|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Socialism is legalized theft. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
emo star Inactive Member |
sorry. i didn't really have time to. Ill try to keep up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
emo star Inactive Member |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
emo star Inactive Member |
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.
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.
quote: Please explain exploitation to me.
quote: 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1718 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1718 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
emo star Inactive Member |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPamboli Inactive Member |
Mind the language, please, emo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1718 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Celsus Inactive Member |
quote: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: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: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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024