Socialism is legalized theft.

quote:

---

Or simply their parent's bad or good luck. Skill has less to do with it that you might think. You might consider the biographies of major business figures. Then honestly assess how large a role luck played. Go ahead, I dare you.

​

Sure it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tunnel. But just because somebody isn't a rocket scientist, do they deserve to be homeless?

---

good luck or not. they still put that capital in a good place didn't they? and no, it means they deserve to get a wage fitting to their job. Health care, insurance, and housing are NOT rights. and you should not advocate the theft of someone's rightful property to pay for those without.

quote:

---

Aren't we all capitalists, living in a capitalist economy? I'm not sure who you're referring to. Anyway, fine. So a capitalist created the job. Does that entitle him to make 20 times more than the wage of the job he created?

---

It does entitle him as he is the owner of that company. whether or not that is good business to take a large wage instead of reinvesting it, well that remains to be seen. if im the ceo ill collect whatever i damn well please.------------------
"I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species. I wanted to open the dump valves on oil tankers and smother all the French beaches I'd never see. I wanted to breathe smoke."

On this we agree. But everyone who works full-time deserves a wage sufficient to provide for their needs. We certainly don't have that these days. Rights? They're certainly things people need to survive, and I believe that in this country people have the rights to things they need to live, regardless of economic luck. To advocate anything else is cruel and barbaric. I'm ashamed that people like you exist in these enlightened times.

emo star,You are employing a false dichotomy. Capitalism unimpeded is self-destructive and anti-egalitarian. It requires the right institutions to prop it up--institutions that accredit firms, to authorise money, to counter negative externalities, etc. The very motive of the firm is to out-compete others: this does not result in everyone reaching the finish line at the same time (perfect competition), but that over time, small differences (advantages or disadvantages) can be magnified to create disproportionate inequality.

quote:

---

no choice? no choice is a government where you HAVE to buy the government toilet paper. driving prices up is a totalitarian system that disregards the individual for the 'fatherland' or the 'public good'. no choice is communist berlin where you can only buy size 12 boots. competition drives the prices down - if you can not afford housing you are not being productive enough.

---

When you write this, you show that you have no clear understanding of capitalist society. Secondly you didn't at all address the point raised--that is, that there are assymetries in starting conditions for a capitalist society--people who are born rich tend to do well, people who are born poor tend to do badly. Obviously there are exceptions in every case, but for the vast majority, the "science of choice" sadly leaves them neglected, because their class conditions provide them with insufficient avenues for education and training. While the authoritarian socialist position is bad, that does not mean some efforts to create a level playing field are at all bad. In fact, capitalist societies need this sort of leveller which is why Marx hated the social democrats so much. They argued that a more just society could occur through welfare redistribution, but while maintaining a capitalist/market-based model. And you know what? They won. Not Marx or the Libertarians, but the people who argued for a middle ground, and history vindicates them as such: you will not find a single country where some form of welfare, social nets, and progressive income tax does not exist. The only question that remains is, to what extent should these forms of ameliorating the social costs of poverty go?

quote:

---

you suppose that wealth is a static substance. wealth is produced. no one is forced into poverty. no one is kept from creating wealth. capitalism produces wealth due to its freedom. All INDIVIDUALS are free to do whatever they want in their rights. socialism is forced poverty. look at socialist countries. Don't see any mass surplus in those countries do you? Capitalism creates wealth, socialism destroys it. maximum profit is right. but it only exists at levels which people will buy

---

Please look up a definition of wealth. Next, find one for capital. Then you'll see you're only revealing your astounding ignorance with paragraphs like these.Joel

quote:

---

which is an invasion upon our inalienable rights as individuals. in our advanced state we should be above the initiation of force in our relationships with our fellow man.

---

Bitch about it all you like the fact remains that without some form of institutionalised wealth distribution things tend to get unstable fast and us morlocks start to attack....

quote:

---

You are employing a false dichotomy. Capitalism unimpeded is self-destructive and anti-egalitarian. It requires the right institutions to prop it up--institutions that accredit firms, to authorise money, to counter negative externalities, etc. The very motive of the firm is to out-compete others: this does not result in everyone reaching the finish line at the same time (perfect competition), but that over time, small differences (advantages or disadvantages) can be magnified to create disproportionate inequality.

---

capitalism Impeded is destructive. wtf? yeah its anti egalitarian. so...? that's good. that's the point. i don't want the other firm to reach the finish line? perfect competition my ass. how the hell is that competiton? your definition of equality is based on statism and collectivism - that somehow the majority or the state is above the individual. it is not. true equality is justice. i am here to serve myself and not the state. Therefore, i may do whatever i wish within my rights as long it does not interfere with other mans rights. I live my life for me and my own happiness and not the happiness of other men.

quote:

---

In fact, capitalist societies need this sort of leveller which is why Marx hated the social democrats so much.

---

and by leveller you mean legal theft through taxes of those members of our society who have earned their wealth legally and through smart decisions. do not introduce ken lay agian into this argument. they inititated force into their business relationships through fraud and should therefore be punished for their crimes.

quote:

---

Please look up a definition of wealth. Next, find one for capital. Then you'll see you're only revealing your astounding ignorance with paragraphs like these.

---

ouch. just damn. well here you go:Wealth: n.
An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
The state of being rich; affluence.
All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.
A great amount; a profusion: a wealth of advice.capital: n.
A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation.
A city that is the center of a specific activity or industry: the financial capital of the world.Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.
Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.
Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy: [The] swift unveiling of his... plans provoked a flight of human capital (George F. Will).
Accounting. The remaining assets of a business after all liabilities have been deducted; net worth.
Capital stock.
Capitalists considered as a group or class.
An asset or advantage: profited from political capital accumulated by others (Michael Mandelbaum).
A capital letter.Although what you think this proves, i can't see, ass.[This message has been edited by emo star, 04-25-2003]

quote:

---

Rights? They're certainly things people need to survive, and I believe that in this country people have the rights to things they need to live, regardless of economic luck. To advocate anything else is cruel and barbaric. I'm ashamed that people like you exist in these enlightened times.

---

right to life does not mean you have the right to food, health care, etc. it means you have the right to live your life, better it, and defend it. you want to give the poor their 'right' to free food, free housing, at the violation fo the rights of other individual. A worker does NOT automaticallly get a wage that can support him. he gets teh wage that fits his job.------------------
"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise."

Think about competition. Business don't compete for your benefit, they compete because they want to win. Competition drives down prices, sure. But the ultimate goal of all business is to defeat competition. Ultimately, comptetition leads to monoploy, which you must realize is very, very bad for the consumer.Competition is good but it's not a state that can be prolonged indefinitely. Well, a state is made up of individuals, right? So if you're on the side of the individual, you must favor that which aids the most individuals? It's only logical.ultimately, there will always be situations where the good of the majority is weighed against the good of the individual. It only makes sense to consider what's good for the most individuals. That's all very well and good, but what about when your prosperity comes at a cost to the prosperity of others? Doesn't society have a right to rectify that imbalance?

quote:

---

Bitch about it all you like the fact remains that without some form of institutionalised wealth distribution things tend to get unstable fast and us morlocks start to attack....

---

i don't know why you insist on using the words "wealth distribution." i think you mean stealing from the successful to pay for the poor. those people who CANNOT work in our society should be provided for through private charity. morlocks? wtf? use a different term as i don't think you grow the rich to eat.------------------
"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise."

Now you're just not making any sense. How can you have the right to life if you don't have the right to things that you need for life?You say the right to "defend it". If you were starving me to death with intent to kill me - or even through negligence - I have the right to escape that situation to save my life, right? What we're doing to low-wage workers is the same thing. We're starving them to save a dime. I think they have the right to defend themselves. did I say free food? Did I say free housing? Now you're putting words in my mouth. That's called the "Straw Man fallacy". All I advocated was that food, housing, and health care should be affordable for all workers. Right now, they're not. Do you disagree?Who decides what wage fits the job? if you say "the free market", you're wrong. The job market isn't free because there's a number of restraining factors on worker mobility. The job market isn't free, no more than the housing market is. Workers don't have the kind of choice that a free market requires. At best they have a kind of Hobson's choice.And you still haven't provided rationale for why workers DON'T deserve a livable wage. it's immoral for our society to be based on the backs of workers we won't even feed or house decently. When somebody does a job for us at a wage far less than they deserve, THAT's the legalized theft. We're stealing THEIR wages!

But that's not who we're talking about. We're talking about the Americans who work and work and work, doing jobs you depend on every day, and still can't afford nutrituous food, safe housing, and basic health care. Why should they be dependant on the whims of public charity to survive?

quote:

---

Think about competition. Business don't compete for your benefit, they compete because they want to win. Competition drives down prices, sure. But the ultimate goal of all business is to defeat competition. Ultimately, comptetition leads to monoploy, which you must realize is very, very bad for the consumer.

​

Competition is good but it's not a state that can be prolonged indefinitely.

---

hmmm...yeah they compete to better themselves. they don't do it solely for your benefit. capitalism is mutual competition. you get a product in exchange for your cash.monopolies eh? are monopolies evil? if a business achieves its single seller status through low production costs and low sale prices at which the competition cannot compete then it is not evil. If it achieves its status through force, i.e. mafia, or government regulations outlawing its competition. this is evil. if a monopoly attempts to charge prices higher than his competitors he will lose his single seller status as more people will purchase the good at the lower price. I would like to point out an evil monopoly. the united states post office which uses the government to "regulate", but i prefer FORCE its competitors out of business by making it illegal to charge more than 34 cents per first class mail. yeah governmetn is REALLY GOOD for the consumer. A man attempted to ship mail for only 5 cents - the government stopped him. FORCe makes a monopoly evil. some industrial rev. examples. british east indies company supported by the british gov't.Let's use the example of the "robber barons" of the 18th century. ROckefeller Oil was punished by the government (the only institution with the monopoly on legal force) for dropping their prices by half.. god forbid. That's so bad for the consumer right? they increased their market and increased their production by lowering their production costs and their prices while increasing profits. they bought inefficient oil companies who could not compete with the production rate and prices fo Standard Oil.Writes Dominick Armentano [professor of economics at the University of Hartford],The little-known truth is that when the government took Standard Oil to court in 1907, Standard Oil's market share had been declining for a decade. Far from being a "monopoly," Standard's share of petroleum refining was approximately 64% at the time of trial. Moreover, there were at least 147 other domestic oil-refining competitors in the market and some of these were large, vertically integrated firms such as Texaco, Gulf Oil, and Sun. Kerosene outputs had expanded enormously (contrary to usual monopolistic conduct); and prices for kerosene had fallen from more than $2 per gallon in the early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time of the trial. So much for the myth of the Standard Oil "monopoly."

quote:

---

ultimately, there will always be situations where the good of the majority is weighed against the good of the individual. It only makes sense to consider what's good for the most individuals.

---

its things like this that scare me. the government exists to PROTECT the minority and the smallest minority is the minority of ONE. good of the majority? look at ancient greece. their pure democracy of majority rule created mob rule. Majority rule results in the oppression of individuals. those individuals can't COMPETe with a government who has a monopoly over FORCE. you can't compete when the government is telling you to dosomething.------------------
"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise."

quote:

---

But that's not who we're talking about. We're talking about the Americans who work and work and work, doing jobs you depend on every day, and still can't afford nutrituous food, safe housing, and basic health care. Why should they be dependant on the whims of public charity to survive?

---

because otherwise you are FORCING people to do something that violates their RIGHTS. again healtcare is not a right.------------------
"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise."

quote:

---

Now you're just not making any sense. How can you have the right to life if you don't have the right to things that you need for life?

​

You say the right to "defend it". If you were starving me to death with intent to kill me - or even through negligence - I have the right to escape that situation to save my life, right? What we're doing to low-wage workers is the same thing. We're starving them to save a dime. I think they have the right to defend themselves.

---

you have the right to life in that no one can morally take it from you. that is no one can legally shoot youin the face. you do NOT have the right to HAVE food, shelter, etc> you have the right ot work for it and keep your property. nobody is starving anyone. nobody forces anyone to do anything. at least in ideal capitalism. Look, they took the job, if you feel that the wage is too small. look somewhere else if you think you can get it.------------------
"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise."

quote:

---

did I say free food? Did I say free housing? Now you're putting words in my mouth. That's called the "Straw Man fallacy". All I advocated was that food, housing, and health care should be affordable for all workers. Right now, they're not. Do you disagree?

​

Who decides what wage fits the job? if you say "the free market", you're wrong. The job market isn't free because there's a number of restraining factors on worker mobility. The job market isn't free, no more than the housing market is. Workers don't have the kind of choice that a free market requires. At best they have a kind of Hobson's choice.

​

And you still haven't provided rationale for why workers DON'T deserve a livable wage. it's immoral for our society to be based on the backs of workers we won't even feed or house decently. When somebody does a job for us at a wage far less than they deserve, THAT's the legalized theft. We're stealing THEIR wages!

---

It is not a right to have everything for a 'decent' price as you would say. no one keeps you in a job!you can quit. You wanna see not being able to have choice. check out a communist governmetn where refusal the work towardsd the will fo the state results in imprisionment, a train to siberia,or a bullet in your skull. Deserve? you DO NOT decide what a worker deserves. the capitalist gives what he is willing to. if the worker doensn't like it he can serach for a better job if he feels he can find one. THe Capitalist PROVIDES the job. it is not a right to have a job.------------------
"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise."

If somebody isn't paying his workers enough to feed themselves, then their actions are threatening the workers right to life, by your own definition! There's no difference between violent murder and death by wage slavery. You assume options of worker mobility that simply don't exist. People don't leave jobs because it takes so long to find them. And it's next-to-impossible to work 60-hour weeks and have any time left over to find a new job - they're using all their time to work!