Long working hours kill.

[C0ckney]

i.e. you and me are smart enough to act in our own self-interest, but god forbid the hoi polloi attempt it. Let us protect them from themselves...

i'm sure that the 19th century capitalists made very similar arguments, "those people don't have to do 14 hours a day of backbreaking labour in my factory/mine, they can always choose not to (and starve)". society has progressed a great deal since then, and one of the principal reasons that this has happened is because societies have implemented laws, which restrict worker's 'choices' but in practice improve their conditions.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Unregulated, or fully "free" market goes towards an equilibrium, but that equilibrium has no consideration of the "passive" paricipants ie workforce, it is the equlibrium of the decision makers, the owners who are trying to provide the best product for the least, in order to get the best return on investment. The workforce participates through another means - political; either direct - unions, or indirect - state government ... that is their participation, and if this was removed, the equilibrium would eventually be "back to Greeks and Romans".

If you as an owner and decision maker could extort maximum control over the means of production you would via physical threat have the others work for you with maximum efficiency, giving you the cheapest good/services to sell to the marketplace. Lowest common denominator with slavery for uneducated bottom is the end game.

Even civil law protecting you from violence and murder is "regulation", but I guess on that one we can all agree, it's good. The question is "how much regulation" do you need, and if regulation about working time is good or not?

For me - it makes sense, even if it cannot be effectively implemented, as it creates an "expected" marketplace baseline. Not because people are unable to decide for themselves, but because the market naturally creates conditions where anything other than excessive free hours are the norm, as this is the most productive state. "Most productive" market state is not necessarily good for workforce health or what many equate with "good" life (having some time to spend outside of work). Neither is having a reasonable working hours baseline deterimental to overall productivity, yet it can have positive social consequences, and that is why I am in favour of regulation in this case.

[MikeH]

Civil law protecting from violence and murder requires a police force and judiciary which requires funding even if just to equip volunteers. Which requires taxation. Which requires some form of government to collect taxes, some form of way to decide what that government is and probably then creates a new crime of tax evasion.

So maybe we should just let people kill each other, the strongest and/or smartest will survive.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

It's not a silly question at all.

Game theory experiments show us that it's extremely common for people to make an illogical choice. And in many cases even when they do choose the best option for the individual it isn't the best for the society as a whole which they are part of. Prisoners Dilemma is a classic. Maximum WIN for everyone is if everyone keeps quiet, but for every individual it's always better to squeal.

An outsider legislating that they have to keep quiet could maximise win for everyone, despite that choice seeming to be against each individual player's best interests if they made the choice individually.

Well KH was nice enough to leave "vast majority of cases" in... which you were "not really sure" about... and he came back with socialism

it looked silly, as it implied that others in majority of cases can decide better than the individual. I am sure that is not your position, but the post above describes better what you were on about... I don't think this is the majority of the decisions though.

[MikeH]

I don't think the 'vast majority' of my decisions are fully rationally considered and 'in my own best interests'. I don't have enough information about most decisions and nor does anyone else.

[Aeson]

Individuals, in the vast majority of cases make better decisions for themselves than other people make for them.

... when they have the power to actually make their decisions matter.

"Should we untie that guy laying on the train tracks?" - concerned citizen
"HELL NO! He can decide for himself if he's to be untied FAR better than we could!" - KH
"Maybe he's calling for help, do you hear that?" - concerned citizen
"How should we know? I mean look, he's gagged, nothing he says makes any sense" - KH
"Should we ungag him so he can tell us what to do?"
"HELL NO! He can decide for himself if he's to be ungagged FAR better than we could!" - KH

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I don't think the 'vast majority' of my decisions are fully rationally considered and 'in my own best interests'. I don't have enough information about most decisions and nor does anyone else.

We could do an experiment. I will take over your life, organize 8/8/8hrs work/free time/sleep. I get someone to feed you with healthy food, make you exercise 1 hr a day, give you as much money as I think you need for your free time, make sure you do not smoke, drink excessively, do drugs, and take all your earning to fund my "better" decision making. Assuming that you get to live 20 years longer from such a regime, would you be grateful? I bet you would take the first opportunity for revolution, and overthrow of tyranny .

After we agree on the definition of what is "better", I am sure your individual choices will in the end be better for you.

While that might not be true for everyone (Alby ), I believe it is true for majority of cases, and a basis for a good society to live in.

[Al B. Sure!]

What leaving people up to their own devices gets them:

*image of British crackwhore*

People are ****ing stupid. There are enough people out there who are too ****ing stupid to control their own lives to demolish the legitimacy of KrazyHorse's philosophy.

[Al B. Sure!]

I want to repost this which KH felt was beneath him and not worth responding to:

No. Our labour is valuable enough that we are powerful enough to act in our own self interest. This has nothing to do with being smart enough.

[Darius871]

I want to repost this which KH felt was beneath him and not worth responding to:

No. Our labour is valuable enough that we are powerful enough to act in our own self interest. This has nothing to do with being smart enough.

Name one type of labour's value that is not positively correlated with intelligence. They may not be one and the same, but I mean come on.

[b etor]

I worked nearly 13 hours yesterday and will today also. I don't want heart diseases. =(

[Al B. Sure!]

Name one type of labour's value that is not positively correlated with intelligence. They may not be one and the same, but I mean come on.

Moments like this I really start to question some of yall intelligences and it's moments like this that get me caught up in mind games and made to look stupid when I'm ****ing right. Okay, breathe, I'll take a step back...

(if you insist, though, to varying extents, musicians, actors, artists, models, athletes, prostitutes, etc. etc. do not necessarily have the value of their labor improved by greater intelligence; I emphasize "to varying extents", however)

Now the reason why I re-posted MikeH's comment has NOTHING to do with the correlation between 'value' and intelligence. Really, way to miss the ENTIRE point. I'm thinking you specifically misconstrue things just to paint me like an idiot.

To be clear, MikeH followed up with a corollary:

Being smart might make our labour more valuable, or it might not depending on our area of expertise.

Right there, he conceded what we all know that generally speaking, you being smart makes your labor more valuable. Duh.

The real ****ing point is that, well, let's consider what MikeH's post was in response to:

i.e. you and me are smart enough to act in our own self-interest, but god forbid the hoi polloi attempt it. Let us protect them from themselves...

MikeH's point is that it is wrong to assume that the flexibility that someone like KH is afforded by his position is available to all others who may not have had the luxury of intelligence, education, skills, experience, talents, etc. that would put them in a bargaining position to enable them to work only as many hours as they want.

In other words, KH's entire position is if you don't want to work 60+ hour weeks, just get another job where you work only 40 hour weeks, or whatever it is you want. This attitude it pervasive in the thinking of both KH and Kuciwalker. It implies a position of power (changing jobs, moving, etc.) unavailable to the majority of people and demonstrates a notable lack of empathy with the rest of the human population. Of course, KH, because of various reasons, has that ability to do as he wishes. If he doesn't want to work so much, he gets a job that allows him to work less. Joe Schmo does not have that luxury.

I am amazed at how you take this quote:

No. Our labour is valuable enough that we are powerful enough to act in our own self interest. This has nothing to do with being smart enough.

And somehow only pay attention to the second half in an irrelevant circumstance, that had nothing to do with MikeH's point nor what he was responding to, while ignoring the real ****ing point... you know...
Our labour is valuable enough that we are powerful enough to act in our own self interest.

[Hauldren Collider]

um

do you have a point, alby?

[Al B. Sure!]

Darius:
MikeH said "nothing to do with being smart enough", not in respect to labor's value, as your bizarre self seems to think, but in respect to KH's position that MikeH was asserting that the plebs are not smart enough to act in their own interests. So MikeH was saying it's not about being smart enough to run your own lives... it's about bargaining power. Am I correct, MikeH?

HC:
MikeH made the point a page ago.

[KrazyHorse]

albie, based on the quote I will assume you are attempting to speak to me. In case you missed it the first time, you are on ignore for 3 momths due to extreme ignorance in my margin thread.