Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Kidlicious]

My wife says to stop talking to you, but oh well.

Look. It's this way. We are on an island. You 'own' the island, but that's only according to the society that we previously lived in. Now it's just me and you. If we lived in the same society I would 'agree' to give you some of the bananas that I picked so that I could survive and not end up in jail. BUT WE AREN'T IN THAT SOCIETY ANY MORE! There is no way I would give you any of the bananas that I picked. What do you want to know? You think I would feel some guilt? Hell no! Get over it!

[Berzerker]

Look. It's this way. We are on an island. You 'own' the island, but that's only according to the society that we previously lived in.

No, it's the decree of the previous owner. I paid him, not society. Are we assuming the validity of my ownership or not? Your example depends on that. If my claim is valid, then I am the owner. If my claim is invalid, then I don't. But let's say no one owned it, a truly deserted island, and I sailed ashore and became a "squatter". I made the island my home, it becomes mine just as the plot of land on which you produced your iron mine and crops in my hypothetical. Then you arrive... Could you morally sail away in my boat because I bought that in a previous "society"?

Now it's just me and you. If we lived in the same society I would 'agree' to give you some of the bananas that I picked so that I could survive and not end up in jail. BUT WE AREN'T IN THAT SOCIETY ANY MORE! There is no way I would give you any of the bananas that I picked. What do you want to know? You think I would feel some guilt? Hell no! Get over it!

I would feel guilty, I'd apologise and offer to work for what I used.

[Kidlicious]

I don't care about the previous owner. Only the two of us would be on the island, unfortunately for the both of us. I would eat bananas, and you would demand payment for them, but get none. I might just kill myself though.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Berzerker,

We both believe differently when it comes to morality. Let's say we were both stranded on a deserted island. For one reason or another (it really doesn't matter the reason) you claimed ownership of the island, and told me that I would have to work for you to recieve everything that I wanted. I would just laugh at you. Your claim would mean nothing to me. You call this immoral.
To me claiming the island as your own in order to get me to work for you is immoral. So lets just leave the discussion of morality out of this.

Kid , he cannot morally claim any part of the island as hsi own .

If , however , he takes a plot of land , uses whatever resources he has to attempt to grow food , and try to store it , then he can calim ownership of the land he ahs used .

Imagine that he grows some food and rears animals on that plot of land ( just an assumption , I know it's very difficult ) , whiel you decide to live off the land that is the rest of the island , by simply using the trees/fruits that grow there .

Now imagine that the season changes and your food source dries up . But Berz has enough food to last both . As he has grown it , however , eithout depriving you of the chance of doing the same , he is not morally obliged to give it to you .

But being kind at heart , he sees an oppurtinity here . He offers you the chance to work on hsi farm , for a portion of the produce . This frees him up to enhance his own standard of living . SO his lifestyle increases in quality year by year , while yours remains virtually the same .


In this situation , is Berz "exploiting" you ?

[molly bloom]

Re: Are labor supply and freedom related?

Originally posted by Kidicious
Reviewing history does it seem to any of you that the lower wages are the more freedom we have?

Umm, no.

The Tolpuddle Martyrs:

'The labourers were arrested ostensibly for administrating unlawful oaths, but the real reason was because they were trying to protest at their already meagre wages. The labourers at Tolpuddle lived in meagre poverty on just 7 shillings a week and wanted an increase to 10 shillings, but instead the wages were cut to 6 shillings a week.

The Whig government had become alarmed at the working class discontent in the country at this time. The government and the landowners, led by James Frampton, were determined to squash the union and to control increasing outbreaks of dissent.

Six of the Tolpuddle labourers were arrested: George and James Loveless, James Brine, James Hammett, Thomas Stansfield and his son John. It was George Loveless who had established the Friendly Society of Agricultural Workers in Tolpuddle.

At their trial the judge and jury were hostile, and the six were sentenced to 7 years transportation to Australia. After the trial many public protest meetings were held and there was uproar throughout the country at this sentence, so the prisoners were hastily transported to Australia without delay.

The people were incensed at this treatment and after 250,000 people signed a petition and a procession of 30,000 people marched down Whitehall in support of the labourers, the sentences were remitted. After some delay, the the six were given a free passage home from Australia.

When finally home and free, some of the 'martyrs' settled on farms in England and four emigrated to Canada.'

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/England-History/TolpuddleMartyrs.htm

Not only was there a growth in the number of laws in industrializing Great Britain, but there was an increase in the severity of the laws too- ostensibly aimed at protecting the property rights of the better off.

The development of 'Victorian values':

' The Penal Code was severe with almost two hundred capital offences and other punishments including transportation. This actually encouraged more serious crime as evidenced by the idiom, "I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb". One of the key campaigners for an overhaul of the penal code was Sir Samuel Romilly but he fought a losing battle, as his diary shows:

17 Jan, 1813: In the House of Commons I moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act of King William as punishes with death the offence of stealing privately in a shop, warehouse or stable, goods of the value of 55... I omitted the Bills formerly brought in to take away capital punishments in the cases of stealing in dwelling-houses and on board vessels, because those Bills had excited much more opposition than that relating to shops...

26 March 1813. The Bill ... was read a third time in the Commons and passed. On the division, the numbers were, Ayes 72, Noes 34...

2 April 1813. The Bill was thrown out in the Lords today upon the second reading by a majority of 26 to 15...

After Romilly's death in 1818, his work was taken over by Sir James Mackintosh who supported Romilly's proposals for reducing the severity of the criminal law. Mackintosh took charge of similar measures. On 2 March 1819 he carried a motion against the government for a committee to consider capital punishment, by a majority of nineteen. In 1820, he introduced six bills embodying the recommendations of the committee, only three of which became law. Lord Eldon - the Lord Chancellor in Liverpool's ministry - secured an amendment to keep the death penalty for stealing to the value of more than £10, and spoke against the Bill: in his speech, Eldon said

While it appeared a harsh thing to condemn a man to death for stealing privately in a shop to the amount of 5s., the present bill did not provide sufficiently against the loss of property to an amount which, though it could not distress some, might effectually ruin many shopkeepers... The apprehension of the capital punishment had deterred many from the commission of this offence... If hereafter it should be found, that shoplifting became universal, and that many persons were reduced to misery by this crime, he hoped it would be remembered that he had suggested the consideration, whether this law which had so long existed was not wise and politic. (Parliamentary Debates, 2nd Series, vol.2, (1820) col.493)

On 21 May 1823 Mackintosh proposed nine resolutions to the house for abolishing the punishment of death in many cases. Peel opposed Mackintosh but promised to introduce some measures of the same kind. Peel opposed Mckingtosh's efforts to end the death penalty for forgery and in 1830 justified his work on penal reform while he had been Home Secretary:

When he came into office seven years before the present period, the criminal law of Great Britain exceeded in severity the criminal codes of every other part of Europe, and he had then thought it ought to be meliorated. He made it, since he had been in office, the great object of his ambition, not to set the example of meliorating this code but to follow the example set by others. He had found, however, that the habits and usages of the country were adapted to and formed on the severity of our code, and he found it necessary to proceed in the mitigation of this severity with great caution. He thought it advantageous to continue the severity of the law in its letter, but gradually to meliorate its practical application.

(The Speeches of Sir Robert Peel, vol.2. Routledge, 1853 p.162)

http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/laworder/police.htm

[Velociryx]

Kid, some questions:

How is the “usage fee” charged by the state ANY different from “rent” charged by an individual? This is something I cannot seem to wrap my brain around. Both seem to acknowledge the basic “rightness” of paying to use something which you cannot rightfully claim ownership to….thus, compensation to the rightful owners of the tool.

How do you define “equality” – is it your goal to reset the world, making everyone materially equal? Is it your goal to ensure that everyone have EXACTLY the same opportunities? Or…something in the middle?

All of your posts center around the notion of doing what is fair and “equal” for all parties concerned, and that, by itself, is admirable. But your methodologies to GET to said point of equilibrium are brutish and typically Red. Disappointing.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
But being kind at heart , he sees an oppurtinity here . He offers you the chance to work on hsi farm , for a portion of the produce . This frees him up to enhance his own standard of living . SO his lifestyle increases in quality year by year , while yours remains virtually the same .


In this situation , is Berz "exploiting" you ?

Sounds like the beginning of feudalism

[Kidlicious]

Molly Bloom,

Excellent post. I enjoyed it. Thank you.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, some questions:

How is the “usage fee” charged by the state ANY different from “rent” charged by an individual? This is something I cannot seem to wrap my brain around. Both seem to acknowledge the basic “rightness” of paying to use something which you cannot rightfully claim ownership to….thus, compensation to the rightful owners of the tool.

How do you define “equality” – is it your goal to reset the world, making everyone materially equal? Is it your goal to ensure that everyone have EXACTLY the same opportunities? Or…something in the middle?

All of your posts center around the notion of doing what is fair and “equal” for all parties concerned, and that, by itself, is admirable. But your methodologies to GET to said point of equilibrium are brutish and typically Red. Disappointing.

-=Vel=-

I'm just sick of discussing morality with your lot. Your morals make me sick. Do you know why? Because I am a poor man in your system. That makes me the victim. All you have to say to that is that it's my fault. Bull ****! Do you actually think that that crap is going to get me to accept your morality? If so your a dumb ass!

[Berzerker]

I don't care about the previous owner.

Then why offer a hypothetical in which I buy the island from the previous owner?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Because I am a poor man in your system. That makes me the victim.

I think this says it all. You have a total unwillingness to accept ANY personal responsibility for your own condition.

Your solution is to create a communal condition from which no one may depart. No thanks!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



I think this says it all. You have a total unwillingness to accept ANY personal responsibility for your own condition.

Your solution is to create a communal condition from which no one may depart. No thanks!

**** you!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


All you have to say to that is that it's my fault. Bull ****! Do you actually think that that crap is going to get me to accept your morality? If so your a dumb ass!

I don't expect you to believe anything. As long as you can act within the bounds of the society in which you live, believe as you wish.

Just don't expect sympathy when you spend hours and hours each day whining about your poverty. If I were "poor" I would get another job but you seem to prefer to sit on your ass and complain about the system.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


**** you!

Excellent reply and as well reasoned and convincing as anything you post.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Excellent reply and as well reasoned and convincing as anything you post.

Since you don't listen to reason it's all there is left to say.