Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Every state has some corruption. At what level does the same something go from "a-ok" to "exploitive"??

Corruption is never ok. That doesn't mean that a usage fee us corrupt or exploitive. It would be only in the case where some one in the govt were using it for their own personal purposes, and that's a specific, unrelated case.

Personally, I love the fact that your ideas are so marginal and outdated that their chances of implementation are fantastically small.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever read "The Grapes of Wrath?" How unpopular do you think my ideas would be to those Okies moving to California? They may seem unpopular to you, but it's all relative to your experience.

I like regulated capitalism and can support the social safety net. I agree that unregulated capitalism could be a disaster and the beauty is that most people agree and have created minimum wages and worker protection legislation, occupational health and safety rules, unemployment insurance etc . . . these things are far from perfect but they do do a lot to protect workers.

Regulated capitalism doesn't work, and can't work. It will never be fair. You need to give it up.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin
Kid, you don't convince people by being an idealist, you convince people by being a realist.

Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone. And what do you think is unreal about what I'm saying?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nope, just freedom from those who would impose rule over us. Isn't that freedom?

Kid would make the switch from a "master" of his own choosing (deciding all by himself where he wishes to apply for a job...note that employment is not guaranteed, but if he has the talent, he'll get the job), for a State-decreed master who will tell him what is fair, and call this "freedom."

Forgive me if I'm not all in a rush to sign up....

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Is not state imposition of their brand of "fairness" an imposition of rule?

There's no ruler if everyone is equal. Rulers are those who impose a system for their own benefit, not the benefit of everyone.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


There's no ruler if everyone is equal.

name one place with a population over a million where this has happened . Just one.

The difference is I see equality of rights although I think we should strive for more equality of opportunity.

You seek equality of condition, it appears and that never happens. Even if if you give everyone exactly the same "stuff', the smarter and more charismatic folks would exert more power than some others

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Corruption is never ok.

Never said it was. But it has occurred on some scale in any large scale government that I have ever studied.

Originally posted by Kidicious
.
Regulated capitalism doesn't work, and can't work. It will never be fair. You need to give it up.

HMMMM-- The majority of people in Canada tend to think their country works pretty well . I will give up nothing and enjoy my freedom. I may travel, change employers, negotiate for higher wages,heck I may buy an investment property. All of the things I do are the result of my own work-- I inherited nothing.

I enjoy this freedom! I definitely wouldn't want those paragons of mediocrity that occupy many civil service positions to have INCREASED control over my life.

[Kidlicious]

That's fine Flubber. If you would like to get off your soap box now, maybe you would like to discuss the topic.

[Flubber]

c'mon kid

Name just one place where "everyone is equal" has been implemented successfully.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's fine Flubber. If you would like to get off your soap box now, maybe you would like to discuss the topic.

just joining you on a soapbox. I support your right to loudly proclaim your beliefs and assert my right to proclaim my own. Its free speech and I like that too !!

There are problems in modern democracies but to address them, you need real solutions, not idealistic dreams that would never work anywhere.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i hope the commies take over - id never have to work, and theyd give me a yacht, a car, and a house. my ability is making pencils, so ill work 6 hours a day making pencils for the Party, and at nite id party with the Party.

excellent.

i wonder if everyones specialty will all of a sudden become pencil making.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
i hope the commies take over - id never have to work, and theyd give me a yacht, a car, and a house. my ability is making pencils, so ill work 6 hours a day making pencils for the Party, and at nite id party with the Party.

excellent.

i wonder if everyones specialty will all of a sudden become pencil making.

Better pack a lunch LoA.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
c'mon kid

Name just one place where "everyone is equal" has been implemented successfully.

Communist is a future society.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


just joining you on a soapbox. I support your right to loudly proclaim your beliefs and assert my right to proclaim my own. Its free speech and I like that too !!

There are problems in modern democracies but to address them, you need real solutions, not idealistic dreams that would never work anywhere.

I wasn't on my soapbox. I just got blindsided.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Better pack a lunch LoA.

but . . . thats outside my ability. however, it is my need. its someone elses job to get me my lunch. my job is to eat it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


but . . . thats outside my ability. however, it is my need. its someone elses job to get me my lunch. my job is to eat it.

Better have a rich daddy and hope to God for capitalism to remain.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

No. Working people pay all the bills bud.

But some pay more than others while some pay very little if anything, that's bill "sharing" and you support it to the point where there won't be any unequal wealth accumulation. So why did you deny your ideology involves this bill sharing?

I think racism played a pert there.

Regardless of what was involved, the fact remains slaveowners did not free their slaves so they could charge them rent as you claimed.

I told you I wouldn't care about your claim.

Did I say you would care? The question is: would my claim have validity and the answer is NO. So why do you think that's comparable to a business owner and employee?

Say you paid for it before we were stranded.

Then it's mine. I see you changing your hypothetical, I'll take that as a recognition your analogy is flawed. That ain't all

I still would not care. I wouldn't work for you, because I don't believe in that.

Then don't work for me, but I sure as hell will give you a ride elsewhere because you ain't staying on my island with that attitude.

I wouldn't consider it stealing if I picked my own bananas and ate them all.

If I owned them it would be stealing and you would too if I walked into your home and started using your stuff without your permission.

If you tried to take the bananas from me, claiming that they were yours, I would consider that stealing.

Strange, it's not stealing if you take my bananas but it is stealing if I take "your" bananas? You're all over the map, Kid.

You have no 'just' moral claim to my work. I don't care what you 'own.' You own the business because of the constraints placed on me by the society we live in. That's the only reason. There is no 'just' moral claim.

So "society" does not define morality? I've been saying that here at Poly for years. Okay, then why introduce society into our hypotheticals about two people alone in the world or on a deserted island? Let's just keep it simple: you and I are alone in the world but in close enough proximity to interact. I build a house, a mine for smelting metal, etc, and I make iron spears for hunting. Then I plant corn and spend hours tending to my crops. You come along and demand the use of my spears and corn because morality dictates you have a greater valid claim to them than me, the person who produced them. Why?

No. We simply keep all of our work.

But my business was not our work, it was my work. Since you'd refuse to work for me, can I ask others to work for me? If not, why? Because only you and those who share your ideology get to decide who is exploited and who is not? Religious fundies use the same argument when it comes to the sex industry. And if you decide exploitation exists you then get to force me and my employee to hand over our stuff and work for Kidocracy? Calling that freedom and morality is downright Orwelian...

You no longer get any of it. You can continue to claim ownership to our work and call us theives like a lunatic. We just ignore you.

Your work? All you did was walk in and rob me in the name of morality and freedom.

I believe that people should have the right to privacy at their residence

"Their" residence? How does one acquire a residence if they can't hire people to build houses? You don't believe in this right if I invite my neighbor in to help me re-model for a fee, true?

and I believe that people should have exclusive rights to some things that they pay for with their work.

But we can't work for others, that's exploitation. So we must all be self-employed? What happens when I produce a very desired product and you don't, so you have to work longer to make more to match my income?
Are consumers "exploiting" you now?

But I don't believe that people should be able to own the means of production for the purpose of either exploiting workers or preventing workers from using those means.

Since you believe it is exploitation for my neighbor to hire me to fix his car for a fee, why isn't it exploitation for Kidocracy to hire me to fix cars for a fee?

I think eminent domain should apply

Do you know where that came from? KINGS! DICTATORS claiming a "right" to grab what they wanted from others. I'm not surprised to see you embrace such an idea. Even the Founders who were much closer to the trappings of Kingship knew the abuse that power came with and tried to limit it to federal installations, and it didn't take long for politicians to ignore that limitation.

I don't find that immoral.

But you get to decide when it's exploitive, not the people actually involved.

It's economical to use the public tools.

So if I "own" a car repair shop, I have to travel to the local public tool dispensary everytime I need a tool? Or do I just get to "keep" the tools I need for my trade without paying for them?

Kid, it seems your gripe is that people with machines hire others to run them and don't provide enough compensation. Without this just compensation, the machine operator is being exploited. So, how in the name of morality and freedom can you remove the autonomy of the parties involved? If I run the machine and I believe my compensation is fair, why is it your business? For you to remove my freedom to make that decision and justify your action by accusing my employer of removing my freedom is a logic trap. You're doing what the employer is allegedly doing.