American's Rights

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I'll go with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

The 10 you are thinking of were added almost as footnotes and many Founders didn't want them added because they felt they were restrictive.

That's not a legal right in the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment guarantees the right of "life, liberty, and property," but not the pursuit of happiness.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I assumed no such thing. I'm sure you want to work. However, you must admit that in an entitlement system there are people who will be able to reap the benefits without working.

I never explicitely or implicitely mentioned an entitlement system. Just admit that you made a stupid assumption.

What, like building bridges to nowhere? And it isn't the fact that you can't make up busywork for people to do, the point is that you presumably have to pay them to do it.

No, like heathcare, education, agriculture, manufacturing and construction. And I'm not against paying people for their work. In fact, I believe they should be paid a lot more than you do.

Sure, I can think of things like that. The problem with those things is that they send labor costs skyrocketing.

Not a problem when wages aren't set by the market.

Kid, money doesn't grow on the money tree.

It's printed. And since I know that you will say that causes inflation even though I just mentioned that prices are set let's just skip that whole part.

At some point, you have to have a complete command economy where nobody has a right to any money or property, and anything they possess is at the sufference of the government. Otherwise, your system breaks down, and come to think of it, command economies simply break down too.

They work a lot better than market economies. In fact, you mention the worst thing about market economies, the inability to use resources at full capacity due to price fluctuations.

Sure people have the right to work. They just don't have the right to a guaranteed job.

Oh dear. Rights are guaranteed. If they are guaranteed they aren't rights.

Sort of like how I have the right to own a car, but I don't have a right to a guaranteed car.

A right to work is different from a right to get a job also.

Yeah, but would you be doing it if no one was paying you? No, didn't think so. And who pays you? That's right, rich corporate executives. Why are they employing you? Because you are providing a service to them, that will enable them to increase their wealth. If Target is building a new store, they are doing it because they think it will be profitable, not so that they can have an excuse to give you a job and a paycheck.

I made a simple comment. That was that work creates wealth. I also oppose slavery. Connect the dots for us.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok


Pet carrier or habitrail?

How would we send everyone to the gulag in pet carriers?

[David Floyd]

I never explicitely or implicitely mentioned an entitlement system. Just admit that you made a stupid assumption.

Well, what would you like to call it? In a system where people have the guaranteed right to a job and a guaranteed right to health care, that is an entitlement system. I'm happy to discuss other words for your system, but the definition is the same.

No, like heathcare, education, agriculture, manufacturing and construction.

What exactly does that mean? In the case of construction, what if none needs to be done? Are you going to build stuff anyway? What about people who already have jobs in construction - won't government-subsidized jobs drive them out of work? In the case of health care, not everyone has the skillset to work in health care. Same for education, agriculture, and manufacturing. And guess what? Most people who have the education and skill sets to be successful in the agricultural, education, health care, and manufacturing fields ALREADY HAVE A JOB. That means you are going to be flooding the construction market - ie, the unskilled labor market - with a bunch of unemployed people so you have an excuse to give them a paycheck. So again, you'll be in a situation where you are either driving private construction companies out of business, or you are building bridges to nowhere. Which is it gonna be?

Oh, sorry, I forgot. You could abolish all private companies, too. Are you advocating that?

And I'm not against paying people for their work. In fact, I believe they should be paid a lot more than you do.

I believe that people should be paid at a level the market dictates for their labor, based primarily on supply and demand. You see, that's how you get people to go through the expense and time of getting difficult, advanced degrees - the hope for a big paycheck. Oh, sure, that's not always true, but by and large, it is.

Not a problem when wages aren't set by the market.

So, then, why are people going to go to school for 10+ years of higher education? To get a job in which they will be demonstrably and massively underpaid? What doctor or lawyer do you know of who is willing to work for $60,000 per year?

It's printed. And since I know that you will say that causes inflation even though I just mentioned that prices are set let's just skip that whole part.

Ah, the Mugabe School of Economics. You want to set wages, (presumably) set prices, make the government the country's primary employment agency, and print money to pay for everything. OK. And what happens when the rest of the world decides that your money is worthless, won't extend us credit, and won't trade with us?

They work a lot better than market economies. In fact, you mention the worst thing about market economies, the inability to use resources at full capacity due to price fluctuations.

Sure, market economies aren't 100% efficient. But I think history has shown that they are far more efficient than command economies. Otherwise, why is the great majority of the developed world operating in some iteration of a market economy?

Oh dear. Rights are guaranteed. If they are guaranteed they aren't rights.

Really? So I have the right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? And again, I have the right to travel freely between the states. Does that mean the government should give me the means to travel?

A right to work is different from a right to get a job also.

So why don't you think that we have a right to work, then? Is your point that we don't have a right to work because our employers can fire us, in some places without cause?

I made a simple comment. That was that work creates wealth. I also oppose slavery. Connect the dots for us.

Uh, sorry. I can dig ditches all day long and not create one bit of wealth. However, if I am digging ditches as part of a plan to build a shopping mall, then I am engaged in creating wealth. There's more to creating wealth than labor. Sure, without labor, you couldn't create wealth, but then again, labor would be largely irrelevant without capital and entrepreneurship, too.

[Ramo]

No love for the 5th Amendment? The most fundamental right is the right to challenge your detention.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, sorry, I forgot. You could abolish all private companies, too. Are you advocating that?

I advocate making some private companies part of a new system, and abolishing the rest that don't make sense anymore.

I believe that people should be paid at a level the market dictates for their labor, based primarily on supply and demand. You see, that's how you get people to go through the expense and time of getting difficult, advanced degrees - the hope for a big paycheck. Oh, sure, that's not always true, but by and large, it is.

I disagree. IMO it results in lower pay on average. Also the market tends to create high paying jobs that aren't actually beneficial to society. You can train for a lot of jobs that pay pretty well, but there are other jobs that would benefit society better. Too often people choose the former. That's why we have a lot of permanent shortages in a lot of fields.

So, then, why are people going to go to school for 10+ years of higher education? To get a job in which they will be demonstrably and massively underpaid? What doctor or lawyer do you know of who is willing to work for $60,000 per year?

60k is a lot of money. I'm sure they would do it if they were paid for their education and while they were in school. And I doubt we will need as many lawyers. However, I expect to have more doctors. Keep in mind a lot of jobs will be eliminated.

Really? So I have the right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? And again, I have the right to travel freely between the states. Does that mean the government should give me the means to travel?

How is having a job like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater?

So why don't you think that we have a right to work, then? Is your point that we don't have a right to work because our employers can fire us, in some places without cause?

Because the system doesn't work in a way that everyone will be employed. You've already admitted that.

This is not a system that benefits workers. It benefits corporations and people who are so rich they don't have to work. You can't have both.

Uh, sorry. I can dig ditches all day long and not create one bit of wealth. However, if I am digging ditches as part of a plan to build a shopping mall, then I am engaged in creating wealth. There's more to creating wealth than labor. Sure, without labor, you couldn't create wealth, but then again, labor would be largely irrelevant without capital and entrepreneurship, too.

Replace capital and entrepreneurship with organization and you have wealth and freedom instead of just wealth.

[David Floyd]

I advocate making some private companies part of a new system, and abolishing the rest that don't make sense anymore.

The only kind of company that doesn't make sense is the kind that loses money. Seriously, what are you basing "don't make sense" on? Clearly, it isn't based on anything related to business, because if it was, any business that posts a profit is GOOD for the economy. If you want to abolish companies that are losing money, I got news for you - the market already does that.

I disagree. IMO it results in lower pay on average. Also the market tends to create high paying jobs that aren't actually beneficial to society. You can train for a lot of jobs that pay pretty well, but there are other jobs that would benefit society better. Too often people choose the former. That's why we have a lot of permanent shortages in a lot of fields.

Actually, the average wage would be the same. Let's use an example. If there is $1 million worth of available payroll, and 10 employees, the average wage is the same if 9 are making $20/year and one is making $820k/year, as it would be if everyone made $100k/year. The difference, though, is that if you eliminate the people at the top of the wealth pyramid, you are making it unlikely that further wealth will be created. Even assuming the numbers I threw out were real, and not just an example, $100k/year is not enough to both raise a family and invest significant capital into new ideas or a new business. More generally speaking, though, it is the super-wealthy individuals, corporations, and small businesses that create most of the jobs and generate wealth. By eliminating those segments of society, even though the average wage may seem more "equitable", you would end up with a stagnant economy.

60k is a lot of money.

No it isn't, not really. Ask some of the posters on here who have houses and support families (Ming springs to mind, for example), if $60k is enough to reasonably pay your mortgage, support your family, pay your car payment(s), save for college, etc. It isn't, except maybe in a system where everyone is equally poor.

I'm sure they would do it if they were paid for their education and while they were in school. And I doubt we will need as many lawyers. However, I expect to have more doctors. Keep in mind a lot of jobs will be eliminated.

Ummm, why would people do it? Except for the segment of people who truly want to be doctors and aren't in it for the money (which, to some degree, many are), then why would you spend several extra years in school, plus your residency as the hospital's *****, if you aren't going to have a better financial outcome? And by the way, how are you going to afford to pay for their med school? Med school's expensive. Oh, that's right, you'll just print the money. Methinks you need a refresher on Econ 101.

How is having a job like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater?

It isn't, just like having the right to work doesn't equate to the guarantee of a job. Again, there is a difference between rights and entitlements, and you still haven't addressed why you think your definition of rights is not simply an entitlement system.

Because the system doesn't work in a way that everyone will be employed. You've already admitted that.

Of course not. But anyone who truly wants a job, can have one. It's just that many people don't want to stoop to working in the restaurant industry, or retail, or take a janitorial job. Why the hell do you think we have so many illegal immigrants here?

As a real-life example, do you know what the average yearly turnover in a retail environment is? I'll tell you - depending on the company, it can range from 40% (which is considered REALLY, REALLY GOOD) all the way to over 100%. What does this mean? Well, among other things, it means that there are plenty of opportunities for you to have a job, if you are willing to put in the work to hold a job down.

This is not a system that benefits workers. It benefits corporations and people who are so rich they don't have to work. You can't have both.

You forget that corporations are built by people who DO work. You think CEOs don't do anything? Wrong. Admittedly, they don't do backbreaking manual labor, but to say that CEOs and other corporate execs don't do anything is simply stupid. Yeah, they may play golf a lot, but they also conduct plenty of business on the golf course. Being super-rich isn't easy street, by any means - only those who have an unrealistic view of life think that once you become rich, your problems/stress ends.

Replace capital and entrepreneurship with organization and you have wealth and freedom instead of just wealth.

Oh, OK. Organization is provided by the federal government, funded by printing unlimited amounts of money, inflation is combated by fixing wages and prices, and private companies that "don't make sense" are abolished. Do I have that right?

I just have one question for you. If our money is worthless on the international market, how are we going to buy oil? We don't dictate prices to OPEC, they dictate prices to us. That's just one question of many that could be brought up, it just happens to be one of the most crippling effects of your system.

[Kidlicious]

I'll just address a couple of things tonite, since I have to wake up early.

Originally posted by David Floyd
The only kind of company that doesn't make sense is the kind that loses money. Seriously, what are you basing "don't make sense" on? Clearly, it isn't based on anything related to business, because if it was, any business that posts a profit is GOOD for the economy. If you want to abolish companies that are losing money, I got news for you - the market already does that.

I don't want a communist system that produces all of the same things that the old system produces. The question of what is produced shouldn't be decided by who has the money to pay. It should be decided by everyone equally and fairly.

Also, prices should be set to distribute resources in a way that is beneficial to society. So producers won't be held accountable for just how much profit they make. They'll be held accountable for meeting other requirements.

Actually, the average wage would be the same. Let's use an example. If there is $1 million worth of available payroll, and 10 employees, the average wage is the same if 9 are making $20/year and one is making $820k/year, as it would be if everyone made $100k/year.

Why do you think payroll would be the same? Corporations are constantly striving to reduce payroll expenses. When they are doing it by making operations more efficient that's great, but often they are just trying to pay less wages like when they outsource to countries like China.

The difference, though, is that if you eliminate the people at the top of the wealth pyramid, you are making it unlikely that further wealth will be created. Even assuming the numbers I threw out were real, and not just an example, $100k/year is not enough to both raise a family and invest significant capital into new ideas or a new business. More generally speaking, though, it is the super-wealthy individuals, corporations, and small businesses that create most of the jobs and generate wealth. By eliminating those segments of society, even though the average wage may seem more "equitable", you would end up with a stagnant economy.

Just start another group of producers, and give them a set of goals to achieve.

[David Floyd]

I don't want a communist system that produces all of the same things that the old system produces. The question of what is produced shouldn't be decided by who has the money to pay. It should be decided by everyone equally and fairly.

Sorry, no. Everyone isn't equal in every field. Having a bureaucrat override an economist, in the field of production and supply and demand is a recipe for FAIL.

Also, prices should be set to distribute resources in a way that is beneficial to society. So producers won't be held accountable for just how much profit they make. They'll be held accountable for meeting other requirements.

Define "beneficial to society". What "other requirements" would be required? How do you "hold them accountable"?

Why do you think payroll would be the same? Corporations are constantly striving to reduce payroll expenses. When they are doing it by making operations more efficient that's great, but often they are just trying to pay less wages like when they outsource to countries like China.

Great, so in your system, since corporations will no longer be able to post sufficient profit margins as their are not allowed to manage payroll, they will just close up shop and move overseas.

Just start another group of producers, and give them a set of goals to achieve.

Simple as that, huh? And since this mythical group of producers put up 0 of their own capital, what incentive do they have to work hard? What, are you going to throw them in jail for failing to meet your production goals? No, companies are successful because, in large part, the people who have their money at risk work damn hard to make them successful. If someone hands me a million bucks and says "Hey, start a company! Here are some goals!" what incentive do I actually have? I won't have to care about making make me or break me financial decisions or business gambles, since it isn't my money either. And since I won't see any of the profits, I don't have incentive in that direction, either.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It isn't, just like having the right to work doesn't equate to the guarantee of a job.

No it's not the same thing. I already told you that a right to get a job is not a right to work. Stop being obtuse.

Again, there is a difference between rights and entitlements, and you still haven't addressed why you think your definition of rights is not simply an entitlement system.

Duh! Because I never said that it is. I've told you over and over that people will work, also it's quite obvious that they will. To top it off we've been talking about how they would work for a few pages now.

Is this all you've got for an argument?

Of course not. But anyone who truly wants a job, can have one. It's just that many people don't want to stoop to working in the restaurant industry, or retail, or take a janitorial job. Why the hell do you think we have so many illegal immigrants here?

I think the point was that a system that doesn't have enough jobs for everyone is going to be depressing on wages and not benefit workers.

You forget that corporations are built by people who DO work. You think CEOs don't do anything? Wrong. Admittedly, they don't do backbreaking manual labor, but to say that CEOs and other corporate execs don't do anything is simply stupid. Yeah, they may play golf a lot, but they also conduct plenty of business on the golf course. Being super-rich isn't easy street, by any means - only those who have an unrealistic view of life think that once you become rich, your problems/stress ends.

Oh, BS. You just got through saying that Americans don't even like to work, that they leave most of the hard jobs to immigrants. Now you are telling us that the head of organizations work so hard.

Oh, OK. Organization is provided by the federal government, funded by printing unlimited amounts of money, inflation is combated by fixing wages and prices, and private companies that "don't make sense" are abolished. Do I have that right?

I just have one question for you. If our money is worthless on the international market, how are we going to buy oil? We don't dictate prices to OPEC, they dictate prices to us. That's just one question of many that could be brought up, it just happens to be one of the most crippling effects of your system.

The money wouldn't be worthless jackass. You just made that assertion.

Really, you've got to give me something better here.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I oppose zombies.

Traitor!!

Zombie Lenin will kick your capitalist ass!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sorry, no. Everyone isn't equal in every field. Having a bureaucrat override an economist, in the field of production and supply and demand is a recipe for FAIL.

People would be educated to do their jobs.

Define "beneficial to society".

Houses, food, healthcare, education, everything that the free market sucks at producing in quantity that we desire more of.

What "other requirements" would be required?
How do you "hold them accountable"?

My idea is that they don't get vacation until they finish. Maybe they would even work some weekends.

Great, so in your system, since corporations will no longer be able to post sufficient profit margins as their are not allowed to manage payroll, they will just close up shop and move overseas.

It's not really corporations. There wouldn't be any corporations to have that kind of power over workers and society. There would be groups of people that use societies resources to produce goods and services for society.

Simple as that, huh? And since this mythical group of producers put up 0 of their own capital, what incentive do they have to work hard?

They get paid well. They don't have a heartless corporation to work for. They get more vacation if they work hard. In a word, freedom.

[Ecthy]

SlowwHand

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


That's not a legal right in the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment guarantees the right of "life, liberty, and property," but not the pursuit of happiness.

Who said that I had to choose from the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Who said all of our rights are derived from Amendments to the Constitution only.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are what makes everything else possible.

One other important thing to remember is that a true right cannot be given to someone by the government, it is independent of the government and exists for all humans. Governments can only restrict or take away a person's rights they don't give them to them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Who said all of our rights are derived from Amendments to the Constitution only.

Society .

As someone who believes that rights are only granted by society/government, I'd say that "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" aren't American rights (and Hell, you can't really assert it if the government comes down on you).