 |
| |
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:31
|
|
In the last thread I gave a specific challenge to the right with my opening post. That was to successfully argue that taking profit, rent and interest was fair. My argument was that people without property are denied equal treatment by the system, and that a political and economic system that treats people unequally is unjust.
Several people on the right insist that they were successful. That is absurd. Let me try to help you understand why nothing could be farther from the truth. It doesn’t matter that I was never given the chance to give closing statement. It doesn’t matter that Ming closed the thread only by pronouncing case closed. You lost because none of you even addressed my challenge. You lost by default. I offer you another chance though.
Let’s take a hypothetical example. Let’s say that Vel owns everything needed for his team and another team to play football (American). He finds another team whom doesn’t own these things, my team. Vel recognizes an opportunity when he sees one. Knowing that my team can only play if he agrees to let us play with his property, he forces us to accept his rules of the game. Whenever I score a touchdown Vel’s team gets two of my teams points, and whenever I score a fieldgoal Vel’s team gets one of my teams points.
Can I still win the game? Yes. Is it fair? No.
The argument from the right in the previous thread argued that taking profit is fair because the employee is capable of owning property in the future. This is just like arguing that in my hypothetical example the game is fair because my team has a chance to win. Nothing but complete nonsense, and coming from so many people on the right that I’m simply amazed. Of course my team is not given an equal chance to win the game. Therefore the game is not fair.
Like in the game, people without property are forced to accept an agreement with those with property to work and live. That agreement is to allow the property owners to collect profit, rent and interest while those with no property do what they must to survive.
In time the workers can make sacrifices to own property. Maybe they can one day own more property than those they worked for in the past. Does this make the situation where capitalists collected profit from their employees work fair? Certainly not.
Let’s say that the capitalist made equal sacrifices. Say he worked in his own business just as one of his employees, and he spent the same amount of his compensation on living. That is, he lived just as modestly as the his employee. The capitalist received the full benefit of his own work while collecting part of the benefit of his employees work. His worker only receives the full benefit of his own work minus the amount that the capitalist has collected in profit from employee’s work.
At no point in time will the employee be given equal compensation, because the original deal was never fair. Can the employee escape exploitation? Yes. Is it fair? No. Just because the employee doesn’t have to be exploited anymore, doesn’t mean that he wasn’t exploited in the past. If you think so, there is a problem with your logic. Once again, I give you a very specific challenge. Show that those without property are given equal treatment by the capitalist system. If you can then maybe you can really win the debate. If you can’t don’t bother proclaiming that you have won. You only fool yourself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
By the way, genius, Ming closed the other thread because it reached 500 posts. Threads are limited to that number of posts and are then closed. It had nothing to do with who got in the last word. As you can see, you're perfectly able to start a new thread and pick up the discussion again. So your whine about the thread closure was baseless.
Second, as to your "challenge," I do not recall any of us arguing in the other thread that capitalism treats everyone equally. We argued the system was fair & that it worked. The main issue here is what you consider "fair" and what you deem "work." To me, the fact that, under capitalism, everyone isn't economically equal isn't unfair. This is because people have the opportunity to move up the ladder (aka "social mobility"). The system is far from perfect, and some of that has as much to do with our political system as our economic system (corruption in goverment/pork projects, etc), but it beats the heck out of communism. I reject your notions of forced "fairness" as you deem it. Especially given your concept of what "work" is and isn't (our discussion on invention made that very clear to me).
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
When profit becomes excessive, it is unfair. I don't think the market system should be applied where it's basic concepts, supply and demand, are not subject to consumer checks and balances. For instance... I think capitalism and the market system is perfect for the manufacturing and distribution of consumer goods and services. The problem, I see, with America is that free marketeers hold the ideology of capitalism above the lives of people. Health care for instance. I don't think it's moral to rely on the market to determine prices for life saving or extending drugs, procedures, or other services and goods. That's asking someone to put a value on a life. I think life is priceless... but yet, companies only care about their profits when it comes to human life... and I believe that's wrong.
I think that certain "industries" should have different systems governing them. For instance, consumer goods should be as free a market as possible. Consumers can dictate prices via the mechanisms of supply and demand. But when it comes to health care, or national security and defense, or energy production, or our transportation and communications infrastructures, I think the absolute most efficient system should be created to suit the respective industry. Profit is inherently inefficient. Beyond normal wages, profit going into the hands of some corporate entity gives no benefit at all.
Because consumer goods aren't necessities, I don't care about the amount of profit companies make selling their goods or services. If people are willing to pay prices for those respective goods or services... demand... then business is welcome to that money. But when demand is a non-issue i.e. health care... I think it's immoral for business to take excessive profit for providing goods or services essential to life.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Let’s take a hypothetical example. Let’s say that Vel owns everything needed for his team and another team to play football (American). He finds another team whom doesn’t own these things, my team. Vel recognizes an opportunity when he sees one. Knowing that my team can only play if he agrees to let us play with his property, he forces us to accept his rules of the game. Whenever I score a touchdown Vel’s team gets two of my teams points, and whenever I score a fieldgoal Vel’s team gets one of my teams points.
Can I still win the game? Yes. Is it fair? No.
|
The fallacy in your whole argument, whether this example or any other, is that you assume that there is one and only one way for you to acquire the necessary whatever it is, and that is to submit to whatever the Evil CapitalistTN requires as a condition of your using the Evil Capitalist's stuff.
You reject any consideration that you could buy or make it yourself, get it from somebody else, borrow it from someone else, or in the example you gave above, just tell Vel to go **** himself, divide your football team up into two squads of five guys with one sub, and play basketball instead. 
It's complete linear thinking and lack of creativity on your part, which frankly, has typified communist economic planning, and which is among the leading reasons for the ultimate failure of centrally planned economies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
quote:
Profit is inherently inefficient. Beyond normal wages, profit going into the hands of some corporate entity gives no benefit at all. |
Profit is inherently EFFICIENT, because it is something people aspire to and the easiest way (in a legal environment) to get it is to be efficient. A centrally planned system would OBVIOUSLY be more efficient if you could ensure that the central planners were perfect. However, that is not the case, and if you haven't noticed, the things our government does are notoriously INefficient. Why give them control over the market as well? |
1. You are right... sort of... the motivation of profit encourage lower costs. Unfortunately... this means if you aren't a corporate CEO or business owner, you don't reap the rewards. This means job cuts, quality cuts, so some fat cat can enjoy a few more millions. Hardly "efficient".
2. Because government programs are intentionally sabotaged by underfunding, and then fail, the aura of government inefficiency is created. You're young and impressionable, once you reach college age and learn to think critically, you might understand things better.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
The fallacy in your argument is that if there were a better choice for me to make that I would not choose it.
|
I hope you would, but I wonder sometimes... You're the one who contrives scenarios that exclude a number of typical and viable options, not me.
Tell me this, though - are you still working in the same job, at the same pay, as the first ever job you held? Or have you made some "better choices" along the way? And why are you studying accounting, instead of sitting on your ass smoking dope or collecting stamps or doing taxidermy or working a part time extra job at Mickey D's? I assume you're studying accounting for a reason? And that you made a choice to do so, and that you picked accounting for a reason?
quote:
You think that everyone who doesn't profit from the capitalist system is making an irrational choice for themselves.
|
English comprehension, assumption or distortion? I've said they make a choice, I don't put a value judgement on that. The point is, they make choices.
quote:
You always think there is some better choice for them to make for themselves. There isn't MtG. Accept it. |
So you're still working at your first job, for the same wages you made then? And I'm still working as a scab laborer in residential construction, making minimum wage. Ok then. "One pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small; and the ones that mother gives you, don't do anything at all..."
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Let’s say that the capitalist made equal sacrifices. Say he worked in his own business just as one of his employees, and he spent the same amount of his compensation on living. That is, he lived just as modestly as the his employee. The capitalist received the full benefit of his own work while collecting part of the benefit of his employees work. His worker only receives the full benefit of his own work minus the amount that the capitalist has collected in profit from employee’s work.
|
You're right, it's absolutely unfair. The worker is guaranteed certain things by law, like getting paid, and the worker is free to go at any time to any competing job without notice. The poor capitalist owner is the one who sucks it up if there's financial problems, so he might go without pay if he needs the worker's services, or he loses his ass if the business goes under, while the worker just goes to another job.
The owner is the one who spends uncompensated time doing overhead tasks that don't produce revenue, and he's not guaranteed a profit by anyone, while the worker has contract rights to his wages while he works - the owner doesn't even have that, necessarily.
So damn straight the owner should make more for the additional time, effort and risk he puts in. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-11-2003 23:39
Are you serious?
|