 |
| |
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Really, so if I starve someone to death, it is starvation that kills them and not me.
What about negligence?
You really don't want to go down this road.  |
Ugh, I know where you are going, and I think its dumb, so I'll take a stroll down irrational commie lane.
If I choose not to put food in my mouth I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to go to the cupboard and get that food I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If i choose not to go shopping for groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to get a job to afford groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself.
Though of course the response is groceries should be given to everyone by a guy in a kakki jumpsuit with a handlebar mustasche. Kinda like an evil Santa Claus. And of course I can't be blamed for not bringing the food to my mouth, obviously some oppressive capitalist is (through some vague and indirect means) preventing me from doing so, so evil Santa Claus must create a feeder corps. Effective to stop extremely lazy people from starving and a jobs program all rolled into one! Brilliant!
Point? Oh hell, don't bother me about a point, I'm wandering down Commie road at 1:30 in the morning when I'm too groggy to make any decent arguments besides witty, directionless rants. I was warned not to walk down this road, but I underestimated my sleepiness and ignored the warning.
So I'll quit while I'm ahead...or behind...or totally sleepy and confused. Let me end with these final words of groggy wisdom... Die Commie Scum!
Though of course I don't want anyone to die, just uh.. take a nap or something. Ah.. a nap. I'm going to sleep now. Night all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
UR - quote:
Just because such charities has always existed within a capitalistic society does not mean that it is an intrinsic component of capitalism. I am not aware of any theorists advocating this.
Such charities had been in existence long before capitalism. |
You can't disconnect what is inherent to being human from the economic systems devised by humans, unless of course people don't have the wealth to be charitable (communism) or they are punished for being charitable. Capitalism allows for charity by allowing people to accumulate wealth and allowing them to give it away.
Agathon - quote:
This doesn't matter, since "work or starve" is a form of punishment - a communist system could use that as its form of worker motivation and be no different from capitalism in that respect. |
Aside from the fact the largest man-made, mass starvations occured under Stalin and Mao trying to "motivate" farmers to "join" the new system, the capitalist doesn't pass a law forbidding me from growing or buying food. If I don't want their food, they walk away. The communist kills me and takes my food...
quote:
It most certainly is not, since there is no such thing as a "natural punishment". |
It would be illogical to say the nature that gave us life "punishes" us, but if I refuse to work and starve because nature makes demands upon me, that isn't your fault unless you restrain me from eating. But according to you, it is your fault if you don't feed me with your own food. And the communist solution? Force me to work. What happens if I refuse? The gulag? Execution? The capitalist may be "guilty" of allowing me to starve (if in fact he does allow me to starve), but at least he doesn't kill me for not working.
Ozzy - quote:
work or starve is a natural "punishment", work or be sent to the gulag is not. |
The communists aren't getting that.
chegitz - quote:
Oh, and all those millions of people starvnig to death every year in the capitalist 3rd world are really not starving to death? |
Capitalist 3rd world? Can you document this?
Templar - quote:
More likely -
Captialist solution: threaten to fire non-unionized workers who do not meet quota.
Just a different sort of whip. |
So you go find a new job and boycott your former employer and tell others. What happens under communism if you raise a fuss? A real whip? My God, how you guys can even compare the two is ridiculous.
Odin - quote:
Reagan not allowing airline employees to strike is an example of the evils of capitalism. |
Yeah, it's so evil for people to be fired for walking off the job. Nope, businesses should just go bankrupt instead so even more people lose their jobs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP
Ugh, I know where you are going, and I think its dumb, so I'll take a stroll down irrational commie lane.
If I choose not to put food in my mouth I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to go to the cupboard and get that food I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If i choose not to go shopping for groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to get a job to afford groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself.
Though of course the response is groceries should be given to everyone by a guy in a kakki jumpsuit with a handlebar mustasche. Kinda like an evil Santa Claus. And of course I can't be blamed for not bringing the food to my mouth, obviously some oppressive capitalist is (through some vague and indirect means) preventing me from doing so, so evil Santa Claus must create a feeder corps. Effective to stop extremely lazy people from starving and a jobs program all rolled into one! Brilliant!
Point? Oh hell, don't bother me about a point, I'm wandering down Commie road at 1:30 in the morning when I'm too groggy to make any decent arguments besides witty, directionless rants. I was warned not to walk down this road, but I underestimated my sleepiness and ignored the warning.
So I'll quit while I'm ahead...or behind...or totally sleepy and confused. Let me end with these final words of groggy wisdom... Die Commie Scum!
Though of course I don't want anyone to die, just uh.. take a nap or something. Ah.. a nap. I'm going to sleep now. Night all. |
You misunderstood me. Identifying responsibility with causality leaves out all sorts of cases of negligence. People have this dream that if they didn't do anything they aren't responsible. I mean that's dumb - my forgetting to put on the parking brake is me failing to do something, but my failure can result in death or injury.
Trying to say that "work or starve" is somehow different from "work or be flogged" commits the same fallacy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Well I dunno Berz. We shouldn't be supporting what Reagan did, and it isn't part of capitalism. I support unions, and I think they are totally compatible and necessary for capitalism. Using the power of the state to break unions is an abuse of government power. |
Now wait a second. You are right - the government shouldn't be the arbiter of who is hired and fired, unless they are the actual employer. Now, you can argue that the government was the employer of the air traffic controllers, but I think most Libertarians would agree that government shouldn't be involved in that kind of thing.
But in general? There is absolutely nothing wrong with firing workers who walk off the job.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
All I am claiming so far is that offering someone the choice to work or starve is just as coercive as actively threatening harm to get them to work. In each case the demander has the power over the situation. |
Sorry, this isn't a proper example. An employer doesn't offer someone the choice of working or starving. Nature offers us the choice of eating or starving. If one can grow enough food on his own to avoid starving, he doesn't need a job (this ignores the fact that he already has one - farming).
Now, let's say a potential employer enters the picture. He tells the farmer that if he comes to work at "the company" (wherever), then the farmer will be paid a certain wage, with which he can buy food to avoid starving. The employer isn't telling the farmer that if he doesn't take the job his only option is to starve - he'll only starve if he doesn't eat. But his food supply is no one's problem but his own - the employer is just offering him an alternative to farming.
I suppose you could argue that the fact that one must work in order to produce his own food means that the choice is between working and starving. That's correct, but this is a natural example of "work or starve" and it has nothing to do with your implied example of working a 9-5 job at the office. No one is imposing that choice, that choice just IS, and calling the choice "eat or starve" makes a whole lot more sense in terms of semantics. In fact, if we called it that on a regular basis, we wouldn't even have this argument - I would bring it up, and you would say, very sarcastically, "Oh really?".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
|
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Ozzie, this post seems to suggest that you believe air traffic controllers were somehow working for the airlines. In fact they were working for the US government. I also believe that they were prohibited by law from striking against the US government.
Now think about this. Should any union have a right to strike against the people of the United States? This is not a private matter between two private entities negotiating fair wages or fair working conditions. What the union was proposing to do was an assault on America itself. |
Ok, I was mistaken over who the air traffic controllers were working for. Of course as David Floyd noted the government shouldn't be running that in the first place. So in light of this I suppose I don't have a problem with the government, as employer, bringing in other employees to respond to a strike. But striking in general shouldn't be illegal, no matter what industry it is in.
As for your second point, I find it humorous the short exchange you and Che are having. You said the strike was against "the people" sounds like a very communist concept, that people should be forced to work for the good of society or "the people." Che on the other hand is talking about enforcing contract law and such, sounds capitalist to me. Hehe.
Beyond pointing out the humor, I disagree with the idea Ned. It wasn't an assault against America, no more than a Pepsi strike is an assault against Pepsi drinkers everywhere. Its a matter between the employees and employers. Not to say the consumers aren't involved, they certainly are, and if the actions of either side piss off the consumers then the entire industry is in jeopardy.
Look at the damage done to baseball caused by the strike in '94. Now people can argue over whether it was the fault of the players or the owners, I don't know nor do I care. Both sides should be smart enough to realize that not resolving their labor disputes will hurt everyone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
My position goes a bit further and claims that the law ought to be used to enforce helping others in extreme cases. At least, this moral position provides justification for a minimalist welfare system funded by compulsory taxation (and perhaps more). |
You've gone from extreme situations to a welfare state. Why not compel us to help people throughout the world? If you follow your argument, your welfare state won't be minimalist, it will be worldwide with wealthier nations footing the bill for everyone. This "might" have validity (at least in your system of morals) if welfare wasn't destructive in how it creates dependency, increases out of wedlock births, and institutionalises poverty. Besides, how is it moral to threaten the lives of people to obtain their money - with jail or death as a consequence of non-compliance - to provide for this welfare system?
quote:
After all I can think of consequences where an action of mine is part of the causal chain leading to a bad result, which I am not responsible for, and cases where I am not causally involved and am responsible. |
If we're still talking about the car example, you were the direct cause just as I would be if I randomly fired a gun into the air and a bullet struck someone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
|
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
This isn't true. If someone lets someone else die, when they could have easily prevented it at no cost to themselves, they have committed a moral wrong.
Are you telling me that if someone saw your son drowning in a pond and could have saved him at the cost of nothing other than wet trousers, but does nothing and watches him drown, that you think this is morally acceptable behaviour? |
No, as I said it is very immoral to watch him drown, and immoral in general to not help someone in need when you are able. We agree on this. I feel however it is *also* immoral to force someone to help.
quote:
If there is scarcity of employment, or available employment is unsafe or objectionable for other reasons, the employer can offer the same opportunity and it will be just as coercive. |
Well those are all ifs, and factors of the environment that are beyond the control of the employer. You can't blame me because you can't find another job.
However there is some sense in your argument that libertarians often ignore. It is the problem of choice that I haven't resolved in my own mind yet. In the practical sense there is almost always other choices the employee can make, and communists just ignore or belittle this fact. But in theory it would be possible for literally all options to be restricted but working for 1 employer or starving. Again this is very unlikely to happen, and one would have to look *very* hard to see it anywhere currently, but in principle it could. What does David and Berz and others say then?
Libertarians maintain that the actions of a private entity like an employer are never force because you have other options, whereas actions of a state are considered force because you don't have other options. But if we look at this theoretically, this may not be true.
For example it is ok for a private company to charge you whatever fees it wants, because if you don't like it you can always switch companies. Libertarians maintain that it is wrong for governments to charge taxes because it is force. But in a commercial model by living in this country we are enjoying the benefits of it and thus have a contractual obligation to pay the fees (taxes) if we don't like it we can just move to another country.
They seem to me to be identical situations. Unless the government is stopping you from leaving the country, then you always have the option to leave, just as we always have the option to switch companies.
The response i've heard from libertarians is that well all countries have taxes, and it'd be too difficult or costly to move to another country anyways. This sounds very much like the argument communists make that all employers have X policy they don't like, and if there aren't very many employers in the area it could be very difficult or costly to find another.
How does a libertarian get out of this trap?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP
No, as I said it is very immoral to watch him drown, and immoral in general to not help someone in need when you are able. We agree on this. I feel however it is *also* immoral to force someone to help. |
But is it immoral to force criminals to pay back what they owe, or to require people to help when it costs them nothing. We don't need to force this person to help, just make sure that punishment is due. After all we don't force people to refrain from stealing either.
quote:
Well those are all ifs, and factors of the environment that are beyond the control of the employer. You can't blame me because you can't find another job. |
No one is saying that they are under the control of the employer. Indeed, it doesn't matter whether they are or are not. It is just as coercive in either case.
quote:
However there is some sense in your argument that libertarians often ignore. It is the problem of choice that I haven't resolved in my own mind yet. In the practical sense there is almost always other choices the employee can make, and communists just ignore or belittle this fact. But in theory it would be possible for literally all options to be restricted but working for 1 employer or starving. Again this is very unlikely to happen, and one would have to look *very* hard to see it anywhere currently, but in principle it could. |
Well that's because we have a welfare system. If you look at pre-welfare state societies you will find a host of examples.
You are right, Libertarians often ignore it.
quote:
Libertarians maintain that the actions of a private entity like an employer are never force because you have other options, whereas actions of a state are considered force because you don't have other options. But if we look at this theoretically, this may not be true. |
Because merely having options is not enough. Some attention has to be paid to the quality of those options.
quote:
For example it is ok for a private company to charge you whatever fees it wants, because if you don't like it you can always switch companies. Libertarians maintain that it is wrong for governments to charge taxes because it is force. But in a commercial model by living in this country we are enjoying the benefits of it and thus have a contractual obligation to pay the fees (taxes) if we don't like it we can just move to another country. |
Exactly, wrongful coercion needs to be defined in a way such as to avoid this problem, if Libertarianism is to work. The problem is that once you start doing this, you lose much of what they find attractive about it.
quote:
They seem to me to be identical situations. Unless the government is stopping you from leaving the country, then you always have the option to leave, just as we always have the option to switch companies. |
But what if we don't. I may not have enough money to leave?
quote:
The response i've heard from libertarians is that well all countries have taxes, and it'd be too difficult or costly to move to another country anyways. This sounds very much like the argument communists make that all employers have X policy they don't like, and if there aren't very many employers in the area it could be very difficult or costly to find another. |
Yep. The quality of options offered to someone matter, not just the fact that there is an option.
quote:
How does a libertarian get out of this trap? |
I don't know. Dump Libertarianism for an extreme right version of welfare liberalism, I suppose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP
Ok, I was mistaken over who the air traffic controllers were working for. Of course as David Floyd noted the government shouldn't be running that in the first place. So in light of this I suppose I don't have a problem with the government, as employer, bringing in other employees to respond to a strike. But striking in general shouldn't be illegal, no matter what industry it is in.
As for your second point, I find it humorous the short exchange you and Che are having. You said the strike was against "the people" sounds like a very communist concept, that people should be forced to work for the good of society or "the people." Che on the other hand is talking about enforcing contract law and such, sounds capitalist to me. Hehe.
Beyond pointing out the humor, I disagree with the idea Ned. It wasn't an assault against America, no more than a Pepsi strike is an assault against Pepsi drinkers everywhere. Its a matter between the employees and employers. Not to say the consumers aren't involved, they certainly are, and if the actions of either side piss off the consumers then the entire industry is in jeopardy.
Look at the damage done to baseball caused by the strike in '94. Now people can argue over whether it was the fault of the players or the owners, I don't know nor do I care. Both sides should be smart enough to realize that not resolving their labor disputes will hurt everyone. |
Point taken. Che has previously argued that unions are not required in communist countries because the people own the means of production. I have argued the opposite. So we are both inconsistent, are we not?
But still the point remains. When you have a government monopoly on an essential service, it is critical that the service remain in operation. Just as a strike in the military is mutiny, so a strike by the ATC's was mutiny. Now, you might want to argue distinctions between the military and the ATC's, but as to being important to the United States, both are critical that they continue to function.
If there was breach of contract by the Govt., there is a court in Washington to handle the claim. The union was not without remedy. If they think overall working condidtions are unfair, they can petition Congress. There is absolutely no reason to strike when there are alternatives available.
So Che, have you recognized the errors of your support of the ATC union, or do you change you position on communism?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Ozzy - quote:
But in theory it would be possible for literally all options to be restricted but working for 1 employer or starving. Again this is very unlikely to happen, and one would have to look *very* hard to see it anywhere currently, but in principle it could. What does David and Berz and others say then? |
It can't happen, but if it did, then work or starve or rely on the charity of those who do work.
quote:
Libertarians maintain that the actions of a private entity like an employer are never force because you have other options, whereas actions of a state are considered force because you don't have other options. But if we look at this theoretically, this may not be true. |
Theory has to be able to exist or it's irrelevant and this can only happen under communism, not capitalism. But it's not because there are or are not options, options are just the reality. It's force and who is using it and why. The employer doesn't force me to do anything I don't want to do.
quote:
But in a commercial model by living in this country we are enjoying the benefits of it and thus have a contractual obligation to pay the fees (taxes) if we don't like it we can just move to another country. |
What contract? If we want these benefits, we should pay for them. If we don't want these benefits, then don't offer them. This is not about paying for a sheriff, it's about the massive forced "re-distribution" of wealth. Those who want this re-distribution will mention sheriffs to distract from what they really want - other people to pay for what they want. If I want a sheriff's protection, I should pay for it. If I don't pay for it, the sheriff is not obliged to protect me.
quote:
The response i've heard from libertarians is that well all countries have taxes, and it'd be too difficult or costly to move to another country anyways. This sounds very much like the argument communists make that all employers have X policy they don't like, and if there aren't very many employers in the area it could be very difficult or costly to find another.
How does a libertarian get out of this trap? |
Morality. I have no moral obligation to pay for services you want from government. Forcing me to pay is immoral. Libertarians only bring up the fact that governments are everywhere in response to people who say we can move if we don't like it. Is that a moral response to the victims of Mafia extortion/protection rackets? Of course not, so why is it a moral response to the victims of government? When leftists here complain about Bush and Ashcroft, do supporters of the administration tell them to move if they don't like it? I haven't seen such a crass response, but if it was offered, the left wouldn't like it one bit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
But still the point remains. When you have a government monopoly on an essential service, it is critical that the service remain in operation. Just as a strike in the military is mutiny, so a strike by the ATC's was mutiny. Now, you might want to argue distinctions between the military and the ATC's, but as to being important to the United States, both are critical that they continue to function. |
Well now hang on for a second. Forcing someone to do a job they no longer want to do is getting pretty close to slavery, now isn't it?
I understand if there is a contract clause making it a breach of contract for you to strike - if you sign that, then you are locked into the job. But even then there are going to be exceptions with regards to contract law.
But in any case, I don't care how critical the "service" is - no one should be able to force you to do it against your will, in the absence of some sort of contractual agreement on your part.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2003 10:27
|