Poly is making me right wing

[Kidlicious]

quote:

I don't think people should be compensated for working 12 hours a day. Instead I think they should be compensated fairly for working an 8 hour day.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I will tell you what you believe. You believe no one should be allowed to work more then 8 hours in a day, even if they want to.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to work as long as they want too?

The reason they want to work so much is to get ahead of the other people, so they can feel superior. That is unless they actually have to work 12 hours a day to make a living. Either way I'm against it. People who want to just make a living working a reasonable amount of hours are much more peacefull. These are the type of people we need in the world. Not the over competitive types with low self-esteem who have to hurt themselves and others just to prove that they are superoir.

quote:

But why do you seem to be implying that a nurse isn't productive and Paris Hilton is.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I doubt Paris Hilton's fortune is derived from her public appearances.

What the hell does that even mean. Do you actually not know that Paris Hilton makes more money than a nurse. In fact, I don't care how good a nurse is. She could be the greatest nurse in the history of the ****ing world but she will never earn anything close to what Paris Hilton earns.

quote:

Is a CEO 10 times as productive as a ditch digger.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This is the crux of the argument. First off, you need to detach the connection you have from "this person's value is exactly what he is compensated". Secondly, yes, a CEO if he is worth his pay, is 10 times as productive. Look at it this way. Everyone down the chain has a job because of what the CEO does. IF the CEO does a good job, then everyone down the line will be better. A ditchdigger's job is important too, because if he does a poor job it will effect everyone as well, because that is the outcome of the process. But he cannot directly improve the other folks' working conditions. He does not control where or when he works, he does not control who and how the contracts work.

There are fewer people willing to take on the obligations and responsbility of being a ceo then there are peole willing to take on the labour of a ditchdigger. That is the main reason why one is paid more then the other.

That is such bull****. The prejudice is inherent in your argument. Yes, people have jobs becuase of the CEO, but the CEO also has a job because of everyone else. That's not to say that being dependent on others makes you inferior. That's just some subjective bull**** that you made up.

But the real issue here is that you are clearly judging different values to people based on their weatlh, but you are still saying they are equal.

quote:

This productivity argument is totally bogus, because you can't measure it fairly.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

You can't take up a measuring rod and empirically measure productivity. However you do have a market. You can make relative comparisons, ie this person is more productive then another person if their jobs and responsibilities are identical. You have two choices here. You can rely on the market to set prices or on arbitrary prices set by you. Same as with wages.

All you are doing is saying rich people are more productive because they make more money. See any circularity there?

A nurse saves lives! What could be more productive than that? You can't make those kinds of comparisons. Jobs just need to be done. The ditch needs to be dug, and some ******* needs to run the company and tell everyone what to do. They are both equally needed. Productivity talk about comparing the two is stupid.

quote:

All you are really doing is making a claim that rich people are more productive than poor people and that's complete bull****.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, I'm not saying that at all. What is stopping you from becoming a CEO?

Let's see I applying to 10 CEO jobs this week. They said they will contact me later if anything came up. Are you ****ing serious dude?! Get real. The question isn't what's stopping me. I'm just NOT A CEO!

quote:

The claim itself shows how arrogant you are. It's impossible to get through to you. I just wish you would realise that you don't believe in equality at all. You will be a lot better off and your arguments will make some sense finally.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, I believe that equality has nothing to do with compensation. I'm sorry I'm not a socialist. I don't see the fact that nurses make more then ditchdiggers or mickey d servers is a bad thing.

What do you think? All the people who work 12 hours a day and try to get ahead of everyone else is like Jesus or something. I doubt Jesus would be working 12 hours a day to get to the top anyway. I don't think Jesus had anything to prove to himself, did he?

[Ben Kenobi]

Libertarians believe that the fundamental principle of value is liberty. From this they derive the freedom of expression and the right to own property. Consequently, they endorse a political system that exists solely to protect these rights (different Libertarians might disagree over how much the government has to do, depending on their views on the way the world works, but they'll all agree to the axiology).

I'd say Rule of Law, if it had to be just one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'd say Rule of Law, if it had to be just one.

Rule of Law? There are various ideologies that believe in that. In fact, the US Revolution invoked the rule of law (as King George III was seen to be above the rule of law).

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, I almost forgot Kennedy. That's a Reagan one too. Isn't it a harder to overturn things if you put moderates instead of conservatives on the bench? O'Connor never, never drifted left. Pro Life groups knew how she'd vote on abortion back in 1982. So, I'd argue, did Reagan. Reagan just wanted to put a woman on the Supreme Court and he didn't give a flying **** about the Christian Right on it.

Everything I read on O'Connors says that her position was ambiguous. The right to lifers were correct, but she never explicitly came out and said she was for abortion.

She replaced Potter Stewart who had voted for Roe, so the move at the time of her appointment was considered a shift to the right.

Jefferson was a classic liberal. Polk maybe leaned that way, but isn't really someone today's libertarians would call their own.

Libertarians are different from classical liberals. They are far from the same thing.

And yes, they were responsible for two great land expansions. Of course the administration of Andrew Johnson was responsible for the Alaskan Purchase and the administration of William McKinley took the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American War. Are they responsible for Manifest Destiny too?

Of course. I'm not just singling out Polk and Jefferson. As was Teddy Roosevelt, and a few others.

He'd probably argue that slavery was morally unsound. Another classical liberal position.

As an affront to liberty, not to scripture and the bible.

Not offended by conservatives can do good things. I'm offended by your rewriting of American history so you can have conservatives be responsible for ever social ****ing change!

And I haven't even spoke about women's rights. Gosh. Maybe I should bring up Susan B Anthony too, who was awful traditional compared to the feminists of today who are far more radical.

You called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a conservative! I mean really, come on. Jesse Jackson was a close disciple. And Jackson didn't "go farther left" than Dr. King.

Jesse Jackson a close disciple? Man. He could maybe be qualified to polish King's shoes. King said that he believed the content of a man's character was more important then the colour of his skin. Jackson is a race huckster who believes precisely the opposite.

No, he's a conservative overall. It is also funny to see conservatives try to claim every religious person as their own, as if they aren't allowed to be liberals if they are religious.

Funny, I see the same with liberals, for everyone who does something positive.

Reagan.

Ok, I'll name a liberal. I'll say Truman. That Marshall plan was very good.

OMG! High school history class A's... oh, too funny!!

Umm. Ok.

You do know I have a university degree in history? I took as many US history courses that were offered.

You are the one claiming I know nothing I suggest you drop the claim.

Where's your history degree Imran?

And this is where you lose all credibility (not that you had any with me anyway). He's the prototype of a moderate Republican. What, you think he's more liberal than Senator Olympia Snowe? Or Governor George Pataki?

Well seeing as he supports sharia law being introduced in the US, yeah I think he's a tad more left then the furthest left folks on the Republican scale.

You realize, of course, that Friedman was one of Reagan's closest economic advisers, right?

Yes, I am aware of that. I do believe economically he is on the right. However a single axis scale looks at everything.

And Nixon spent a lot of his domestic policy increasing welfare benefits. And Dubya has been spending on welfare programs (Medicare) through the roof.

Socially they are both conservative. On a single axis scale both of them have to be put together. I don't think Friedman is far to the left, and I don't think Nixon is far to the right either.

Because Friedman is very much on the right.

Economically perhaps, but he's a social liberal.

Have you ever been in a political party and seen the different factions? Seriously, those differences are hardly anything, especially when the end result ends up being the same.

They are huge differences. I can't understand why you aren't seeing how that works.

When's the last time "socialists" (focus here Ben) have killed Christians?

They still are in China.

Btw, Communists have killed Socialists throughout history as well. Socialists have been considered traitors to the cause, especially Democratic Socialists, who Communists feel have sold out to the system.

Which is why you need different words for both of them rather then just socialism. I should think if two ideologies are so opposite that their members would kill each other, that we need to make an accurate distinction between the two.

Marx advocated Communism. A revolution followed by a totally restructuring of society (and in the end the state withers away... yes, its very Utopian).

Yet the USSR, and every single communist nation has claimed to be a Socialist republic. By your earlier argument, they should be considered to be socialists because they call themselves. After all, all democratic socialists support democracy.

Socialism, especially democratic socialism, believes in working with the system and, IMO, is far less utopian. Marx's ideals can influence socialist groups, no doubt, but many have moved well beyond Marx. Basically, "Socialism" is like a political party. It is a big tent where the end result of economic and social equality for everyone in society by tempering the excesses of capitalism is shared by all. Christian socialists are just as "socialist" are Marx influenced socialists.

Except for the fact that they have purges, they are just like a political party. Yeah I have you. I'm sorry I think folks like the Quakers would be insulted for being labelled the same as Communists.

[Ben Kenobi]

The reason they want to work so much is to get ahead of the other people, so they can feel superior.

Wow, ok. I worked 12 hour days so I could pay for my school and not have to owe as much.

Either way I'm against it. People who want to just make a living working a reasonable amount of hours are much more peacefull.

Who decides what are reasonable hours to work for other people? You? I don't see why you shouldn't be able to decide what you feel are reasonable hours? How would you stop people from working more then one job if they chose to do so.

These are the type of people we need in the world. Not the over competitive types with low self-esteem who have to hurt themselves and others just to prove that they are superoir.

How does it hurt a person to work 12 hours a day? I don't see it. I've done it treeplanting, and it's hard, but there are much less intensive jobs out there.

What the hell does that even mean. Do you actually not know that Paris Hilton makes more money than a nurse. In fact, I don't care how good a nurse is. She could be the greatest nurse in the history of the ****ing world but she will never earn anything close to what Paris Hilton earns.

My point being that Paris Hilton doesn't even have to work at all if she chooses to do so. She is famous because she was already wealthy.

That is such bull****. The prejudice is inherent in your argument. Yes, people have jobs becuase of the CEO,

Thank you. I believe the market should decide compensation. If a business believes it is worth it to pay CEO's 20 times what they pay anyone else, then that should be there decision and not yours.

What gives you the right to decide how many hours a person should work and how much they should make doing so? That should be up to the businesses. They can make informed decisions.

the CEO also has a job because of everyone else.

That is true, but which one is harder to replace? Do the decisions that a CEO have more of an impact on all the other workers?

That's not to say that being dependent on others makes you inferior. That's just some subjective bull**** that you made up.

*I* made up? Dude, I don't believe that at all. Wow. What makes you think that I believe staying home and looking after kids is a bad thing?

But the real issue here is that you are clearly judging different values to people based on their weatlh, but you are still saying they are equal.

Yes, they are equal. Why do you believe that rich people are more valuable then poor people? I don't understand why you don't agree with me here that they are fundamentally equal no matter how much they make.

All you are doing is saying rich people are more productive because they make more money. See any circularity there?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the position of a CEO has greater responsibilities then other positions, and by that token they ought to be compensated more then positions with less responsibility. The amount of their compensation beyond this principle should correlate with the profits of the business, the better the manager, the more he should be paid. If the manager is making poor decisions he should be fired.

A nurse saves lives! What could be more productive than that?

No argument from me here. This gets back to my point about productivity. By your argument, couldn't you argue that a mom who stays at home and has kids is far more valuable then anyone else?

You can't make those kinds of comparisons. Jobs just need to be done. The ditch needs to be dug, and some ******* needs to run the company and tell everyone what to do. They are both equally needed. Productivity talk about comparing the two is stupid.

Fair enough, but what they are compensated ought to be deteremined by the market, not some arbitrary measure concocted to try to establish equality. Do you not agree with me that this would be a superior method of compensation?

Let's see I applying to 10 CEO jobs this week. They said they will contact me later if anything came up. Are you ****ing serious dude?! Get real. The question isn't what's stopping me. I'm just NOT A CEO!

Why aren't you? Is there a CEO class? Do you have to be born a CEO in order to become one?

What do you think? All the people who work 12 hours a day and try to get ahead of everyone else is like Jesus or something.

No, I think they are hardworking folks trying to provide for their family and earn a better life for themselves.

I doubt Jesus would be working 12 hours a day to get to the top anyway. I don't think Jesus had anything to prove to himself, did he?

No, but he did work 24/7 at his mission. So if we wanted to be Jesus, we would have to do his work all the time.

[Ben Kenobi]

Rule of Law? There are various ideologies that believe in that. In fact, the US Revolution invoked the rule of law (as King George III was seen to be above the rule of law).

But as their primary position?

Conservatives believe in liberty, but that doesn't mean they value liberty in the same way as libertarians.

[Ben Kenobi]

Weak, Ben. Weak. Only one person in this thread has ever suggested that abolition was a one-party issue. Remember this?

How does me saying "Wilberforce was a Tory" imply that abolition was:

1. Only supported by Wilberforce. Demonstrably false.

2. Only supported by Tories.

Does it say that Tories were significantly responsible for the bill? Yes it does, and that is what I was trying to say.

If you've read all the books, why did you come out with this extraordinary quote?

The one challenging the statement that the Tories had nothing to do with abolition?

Didn't the book have enough pictures in?

I don't know. I don't recall that Pitt's journals of the time had any pictures in them.

It wasn't a Whiggish invention, Ben. I wouldn't dream of claiming it was. Abolition was a cross-party issue, spearheaded by an independent MP.

Thanks. That's my biggest concern.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Everything I read on O'Connors says that her position was ambiguous. The right to lifers were correct, but she never explicitly came out and said she was for abortion.

She replaced Potter Stewart who had voted for Roe, so the move at the time of her appointment was considered a shift to the right.

And yet, she was known to have sympathies with the pro-choice movement. A shift to the right, but not really all that much on social issues. Someone a bit more unambiguously anti-abortion would have shown that Reagan really cared about the issue (seeing as how the Senate was Republican controlled at the time, he could have gotten just about anyone in).

Libertarians are different from classical liberals. They are far from the same thing.

They are very similar. Libertarians were formed to resurrect classical liberalism. Milton Friedman, as I've pointed out, considered himself a classical liberal and is a libertarian hero.

Of course. I'm not just singling out Polk and Jefferson. As was Teddy Roosevelt, and a few others.

Teddy a classical liberal? The guy who was majorly into anti-trust and government parks?

And I haven't even spoke about women's rights. Gosh. Maybe I should bring up Susan B Anthony too, who was awful traditional compared to the feminists of today who are far more radical.

Traditional now, a radical then. For the times, far more radical than some feminists of today are in their times.

Jesse Jackson a close disciple? Man. He could maybe be qualified to polish King's shoes. King said that he believed the content of a man's character was more important then the colour of his skin. Jackson is a race huckster who believes precisely the opposite.

You realize that Dr. King put Jackson in charge of Operation Breadbasket and promoted him to National Director of SCLC in 1967, right? Jackson was also with King when he was assassinated. King trusted Jackson very much and Jackson was indeed a close disciple.

Why do you think Jackson has so much sway in the black community today?

Umm. Ok.

You do know I have a university degree in history? I took as many US history courses that were offered.

You are the one claiming I know nothing I suggest you drop the claim.

Where's your history degree Imran?

You may want to ask them to reimburse you for your degree, but you haven't learned ****. Being that I'm far from the only American who has said this to you, from both sides of the political spectrum, you may wish to take it to heart.

Well seeing as he supports sharia law being introduced in the US, yeah I think he's a tad more left then the furthest left folks on the Republican scale.

Cite please.

Yes, I am aware of that. I do believe economically he is on the right. However a single axis scale looks at everything.

Yes it does and someone who is very far on the right economically and far on the left socially... usually ends up close to the middle. Friedman, though was much more economically right leaning than he was socially left leaning. After all, he was an economist and most of his policies were going down that road. He did believe in legalizing pot (though he believed it was economically good), and while he did not personally believe in God, he never tried to do or advocate anything to those who did.

Socially they are both conservative. On a single axis scale both of them have to be put together. I don't think Friedman is far to the left, and I don't think Nixon is far to the right either.

Aside from Nixon believing in God (but not doing anything politically about it), what did he do? He may have been personally against abortion, but he really didn't anything about it.

They are huge differences. I can't understand why you aren't seeing how that works.

Not particularly. No greater than Wall Street and Christian Coalition Republicans. We are talking about the party of Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Ron Paul, and Chuck Hegel. Do you not see the massive differences there?

Christian socialists and those influenced by Marxist teachings at least at looking at similar end goals (democratic socialists aren't interested in abolishing religion... only hardcore commies really are).

Which is why you need different words for both of them rather then just socialism. I should think if two ideologies are so opposite that their members would kill each other, that we need to make an accurate distinction between the two.

Stalin killed Trotsky. Shall we call them different ideologies? Socialists have killed socialists and communists have killed communists (in greater numbers than both have killed Christians, I'd bet)... but do we not consider them to be socialist or communists?

Hell, Communist countries have fought wars with each other. The USSR and the PRC had a long standing quasi-war dealing with their borders.

Yet the USSR, and every single communist nation has claimed to be a Socialist republic. By your earlier argument, they should be considered to be socialists because they call themselves. After all, all democratic socialists support democracy.

They also call themselves Democratic Republics . You can read between the lines. Sure what they call themselves does matter, but sometimes it is just what they want to portray themselves as. Oh, and the USSR name comes from the pre-revolutionary system of Socialist Soviets under the Provisional Government of Kerensky.

I don't think political parties in Britain wanted to portray themselves as something different than they already were.

Except for the fact that they have purges, they are just like a political party. Yeah I have you. I'm sorry I think folks like the Quakers would be insulted for being labelled the same as Communists.

Purges are not rare in politics. Of course they are not usually so violent, but we should remember Oliver Cromwell also engaged in purging of the members of his Commonwealth... actually that is where the term originates.

And I think those Quakers who consider themselves Christian socialists wouldn't be insulted if they were referred to as socialists. Hell, Liberation Theology followers aren't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But as their primary position?

Uh.... yes. The entire Declaration of Independance is based on the principle that the King was not subject to the rule of law and thus violative of natural rights. The entire Republic movement was based on the idea that all men were equal under the law and no man above it.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by that dull **** MOBIUS

smilies etc.

you know i actually thought about making a serious response to you. a long post about why people vote for fascists, and the circumstances surrounding it, because it's actually quite an interesting topic. i even considered responding to the points [sic] that you raised, addressing the 'i realise the welsh aren’t known for their brains, but he can't really be that stupid, can he?' twisting of my words, tackling the basic, hilarious, but at the same time quite sad, errors in reading comprehension. i could have pointed to the map i provided so that you can see (with a little effort) where the BNP gets its votes, who it (usually) takes them off and explain what this means (hint: it's not about party politics).

however, i then remembered what a ridiculous little bell end i'm dealing with here. so i shall limit myself to your original statement, made on page 6:

Probably why for example that whenever the BNP does well in this country, it is at the expense of the Conservative vote.

and invite you to back this up, or **** off.

[Kidlicious]

quote:

The reason they want to work so much is to get ahead of the other people, so they can feel superior.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Wow, ok. I worked 12 hour days so I could pay for my school and not have to owe as much.

You seem to have a habit of making statements that aren't actually points.

quote:

Either way I'm against it. People who want to just make a living working a reasonable amount of hours are much more peacefull.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Who decides what are reasonable hours to work for other people? You? I don't see why you shouldn't be able to decide what you feel are reasonable hours? How would you stop people from working more then one job if they chose to do so.

Working more hours than is necessary is only reasonable if you value work more than your free time. That of course is unreasonable. Why should who decides be an issue? If people didn't overvalue work it wouldn't matter who decides.

And they can work if they really want to. But work would not be used to get ahead of other people. Work should never have become that. Of course, they don't really want to work 12 hours a day. You know they just want to get ahead. So if they can't get ahead they won't work.

quote:

These are the type of people we need in the world. Not the over competitive types with low self-esteem who have to hurt themselves and others just to prove that they are superoir.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How does it hurt a person to work 12 hours a day? I don't see it. I've done it treeplanting, and it's hard, but there are much less intensive jobs out there.

If you work 12 hours a day I have to work 12 hours a day just to keep up. Otherwise I the poor guy. But if I do work 12 hours a day you are going to try to work 13 hours a day just to get ahead. To make things worse our employers are going to be able to pay us less per hour because we are a couple of overcompetitive jerks who can't work together to make a decent living and not work our whole ****ing lives away.

Furthermore, when we over compete with each other we don't see each other as equals. We are always trying to show who is better. This is going to result in all kinds of problems that you see in a society of inequality, war etc.

quote:

What the hell does that even mean. Do you actually not know that Paris Hilton makes more money than a nurse. In fact, I don't care how good a nurse is. She could be the greatest nurse in the history of the ****ing world but she will never earn anything close to what Paris Hilton earns.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

My point being that Paris Hilton doesn't even have to work at all if she chooses to do so. She is famous because she was already wealthy.

Another statement that's not a point.

quote:

That is such bull****. The prejudice is inherent in your argument. Yes, people have jobs becuase of the CEO,

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you. I believe the market should decide compensation. If a business believes it is worth it to pay CEO's 20 times what they pay anyone else, then that should be there decision and not yours.

What gives you the right to decide how many hours a person should work and how much they should make doing so? That should be up to the businesses. They can make informed decisions.

Forget about whose right it is. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not people in society think of them as superiors.

quote:

the CEO also has a job because of everyone else.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That is true, but which one is harder to replace? Do the decisions that a CEO have more of an impact on all the other workers?

So productivity means level of difficulty to replace? That's a strange definition.

I'm gonna finish this post latter. You can respond to what I've written here before I continue if you like. Maybe you can explain further why people deserve more money because they are difficult to replace.

What about Jesus? Was he difficult to replace? Why wasn't he rich?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


How does me saying "Wilberforce was a Tory" imply that abolition was:

1. Only supported by Wilberforce. Demonstrably false.

2. Only supported by Tories.

Does it say that Tories were significantly responsible for the bill? Yes it does, and that is what I was trying to say.

Unbelieveable.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by C0ckney
you know i actually thought about making a serious response to you. a long post about why people vote for fascists, and the circumstances surrounding it, because it's actually quite an interesting topic. i even considered responding to the points [sic] that you raised, addressing the 'i realise the welsh aren’t known for their brains, but he can't really be that stupid, can he?' twisting of my words, tackling the basic, hilarious, but at the same time quite sad, errors in reading comprehension. i could have pointed to the map i provided so that you can see (with a little effort) where the BNP gets its votes, who it (usually) takes them off and explain what this means (hint: it's not about party politics).

Blah, blah, blah, excuses about not replying because you got PWNED...!

and invite you to back this up, or **** off.

Yeah, and I ANSWERED IT ****brick!

[Ramo]

The point is that MLK is a conservative. He would be considered a conservative today. He rejected Malcolm X, and he believed that the political process could acheive equality. He was a Christian who supported traditional marriage and opposed abortion. I don't know why you are calling him a socialist, he would have opposed the term.

Obviously Ben has posted a lot of ridiculous nonsense in this thread, but this is pretty special.

Martin Luther King specifically called himself a socialist in his later years. He was reviled by conservatives (hence, you know, his assassination), seen as a demagogue who riled up black people to riot. At the time of his death, he was ginning up support for a "poor peoples' campaign" to secure billions from the federal government for jobs. At the specific event where he was assassinated, he was speaking in support of a garbage workers' strike.

[C0ckney]

mobius, i'm glad to see you chose option 2. it's certainly safer from your point of view.