 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
Oh HAIL no.....
No way am I letting the Kidicious One wiggle out of the other thread just because it reached five hundred posts.
To that end, I'm going back through the original thread to piece together his various views to give us a place of beginning for this new and improved thread, cos if the glorious revolution is coming, and Kid is at the head of the Big Red Tide, then I wanna know more about it, so here goes. What follows in italics are direct quotes from the Kid, from the now closed thread, here:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...30&pagenumber=1
From the Desk of Kidicious Prime
Subject: Democratically minded, Non-Totalitarian Communist Utopia Plan Alpha One, to be implemented at the start of the new and improved Glorious Revolution
Statement of Purpose
The purpose and driving reasons behind the Glorious Revolution are these:
Capitalism isn't fair. (and...that's about it)
Work
Definition of "Work:
Work is Physical Labor. Nothing More.
The Walker-Kid Exchange:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So thinking isn't labor? No one who doesn't perform heavy manual work isn't doing "labor"?
(Kid): No. Thinking is labor saving, not labor.
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Ah. I see. So these planners of yours, they won't get paid anything, because they're just thinking, not doing labor?
(Kid): People will get paid for thinking, because it's a value to society. Society benefits from thinking so there should be compensation, just as with labor.
(ed note: Payments for not working. Doesn't sound very fair....especially not to those ditch diggers with spoons!)
***
How Labor is Valued
The value of labor is not the wage they are paid or the market price of what they produce. It's the amount of labor they put in.
(ed note: Thus, the logical conclusion is that the MORE work you do, the more valuable your contribution. No accounting for smart or efficient work. So digging a hole with spoons is more "valuable" under this paradigm than using a bulldozer, because it....adds value to the hole produced?)
He should recieve the same pay for the same amount of work and effort.
(ed note: No mention of differing skill levels. If some nod to worker skill level were included, this would seem to (more or less) work, IF the job in question involved purely physical labor, but if that is the only acceptable definition of work, then the whole model is flawed).
Wage Notes
You can do something that doesn't require intelligence and you have the opportunity to make as much money as anybody else if you work hard.
(ed note: No accounting for the fact that it takes a ditch digger five minutes to learn how to dig a ditch, while it takes a neurosurgeon nearly fifteen years of study to do what he does. Time value of money is notably absent from this equation)
Walker-Kid Clarification:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So an unskilled factory worker can make as much or more as a brilliant manager so long as he "works harder"?
(Kid): Yeah, well the workers will have a say in how the factory is managed regardless.
***
Vel-Kid Exchange:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Okay wait....first you got paid based on how hard you worked...now we're doing it piece rate?
Which is it? I'm not asking to be an arse, but it really DID change in mid-stream.
(Kid): Doesn't working hard allow you to make more?
(Vel): there's a difference between hard work and smart work.
I can take vivarin for a week straight and produce a shiteload of whatever we're making....that's hard work.
Or, I can invent something that streamlines the process.
Now I can make as many as I was making before, but it only takes me six hours of labor instead of eight.
That's smart work.
Under your proposed system, any tool that allows me to do this will mean I get a paycut.
Under the piece-rate system, I'll be able to blow everybody's doors off and get a fat raise.
Can't have it both ways tho.
(Kid): I guess there would have to be a ceiling on your pay, but right now I'm just shooting from the hip.
***
Flubber-Kid Exchange:
Originally posted by Flubber
After all, as I understand it, the value of a product is irrelevant to how much the worker should get paid. Right??
(Kid): The utility value will determine what will be produced, and it what quantity. The worker will be paid by how much he, or they, produce.
***
Berz-Kid Exchange:
(Kid--to Vel)Stop saying that I'm trying to control you. All I'm saying is that we should both be required to put in equal amounts of work and recieve equal compensation.
(Berz)No control there Any volunteers for cleaning toilets or working in a coal mine? I want to be one of the central planners since I'll be getting the same wage as the guy getting black lung.
***
Vel-Kid Exchange:
Originally posted by Velociryx
But under your system, physicial labor is the only thing that counts. A ditch digger "works more" than a book writer. So he'd have to get compensated more, right?
(Kid) Duh! You want to sit on you arse writing books while some poor guy has to dig the ditches then you shouldn't demand more pay. That's just freakin common sense man.
(ed note: Even if my book saved hundreds of billions by lighting the way to increased productivity, the ditch digger did more "work" than me, and should be compensated more. That's one mean ditch!)
***
The Flubber-Kid Exchange:
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
kid , don't you get that giving me extra time off at the same pay would be the same as giving me extra pay
(Kid): They both benefit you, but giving you time off will be easier on the planners often.
Originally posted by Flubber
After all I can work at the other widget factory as well-- If each is willing to give me the standard wage for producing the standard complement of widgets and each will give me time off once it is done, I will still get my higher pay-- you just make me do it the hard way rather than paying me for my productivity
(Kid): No. You can't go and work in the other factory.
(ed note: this also ties in to the section below, regarding the rights of The People....freedom of mobility or freedom to choose where and when to work is apparently disallowed)
***
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
The Kid, on the Rights of his People
I believe in individual rights.
....I want to force you to work....
Equality is the upmost right in my book.
...people have to learn to check their bias and create a system that is fair to everyone regardless of each individuals characteristics - a system that doesn't allow priviledge for any reason what so ever.
(Rebuttal by Berz: But that's your bias - your definition of "fairness". You missed my point, communism is anything but equal. Once you base a system on "we decide, you do", you've lost equality. This privilege doesn't disappear, it just belongs to those in power and their friends and supporters - those who get to decide what's "fair"... )
(ed note: Again, no consideration of different talent or skill levels. These are to be disallowed in the New Utopia, because they're unfair and unequal).
***
Flubber-Kid Exchange:
Originally posted by Flubber
I assume that kid's "we" wouldn't permit me that job anyway. At their morning meeting they would determine that I should dig ditches with my hands before jumping in their state vehicle and heading out to their state dacha.
(Kid): You will absolutely not be allowed to be a whore.
***
The Vel-Kid Exchange:
Originally posted by Velociryx
The thing I don't get is this:
What IS it with you people and this paranoid NEED to control?
This burning NEED to stick your noses into everybody else's business and tell us all how to live, where to live, where we can (and cannot) work. What our maximum salary can be, how we can use our own inventions.....
The list goes on and on.
What is it you are so afraid of?
(Kid): It's neither fear or paranoia. It's a basic desire for justice....For the exploited and oppressed people of the world.
***
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Because you don't trust, the only possible way for their to be justice is to have tight control over every aspect of what everybody in your utopia is doing, how they do it, when and where they do it....the whole ball of wax.
And you're saying that ONLY THEN will we have "justice."
(Kid): This is getting old, and irritating. I advocate collectively organizing our labor, not totalitarianism.
I'm a firm believer in democracy.
The counter-revolutionaries will be crushed with one swift and final blow.
The Vel-Kid Exchange:
(Kid) Forget all that killing for resources. Leave it in the past.
(Vel) Would that be the past right after all the counter-revolutionaries get crushed in one final and swift blow?
The punishment doled out by the non-totalitarian, eminantly democratic regieme?
***
Intellectual Property
(ed note: This relates back to the subject of work. Thinking is not work, and therefore, stealing an idea is non-exploitive, and acceptable in the New Utopia)
Originally posted by Velociryx
Then you're welcome.
The problem with your approach, as I see it, is that any solution TO the problem turns you into what you despise.
If I make something and choose not to cooperate...choose not to just give it up for the state, then your only recourse is to steal MY labor...which is what you say you're against.
That means then, that the entire system built upon a fallacy.
(Kid) I wouldn't be stealing your labor at all. I would be stealing your idea. What is the cost to you?
***
The Kid on Banking
We don't advocate a debt system.
(ed note: and we know from previous conversations that charging interest is exploitive--and thus, forbidden. So without debt, and without interest, the answer to the question is that there would be no need for a banking system. A move which will displace millions of workers when the worldwide implementation occurs. Break out your spoons, we'll suddenly have a LOT of ditch diggers!)
The Kid, on the structure of the society
In the military you are paid while you train. That's pretty much what I advocate.
(ed note: Note the decidedly martial stance of this non-totalitarian, democratic society?)
We're (Reds in general, ed.)pretty united against the old type of centralism.
I'm much more democratic than you, trust me.
The Question of Property Discussed
The Vel-Kid Exchange:
Originally posted by Velociryx
No...that's what happens as a natural extension of respecting property rights.
Or...have you flipped your position on those again, and are now *against* property? (cos last time we crossed swords, you were for property rights...which is wonky for a Red, but... )
(Kid): I have no interest in your toothbrush. You may keep it as your personal property.
Originally posted by Velociryx
so personal property is okay...so long as it's of some predefined dollar value or less. Am I understanding you?
Who sets that value?
How?
(Kid): It's got nothing to do with dollar amount. A toothbrush is not a tool used for exploitation. I acknowledge that we have no valid claim to it.
***
The Kid on Freedom of Thought in his Utopia
Why don't you let us handle the details? You're not a very good communist.
giving incentive for innovation is not as good as originally thought. The more innovation in the economy the more nightmares that are created in planning.
Thinking doesn't exploit labor it contributes to it.
and then the contradictory
Thinking is beneficial to work. It's not exploitive.
Notes
The Kid-Walker Exchange:
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Why don't you just make the point you were trying to make? Assume I say that he should be paid equally for his labor regardless of his output, even though I've said that I don't believe in that numerous times. See why I can't answer that question?
(Walker): Yes, because any answer you give would either be inconsistent with the above claim or with this:
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
No. The value of labor is not the wage they are paid or the market price of what they produce. It's the amount of labor they put in.
***
Side Comments between the Capitalists:
(Kid)The counter-revolutionaries will be crushed with one swift and final blow.
(Vel) See Flubber? It's not totalitarian at all....
(Flubber) yup its the non-totalitarian state where some central planner tells me how many hours to work and what wage I can earn-- Also I am not permitted to employ others for any profit .. . and wrongthinking will be DOUBLEPLUS-UNGOOD.
And since it is "democratic' I am sure the planners will allow us to change things
Observation by Berz: There's something seriously wrong with an ideology that depends on convincing unbelievers they are the victims of exploitation and punishing them for not being convinced. It's like religious fundies and feminists telling porn stars they are being exploited and outlawing their jobs so they can make less money flipping burgers in the coming Great Society...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
Summations (by Vel)
Seems to me that, despite what he says he means to the contrary, Kid's version of the Utopia is all about a level of control that rivals that of The Matrix.
I'm sure he'd be quick to disagree with some or other one sentence answer, but let's take a look:
1) He says all he really wants to do is to collectivize labor BUT
2) He also wants to tell us the types of jobs we can have, control our sum-total hours, places of employment, have "Watchers" or some equivilent of them in place to make sure we don't bend the rules, put caps on our salaries, control innovation, centralize the flow of all goods and services....
That goes well beyond simply collective labor.
He says he's all for democracy, but the system he is describing is inflexible and forceful. THAT's not totalitarian?
We got a handful of hand-picked guys at the top who don't have to "work" (thinking isn't work) (and I'm assuming Kid will style himself as their leader), who are in charge of everything relating to economics in the new commie global economy....but they will use their powers only for good...to help the downtrodden of the world.
Their actions will be democratically guided (unless the democratic decision moves against accepted party dogma, for example...I suspect that the central party will need ultimate veto rights to prevent the masses from voting in Interest rates and re-inventing banking and such), and they won't behave in a totalitarian fashion at all....
....at least not after the dissenters have been crushed to lifelessness in one final and swift blow.
I think that about sums it up.
Do we get cool points and extra rations for turning our neighbors in if we catch them thinking improper, exploitive thoughts?
That's an important consideration, you know....could lead to its own brand of exploitation...not that anybody would ever turn in an innocent neighbor to get a few more breadcrumbs or anything, but.....
Just thinking out loud here.
A Further Summation and thread-closing rebuttal
1)(Kid) Stop saying that I'm trying to control you.
You want to tell me where I can and cannot work, how much I get paid, what I can and cannot do with things I invent, and what I can own. But you're not trying to control me? What would you call it? Justice?
2)(Kid) we should both be required to put in equal amounts of work and recieve equal compensation.
First, your definition of the word "work" is wrong.
Work is not merely physical labor. Work is thinking, designing, creating, analyzing....and a helluva lot more.
I write books. That's work. If you do not believe it, then you have never tried. Try, and you'll quickly change your mind. That's a promise.
But under your system, physicial labor is the only thing that counts. A ditch digger "works more" than a book writer. So he'd have to get compensated more, right?
And how are you gonna compare that, anyway? Caloric burn rate? Do we get paid by the calorie we burn off? If so, sign me up as a People's Sex Worker, please!
I agree...if we're doing the same job, and have the same level of skill AT that job, then the equal work for equal pay mantra works well. The women's movement has used it for years, and I agree with it completely, but that's not what you want.
In your world, its all backwards. The least skilled workers get paid more...why? Because they have to "work harder" to get the same job done.
Why would anybody use a bulldozer to dig a ditch? I can work a LOT harder by using a shovel, or for that matter, a toothpick, so if we're being paid for amount of work put into a project, then hand me that toothpick and get out of my way! Or are you going to send a People's Job Methodology Inspector by to MAKE me use a bulldozer (but, you know, in a non-controlling way).
(Kid)Our complaint is that we have to work harder than others.
As soon as you begin using a realistic system of the definition of work, we can begin to have serious discussions about this topic. For the moment, your only position is that sweat-labor is work, and the rest is....fluff. At best. And you could not be more incorrect.
As to your having to work harder than me....I doubt that. We can compare notes any time you like, but you'll probably be disappointed.
3) But yeah. Let's say wages are universally set at $15 per hour. Would YOU go out for a People's Happy Meal? It'd be so expensive that if you did, you could MAYBE afford to do it once a month.
4) (posted by Flubber) The name Stalin never was mentioned once by me . . . but if you want to
1. FORCE me to do work a job you determine for a wage you determine and
2. Take any innovations of mine and appropriate them to the state
then you are proposing a totalitarian state
Exactly. Where is the democratic element of this? Please feel free to point it out to me.
5)(Kid) We want to make it fair.
And who decides what is "fair" - the handful of people (you included) on the central planning committee, who dictate "fairness" from on high, and use "terrible and swift blows" to mete out "justice" against anyone who disagrees? VERY democratic.
Or, is fairness decided by global vote? If so, what happens when the People disagree with the Central Planning Committee about what's fair? Do you cry foul and demand a do-over, or just do some more "terrible and swift blows" on those counter-revolutionaries who are thinking improperly?
There are lots of others, but....that's a decent start.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
I just read it
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
While Vel has hit a lot of the quotes, Ill be more general.
Kid you seem to be advocating "equality of condition" where essentially everyone has the same amount of "stuff" and earns the same amount. This just can't happen in a free society.
1.Even if everyone out there made exactly the same income, I would acquire more stuff than my smoking drinking neighbor. so I get a nicer couch and TV, perhaps I get a car while he rides the bus-- Bottom line is some people will be foolish with their earnings-- Do you give them a couch and a car too.
2. THE HARD WORKER WILL EARN MORE -- why? because they will offer to do extra work for their fellow employees. There will always be someone that will hate a chore enough that they will pay someone else to do it. So unless you make THIS illegal, I will both earn more and have more.
3. Over time this will accumulate until I am relatively wealthy-- I'm sure you will find a way to claim this is unfair-- even if every bit of my wealth was through hard physical labour
I believe in equality of opportunity. What that means in Canada is free choice of what you want to do with your life. We have a ways to go to achieve it in practice and its not perfect-- but to me its like democracy-- preferable to all the alternatives
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
Excellent points, and I'd like to add to them:
Let's say that it is the decision of the People's Planning Committee that everybody will get a brand new $50,000 vehicle on implementation day.
But see...I don't care about cars. As long as it gets me from point A to point B, I'm happy.
My next door neighbor has an old Ford truck, and I like that. So I give him my $50k Car (he wanted an extra one), and he gives me his truck and $30k dollars.
At this point, have we broken any rules of the Utopia?
If not....I now have the potential for a LOT more stuff, on account of the fact that I'm driving a cheaper car, and can now go out and have a big deck built onto the back of my house and the hot tub installed.
But wait...doesn't that mean I got more "stuff" than my neighbors now?
I mean, it's not fair that I have a hot tub and they don't, right? So....what's the solution? You gonna come confiscate it? Make me give it back? Insist that everybody in the neighborhood be given equal access TO the hot tub? What?
And what if I CHOOSE to be "exploited"?
What if I offer to cut my neighbor's lawn for thirty bucks? Who gets arrested in that situation? Him, for exploiting me...me for asking him to, or both of us for reinventing the banned system?
If I do that enough, won't I start making a lot more money than all my neighbors? And with that money, do you not imagine that I'll be able to buy more stuff than them?
Or is there some mechanism in place that...every month or so, we'll gather up all of everyone's posessions and re-distribute them equally, so it's never "unfair" for more than a week or so?
-=Vel=-
EDIT: And to prevent human habits from entering into the equation (like smoking, in Flubber's example above), will it be a national requirement that everybody smokes two packs a day? That way we're all consuming the exact same amount.
Of course, we'll have to ration everything that way then. X gallons of gas, and no more, per week. X pounds of food. Cos if I eat less...I could save money and have more than my neighbors, and that wouldn't be fair. True?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Flubber,
I can't respond to your PM because my response had too many characters. Do you mind if I post it here? |
Go for it
I only Pmed you since I had not seen this thread and did not want to be the one to restart all this--
Now that its going, fire away
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Flubber wrote on 21-08-2004 10:27:
Just so you know
1. I do mow my own lawn  ( built my deck, moved 12 cubic meters of dirt in a day and laid my sod too-- so what?) -- I actually find it relaxing--but at some point in my life maybe I won't due to age, illness or whatever . . . or maybe I want to help out the kid next store by giving him pocket money .. . but having him earn it-- so maybe someday I will have someone else mow my lawn-- but I doubt I could ever afford to give money that would equal my own wage rate, whatever that is.
|
It wouldn't be necessary for you to help him. That's the beauty of communism. He doesn't need you anymore.
quote:
2. You will have to explain again how it could ever happen that its unfair to NOT work in your system. After all we are both earning your state mandated wage. If my family unit decides we can do with one icome who does that hurt? Also how could anyone else need to work more than us since they make the same wage too?? Why should I be governed by someone else's greater consumption needs?
|
I don't know how to explain it too you better. We will all share the work. It doesn't matter how much you need to work. The work needs to be done, and we will all pitch in our fair share.
quote:
3. I have never seen you cover off the choice of jobs issue. If the wages were the same for everything, I wouldn't do what I do nor would my wife do what she does. I would probably want to be a park warden, fisheries officer, security guard, construction site sign holder, maybe even a gardener. If all wages are the same, I don't know how you get enough people to agree to be a coal miner or a sailor on a cargo ship or heck even a lawyer-- My job is ok but if it all pays the same anyway, I'd rather be my assistant or the guy that brings around the juice or water. There would be lots of jobs that hardly anyone would want, how do you deal with it?
|
You want to be a security guard? Interesting. I don't think many people would want to do that. Maybe you will be able to do that if it pays more. As for jobs like coal miner, it's not fair to make people do that for anymore than a couple years I think.
quote:
4. Lastly, your last few responses to me started to feel like personal shots. I can take it but it was unwarranted since I have taken none at you. Also I think real life examples help poke holes in your theoretical models since there is a marked absence of reality in your models.
|
It wasn't meant to hurt you. You claim that a system where some have to work harder for less money is fair. How can I argue against that?
quote:
My demotivating job for instance-- it wasn't just me. In that government agency there were about 40 employees. About 30 of them were old hands, there forever . . . competent but it was unthinkable to expect them to work 10 seconds past quitting time. About 10 were younger and more recently moved in from private industry and I saw the same thing every time . .. a flurry of extra effort was easily noticed but never rewarded. People working extra ( and I mean a LOT extra) were seeing the half day taken from their vacation entitlement when they had an appointment etc etc. There was a set of strict rules governing our agency from a central authority that had to be applied. One by one I saw all these folks stop working so hard . .. we all punched our time but being high achievers and hard workers, eventually we all left. Why we find fulfillment in working hard in a system where hard work is rewarded
|
You know these are just the kind of problems that a lot of people would kill to have. Sorry.
quote:
My bottom line is that if you pay people for punching eight hours, eight hours get punched. If you reward them for desirable results, you get those results.
|
Some times it's difficult to pay people for results, but when did I say that you shouldn't when it's possible. I have repeatedly advocated it on this thread.
quote:
Finally, the reason I hate your theories is there is no getting ahead. Even if you equalized us all at the start so we all started from the exactly same starting point in every respect, you would deny me the right to work harder to better my condition since it would be unfair if I actually got something not everyone else has. You want equality of condition and you just can't get it without regimenting strictly EVERYTHING. You give two people the same money-- I eat less and don't drink or smoke so I buy a nicer car-- or maybe I buy that bulldozer so I could conceivably earn more. But you would either deny me the extra income or moan that the smoker/drinker didn't have the same opportunity or whatever.
|
Yes. I'm opposed to you being ahead of me. Getting ahead rarely has to do with fairness in my book. You will have to justify it some how to convince me. How are people who don't get ahead inferior?
quote:
Thats it. I doubt I will ever convince you of anything. My view is that your ideas are an unworkeable pipe dream. But it sometimes can be a fun exercise in logic to argue about it . I enjoy this occasionally. Its fun watching you turn tourself in knots trying to get your theories to work in the real world
|
I once believed like you. The thing I cared about most was playing the game and getting ahead. I realized that no one wants to play fair, and people started pre judging me before I had a chance to prove myself. I lost interest. Then I started to see how the system truly works, and I studied peoples true motivations.
I've been a communist for 4 years now. I doubt that you will change my perception of the world, but go ahead and try, and I know you can't change my experience.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
Sure thing...even tho you're exploiting me, making me do your work...but here goes....
1) Do you believe/understand the concept of the time-value of money? How does this get worked into the wage-equality system where You can do something that does not require intelligence and have the opportunity to make just as much money by working hard I mean, if I study Neurosurgery for FIFTEEN YEARS....does that time just not count? Why should the guy who spent five minutes learning to dig a ditch make as much as me? Is that "fair" according to your definition? If so...how, exactly?
2) Why is Physical Labor and ONLY Physical Labor "work" Why does analysis, planning, designing, and thinking not count as work. What specifically makes physical labor so different from these that it needs a special category?
3) Let's say that it is the decision of the People's Planning Committee that everybody will get a brand new $50,000 vehicle on implementation day.
But see...I don't care about cars. As long as it gets me from point A to point B, I'm happy.
My next door neighbor has an old Ford truck, and I like that. So I give him my $50k Car (he wanted an extra one), and he gives me his truck and $30k dollars.
At this point, have we broken any rules of the Utopia?
4) If not....I now have the potential for a LOT more stuff, on account of the fact that I'm driving a cheaper car, and can now go out and have a big deck built onto the back of my house and the hot tub installed.
But wait...doesn't that mean I got more "stuff" than my neighbors now?
I mean, it's not fair that I have a hot tub and they don't, right? So....what's the solution? You gonna come confiscate it? Make me give it back? Insist that everybody in the neighborhood be given equal access TO the hot tub? What?
5) And what if I CHOOSE to be "exploited"?
What if I offer to cut my neighbor's lawn for thirty bucks? Who gets arrested in that situation? Him, for exploiting me...me for asking him to, or both of us for reinventing the banned system?
6) If I do that enough, won't I start making a lot more money than all my neighbors? And with that money, do you not imagine that I'll be able to buy more stuff than them?
7) is there some mechanism in place that...every month or so, we'll gather up all of everyone's posessions and re-distribute them equally, so it's never "unfair" for more than a week or so?
8) to prevent human habits from entering into the equation (like smoking, in Flubber's example above), will it be a national requirement that everybody smokes two packs a day? That way we're all consuming the exact same amount. Of course, we'll have to ration everything that way then. X gallons of gas, and no more, per week. X pounds of food. Cos if I eat less...I could save money and have more than my neighbors, and that wouldn't be fair. True?
9) (taken from a question by Flubber) Even if everyone out there made exactly the same income, I would acquire more stuff than my smoking drinking neighbor. so I get a nicer couch and TV, perhaps I get a car while he rides the bus-- Bottom line is some people will be foolish with their earnings-- Do you give them a couch and a car too.
(and your reply) No, of course not. Why can't you understand that I believe in fairness. Fairness is not a difficult concept.
My question to this is....why NOT give him a couch and a car!? It's just not fair that he has less than Flubber! Isn't that what you've been arguing against the entire time?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
But wait...doesn't that mean I got more "stuff" than my neighbors now?
(your response) No. He has the stuff that he wants and you have the stuff that you want. How can you compare the two.
Kid....if YOU can compare the two, then it is fair game for me to do so as well.
Your big beef is that you don't want anybody being able to get ahead of you.
So maybe the guy who I sold my fancy car to didn't KNOW he wanted a hot tub until he saw mine. People's needs, wants, and desires DO change over time, you know?
So now he DOES NOT have all the stuff he wants, cos he wants a hot tub too. So it's not fair that I have one, and he doesn't. Right?
What to do? Do I have to reverse the transaction where I sold him the car and sell him my hot tub? But then, I was the one who wanted the hot tub in the first place...so that wouldn't be very fair to me, would it?
Is The State going to make me share it with my neighbors who are now green with envy? Equal access to my hot tub (which is MINE, by the way, since it is a piece of property that cannot be used to exploit someone else....hot chicks who love hot tubs notwithstanding.... )
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-08-2004 22:06
|