 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Kid, the usage fee goes to the state machine (and not to an individual) and therefore, that's okay, even tho it is still a transfer of payment (in this case, from the individual to the state).
That would be like saying that if I own several apartment buildings under the guise of a corporation, my charging them a "usage fee" for the apartments they live in would be okay, since (per your own definition) the money is going to no one in particular, but to the "machine" - it is the same with your example, is it not?
And I disagree.
I am a strapping, strong fellow, but I could not lift anywhere nearly the amount of weight that an olympic bodybuilder could. Thus, he and I are NOT equal in that regard.
Likewise, I have probably forgotten more about computers than most casual users will ever learn. Sit me down in front of a piece of software I have never seen before, and sit someone else down who has used AOL for casual e-mailing, and let's see who figures out the software first.
We are not equal in ability in the least, and tying us to the yoke of the State Machine will not make it so.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, the usage fee goes to the state machine (and not to an individual) and therefore, that's okay, even tho it is still a transfer of payment (in this case, from the individual to the state).
That would be like saying that if I own several apartment buildings under the guise of a corporation, my charging them a "usage fee" for the apartments they live in would be okay, since (per your own definition) the money is going to no one in particular, but to the "machine" - it is the same with your example, is it not?
|
No. The usage fee does not result in a greater distribution of resources going to the state. It's just a method of allocating goods and services among the population. Rent results in one class of people receiving less goods and services than another.
You didn't think that things would actually be free in a communist society did you? That's just crazy Marxist utopia talk. You will still have to pay for things. The difference is that the money you pay is just redistributed back into society, not to a ruling class.
quote:
And I disagree.
I am a strapping, strong fellow, but I could not lift anywhere nearly the amount of weight that an olympic bodybuilder could. Thus, he and I are NOT equal in that regard.
Likewise, I have probably forgotten more about computers than most casual users will ever learn. Sit me down in front of a piece of software I have never seen before, and sit someone else down who has used AOL for casual e-mailing, and let's see who figures out the software first.
We are not equal in ability in the least, and tying us to the yoke of the State Machine will not make it so.
-=Vel=- |
Everyone has some talent that they can use to be productive. Not everyone has equal physical stregth, but if you put people to work at something they are good at they can be productive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Absolutely the "usage fee" to the state results in greater distribution of resources TO the state, and further, it sets up exactly what you describe...a situation whereby a certain class of people (in this case, those who elect NOT to make use of the state's stuff, thereby not paying the usage fee) WILL have greater resources than those who opt to pay into the system.
IE - let's say that every week, you pay the state usage fee of twenty bucks to borrow the communal lawn mower (well, when it's working...since it is community property, nobody is particularly inclined to spend their hard earned dollars to maintain it, and the state maintinance shop hasn't been paid in six months, and are not overly inclined to take care of it either), and I do not.
Over the course of a month, I have longer grass than you, but I also have $80 extra dollars. I use this money to buy myself a goat, who eats the grass and gets me out of trouble with the People's Committee on Good and Proper Grass Length (who can put me in a re-education camp, I presume, if I don't march properly to the People's Drum), and so, I set up a situation whereby, over the course of a year, I will suddenly have more than a thousand MORE dollars than you.
This is not equal, thus, per the definition of your Utopia, it must be evil...no telling what I might do with that extra money...it opens the door for me to do all sorts of exploitation. And over time, the difference between our households will grow. If left unchecked, I will have vastly more financial influence than you....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
I'm still looking for an indication of where I stated you were lazy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
OH and as for the initial question . . . it really depends on how you define freedom. A tighter labor supply willusually lead to higher incomes which provides additional economic freedom. To the extent that lack of funds constricts freedom, an ample labor supply with lower wages would result in less free folks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
What about rights to unionize. It seems to me that the tighter the labor supply that harder business is going to try to make it difficult legally to unionize. If there's plenty of labor supply and/or they can go off shore. They can just let the market take care of their problems. |
You see to me, the tight labour market is one where the bisiness doesn't care as much about union involvement since they have to pay through the nose to get employees anyway and the employees enjoy higher wages and job security, which often make unionization drives tougher.
edit-- we may have to differntiate between mobile and non-mobile industries since it is difficult to talk about a tight or a loose labour market without considering the scope of that market. Obviously a given WAL-MART might face a tight labour market in their city for retail jobs even though there is ample supply elsewhere in the country or around the world.
Last edited by Flubber on 01-12-2004 at 02:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
There is one aspect of Kid’s beliefs that I’m on the same page with.
Yes. We all are beholden to each other. We all, as human beings, bear a responsibility to each other.
Where we differ is in the execution of that responsibility.
For example: I (and many others) would contend that my responsibility to my fellow humans does not extend so greatly that my own, individual needs must play second fiddle. In Kid’s state-mandated Utopia, however, this is what will occur. I will be held back from achieving my full potential, so as not to “have more” or gain an “unfair position” over those who are less motivated or skilled, because that’s just “not fair.”
Never mind that it is equally “not fair” that the state binds my hands and PREVENTS me from achieving my full potential. No…for the greater societal good, as dictated by those who run the State Machine, the “unfairness” I complain about is overlooked, because it is part of the system itself, just as corruption IN the system is looked at as “an abnormal case” and therefore, not part of the norm” even though we all have seen (numerous times) the level of corruption built into EXACTLY this type of highly centralized system.
It’s not my fault that I’m smarter than some. It’s not a crime to have a high IQ, or to have a talent that others do not posses…at least, it’s not a crime in society as we know it. But it IS a crime in Kid’s Utopia. Anything that makes us unequal is criminalized, and to be punished. If not punitively, then by means of economic enstranglement and pandering to the lowest common denominator in the name of some self-described “equality.”
Those who have a different vision of “equality” must be dealt with. Best case, re-education…worst case…I think we all know the implication.
And this is freedom?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Stop trying to bait me. It's not going to work. |
why, pray tell is this baiting??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
There was an interesting debate that talked to the two "versions" of equality and liberty, but I'll be damned if I remember where or when.
The one position was that was espoused by the American founding fathers that spoke towards all men being born/created equal with the intention being that meant all men were given equal opportunity to succeed on their own merits.
The second position derived from the french revolution that spoke more to equality as making all men equal. |
Equality of opportunity-- this seems to be what most democracies strive for but we have the knowledge that opportunity is not equal since more affluent folks have more opportunity
Equality of condition-- thats the communist pipe dream
Of the two, I'll take opportunity. If I started behind the rich thats fine by me . .. All I want is the freedom to aspire to anything I want. The fact that some folks out there have more than me detracts not at all from my happiness and self-worth
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Therein lies the crux. Happiness is what YOU make of it and only YOU can allow yourself to be unhappy. Envy of others condition is simply a means to rationalize your own unhappiness. |
Not quite since others can make me unhappy--- For example expropriating my assets in the name of giving them to someone else. Telling me where and how much I have to work without any ability on my part to negotiate. As long as I have freedom to choose and to keep the fruits of my own labour, I would be somewhat happy
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-11-2004 23:17
.
Kid, do you see what happens when you don't think logically? You end up indignant about a perceived insult and then immediately insult others. 
|