Are labor supply and freedom related?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
This, however, is why modern capitalist societies provide some form of safety net...

-Arrian

Actually, they do it to preserve capitalism. The existence USSR, with all its problems, forced the capitalists to throw some crumbs to the poor. The fact that workers could seize and hold power in the world's largest country meant that if they had to do it here, they could do it here. Social reforms are a palliative to forestall revolution, nothing more. That's why as soon as the wall came down, the capitalists began attacking the social safety nets, not just in the U.S., but in the European social democracies as well.

[Berzerker]

che -

I wonder how fair it is to have five or six people all hammering kid at once.

Please chime in with that when I start a thread about libertarianism and the leftwing horde swarms, that is, if you aren't in the swarm

[Imran Siddiqui]

Added to Berz's post... when Kid is so blatently wrong, you have to expect 5 or 6 people hammering him, as well.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
che -

Please chime in with that when I start a thread about libertarianism and the leftwing horde swarms, that is, if you aren't in the swarm

I avoid your threads like the plague, for precisely that reason.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, they do it to preserve capitalism. The existence USSR, with all its problems, forced the capitalists to throw some crumbs to the poor. The fact that workers could seize and hold power in the world's largest country meant that if they had to do it here, they could do it here. Social reforms are a palliative to forestall revolution, nothing more. That's why as soon as the wall came down, the capitalists began attacking the social safety nets, not just in the U.S., but in the European social democracies as well.

You think the workers seized and held power in the SU?

[Berzerker]

I avoid your threads like the plague, for precisely that reason.

But we've had debates where I was responding to several people and you were one of them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You think the workers seized and held power in the SU?

Yes, and no. I was trying to keep the explanation simple. Imagine the USSR as basically a country run by the Teamsters Union. The union is a working class organization, so the workers have power, even if they don't have power over their union leaders. In order to maintain power, even just for its own benefit, the union bureaucracy still must rule in the interests of the rank and file, even as it exploits them. After all, without the union, there are no union bureaucrats.

You also have to remember that there's perception to deal with. In the 1930s, a lot of people considered the USSR to be a proletarian democracy. It seems silly to us today, but millions looked to the Soviet Union as an example, and the capitalists of the West knew it. They knew they could be replaced, and so sought to soften the sharp edges of capitalism. If you aren't in danger of starving or becomming homeless, revolution seems a lot less necessary.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
But we've had debates where I was responding to several people and you were one of them.

Rarely, and I usually only pop in at the beginning, before the thread gets overwhelmed with five different arguemtns and all of your parcing everyone's arguments into one post. Or we'll tustle a little bit in someone else's thread. In general however, I consider arguing with a libertarian to be as about as fun as banging my head into a brick wall. Well, maybe not as fun. Banging your head can give you a slightly amusing disorientation.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious

The exploitation starts with Berzerker when he sees my misfortune and decides to take advantage of it. Now seeing this why do you think he would give me free time to escape my predicament. That's a contradiction. If he's acting in his self-interest and taking advantage of my misfortune then he's not likely to give me free time.

Fine , then . Berz has a change of heart , and decides that he isn't going to employ a commie who will complain about "exploitation" , even when the deal they make is and has to be mutually acceptable .

Thus , you die of starvation .




Which is preferable ? That you work after BOTH of you have agreed on fair terms , or that you die ?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious



I'll pay him the price for fertilizer then.

His only price for the fertiliser is thay you work for one season . What do you do ?










And just a side note , but if you are so fantastically communist , why don't you emigrate to some comie country ?

[Flubber]

Ifind it amusing how dogged kid is in his assertion that he could simply take things created solely from Bezerker's labour, OR he could take it at a price that KID deems fair.

Since one of the base principle of Kid's theories is that labour creates all wealth then obviously any wealth that Bezerker has on their island (prior to any dealings between them) is solely a result of Bezerker's labour. Then ANY attempt by kid to appropriate Bezerker's MUST be exploitation

[Flubber]

Che

while I can agree that the existence of communism may have helped soften the hard edges of capitalism in the past, I now see it as an ideology of decreasing relevance. Americans do not see communism as a real threat and most people view it as a discared failed form of government.

Frankly I don't see the threat of communist revolution even being a minor factor in determining social policy. Instead I see capitalist democracies that are for the most part comfortable with funding a pretty decent social safety net. .. . The US does this less well than most places.

As for any current attack on social programs, I see that as the normal pendulum effect within the spectrum of US policies. The US has moved right in the face of a "war" and I fully expect that a shift leftward will follow within the next 10 years. Social programs will be degraded for a time and then improved . .. its a pretty normal evolution.


Also I was wondering if you see the degradation of social programs in places other than the US. Here in Canada there are now talks of a pharmacare program and even some talks about a national daycare program (unlikely to happen but just the fact it is discussed is hardly an indicator that social programs are under attack)--

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
His only price for the fertiliser is thay you work for one season . What do you do ?

If that's a fair price fine. That depends on if Berzerker is trying to exploit me or just offer me a fair deal.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Fine , then . Berz has a change of heart , and decides that he isn't going to employ a commie who will complain about "exploitation" , even when the deal they make is and has to be mutually acceptable .

Thus , you die of starvation .




Which is preferable ? That you work after BOTH of you have agreed on fair terms , or that you die ?

So, I have to take the deal or die? And you call this a mutually acceptable deal?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


I see dealing with problems like drug addiction to be dependent on the specific programs aimed at drug addiction.

I just don't see that handing the drug addict more or less money will make much difference. Now the governmental system might make a difference. For example a stronger police state with greater powers of search seizure and detention could probably deal with the issue at the cost of civil liberties, but, I digress. For now I want to keep things in the realm of the economic system

It's the extreme idividualism that is needed to make capitalism work that does not allow it to solve the problems like drug abuse. The attitude is to let these people suffer, because it's all their fault. Any dealing with these problems will only aim to benefit thr ruling class i.e. prisons.