 |
| |
|
|
JMarks
|
 |
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
the reason you never should vote right-wing is that you make the less talented people work for existence minimum. the labour unions has fought against this for over 100 years now. |
Funk,
I don't know what right wingers in Europe are for (and I also can't remember if your from Europe or not, but hey) but in America a right winger doesn't MAKE people work for less, nor is for that. Rather, he is for a free market, which means some people might get the short end of the stick. But rember, they don't make anyone work for less. As opposed to the left wing libs that MAKE employers pay (and not fire in some cases, even if the employee is incredibly inept). Labor unions are a mixed blessing. Need I mention the teamsters?
Oh, and right wingers want to drop unemployment subsidies (welfare) for the most part, because people are willing to live on bare minimums if they don't have to work. Just sit around on your butt, watch the game while other poor saps work, and drink your Bud Light. Yep, thats the life. 
Ioanes
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JMarks
|
|
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by uncle_funk
exactly. which means the most productive and innovative people get rich, and the worthless worker get just enough food for the day.
yes they do. this will be the final consequences.
better than to work hard 10 h/day for bare minimums. just not human worthy. |
OK, so why should, as you say, worthless workers get the same salary as the productive and innovative? Hey, a person who doesn't give a rip shouldn't get squat from the government. Even if he barely sqeeks by he is in much better condition than most people in third world countries. There they truely have to WORK for even food.
No, they don't force anyone to do anything. The final consequence might be for worthless workers to get little, but would you pay for a worthless product or good? Would you tip (assuming its still an option in Europe) a rude and surely waiter?
Oh, and whats not human worthy is to sit on ones butt and cash in your welfare check. The idle bum is a non human, a person who works hard to support his family, though he may be tired and stiff, is. Welfare is just (for the most part, with the exceptions where it is truely worthy for society to do so) taking money from those who did something with there lives, who did the work, and giving it to someone who wouldn't lift a finger to do a job.
Oh, and heres a proverb, just for fun.
The slothful man buries his hand in the bowl; it wearies him to bring it back to his mouth.
Cheerio!
Ioanes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Juggernaut
|
 |
Hint: the flag
Jun 2001
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JMarks
OK, so why should, as you say, worthless workers get the same salary as the productive and innovative? |
not the exactly the same, that would be against the supply & demand -rule. but anyone who works fulltime, doing society more effective, should have a standard salary, unless he doesn't work for less by free will (like as apprentice).
quote:
Even if he barely sqeeks by he is in much better condition than most people in third world countries. |
is this really an excuse?
quote:
No, they don't force anyone to do anything. The final consequence might be for worthless workers to get little, but would you pay for a worthless product or good? |
this has nothing to do with the final product. a worthless worker, as defined by me, is a non-intellectual person with absolutely nothing more than his hands to live on. if this person makes worthless product's, he'll get sacked pretty fast. he'll quickly be degraded to a job he can manage and perform well, like assisting selling bananas. and though he works as much as the persons getting a real salary, he barely manage to mute his hunger. since there aint as much demand for his services as ie. michael jordan's, he shouldn't get as much paid, that's pretty obvius. but shouldn't you really get more for doing the best you can?
conclusion: in right-wingers' society this talent-less man is doomed to a life just above slavery. this is something i never can/will accept.
/a.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
November Adam
|
 |
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jul 2001
time: 22:14
|
|
Well here it is my very first post! Had a chance to read the posts in regard to capitalism vs. socialism.
Hailing from Canada I've had a taste of both.
Funk, you raise an interesting point about a person working for next to nothing and being a slave to capitalism. So do you think a person can't be a slave under a socialist economy?
I would argue that everyone would be a slave then, as the government would control all aspects of the economy, stifiling incentive to improve. Stifiling growth, and freedom. While socialism is pure in intent, in practice it will always become corrupted.
When socialism becomes corrupt it seeps into other aspects of government, and when you have one large body that controls everything you have slavery.
While capitalism is inherently corrupt, you spread it over such a large area, it loses its intensity. Some would argue that corporations start to take over the postition of a corrupt socialist government. It is in competition with others so they have to maintain a sound relationship with the average Joe.
This sounds like I'm very pro capitalist, which I'm not... I believe a balance must be achieved. Which is very difficult to do.
Well I hope this little tirade made sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JMarks
|
|
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
November Adam,
Nice post! The only thing I dissagree with is that all systems are inherintly corrupt due to the human factor. Man is sinfull. All systems could work and be very good if not for us! Yes, even capitalism. Everyone gets a job and everyone benifits from the wealth created. [Utopian harps playing the background] Same for Socialism, only we redistribute the wealth. [More Utopian harps]
You got it for the most part.
Unca' Funk,
My point about people in third world countries is that (exept in war torn areas) even though they work hard for a living, they make a good living (though evidently not by your standards, they don't even have a TV). As opposed to the bum who sits on his behind and collects from big brother. If you ask me, the former has a better life.
My affidavis this: I do not want a single penny (red or otherwise) to go to someone who could be making a decent living for himself, or someone who has family that could take care of him. (for you feminists out there the masculine is used when refering to a non-specific gender, but has to be either male or female, ei can't be nueter, though I would tend to give more exceptions to the female, particularly widows with young children, boy this is a long paranthetical phrase)
Ioanes
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-07-2001 18:26
|
|