 |
| |
|
|
Adalbertus
|
 |
Cologne, Germany
Feb 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
David Floyd,
I hope you'll never be in a situation where you need the help of others.
More specifically about your position about (not) supporting parents: You seem to forget that everyone of us needs younger people. Who wipes your a.. when you're 80 years old and cannot do it yourself? People who are at least 25 years younger than you or nobody. This is not a matter of money only. If there are no younger people, all your money doesn't help. Giving the expenses to raise children only to parents is unfair - and when there are not enough the children might say "we're only caring for our own parents". No money would help. There is no way to reward the parents when you need the help of their children.
There are also other problems in your calculation. If a hurricane destroys all someone has built in the last 10 or 20 years ... (and for Germans, and very realistic: a flood) ... is it his fault? A bleeder, who needs quite often a transfusion and gets HIV infected ... is it his fault?
You should rethink your extreme position. None of us can survive only on his/her own. We have to support each other. What we have to take care for is that there is nobody who exploits this, but this is a different problem - and indeed a problem.
On another thought: I really think that most of the stock market as it is today is a bad thing. The original idea - and which in itself is good - is that enterprises with good ideas can get money from those who have it. But that's not any more the rule which governs stock market. The ruling forces are to produce strong ups and downs in share values so that those who are smart enough can get maximum profit. Unfortunately these people have the most power. But this is detrimental as well for the enterprise itself as for national economy. The purpose of an enterprise should be to provide jobs and produce products which are needed. This is what we as individuals and as nations need. This is contradictory to an oscillating stock value which gives maximum profit. Moreover, brokers themselves are not productive. Nobody really needs selling/buying of shares. It doesn't procude food nor knowledge nor entertainment nor anything else (ok, a bit of entertainment, but not really). What we need is food, cars, houses, computers, music etc. But the focus nowadays lies on those non-productive businesses. Which I think is a really bad thing.
So, my initial suggestion would be: heavy taxes on buying/selling stock (or on the money gained this way), and tax-free dividends (I wonder if taxes on dividends are even legal: On buying a share, you are co-owner of an enterprise. Which means the money the enterprise earns is partially yours. Why should you pay a tax on money that is yours?). If I'm not mistaken this should increase the shareholder's interest in the long-term development of a company - which doesn't exist at the moment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:22
|
|
I've always praised our system for helping the poor, sick and old. Now I'm friggin sick of it. In theory it sounds nice and all, but if it only worked like it supposed to be working.
Healthcare.. free education.. sounds good? Sure..
Few examples for our hard working in taking care of our own:
Veterans. Who is taking care of them? No one. People who give money to charity. Yeah sure they get a paycheck amount of piss, it's an insult. Maybe they get to go to a cheap vacation once in 2 years IF they are even able to. They're soon all dead, gratitude is long due.
And what about drug addicts? They are people too, and according to our system they must have treatment too. Many of them simply die in the line of waiting, others won't even get it. What a good system this is!
So it's helping selected people after all? And not all?
And my own experience. I went to social whatever it's called because I was living in home (parents house) and they had moved to the US, I lost my sponsoring and didn't have a job. No savings. Needless to say I got hungry! So I called them up and when I finally got in touch, I got service like I was Hitler and needed to be killed. So I finally had an appointment there, and just avoided the bouncer who was about to kick my ass for some reason (and for real too). Then there was this ***** who looked like she was about to kill herself tonight. Did I get my check? HELL NO! 'Do you have any property?' '... umm not really.. well.. I have a motorcycle?' 'And you don't pay rent?' 'Nope..' 'Sell stuff.. you won't be getting as long as you have big property'.. I was like WTF is this ****. I know I have a RIGHT to have that basic help but oh no.. then she said 'you can complain about this of course.. '.. yeah sure.. and what was I supposed to eat meanwhile, like few weeks? I wanted to kill her so bad. So this is the great system, that's nice to know. In order to have checks, I have to be a professor or rocket scientist with no property at all, or bs in the applications.
After that I went outside for a smoke to cool down, she had a new 'client' and it ended up in tears and yelling. A mother of 3 (accorind to her) came out mumbling out bad words and ruined day.
There are so much of these free loaders who bs a lot, and know how to beat the system, ultimately watching tv and sitting on their ass and getting so good checks it's not even worth getting a job. And that IS the reality.
I'm so pissed about it I can't even put it in words.
Then the free education. That is actually good, I like it too. It dependes where you live, the quality really really really sucks sometimes. I mean really sucks. No one really gives a damn. I can count the universitys with my fingers. So you can't really choose where do you want to go, or if you are lucky, everything clicks and you like the place and get to study what you want. Maybe.
Sure it's nice that every kid gets equal chance.. but is it really equal since the qualities varies SO much? It was just in the news so no arguing there.
Plus we haven't really seen the true effects of this system. We will in few years when there are large numbers of people retiring (lots of kids after the war).
And it looks like a bomb to the system.
And what about the quality of health stuff? Supposed to be good in most places.. but that again dependes where you live. Again I have my own experience. Some years ago I was active hockey player. I broke few ribs, I went to a doctor.. She said it was nothing. She spent maybe 1 minute with me. I was saying please Oh please take me to x-ray , it really hurts. Nope.. No way. Your time is OVER. I was not sure about it, so I went to a private doc, paid big bucks and yep... broken ribs 'it's good you came, if you continued playing, this could of been really really dangerous for example ribs breaking lungs'. So there we have. Shitty doctors are many. It doesn't cost much.. but hey I'm ready to pay for it if quality is guaranteed. Every time I go to my local place the same doctor wanders in the hall like a Zombie because he's been working for 18h straight, but they can't pay for another doctor. Real Nice.
Personally? I have nothing BUT bad experiences about these free stuff. And lots of people get just the goods from it. People have learned it, I bet it's easy if you don't have any moral in you.
Are there any downsides to this wonderfull system? Hell yes! The taxes are so high, that you can't succeed economically really. After my folks went to US , they started pissing money out of everywhere just working.
And not in local standards, in our finnish standards. They pay taxes there, not a problem.
Dog eat dog.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adalbertus
On another thought: I really think that most of the stock market as it is today is a bad thing. The original idea - and which in itself is good - is that enterprises with good ideas can get money from those who have it.
|
Raising finance is one aspect, another is that you can more easily sell your share of a company.
Private company shareholders can not as easily sell shares as Public company shareholders.
quote:
But that's not any more the rule which governs stock market. The ruling forces are to produce strong ups and downs in share values so that those who are smart enough can get maximum profit. |
If you are making money merely on the ups and downs, you are just as likely to win as to lose. To beat the market someone else must lose to it. And its pot luck who it is. It is thus not the main purpose of the market, anymore than foreign exchanges are centres designed to make profit on currency fluctuation. It happens, but it is not the purpose around which things are dictated.
When most people buy shares, they are looking usually looking for capital growth or dividends. Strong ups and downs are not what are sort. The fluctuations in share price is due to the perceived risks and returns of a company. I don't see how you think that even if stock brokers wanted ups and downs that they would be able to make ups and downs. If it was as easy as that then we could all do it!
quote:
So, my initial suggestion would be: heavy taxes on buying/selling stock (or on the money gained this way), |
I disagree, gains on shares should be taxed at the same rate that you tax the gain on any other commodity bought and sold for a gain.
quote:
and tax-free dividends (I wonder if taxes on dividends are even legal: On buying a share, you are co-owner of an enterprise. Which means the money the enterprise earns is partially yours. Why should you pay a tax on money that is yours?). If I'm not mistaken this should increase the shareholder's interest in the long-term development of a company - which doesn't exist at the moment. |
Tax free dividends? You might aswell eliminate corporation tax aswell, they are effectively the same thing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
che,
quote:
But when we move into a socialist society, that right will become a privelege, and will only be allowed so long as it does not hinder the development of society. When it does, their property will become common property, as it was in the begining. |
OK, first of all I understand your point about most current property (by which I assume you mean mainly land) being the result of theft. I agree with you, in many cases.
But what I was talking about was the natural right to property, to own one's own labor, and to me, this is a right that exists regardless of who is in power, or what economic philosophy they subscribe to.
Adalbertus,
quote:
David Floyd,
I hope you'll never be in a situation where you need the help of others. |
Well, I hope not too - I believe in self sufficiency.
quote:
More specifically about your position about (not) supporting parents: |
When did I ever say people should not support their parents? Please, point that out. *I* remember saying that family is part of the natural social net, and that family members should help each other.
quote:
There are also other problems in your calculation. If a hurricane destroys all someone has built in the last 10 or 20 years ... (and for Germans, and very realistic: a flood) ... is it his fault? |
Certainly not, but it isn't my fault either. And reasonably, someone should not put themselves in a position where they are totally wiped out by one event - they should have savings, for example, that could help them get through hard times. It is certainly their fault if they didn't save, but a flood or someone's lack of savings is never my fault, or my responsibility.
quote:
A bleeder, who needs quite often a transfusion and gets HIV infected ... is it his fault? |
No, it's the fault of the person who donated blood, of course. It's certainly not MY fault.
quote:
You should rethink your extreme position. None of us can survive only on his/her own. We have to support each other. |
Which is why I support the existence of private charity and the notion of families helping each other. I don't support the notion of involuntary public charity, though.
Imran,
quote:
And no, I'm not comparing you, Floyd, to Hitler. Well not entirely anyway |
Well, that's good, because my positions have entirely nothing to do with those of the Nazis 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
That applies to the rich and famous also. |
Certainly. But in his example, it applies more to poor people.
quote:
Why? Malnutrition slows down the ability to learn. So the cycle goes on if kids are left this way. |
I'm not talking about passing Calculus III, I'm talking about not starving. You can get a job at Wendy's without advanced math.
quote:
Not only is that rude stereotyping but I seriously doubt you could prove your hate remarks. |
The proof lies in their actions. If a group of poor people get together to rob a smaller group of well off people of their property, and in some cases, their life and liberty, then those poor people are certainly greedy, immoral, murdering thieves.
quote:
What helping out a fellow citizen? So you think leaving the cycle to continue and grow is the best solution? Wierd. |
Well, a bunch of people saying that unless a group of other people give them a percentage of their money, they'll just take all of it, sounds very much like extortion to me. Or maybe I'm using the wrong word - whatever, it's a criminal act.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
1. Ever feed a family on a wendy's pay? |
No, but if you can't afford a family on Wendy's pay you have three obvious alternatives: don't have a family, work another job, your wife gets a job.
quote:
2. If you do not feed the kids thye end up on a wendy's payroll |
If you can't bring your kids up with the financial resources you have, don't have kids
quote:
3. Do you think 2-14 year-old kids should work at wendy's? |
I don't think they should, but I think that if, say, a 12 year old has the ability to work and meets Wendys' requirements he should not be legally prevented from working.
quote:
Owners of banks and corporations do that too, |
The difference is you can opt out of banks, and you don't have to purchase goods from corporations you don't like. But I never said the poor had a monopoly on "evilness".
quote:
rich people rob and kill too. Your hatred of poor people is pathetic. |
I don't hate the poor. I don't hate anyone. I'm simply very much against those who would steal in order to better themselves.
quote:
Banks do it everyday so do other business owners. |
You don't have to use a bank, and can you be more specific when you refer to businesses?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
che,
OK, first of all I understand your point about most current property (by which I assume you mean mainly land) being the result of theft. I agree with you, in many cases.
But what I was talking about was the natural right to property, to own one's own labor, and to me, this is a right that exists regardless of who is in power, or what economic philosophy they subscribe to. |
It also includes capital, as rents on stolen land as well as the profits from stolen labor are converted into capital. There's no way around the original sin of capitalism.
On your second point, labor is not property, it is an activity. You cannot own labor. The ability to labor, i.e., labor-power, is however property, and no better system than capitalism has yet been devised to remove from people their right to freely dispose of their labor-power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
It also includes capital, as rents on stolen land as well as the profits from stolen labor are converted into capital. There's no way around the original sin of capitalism. |
Much of this stolen land was stolen before capitalism existed, and very little was stolen in the name of capitalism. Let's not blame capitalism in general for the actions of the morally corrupt and the empire builders.
quote:
On your second point, labor is not property, it is an activity. You cannot own labor. |
Labor is certainly an activity, and one can own the products of that activity. When I say that I own my labor, what I really mean is that I own the products of my labor.
Now, I know where you're gonna take this, and if I decide to contract with someone else to sell them my labor (the products of my labor) in exchange for a specified amount of goods or services, that is certainly my prerogative.
quote:
The ability to labor, i.e., labor-power, is however property, and no better system than capitalism has yet been devised to remove from people their right to freely dispose of their labor-power. |
That's certainly not the case. Capitalism - at least laissez faire - thrives on voluntary contracts between individuals or groups of individuals. Translation - if you don't want someone else to own the products of your labor, fine. Don't contract with them for that to be the case. It's your choice. I'm sure you can be totally self-sufficient on your own farm, in your own log cabin, with no running water or indoor plumbing.
But that's sorta the point. While someone COULD be totally self-sufficient, and retain all of the products of their own labor, why would they want to? I'd much rather have electricity, running water, a nice apartment, a car, etc., and to get those things, I have to contract with others - I work for an employer, who pays me for my labor. I then use that compensation in order to pay others for their labor (or, more accurately, reimburse those who paid others for their labor) so that I can obtain goods and services.
Frankly, I fail to see the problem with this system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
blackice, ever read Merchants of Misery? It's all about the poverty industry, the financial institutions that exist specficically to prey upon the poor. Since the poor are more likely to have no credit or poor credit they get denied bank accounts, and have to rely upon currency exchanges, payday loans, etc. It makes for some really grim reading. "Financing" the poor was a growth industry in the '90s, making massive profits. Then there's the abuse, including physical violence, extotions, and trading for sex that goes on by folks lower in the industry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
You are a woman divorced and had poor parents and little education. Again it is a cycle you can not ignore it. |
Look, you can contrive any example you want to. What it's going to come down to is, first of all, other people's problems are not my own, and secondly, there are multiple avenues people can take in order to help themselves, such as church, charity, and family.
quote:
Kids happen ask any parent again it seems you simply ignore reality because to you it is simple and or does not exsist in your perfect world. |
Kids happen because of an act called sex. Sex, I hope you will agree, does not "just happen".
Call it whatever you like - if a 13 year old is able and willing to work, I see no legal reason they should not be allowed to, although I would certainly hope the parents in question would put the kid's education first.
quote:
Evil is out thier in all classes to single one out is to promote hate against that class of people. |
I was singling out poor people (more accurately, poor people willing to steal in order to better themselves) because we were talking about various forms of welfare and entitlements.
quote:
No problem, then why single out poor people? Is it because they can not afford to defend themselves and make for easy prey? |
No, it's because that's what we were talking about at the time. You wanna talk about evil rich men? Fine, I have no problem with that, they are certainly out there.
quote:
I get it you cash your wendy's check at the local money mart which robs you blind because you do not have a bank account. |
If you're worried about the money mart, then use the bank. Open a checking account, you earn interest on your money and its easy to find free checking. Let's not be ridiculous here.
What I think you were referring to are bank loans, and specifically interest rates on those loans. My point was, if you don't like the interest rates, don't take out loans.
quote:
Look if you invest in these people you have more people with money and less people without. Simple really the cycle stops. |
I'm not concerned with this abstract "cycle", I'm concerned with the integrity of my property rights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
banks employ a form of legal extortion. |
Wait a second. Banks are a totally voluntary institution - you don't have to use a bank. Taxes and government are not voluntary. Yet banks employ "legal extortion" and governments do not? That isn't too consistent.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
It does just happen, condoms break etc. |
The sure way to avoid having children is to not have sex.
quote:
Parents that have no money? You seem to go all over the map here and are hard to follow. |
What are you talking about? I was talking about letting 13 year olds work.
quote:
poor prople can not open bank accounts. |
I have one. I've always had one, and I'm certainly not rich.
But you know what? Even assuming you are correct, there is no reason a group of poor people can't come together and form their own private bank.
quote:
Which will be threatened even more if you ingore the widening gap between rich and poor. |
Yes, they will be threatened as a result of poor people acting immorally and resorting to theft.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
che is absolutely correct. Capitalism is built upon centuries of coercion. The "capitalist" revolutions in Napoleonic France, Cromwellian England, etc., etc. were founded upon the enclosure of communal peasant lands (hence, for instance, the odd bedfellows in 19th century Latin America when the peasantry and the conservatives consistently allied against the liberals). And this phenomenon continues to this day. |
I would not call Cromwellian England or Napoleonic France capitalist, by any means, nor would I call the regimes that followed them capitalist.
quote:
The problem with libertarian capitalist philosophy is that its adherents believe that coercion to protect property is perfectly fine, but only the property claims that already have state recognition should be respected (see the perspectives they tend to have on land reform). |
Find me a living person who has been outright robbed of his land or property, and I'll be more than happy to see that he gets it back. Otherwise, you are simply proposing slavery reparations on a large scale, which is preposterous. I did nothing to American Indians, and you can't find a living one who was alive during the time of "Manifest Destiny", and all that. Where's the logic in harming an innocent person (me) in order to give land to someone who never owned it and was never harmed by me owning it?
Now, show me that the land I currently live on was stolen from a living person, and I'll be happy to vacate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
I would not call Cromwellian England or Napoleonic France capitalist, by any means, nor would I call the regimes that followed them capitalist. |
Well, the general elements of capitalism were there (i.e. those societies were what most capitalists would consider capitalist). Under a libertarian capitalist definition, capitalism may not have existed there (and in fact, never existed except in socialist societies), but that's why I put the word in quotes.
quote:
Otherwise, you are simply proposing slavery reparations on a large scale, which is preposterous. |
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the libertarian concept of absolute property rights is faulty, and the moral situation is much more ambiguous than y'all make it out to be. The only proposition I'm making is that in certain circumstances (namely in those where such action would reduce coercion), it is perfectly just for workers to seize the means of production through force.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2002 04:41
good one, speaking of rediculous. 
|