Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Socialism is legalized theft.
emo star
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 54 (38159)
04-27-2003 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Celsus
04-27-2003 2:23 PM


sorry. i didn't really have time to. Ill try to keep up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Celsus, posted 04-27-2003 2:23 PM Celsus has not replied

  
emo star
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 54 (38160)
04-27-2003 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
04-26-2003 5:36 PM


I would like to point out that i am not rich. no one cleans my carptets, thank you. I am only interested in what is fair.
btw: its reallly really hard to keep up b\c it's like me vs. 6 people so forgive me if i don't have time to reply. sorry.
------------------
"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 04-26-2003 5:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
emo star
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 54 (38161)
04-27-2003 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Celsus
04-26-2003 11:43 AM


quote:
Do explain what you mean by "true equality is justice."
justice is fairness in all your relationships. That is, is it fair for the government to take a larger percentage of the rich minority's money than the rest of the people? I use Martin Luther King Jr.'s definition of a just and unjust law. A Just law is a law that affects all people equally. An unjust law is a law that the majority enforces upon the minority and not enforce upon itself.
quote:
And who fed you when you were young? And how long would you last if a plague wiped all of humanity out bar yourself? We cooperate with others as a part of our existence. Think of some non-capitalist institutions, like, say, the family. Humanity wouldn't last very long if every single parent decided taking care of their children wasn't worth doing (what a sacrifice!). There are things beyond individual selfishness that make our fragile world go round. Cooperation is one of them.
I apologize. To clarify, I do not think man should live outside of society, Man needs one another. Each man in a relationship has something to offer. The parent chooses to have a child it doesn't just happen. I believe that capitalism is more cooperative than socialism. In capitalism each man exchanges something for something voluntarily. In a socialist society, it is impossible to quit your job, or engage in a private dealing with another person without being prosecuted.
quote:
No. By the "leveller" I mean an institution that understands that poverty brings social costs on the whole of society, and that it is worth doing something both from an economic and humanistic viewpoint, to prevent people from suffering. Have you heard of the French Revolution? Letting the poor eat cake didn't quite work out now did it? Of course, it might be a good idea to explain exploitation to you, but then I'd probably end up being called a Marxist.
Please explain exploitation to me.
quote:
I'd tell you the point, but you wouldn't understand, as you'd have to be familiar with Marx's Labour theory of surplus value (or more probably, I'd have to tell you what it is in agonising detail though flying over your nescient head). Secondly you'd have to figure out that socialism is not necessarily anticapital or antimarket. But I wouldn't want your brain to explode just yet. Thirdly, I'm not a socialist, so it's far too much trouble.
But if you're interested, you might try reading an introductory economics text book. Look out especially for the section on "externalities." If you're getting more adventurous, try the following list. But don't forget that introductory economics text!
Here are introductory texts to theories of economic institutions. You'll notice that the reason that these institutions (including government) exist, is that they increase efficiency. It's a rather obvious reason once you think about it.
thanks for the list i'll check it out. but in the mean time. I do wish to understand further so if you could try to explain it to me. ill try to understand, even if my head does explode.
------------------
"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Celsus, posted 04-26-2003 11:43 AM Celsus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 04-27-2003 4:44 PM emo star has replied
 Message 54 by Celsus, posted 04-28-2003 11:39 AM emo star has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 54 (38162)
04-27-2003 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by emo star
04-27-2003 9:36 AM


I don't understand why they should get any of MY money.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. You don't understand why the people who perform services for your benefit deserve your money? That seems obvious to me.
the worker is paid his wage and does not get a 'share' of the profits - he did not invest in the company and therefore should not reap any of the awards.
This is just erroneous. The worker has invested his time and effort in the company - often more than the owner (the worker wroks 60 hour weeks while the owner's weekend starts on thursday). By your measure he deserves more of the rewards than the owner.
That's not at all what I'm advocating, of course. Just enough for the worker to afford basic needs, like housing, food, and health care.
Anyway, you wanted to talk about socialism and the ethics of "robbing the rich to pay the poor"? My point has been that the rich wouldn't be rich without the efforts of the working poor, so it's highly ethical for the rich to foot the bill of keeping the working poor housed, fed, and healthy.
And yes business is a predatory affair but it is a system of competition that yields profits and a healthier economy overall
Yeah, it's great if you're a business owner. No one's disputing that. But it's hard to become a business owner, simply because other business owners are trying to muscle you out of the game. Not everyone can be a business owner. In a just society, you shouldn't have to be one to secure a livable wage for yourself and family.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by emo star, posted 04-27-2003 9:36 AM emo star has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 54 (38163)
04-27-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by emo star
04-27-2003 4:23 PM


That is, is it fair for the government to take a larger percentage of the rich minority's money than the rest of the people? I use Martin Luther King Jr.'s definition of a just and unjust law. A Just law is a law that affects all people equally.
And what should we do if we are under an unjust law? Attempt to correct that injustice, of course. For the reasons we've stated, the free market is unjust to the working poor. Therefore, we institute progressive taxation to correct that injustice.
In a socialist society, it is impossible to quit your job, or engage in a private dealing with another person without being prosecuted.
I think you're confusing communist government with socialism. No socialist state has ever existed - they've all been communist. And their specific ideosyncracities aren't inherent in the theory of socialism. Socialism doesn't make it illegal to quit your job, and it doesn't make it illegal to have private dealings, etc. Socialism just means that the infrastructure of production is held as common property, in the public trust - and therefore the profits can be divided fairly to ensure that all are provided for.
So far you haven't explained to me why the contributions of certain workers should be held in such low esteem as to deny them a livable wage, despite the fact that the entire business, and by extention, society as a whole, depends on their effort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by emo star, posted 04-27-2003 4:23 PM emo star has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by emo star, posted 04-27-2003 7:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
emo star
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 54 (38166)
04-27-2003 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
04-27-2003 4:44 PM


man. fuck. Im tired of this. You can say you won. I concede. I apologize. i might try again later but i can't keep responding to these things all day.
------------------
"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 04-27-2003 4:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by AdminPamboli, posted 04-27-2003 11:18 PM emo star has not replied
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 04-28-2003 12:50 AM emo star has not replied

  
AdminPamboli
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 54 (38178)
04-27-2003 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by emo star
04-27-2003 7:52 PM


Mind the language, please, emo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by emo star, posted 04-27-2003 7:52 PM emo star has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 54 (38180)
04-28-2003 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by emo star
04-27-2003 7:52 PM


Hey, whatever. A) you made the first post, and B) I can't help it if you say such obviously wrong stuff.
But if this little experience helped you realize that there may be more to questions of economic morality than Rush Limbaugh would have you believe, consider it the first step to enlightenment. You don't have to be sorry or anything; just look a little further into economics next time. Nobody's mad at you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by emo star, posted 04-27-2003 7:52 PM emo star has not replied

  
Celsus
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 54 (38203)
04-28-2003 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by emo star
04-27-2003 4:23 PM


quote:
justice is fairness in all your relationships. That is, is it fair for the government to take a larger percentage of the rich minority's money than the rest of the people? I use Martin Luther King Jr.'s definition of a just and unjust law. A Just law is a law that affects all people equally. An unjust law is a law that the majority enforces upon the minority and not enforce upon itself.
All good in theory, except that people vary in any number of characteristics. Hence you have rules for positively discriminating when it comes to people with disabilities, and the types of positive discrimination vary according to the disability. A universally enforced law which does not take into account inherent differences in people is naive. Think of employment laws regarding maternity leave. Are they biased against men?
quote:
I apologize. To clarify, I do not think man should live outside of society, Man needs one another. Each man in a relationship has something to offer. The parent chooses to have a child it doesn't just happen. I believe that capitalism is more cooperative than socialism. In capitalism each man exchanges something for something voluntarily. In a socialist society, it is impossible to quit your job, or engage in a private dealing with another person without being prosecuted.
You are talking from idealistic cases. In fact, under unregulated capitalism, most people have the option of work for bastard employer #1, #2, ... #n, or starve. The labour market is a monopsony--that is, there are many sellers (workers selling their skills), and few buyers (employers). That puts workers automatically at a disadvantage, and hence trade unions are a means of offsetting this inequality. As for socialist society, there has never been a socialist society, so you are spouting nonsense again. If you're talking about authoritarian state capitalism, as in the former USSR, you will still find that labour mobility was possible.
quote:
Please explain exploitation to me.
For a simplistic example, let's assume there are no labour laws, minimum wages--it's the free market utopia. We'll imagine a worker--let's call him Emo. Let's say Emo's contribution in labour to the factory is worth $1000 (i.e. the value he adds to the products he works on). However, because of competition for a job in that factory, different workers have underbid for the position (after all, they'll starve if they don't get a job), resulting in a market equilibrium pay of $500. Emo knows that if he demands more than $500 will lose his job (and other starving unemployed workers will quickly step in to fill his shoes at no cost to the factory), so he cannot claim his fully deserved pay. Thus, Emo ends up being exploited because he is not fully remunerated for his services to the firm. Er, ceteris paribus (all other things being equal), as you need to say in Economics 101.
Now the profit-maximising firm decides that it needs to cut costs. So it turns off the fans that were keeping the workers cool, and turns off the drinking fountain, since it was running up the water bill. It also decides that scheduled tea breaks, which the workers are being paid for, are an additional burden, and removes that too. The firm also notices that some workers are popping out for a quick cigarette, and thereby sneaking breaks, so it allows the workers to smoke while they work. Also, it stops hiring cleaners as frequently, letting them come in once a month instead of every day, since that's just wasteful.
Because of all these, we need such things as minimum wages (which puts a minimum on how low the firm can undercut their workers' wages), labour standards (to prevent firms from abusing their workers), welfare (so that people don't starve to death while unable to find work), etc. All these are value-laden, but the free market cannot determine "right" levels of values, only what the laws of supply and demand tell it to. Since one of the good things about humanity is the ability to rise up beyond the invisible hand and create a just order where previously there was none, these laws are in place to prevent the likes of 19th century industrial conditions from happening again. Of course, not every labour market is monopsonistic, but the vast majority are, and hence these rules seek to prevent exploitation. You need only visit a Third World country to see how horrible the conditions are for workers who do not benefit from these enforced standards. A bare minimum of these is not negotiable, but again, how far these rules should extend are open for debate.
Joel
[This message has been edited by Celsus, 04-28-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by emo star, posted 04-27-2003 4:23 PM emo star has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024