enforce coersive policies supporting the existence of unions (you probably know what my conclusions would be though  :wink:)... but no... i don't think that unions are all that beneficial and i don't think that they warrant an initiation of force to maintain their existence and influence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2092449 -

mushmaster said:
no way in hell, thats bullshit.

well welfare certainly isn't working.


Just because you resent the fact that it exists doesn't mean it isn't working.

Quote:
the fact that you believe this expemplifies where libertarians get into this fantasy utopia land where everything is fixed.

no. i really do think that if the market were not so fucked around with, there would be so few people without jobs that voluntary charity would be able to take care of them... wait a minute... look what sparked this whole debate... it was me making that exact same statement.


If only I could share in your optimism. Unfortunately I don't have quite such a rosy view of human nature.

Quote:
subsidizing unemployment does not help the poor. it just doesn't. now, i believe that if we stopped with all of our harmful meddling in the free exchanges between individuals, we'd see a much healthier economy and much less unemployment. i also think that people are caring and generous enough to take care of most of the few people who would not be able to find work.


The "few" people who would not be able to find work? You do realize that we had something closer to a free market when the Great Depression came, right? Employment fluctuates. Maybe charity could take care of it some of the time, but not all. Besides, the average welfare recipient only stays on it for about 2 years(most often it's a single mother having an unexpected baby, which I think makes quite a statement about the state of sex ed in public schools) and then finds work.

Quote:
however, i'm not going to say that everyone will be able to heat and eat. you know... we are animals... some of us are destined to starve, to die of exposure and disease, or not to live to adulthood. we're a part of the natural world, and that's how the natural world works. some organisms don't make it...


Didn't you make a thread in S&P about how there's no such thing as "unnatural"? So why are you using nature as an excuse for letting poor people suffer and die like that?

Quote:
you want to see a massive lower class underworld of low real wages and abysmal living conditions? just keep on subsidizing the poor with just enough to survive and multiply.


We've been doing that for a while, and I don't see it.

Quote:
this isn't about building a utopia, it's about facing reality and making good policies based on reason, not bad ones based on emotion... the real utopian fantasy land is one where the ills of society and the realities of nature can be overcome by legislation.


Legislation seems more practical to me than expecting people to do these things on their own.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2092455 -

no. i really do think that if the market were not so fucked around with, there would be so few people without jobs

Jobs that pay 10 cents an hour? That pay so little that all you can afford to do is live in a hole in the ground with a corrugated iron sheet over the top of it?

So is there any minimum below which you wouldn't expect people to work? 1 cent an hour? 1 cent a day? Eventually if you do away with welfare and go with your nebulous "voluntary charity" we'll have people starving. Would you agree with them working for a hot bowl of soup a day?

What do you think the effect on everyone elses wages would be if you had a vast army of starving people willing to work for a bowl of soup a day?

What do you think the effect on crime levels would be if you pay people a bowl of soup per day?

subsidizing unemployment does not help the poor. it just doesn't.

Of course it does. It prevents an army of starving people willing to work for nothing and driving wages through the floor and it prevents people starving to death. That's some pretty important help. Look at the countries without welfare for the alternative - 8 year old children selling their bodies to rich western tourists for a buck fifty.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2092520 -

Just because you resent the fact that it exists doesn't mean it isn't working.

it isn't working. it doesn't help things. welfare weakens the economy and establishes a permanent welfare culture of failure and dependence.

If only I could share in your optimism. Unfortunately I don't have quite such a rosy view of human nature.

i'm not basing that on my view of human nature, but my understanding of economics.

Didn't you make a thread in S&P about how there's no such thing as "unnatural"? So why are you using nature as an excuse for letting poor people suffer and die like that?

unfortunately there is no better word in english usage to describe what i mean by "natural" 2 posts of mine ago... you'll just have to ignore my own ideas about what "natural" really means for the moment and go with what it means to most people. that's the definition i'm using. there are 2 levels of "natural", and the one i'm referring to here is not the same as the one i mean in the posts in S&P.

We've been doing that for a while, and I don't see it.

seriously?

Legislation seems more practical to me than expecting people to do these things on their own.

neither is very practical.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2092606 -

it isn't working. it doesn't help things. welfare weakens the economy and establishes a permanent welfare culture of failure and dependence.

It is working, it helps maintain wages, it helps the sick and the injured stay alive and creates a society worth the name.

At the end of the day this comes down to the kind of society we'd be happy living in. You'd be happy seeing people starving in the streets, 8 year olds selling their bodies to rich perverts and the disabled and injured dying off through lack of food and shelter.

I wouldn't. And if preventing that means I pay an extra 20 pence on my income tax then so be it.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2092613 -

Quote:
what i don't believe though is that this is necessarily a bad thing. i don't think that unions actually help very much, and in many cases they cause harm. 



Does the good outweigh the bad? Just because they are not perfect does not mean that people arent better off with them in existence. I dont think I could say one way or the other. It would take an in depth and unbiased analysis of all union activity that has taken place over the years to say one way or the other.

Im surprised you didnt have anything to say on my claim that we should all pay welfare, I thought that was daylight robbery! :grin: 


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2092648 -

Jobs that pay 10 cents an hour? That pay so little that all you can afford to do is live in a hole in the ground with a corrugated iron sheet over the top of it?

So is there any minimum below which you wouldn't expect people to work? 1 cent an hour? 1 cent a day?


you are again using that same stupid newman argument and assuming that the relationship between monetary wages and real wages is constant. i wouldn't expect people to work for anything less than they would voluntarily agree to. hopefully this would be enough to live on. if it's not, that should tell us something about the number of unskilled laborers our society is pumping out.

Eventually if you do away with welfare and go with your nebulous "voluntary charity" we'll have people starving. Would you agree with them working for a hot bowl of soup a day?

what the hell does it matter if i, you, or anyone else "agrees" with it? if someone decides that a bowl of soup a day is worth it for them to work somewhere, that's their business, not ours.

What do you think the effect on everyone elses wages would be if you had a vast army of starving people willing to work for a bowl of soup a day?

i'm guessing they would drop. if they dropped below the point where unskilled workers could not support themselves and raise families, we'd see a reduction in the size of the "vast army" to the point that they could.

What do you think the effect on crime levels would be if you pay people a bowl of soup per day?

this would be impossible to debate with a person who feels that welfare is not a crime.

Of course it does. It prevents an army of starving people willing to work for nothing and driving wages through the floor and it prevents people starving to death.

it keeps them reproducing and lingering on, where they will either find extremely low-paid work or suck welfare money from people, destroying employment rates and capital investment.

Look at the countries without welfare for the alternative - 8 year old children selling their bodies to rich western tourists for a buck fifty.

those countries have weak economies with little accumulated capital and a whole slew of unskilled labor...

when you provide welfare, you may be helping someone who cannot provide for themselves... don't forget that the only thing that's really happening is someone is recieving from the market more than they are putting in...

and they are probably multiplying too. this sort of thing can only go on for so long. there is a balance, and sorry, but it if a population becomes too large, it does involve some people not being able to live and multiply. if providing enough for every single person to survive and multiply becomes our goal, and we make the economy a slave to the goal of ever-increasing population growth (especially the growth of unskilled laborers), things will only continue to get worse until it all comes down.

if there are indeed so many unskilled workers that some of them cannot make enough to survive, some of them will acquire some skills, freeze, starve, or stop having children. there is a balance here.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2092682 -

i wouldn't expect people to work for anything less than they would voluntarily agree to.

If the alternative is starvation it's not really a "voluntary" arrangement is it?

i'm guessing they would drop. if they dropped below the point where unskilled workers could not support themselves and raise families, we'd see a reduction in the size of the "vast army" to the point that they could.

Jeez, this is like debating with Himmler. They're unworthy of life right?

Incidentally, population levels don't work like that. Populations tend to drop among the rich, not the poor.

if someone decides that a bowl of soup a day is worth it for them to work somewhere, that's their business, not ours.

Nope, it's my buisness. I don't want to live in a society based around the exploitation of the starving.

it keeps them reproducing and lingering on

Sorry man, but this is too obscene to continue with. Go read Mein Kampf - you'll enjoy it.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2092710 -

GazzBut writes:

It seems your philosophy has alot to do with the rights of individuals but to me it seems it would simply empower a minority of individuals in society at the expense of the vast majority.

A completely meaningless statement with no basis. Let's look at it bit by bit....

It seems your philosophy has alot to do with the rights of individuals...

If individuals have no rights, then groups don't either. Groups are comprised of individuals.

... but to me it seems it would simply empower a minority of individuals in society...

Which individuals?

"Empower" them to do what? To violate the rights of others? Nope. To provide a way for other individuals to support themselves by paying them for the effort? Yep.

...at the expense of the vast majority.

"Vast majority"? Oh, please. The vast majority of humans are in fact capable of supporting themselves. The percentage of those born too infirm to do so or in geographical areas inimical to human survival is nowhere near a majority, let alone a "vast" majority.

And what do you mean by "at the expense of"? If someone feels he is being taken advantage of by accepting a job offer, he is free not to accept it, and to support himself in some other manner.

To use your own analogy, when you take away the government from the market you simply hand the shotgun to the companies and leave the workers practically defenseless.

What "shotgun" are you describing? If a company cannot force someone to work for them, cannot force someone to sell to them, and cannot force someone to buy from them, exactly what "shotgun" is the company wielding?

You see, a voluntary agreement does not mean both sides are fully satisfied and it does not mean one side hasnt used its advantage over the other side to negotiate a voluntary agreement that is far more suitable to their needs than it is to the other side.

Irrelevant. What matters is that it is voluntary. And in reality, that employment contract is one-sided. An employee can choose to walk away from his job at any time, violating his contract in the process, because the way the system is set up there is no point whatsoever in an employer trying to sue an employee for breach of contract. It is a financial no-win situation.

For starters some people may not contribute at all, others with conscience may contribue far more.

So what? There are freeloaders in every system.

As for the idea that you dont owe any responsibility to those worse off in society, I would say the only way you could fairly claim it to be true would be if the society we lived in could be proven to have the capability of providing work for every single member.

Explain your reasoning. Why must anyone support anyone else?

And actually, absent a minimum wage floor, virtually everyone other than the profoundly disabled could find some kind of work at some kind of wage, so the capability already exists.

If this cannot be proven then the system which we are all a part of is at fault.

Bingo. You finally grasped it. The current system is indeed at fault.

Since those in employment are benefitting from the system surely they should be required to pass on some of this benefit to those who are not?

Theose who produce are not benefitting from any "system", they are following the law of nature -- life must be sustained through purposeful and productive action. All human life is sustained by human effort, that is not open to debate. Where Socialists differ from Libertarians is when it comes to answering the question "Whose effort supports which human?"

I have asked this question dozens of times in this forum, and never got a rational answer to it:

WHY should anyone be required to work for anyone other than himself? In every case, the response boils down to the same 'answer' -- "Because there is more than one human on earth". Well, yeah, there is. So what?

There is no way that every single person currently unemployed in the west is a lazy bum who doesnt want to work.

Correct. Believe it or not, there are many who would prefer to work for less than minimum wage than not work at all. These people are by law forcibly prevented from doing so.

If it could be proven that there was work for everyone and all those who were unemployed were so because of their own choice then your arguement might be a little stronger.

But that's just it -- they are not all unemployed by their own choice. The government prevents them from working for what it deems is less than an acceptable amount, even if that amount may be acceptable to the jobseeker himself.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2092718 -

Quote:
what the hell does it matter if i, you, or anyone else "agrees" with it? if someone decides that a bowl of soup a day is worth it for them to work somewhere, that's their business, not ours.




This philosophy of the individual seems to be nothing more than an excuse to ignore other peoples hardships. That in itself is unnatural. The human race has not evolved and thrived by ignoring the plight of other humans.

Quote:
it keeps them reproducing and lingering on, where they will either find extremely low-paid work or suck welfare money from people, destroying employment rates and capital investment.




This is priceless! You talk about the unemployed as if they are a sub-species of humanity. The "unemployeds" do breed outside themselves you know! you cant get rid of them in some grand act of Darwinian economics!

As I have already said the only way you could fairly abolish welfare is if the society we live in could be proven to have the capability of providing work for every single member. Do you think that is currently the case?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2092795 -

As I have already said the only way you could fairly abolish welfare is if the society we live in could be proven to have the capability of providing work for every single member. Do you think that is currently the case?

yes. as pinksharkmark put it:

"And actually, absent a minimum wage floor, virtually everyone other than the profoundly disabled could find some kind of work at some kind of wage, so the capability already exists."

this is true. whether that wage was actually enough to support someone on would be the question. it might not be if there are far too many unskilled laborers in the market. i don't believe we have yet reached that point.

as soon as we begin to approach that point however, wages will drop to the point that the lowest paid people are no longer able to continue multiplying their population... if people are barely able to support themselves, they will not be able to support and raise children... so the market never actually reaches a situation in which the population is so great that some people are paid so little they starve, unless thanks to all of our benevolent social spending, we've already allowed it to pass that point.

to make it more clear:

1. without a minimum wage, there is little or no unemployment; yes, at the market clearing price, there are few if any surplusses or shortages... these are the creation of price floors and ceilings.

2. without welfare, the population of the lowest paid groups in society can never grow so large that some people cannot make enough money to survive.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2092826 -

Quote:
Correct. Believe it or not, there are many who would prefer to work for less than minimum wage than not work at all. These people are by law forcibly prevented from doing so.



I don't know how things are in the DR,but fast food and other assorted shit jobs aren't exactly in short supply here.

Minimum wages don't kill jobs,greedy ass people do.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2092968 -

Quote:
It seems your philosophy has alot to do with the rights of individuals...

If individuals have no rights, then groups don't either. Groups are comprised of individuals.




Well we are off to a good start because I wholeheartedly agree with you...I think we are heading down hill from here on in though.

Quote:
Which individuals?



The people who decide the policy and strategy of major companies. They are in a minority. As Mushmaster himself conceded, if you take away government intervention you weaken the posistion of a larger part of society i.e the employed when negotiating.

Quote:
Empower" them to do what? To violate the rights of others? Nope. To provide a way for other individuals to support themselves by paying them for the effort? Yep.




Wouldnt it be great if the world was actually that cut and dry! Large companies are not in existence to "provide a way for other individuals to support themselves by paying them for the effort" I mean come on! Large companies are in existence to make a nice fat profit margin.  I dont agree with the current level of government intervention on the market but I definitely dont think we should do away with it entirely. The government makes it possible for the employed to represent themselves more equally in any negotiations that take place with the employer. They do this by legitamising unions and acting as a third party with influence over both parties. Undoubtedly the government overstep the mark but I think that is preferable to removing the middle man entirely.

Quote:
And what do you mean by "at the expense of"? If someone feels he is being taken advantage of by accepting a job offer, he is free not to accept it, and to support himself in some other manner.




People feel they are being taken advantage of all the time! Many of them dont have the luxury of simply supporting themselves in some other manner.

Quote:
What "shotgun" are you describing? If a company cannot force someone to work for them, cannot force someone to sell to them, and cannot force someone to buy from them, exactly what "shotgun" is the company wielding?




Well actually it was Mush who brought up the analogy of the shotgun not me. I was simply saying that unions ability to negotiate with companies is weakened without the government acting as a third party.

Quote:
Irrelevant. What matters is that it is voluntary. 



It matters to me if somebody is exploiting another person. Voluntary exploitation might run rife.

Quote:
So what? There are freeloaders in every system.




So how is this a fair system? I would rather pay the same as everyone else, not subsidise greedy bastards who dont pay a thing.

Quote:
Explain your reasoning. Why must anyone support anyone else?



Quote:
As for the idea that you dont owe any responsibility to those worse off in society, I would say the only way you could fairly claim it to be true would be if the society we lived in could be proven to have the capability of providing work for every single member. If this cannot be proven then the system which we are all a part of is at fault. Since those in employment are benefitting from the system surely they should be required to pass on some of this benefit to those who are not?
There is no way that every single person currently unemployed in the west is a lazy bum who doesnt want to work. If it could be proven that there was work for everyone and all those who were unemployed were so because of their own choice then your arguement might be a little stronger.




Quote:
Theose who produce are not benefitting from any "system",



Of course they are! We live in a society where rules are agreed upon which govern the way we can and cant behave. This is called a system. Another system quite pertinent to this discussion is the monetary system. If it cannot be proven beyond doubt that these systems are capable of providing work for every member of society then welfare should be seen as a necessity not a choice.

Quote:
WHY should anyone be required to work for anyone other than himself? In every case, the response boils down to the same 'answer' -- "Because there is more than one human on earth". Well, yeah, there is. So what?
 



Well perhaps because it is the way humans have always done business. Humans have always worked for others. Its in our nature. We have always survived in groups where some do more for others. If the cavemen had decided the weak scrawny kid who was messing about with two stones didnt deserve any food because he hadnt caught any of it they might never have discovered fire.

Quote:
But that's just it -- they are not all unemployed by their own choice. The government prevents them from working for what it deems is less than an acceptable amount, even if that amount may be acceptable to the jobseeker himself.
 



So we abolish the minimum wage and end unemployment at a stroke? How much is the minimum wage? Im guessing its not too great..wouldnt be a walk in the park supporting a family on it I bet. But you are advocating tempting the unemployed back to work with the mouthwatering prospect of earning even less than the minimum wage!
How about the obscenely overpaid higher management distribute their wages more evenly through the entire workforce so more gain is felt by more people. This influx of money into the "middle classes" could possibly stimulate the economy to the point where companies need to employ more people and when the last man is employed we can scrap the welfare system! I wouldnt be keen on that scenario myself, as it would require an orgy of consumption but im sure theres another way  :grin:   


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2093003 -

Quote:
"And actually, absent a minimum wage floor, virtually everyone other than the profoundly disabled could find some kind of work at some kind of wage, so the capability already exists."

this is true. whether that wage was actually enough to support someone on would be the question. it might not be if there are far too many unskilled laborers in the market. i don't believe we have yet reached that point.





That is far from proven as far as Im concerned! The minimum wage was introduced in 1938 if the site I just googled has its facts straight. Prior to the minimum wage unemployment still existed. What has changed so much that in these far less labour intensive times, simply removing the minimum wage will end unemployment?

Quote:
it might not be if there are far too many unskilled laborers in the market.



It is irrelevant whether someone is skilled or not. Those unskilled jobs still need to be done. If you employ a phd to pack boxes you wont pay him more simply because he is skilled. And if all the people in the factory get phds and go off to better themselves, someone has still got to pack the boxes.

Quote:
2. without welfare, the population of the lowest paid groups in society can never grow so large that some people cannot make enough money to survive.




Could you explain how that one works?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2093015 -

Quote:
But you are advocating tempting the unemployed back to work with the mouthwatering prospect of earning even less than the minimum wage!



Seriously.Look at the countries without minimum wages-there is virtually no middle class.

If you want to see crime skyrocket,abolish the minimum wage.


--------------------
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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2093631 -

That is far from proven as far as Im concerned! The minimum wage was introduced in 1938 if the site I just googled has its facts straight. Prior to the minimum wage unemployment still existed. What has changed so much that in these far less labour intensive times, simply removing the minimum wage will end unemployment?

it's about supply and demand. here's how it works:

at each price for a good, there will be a certain amount of it consumed by consumers. the relationship is somewhat inversely proportional; there is less of a good demanded by consumers as prices increase. if you were to graph this relationship, with price along the Y axis and quantity along the X axis, the line would be downward sloping. the line is the demand curve.

there is also a supply curve. at each price, there will be a certain amount supplied by suppliers. this relationship is somewhat proportional; there will be more of a good provided if the price of the good is higher. if you were to plot this line, it would be upward sloping.

if you superimpose the supply and demand curves for any given good on the same graph, there will be a point at which they intersect. this point represents a price and a quantity. this is the market clearing price. at this price, the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded, and there will be no shortage or surplus of the good.

that is how supply and demand interact to set market prices. at the market price, there will be neither a shortage or excess of a good.

now, let's first look at what happens when the government legislates an effective price ceiling. the amount supplied by producers will be equal to the quantity supplied at that price, and the amount demanded by consumers will be equal to the quantity demanded at that same price. the trouble is, this is not the market clearing price, and these quantities will not be equal. the quantity supplied will be less than the quantity demanded. there will be a shortage.

in the case of the minimum wage, we are looking at a price floor. a price floor has the opposite effect. when a price floor is established, if this price floor is set above the market clearing price, the quantity demanded will be less than the quantity supplied. in labor terms, this surplus is a surplus of labor. the result is unemployment.

without price floors and ceilings, prices will reach an equilibrium where the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded. this is how the market works.

this is where the great majority of unemployment is born, but not all of it. a very small amount of unemployment, called frictional unemployment, results mostly because of changes in technology. this represents workers laid off because they are obsolete. however, frictional unemployment is very limited in scale and does not last very long for each individual affected. there can also be problems caused by things like economic crashes, natural disasters, and warfare, but these are devastating to everyone, not simply the lowest paid.

It is irrelevant whether someone is skilled or not. Those unskilled jobs still need to be done. If you employ a phd to pack boxes you wont pay him more simply because he is skilled. And if all the people in the factory get phds and go off to better themselves, someone has still got to pack the boxes.

yes, but remember that a very large quantity supplied goes along with a low price. if the quantity of unskilled labor goes high enough, the price for this labor can get very low...

Could you explain how that one works?

i already did, but i'll repeat. without welfare and the minimum wage, if a person can barely support themself, they certainly won't be able to support any children. if the number of unskilled laborerers in the market is so high that this is the case, the market obviously doesn't need any more.

if there are so many unskilled laborers that wages are so low that they cannot raise children, gradually, the population of unskilled laborers will very likely decline; the vast majority of unskilled laborers are born of parents of similar background. if it were to continue to increase, wages would only drop until they were so low they weren't even enough to live on... but unless the growth of the population of unskilled workers is artificially supported, it cannot grow to be so large that this becomes a problem.

the problem with minimum wages and welfare is that you are not only causing unemployment, not only driving up prices, not only giving a certain segment of the population more from the market than they contribute... you are also causing this segment to continue to grow and grow. eventually this reaches the point that you've created a permanent segment of society that, if you're enforcing a minimum wage, cannot find work at all, and if you're not, cannot find work that pays enough to live on... and it just keeps growing. this is not good policy at all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: monoamine]
    #2093843 -

monoamine writes:

I don't know how things are in the DR,but fast food and other assorted shit jobs aren't exactly in short supply here.

So where you live there is no unemployment? Which state is that?

Minimum wages don't kill jobs,greedy ass people do.

If there is no shortage of fast food jobs, but a shortage of people to fill those jobs, then the only way to fill the jobs is to keep raising the salary offered until those too greedy to work for minimum wage will accept them, true.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2093981 -

GazzBut writes:

Large companies are not in existence to "provide a way for other individuals to support themselves by paying them for the effort" I mean come on! Large companies are in existence to make a nice fat profit margin.

Correct. Yet in order to make profit, they must hire workers. In order to hire workers, they must offer something in exchange for the effort the workers expend. Normally this is currency.

I dont agree with the current level of government intervention on the market but I definitely dont think we should do away with it entirely.

Why not?

The government makes it possible for the employed to represent themselves more equally in any negotiations that take place with the employer. They do this by legitamising unions and acting as a third party with influence over both parties.

Unions need no third party to legitimize them, nor do they need a third party to influence anyone. If the union members agree not to sell their labor for less than a certain amount, then the company has no choice but to meet their price or do without unionized workers.

People feel they are being taken advantage of all the time!

So what? If the feeling is strong enough, they will remove themselves from the situation.

Many of them dont have the luxury of simply supporting themselves in some other manner.

Then it's a damn good thing they have the option of supporting themselves in a manner less than their ideal, no?

I was simply saying that unions ability to negotiate with companies is weakened without the government acting as a third party.

How? Give me specifics.

I would rather pay the same as everyone else, not subsidise greedy bastards who dont pay a thing.

So you are opposed to social programs, too, huh? You surprise me. Or maybe you mean you favor a flat tax, in which case you still surprise me.

It matters to me if somebody is exploiting another person. Voluntary exploitation might run rife.

And it matters to me if someone is forcibly preventing someone from completing a voluntary transaction. Force might run rife. Oh, wait a minute.... it already has.

Why does your distaste for what you perceive as "exploitation" give you or anyone else the right to intrude into voluntary transactions with force?

I had asked: "Explain your reasoning. Why must anyone support anyone else? " You then dodged the question by repeating your incorrect and totally off-topic screed.

Let me try again -- please explain why someone must support someone else. For what reason. What is the rationale behind it. What logical steps are you building on, from what original premise, in order to reach that conclusion.

Of course they are! We live in a society where rules are agreed upon which govern the way we can and cant behave. This is called a system.

You miss the point. Regardless of what socioeconomic system may be in place in a given society at a given time, the fact remains that human effort supports human existence. That is not a law of man or of any particular system devised by man, that is a law of nature. Those who work and support themselves are not benefiting from any manmade "system", they are acknowledging physical laws of reality.

If it cannot be proven beyond doubt that these systems are capable of providing work for every member of society then welfare should be seen as a necessity not a choice.

Why?

Well perhaps because it is the way humans have always done business. Humans have always worked for others. Its in our nature.

Since man is a social animal, and acquires knowledge throughout his life, it is generally of more benefit for him to exist in the company of other men than it is for him to wrest from nature unaided everything he needs for his survival -- division of labor, passing down of acquired survival techniques, etc. This doesn't mean he needs other men in order to survive, just that it is generally advantageous.

We have always survived in groups where some do more for others. If the cavemen had decided the weak scrawny kid who was messing about with two stones didnt deserve any food because he hadnt caught any of it they might never have discovered fire.

Many societies abandoned their weak and infirm rather than have them become a drain on the resources of others. Look it up.

So we abolish the minimum wage and end unemployment at a stroke? How much is the minimum wage?

There is none.

Im guessing its not too great..wouldnt be a walk in the park supporting a family on it I bet.

Might be tough, yes.

But you are advocating tempting the unemployed back to work with the mouthwatering prospect of earning even less than the minimum wage!

You seem to believe everyone would rather be unemployed than work for less than an arbitrarily-set government number. You are wrong. Many would work for less than the current minimum.

How about the obscenely overpaid higher management distribute their wages more evenly through the entire workforce so more gain is felt by more people.

Did you see my post re: the Wal-Mart CEO's salary and the effect it would have if he were to distribute all of it equally amongst Wal-Mart's employees as a Christmas bonus?

If you feel a company's CEO is overpaid, feel free to offer your services to the company for less. I'm certain the shareholders (being greedy capitalists interested solely in fattening their own bank accounts) would leap at the chance to pocket more money.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2095872 -

you refer to these ideas as if they are proven fact. Where have these theories ever been put into practice? Text book theory is one thing the real world is quite another.
You speak about price ceiling and price floors and say that their influence would be removed if government interference was ended. That doesnt seem quite right. If high level management are
constanly giving themselves pay rises far above inflation and well out of proportion with the wage rises of their average employees (which they are) arent they creating a far more potent price floor than simply applying a minimum wage? If they are taking out far more than the real worth of their labour this will cause far more problems than simply making sure every worker gets paid a minimum wage.

Quote:
without price floors and ceilings, prices will reach an equilibrium where the quantity

supplied equals the quantity demanded. this is how the market works.



Nice theory but that is all it is. When has this theory been tested in the real world?



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
    #2095905 -

Quote:
Correct. Yet in order to make profit, they must hire workers. In order to hire workers, they must offer something in exchange for the effort the workers expend. Normally this is currency.




Obviously being employed myself, I am fairly familiar with the concept. What is your point?

Quote:
I dont agree with the current level of government intervention on the market but I definitely dont think we should do away with it entirely.

Why not?




I have already answered that.

Quote:
Unions need no third party to legitimize them, nor do they need a third party to influence anyone. If the union members agree not to sell their labor for less than a certain amount, then the company has no choice but to meet their price or do without unionized workers.




You seriously believe that unions would have as much chance of influencing corporations if government didnt have any effect on the market? You are a little naive and havent really thought it through.

Quote:
I was simply saying that unions ability to negotiate with companies is weakened without the government acting as a third party.

How? Give me specifics.




Answer these simple questions a) Do unions lobby governments?
b) Do they do this for fun or because they think they can possibly achieve their aims through lobbying?
c) If this option is removed will the unions retain the same level of influence to achieve their aims?

Quote:
I would rather pay the same as everyone else, not subsidise greedy bastards who dont pay a thing.

So you are opposed to social programs, too, huh? You surprise me. Or maybe you mean you favor a flat tax, in which case you still surprise me.




You are being wilfully obtuse. You still didnt explain how a system of voluntary contribution is actually fair. I favour equal contributions to welfare i.e a percentage of income.

Quote:
Why does your distaste for what you perceive as "exploitation" give you or anyone else the right to intrude into voluntary transactions with force?




Perhaps if those who are being exploited want somebody to step in and end said exploitation.

Quote:
I had asked: "Explain your reasoning. Why must anyone support anyone else? " You then dodged the question by repeating your incorrect and totally off-topic screed.

Let me try again -- please explain why someone must support someone else. For what reason. What is the rationale behind it. What logical steps are you building on, from what original premise, in order to reach that conclusion.




It is not my problem you cant understand my "off topic screed". Reread it as it amply explains why I think we should support others through a welfare system.

Answer these questions: Can our society provide work for every single member?

If it cannot, who should support those who the system has failed to provide work for?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2096812 -

you refer to these ideas as if they are proven fact.

they are.

Where have these theories ever been put into practice?

any place a market is functioning.

Text book theory is one thing the real world is quite another.

i can only conclude that you do not understand the laws i'm talking about or the scope of their effects. this is not a set policy to be "put into practice"... it's just a set of laws that very nicely explain what we can see happens in the market.

show me what is flawed about them and show me why they do not describe real-world economics. if you can provide an alternate theory of how the market operates, other than through supply and demand, you'll be the first. if you can show how what i've said is faulted, and suggest an alternate explanation for the functioning of the market, you'd be lined up pretty nicely for a nobel prize in economics...

reading a book on elementary economics would be a good place to start.

You speak about price ceiling and price floors and say that their influence would be removed if government interference was ended.

by definition, price floors and ceilings are set by the government. of course their influence would be eliminated if governmet interference in the market were ended... price controls ARE government interference in the market.

If high level management are constanly giving themselves pay rises far above inflation and well out of proportion with the wage rises of their average employees (which they are) arent they creating a far more potent price floor than simply applying a minimum wage?

no. a price floor is a minimum set by government above the market clearing price. individual firms, independent of what they're paying their managers, pay their workers the market clearing price if they wish to remain competitive and efficient. (unless of course, doing so would be illegal, in which case they pay the minimum wage allowed by law).

Nice theory but that is all it is. When has this theory been tested in the real world?

again... yes. absolutely.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2097162 -

Certainly an interesting insight into the libertarian mindset - their feeling for their fellow man is akin to that of a Dachau camp guard.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2097372 -

Certainly an interesting insight into the libertarian mindset - their feeling for their fellow man is akin to that of a Dachau camp guard.

and saying that a mindset which merely believes that the only justifiable use of force is in response to force is "akin" to that of a concentration camp guard surely gives us some insight as to what's going on in your own mind...  :smirk:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2097412 -

Quote:
you refer to these ideas as if they are proven fact.

they are.

Where have these theories ever been put into practice?

any place a market is functioning.




So where has the scrapping of the minimum wage been proven to stop all unemployment?

Quote:
show me what is flawed about them and show me why they do not describe real-world economics.



I am not querying the theory of supply and demand. I just dont think it is a proven fact that a minimum wage is responsible for the majority of unemployment.

Quote:
by definition, price floors and ceilings are set by the government. of course their influence would be eliminated if governmet interference in the market were ended... price controls ARE government interference in the market.




And what Im saying is that overpaid higher management will create a "virtual price ceiling" no matter the level of government intererence in the market.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2097426 -

It does seem a bit cold doesnt it?!


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2097590 -

So where has the scrapping of the minimum wage been proven to stop all unemployment?

i'll try to make this simple:

if there are enough workers in the market, after enough are hired, the point will come when hiring additional ones at a cost greater than $5.15 an hour is not profitable. these workers will not be hired. they will be unemployed. absent a minimum wage, there will always be work available at some wage. now, before alex jumps on me, i'll remind you that unless thanks to our social programs, the situation already exists, then even absent a minimum wage, wages cannot drop so far that they are not enough to survive on.

there is such a thing as frictional unemployment. this means workers temporarily unemployed due to things like downsizing, mergers, and new technology. this is limited in scale and longevity.

I just dont think it is a proven fact that a minimum wage is responsible for the majority of unemployment.

how would it be that absent a minimum wage there would be people who could not find work at any wage?

minimum wage sets a minimum price on labor. it does not set a minimum value on labor. such a thing would be impossible. without coercion, the price generally equals the value. when the government steps in and sets the price above (or below) the value, there will problems (shortages or surplusses). it's fairly straightforward stuff.

And what Im saying is that overpaid higher management will create a "virtual price ceiling" no matter the level of government intererence in the market.

what?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2097944 -

Why did unemployment exist prior to the introduction of the minimum wage? What were the factors causing unemployment then? Have they been removed now?
Where can it be shown as an example that simply removing a minimum wage restriction has cured unemployment?

When I refered to a virtual price ceiling, I think I should have said floor! I was talking about the same effect with a different cause. If I understand you correctly, a price floor is an artificial constraint placed upon how a company can price their product i.e a minimum wage. So, if a company chooses to pay their directors and managers etc a wage which is above the market clearing price (would that be the correct term?!) then surely the same effect is achieved as if you artificially boost the market clearing price through a minimum wage?
To offset this the company would need to make cuts elsewhere...hmmm lucky we scrapped that minimum wage nonsense.




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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2098233 -

Why did unemployment exist prior to the introduction of the minimum wage? What were the factors causing unemployment then? Have they been removed now? Where can it be shown as an example that simply removing a minimum wage restriction has cured unemployment?

the minimum wage is not the sole cause of unemployment. there is frictional unemployment, there are shifts in demographics, critical drops in aggregate demand; all of these are also causes.

getting rid of the minimum wage would not entirely eliminate unemployment, but it would reduce it to the level where it was absolutely minimized and shortest in longevity for the individuals affected.

here's the relationship i was talking about before, just for clarification:


when the wage is set at the higher of the two prices, the unemployment caused will be the quantity between A and B.

the price floor on labor (minimum wage) is definitely the primary contribute to labor surplusses (unemployment), but it isn't the sole contributer.

there will still be a few unemployed left. how they are supported until they are able to obtain new employment is where i think our differences will start to become more ideological than the economics we've been dealing with so far...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2099775 -

and saying that a mindset which merely believes that the only justifiable use of force is in response to force is "akin" to that of a concentration camp guard

Nothing to do with that, it's more to do with the bizarre Nazi lunacy of your "let them die off" ideas. Read about concentration camp guards - you'll find very similar philosophies amongst them.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2100041 -

Do you agree that overpaid management etc could cause a similar problem as the minimum wage?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2101001 -

Nothing to do with that, it's more to do with the bizarre Nazi lunacy of your "let them die off" ideas. Read about concentration camp guards - you'll find very similar philosophies amongst them.

alex... i don't believe that people who cannot support themselves have a RIGHT to steal from those who can. if that sounds cruel to you, fine, but it's a far shot from how the camps were run.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2101006 -

Do you agree that overpaid management etc could cause a similar problem as the minimum wage?

not at all. the amount that managers are paid has nothing to do with how much workers are paid... if you're saying that by paying managers more, they have less money to pay to workers, you need to rethink that. the surplusses that can be caused by pricing are due to pricing something above its market value, not below.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2101016 -

So if the government artificially increase costs it means unemployment but if employers choose to pay a section of their workforce inflated wages (artificially increasing costs) it has no negative effect? Im sorry but that is obviously nonsense.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2101020 -

for various reasons, it is actually quite common for companies to pay managers more than the market price. the "inflated wage" your talking about is that paid to the managers, and this can and does cause problems for those seeking managerial positions. are we talking about them now?

Edited by mushmaster (11/13/03 09:41 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2101021 -

i think people are too distracted to be ethier. then their are those who arent distracted.


--------------------
Mice have feelings

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2101022 -

if that sounds cruel to you, fine, but it's a far shot from how the camps were run.

Not at all, "the strongest" survived in the camps too. It's something Primo Levi remarked on when he said "The best of us died". By that he meant the ones who cared for their fellow man, who would share their last peice of bread with the starving were the ones who died.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: JameZTheNewbie]
    #2101025 -

to be right or left*


--------------------
Mice have feelings

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2101028 -

Not at all, "the strongest" survived in the camps too.

so that makes this a good analogy?

please alex...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2101538 -

Quote:
for various reasons, it is actually quite common for companies to pay managers more than the market price.



Yeah greed being the main factor.

I dont see how an artificial rise in costs in one area causes unemployment whereas an artificial rise in costs in another has no effect.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2101649 -

so that makes this a good analogy?

You can't see any similarity between the "let them starve and die" philosophy?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2101785 -

You can't see any similarity between the "let them starve and die" philosophy?

no alex, because in the camps, people were starved by way of force. they were kept there by way of force, and they were not permitted to work for themselves.

in the camps, people were FORCED TO STARVE. the nazis did not "let them starve", they forced them to.

the situation in the free market is entirely different. no one is held by force, no one is forced to work, no one is forced not to work, and no one is forced to give up the fruits of their labor.

i'm saying that people do not have a RIGHT to steal from other people, even if they are starving.

this is entirely different than holding people in captivity and forcefully depriving them of their right to work or to keep the fruits of their work.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2101885 -

people were starved by way of force no one is forced to work

No-one was forced to work in the camps either - you had the choice to either work or die. The same decision you wish to foist on everyone.

i'm saying that people do not have a RIGHT to steal from other people

"Stealing" is a very emotional term mush. The tax system is legal. Certainly most people are happy to pay tax to ensure some quality of life in society.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2101958 -

No-one was forced to work in the camps either

bullshit.

you had the choice to either work or die. The same decision you wish to foist on everyone.

alex... that's how it works. you are a human being, and as such, you must have food to eat and warm shelter to live in. these things do not simply provide themselves on their own; human beings must work to produce them. human life can only be sustained through productive effort. if you cannot do this on your own, and no one is helping you voluntarily, this gives you no RIGHT to steal from others who can.

the concentration camps were different from the free market. there is no coercion in the free market. in the concentration camps, coercion is the name of the game. let it go.

"Stealing" is a very emotional term mush.

perhaps, but i am not using it as such. i am using it to describe the process of taking something from someone without their voluntary consent. there's nothing emotional or ambiguous about that definition.

The tax system is legal. Certainly most people are happy to pay tax to ensure some quality of life in society.

which means nothing. most people are happy to incarcerate drug users and the like as well. to what extent the majority is willing to submit to the government says nothing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2102034 -

bullshit.

Eh? They didn't have the choice between working or death? What are you talking about?

alex... that's how it works

Well, lets not be hasty, thank god that ISN'T how it works except in your libertarian pamphlets.

Could you let us know what happens to someone in your brave new world who refuses to work?

if you cannot do this on your own, and no one is helping you voluntarily

So a disabled guy who suddenly loses his parents in a car crash starves to death in your world? Do kindness and compassion have any place in this "New Order" of yours?

i am using it to describe the process of taking something from someone without their voluntary consent.

The vast majority of people don't consider tax stealing and give their voluntary consent to it.

We arn't going to get 100% "voluntary consent" on anything. Comparing it to the drug war is pretty specious. 100 years ago the vast majority of people had no problem with selling heroin over the counter. It's a different issue.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2102085 -

Eh? They didn't have the choice between working or death? What are you talking about?

they were forced. another human being initiated force against them. if someone pulls a knife on you and says, "YOUR WALLET OR YOUR LIFE", you've got a choice, yes, but you are being forced.

if you are on a desert island alone, you must shimmy up the tree to get coconuts. you must do it to live, but no one is FORCING you.

Well, lets not be hasty, thank god that ISN'T how it works except in your libertarian pamphlets.

did you read what i said? because the basic necessities must be produced by human effort, human beings MUST work if they are to survive.

Could you let us know what happens to someone in your brave new world who refuses to work?

they forfeit anything they would have gained by working.

So a disabled guy who suddenly loses his parents in a car crash starves to death in your world?

unless there are people to voluntarily help him, yes. why should anyone be FORCED to help?

Do kindness and compassion have any place in this "New Order" of yours?

oh, there is plenty of room for kindness and compassion. stealing from people is not kind, nor is it compassionate. voluntary charity is.

The vast majority of people don't consider tax stealing and give their voluntary consent to it.

are taxes voluntary?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2116272 -

Quote:
no one is forced to give up the fruits of their labor.


Except for taxpayers. They are robbed every 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
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2116369 -

"the situation in the free market..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

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

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Media: Liberal Bias or Conservative Bias? Baby_Hitler 1,044 10 02/25/03 05:31 AM
by Evolving
* If libertarians/conservatives believe govt welfare leads to dependency
( 1 2 3 all )		 Tao 4,363 52 12/09/04 08:56 PM
by nycomyco
* Conservatives and racism
( 1 2 all )		 LearyfanS 5,199 26 08/16/04 08:03 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Why are conservatives so heartless and cruel?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Ellis Dee 4,876 48 03/06/03 09:12 AM
by EchoVortex
* Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 5,223 39 11/02/04 03:11 PM
by Phluck
* Libertarianism
( 1 2 all )		 newuser1492 2,783 24 05/13/05 10:14 PM
by shroommachine
* a liberal's response to the death of william f. buckley jr.
( 1 2 3 all )		 vonhumboldt 3,107 56 03/14/08 11:49 PM
by Madtowntripper
* Liberal vs. Conservative silversoul7 1,544 4 09/19/04 08:34 PM
by RandalFlagg

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
12,779 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 12 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 0.099 seconds spending 0.015 seconds on 16 queries.