|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Canada11264 Posts
I don't know. I'm a free market guy. I hear this Adam Smith guy was too.
"But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage*, there is however a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least by sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more: otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation." Wealth of Nations (Wages of Labour)
*referring to labour combinations vs master cominations with the support of civil magistrates
|
On June 03 2013 11:53 Falling wrote:
I don't know. I'm a free market guy. I hear this Adam Smith guy was too.
"But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage*, there is however a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least by sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more: otherwise it would bimpossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation." Wealth of Nations (Wages of Labour)
*referring to labour combinations vs master cominations with the support of civil magistrates
Exactly right. And absolutely no one in the US is starving to death. When people say "living wages" what they mean is a particularly high standard of living, a standard of living which isn't even enjoyed by the majority of people on the planet. To make a leap from that to slavery is pure offensive hyperbole.
|
United States41938 Posts
On June 03 2013 11:53 Ingsoc101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The choice of the workers to work under those conditions is not a meaningful choice when the alternative is starvation Focus on this statement very carefully, because this is where the fallacy lay. In the absence of a market or their employer, what would their options be? It would still be work or starvation. In other words, you are criticizing the market for something that is inherent and inevitable in existence. You cannot call wages slavery unless you are willing to admit that all life is born into slavery, rendering it useless as an argument against capitalism or free markets in particular.
If you went to a country in Africa where there was a drought and the crops failed and offered people food in exchange for signing contracts selling themselves into slavery, shipped them over to the American south and then set them picking cotton would that be slavery?
|
United States41938 Posts
On June 03 2013 11:59 Ingsoc101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:53 Falling wrote:
I don't know. I'm a free market guy. I hear this Adam Smith guy was too.
"But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage*, there is however a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least by sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more: otherwise it would bimpossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation." Wealth of Nations (Wages of Labour)
*referring to labour combinations vs master cominations with the support of civil magistrates Exactly right. And absolutely no one in the US is starving to death. When people say "living wages" what they mean is a particularly high standard of living, a standard of living which isn't even enjoyed by the majority of people on the planet. To make a leap from that to slavery is pure offensive hyperbole.
The slavery argument is being made by me and is purely hypothetical as every first world country has government protections stopping the free market ever reaching that point. Saying "no one in the US is starving to death" is confusing the slavery argument, set in a hypothetical country, with the US which is an actual country.
|
On June 03 2013 11:59 Ingsoc101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:53 Falling wrote:
I don't know. I'm a free market guy. I hear this Adam Smith guy was too.
"But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage*, there is however a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least by sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more: otherwise it would bimpossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation." Wealth of Nations (Wages of Labour)
*referring to labour combinations vs master cominations with the support of civil magistrates Exactly right. And absolutely no one in the US is starving to death. When people say "living wages" what they mean is a particularly high standard of living, a standard of living which isn't even enjoyed by the majority of people on the planet. To make a leap from that to slavery is pure offensive hyperbole.
Starving to death? Maybe not. Going hungry on a daily basis? Absolutely.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 16.7 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life.
Source
|
On June 03 2013 12:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:53 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The choice of the workers to work under those conditions is not a meaningful choice when the alternative is starvation Focus on this statement very carefully, because this is where the fallacy lay. In the absence of a market or their employer, what would their options be? It would still be work or starvation. In other words, you are criticizing the market for something that is inherent and inevitable in existence. You cannot call wages slavery unless you are willing to admit that all life is born into slavery, rendering it useless as an argument against capitalism or free markets in particular. If you went to a country in Africa where there was a drought and the crops failed and offered people food in exchange for signing contracts selling themselves into slavery, shipped them over to the American south and then set them picking cotton would that be slavery?
Yes, that would be slavery, which is defined as ownership of human beings.
Care to actually respond to my argument, or will you keep deflecting?
|
On June 03 2013 11:43 Ingsoc101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 03 2013 11:18 aksfjh wrote:On June 03 2013 11:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 03 2013 07:54 Sermokala wrote:On June 03 2013 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 03 2013 05:32 farvacola wrote:On June 03 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 03 2013 02:14 silynxer wrote:
What do you mean by "add value" exactly and how do you measure it in this case? I propose an experiment, let's fire all cashiers and see how little "value" they add. Just replace with automated checkouts. Problem solved. Hardly. Check out this article, it covers the topic nicely. The long and short of it is that customers like to see people working. Automated self-checkout is appearing in more and more retail stores, with Walmart this year installing 10,000 self-service kiosks in hundreds of stores. But self-checkout is a technology direction with risks -- and even as Walmart moves ahead with its plan, other companies are already abandoning it.
Retailer Albertsons LLC, for instance, has already pulled its self-checkout systems, as did Big Y, a New England grocer. Ikea is moving to do the same thing.
At the heart of these reversals: Customer rejection.
Even so, stores like Walmart say automated self-checkout kiosks can increase customer convenience and choice. But what does a checkout kiosk system actually fix?
Vendors argue that having more checkout options means shorter lanes and speedier customer transactions. But there are concerns about the impact on jobs, since stores that roll out the technology can steer customers to self-checkout systems -- and cut back on human cashiers.
That later issue is a flash point. Walmart, jobs and the rise of self-service checkout tech Yes customers generally prefer seeing people - but not at any price. There are limits to how much people will pay for things, cashiers included. Costco would like a word with you on that point. Insert drunk anti free trade argument based on that the countries beifitng from free trade are the ones with a free- protectionist economic policy resulting in their quality of life going up and ours going down. Tbh target is the anti union company wal mart is just big enough not to give a shit about the protests. Costco would like to say what? They don't pay their workers infinite money. They have limits too. Their limits are higher because their business model can sustain it. And no, their business model isn't copyable across all retailers. Walmart is one of the most technologically advanced and efficient retailers on the planet and they still don't have much room to raise wages. That should say something about the value of bottom end retailing right there. ~2 million employees and $15-16 billion in profit. They have room to raise wages/compensation by $6-8 an hour per employee (at least) before they red-line it. Not that it's necessarily the smartest business decision or that every employee deserves a raise, but they do have the room for it. Related: A (highly opinionated) piece on Wal-Mart vs Costco It's not in the ream of realism to go with zero profits. Regardless, the $6-8 figure seems high... $6-$8 seems high because his numbers are way off. Costco's profit is just over a billion dollars. He's probably confusing profit with revenue, or something... Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:41 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 03 2013 11:35 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 11:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 03 2013 11:28 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 11:24 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 03 2013 10:55 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 10:45 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 03 2013 10:04 coverpunch wrote:On June 03 2013 10:01 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
Is this before or after their malnourished corpse is exhumed? Does America have an obesity problem or not? You can do better than this. If people didn't have to eat garbage because their cripplingly low wages at Wal-mart forced them to work 2 or 3 terrible jobs maybe some of the obesity problem might go away? You expect people to eat well end exercise with no time or money? Also odds are if you're obese you're in-taking no actual nourishment. Just because you put matter into your face doesn't mean its nourishing at all. Again, here is the same fallacy that I hear repeated again and again. It just doesn't make sense. "I would drive a Ferrari if Bill Gates gave me a million dollars, but he doesn't, therefore Bill Gates stole my Ferrari." A logic that come only come from a pure entitlement mentality. wages that drive them to... Again, the wages don't drive them to anything. In the absence of employment, they would be even worse off. The wages are a gain, not a loss. So they should just apply to be doctors and make bank then huh? I mean they've got every option in the world for decent high paying jobs! The country is booming with them! You people can't have it both ways. You either pay people legitimate money so they aren't DRIVEN to completely insane activities like working multiple shit jobs. OR you have a massive welfare state that pays people legitimate money to sit on their ass. The choice is yours. What the fuck does "you people" mean? I don't give a fuck how much welfare you give people. Stop lumping me with straw men. My argument here is that you cannot blame capitalism for what is the natural order of life. And also that the concept of "wage slavery" is completely idiotic, for this reason among others. You people, the right wingers and libertarians that espouse the free market, paying people slave wages and at the same time want to get rid of any societal safety nets. "The natural order of life" went out the window when we formed civilized society. This shit isn't Darwinism anymore. The strong don't survive while the weak are left in the gutter to die. "Wage slavery" is no more idiotic than the thought of true free market capitalism. It assumes so many things that given human nature can never actually be true. I've yet in all my years to hear a legitimate, well thought out argument for it that doesn't presuppose a million different things. Free market capitalism is akin to Thunderdome, I'm sorry, that shit doesn't fly in the real world in a civilized society. One that actually gives human life intrinsic value and dignity. You are arguing against shit I've never even said. I don't have to be a right winger or a libertarian to understand what a free market actually is, and it cannot be defined as slavery by any stretch of the imagination, unless you are willing to admit that nearly all life on Earth is born into natural slavery. Which renders the argument idiotic. I get that you want people to never have to worry about survival again. So support welfare. You can support welfare or redistribution without making idiotic arguments like "wage slavery."
So paying people jack shit, not nearly enough to live on isn't a form of slavery? Their options at that point are to not have a job and live fully on welfare. To keep that shit job and take welfare too, or to get multiple jobs to try and maintain their dignity at the loss of time required to keep all their affairs in order. Those are literally the ONLY 3 options unless you include just putting a gun in your mouth and killing yourself or turning to a life of crime. I'm sorry but paying people shit wages backs them into a corner where there options are few and far between. The option of bettering yourself through education at that point is all but off the table. You'll gain zero job or life skills through your cashier or stocking job, so rising up through work experience isn't an option either. Explain to me where these people are supposed to find the time, money, or opportunity to better their lives?
All life isn't born into actual slavery but they are born into the conditions they find themselves in. If you believe that one child born to rich parents and another born into poverty have all the exact same opportunities you're out of your mind. If you believe those two children can have the exact same upbringing, if you believe that they get equal parenting you're out of your mind. Maybe the poor kid gets lucky, but the odds are severely stacked against him. This isn't some "Roots" slavery obviously but he will be a slave to his surroundings.
I fully support welfare as a safety net. It'll always be needed for the worst case scenarios. But actually paying people enough money to live their lives would be drastically better. People shouldn't have no worries ever, but they shouldn't have to worry about basic shit. Shelter, food, drink, time to actually cook a real meal, play, interact, and keep tabs on their children, some form of unwinding at the end of the day, and sleep. Someone having to work multiple jobs to get by can't do all that, there's only so many hours in the day and that will never change. SOMETHING has to give.
|
On June 03 2013 12:03 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:59 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 11:53 Falling wrote:
I don't know. I'm a free market guy. I hear this Adam Smith guy was too.
"But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage*, there is however a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least by sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more: otherwise it would bimpossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation." Wealth of Nations (Wages of Labour)
*referring to labour combinations vs master cominations with the support of civil magistrates Exactly right. And absolutely no one in the US is starving to death. When people say "living wages" what they mean is a particularly high standard of living, a standard of living which isn't even enjoyed by the majority of people on the planet. To make a leap from that to slavery is pure offensive hyperbole. Starving to death? Maybe not. Going hungry on a daily basis? Absolutely. Show nested quote +According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 16.7 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life. Source
"Consistently access nutritious food" != "Going hungry on a daily basis"
By the way, you might want to look a little deeper into such statistics, since they are bullshit most of the time. For example, based upon surveys, with very questionable wording, and such.
The funny thing is most poor people are obese.
|
United States41938 Posts
On June 03 2013 12:04 Ingsoc101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:01 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 11:53 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The choice of the workers to work under those conditions is not a meaningful choice when the alternative is starvation Focus on this statement very carefully, because this is where the fallacy lay. In the absence of a market or their employer, what would their options be? It would still be work or starvation. In other words, you are criticizing the market for something that is inherent and inevitable in existence. You cannot call wages slavery unless you are willing to admit that all life is born into slavery, rendering it useless as an argument against capitalism or free markets in particular. If you went to a country in Africa where there was a drought and the crops failed and offered people food in exchange for signing contracts selling themselves into slavery, shipped them over to the American south and then set them picking cotton would that be slavery? Yes, that would be slavery, which is defined as ownership of human beings. Care to actually respond to my argument, or will you keep deflecting?
I don't think I'm deflecting, I'm getting to my point here.
You believe that if people are starving then that is unfortunate but it is the natural state of man and that if a business sees their starvation as an opportunity to step in and offer them a choice, starvation or long hours of work for meagre food and housing, then that is the free market at work and not slavery. However if a business does the exact same thing except asking them to voluntarily sign a bill of sale for themselves rather than an employment contract it is not slavery, even if every subsequent day in the lives of the workers are identical in both scenarios.
You are defining slavery simply as legal ownership whereas I am looking at the conditions that define slavery, chiefly lack of control over one's own labour. By your definition two men could work in the same field, be fed the same gruel, sleep in the same barracks and face the same punishment (death) should they not work and yet one could be a slave and the other a free man based upon different wording in the contract with which they have sold their labour. By mine we call a spade a spade.
|
On June 03 2013 12:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:04 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 12:01 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 11:53 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The choice of the workers to work under those conditions is not a meaningful choice when the alternative is starvation Focus on this statement very carefully, because this is where the fallacy lay. In the absence of a market or their employer, what would their options be? It would still be work or starvation. In other words, you are criticizing the market for something that is inherent and inevitable in existence. You cannot call wages slavery unless you are willing to admit that all life is born into slavery, rendering it useless as an argument against capitalism or free markets in particular. If you went to a country in Africa where there was a drought and the crops failed and offered people food in exchange for signing contracts selling themselves into slavery, shipped them over to the American south and then set them picking cotton would that be slavery? Yes, that would be slavery, which is defined as ownership of human beings. Care to actually respond to my argument, or will you keep deflecting? I don't think I'm deflecting, I'm getting to my point here. You believe that if people are starving then that is unfortunate but it is the natural state of man and that if a business sees their starvation as an opportunity to step in and offer them a choice, starvation or long hours of work for meagre food and housing, then that is the free market at work and not slavery. However if a business does the exact same thing except asking them to voluntarily sign a bill of sale for themselves rather than an employment contract it is not slavery, even if every subsequent day in the lives of the workers are identical in both scenarios. You are defining slavery simply as legal ownership whereas I am looking at the conditions that define slavery, chiefly lack of control over one's own labour. By your definition two men could work in the same field, be fed the same gruel, sleep in the same barracks and face the same punishment (death) should they not work and yet one could be a slave and the other a free man based upon different wording in the contract with which they have sold their labour. By mine we call a spade a spade.
Ding ding ding! Thank you sir.
|
On June 03 2013 12:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:04 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 12:01 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 11:53 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The choice of the workers to work under those conditions is not a meaningful choice when the alternative is starvation Focus on this statement very carefully, because this is where the fallacy lay. In the absence of a market or their employer, what would their options be? It would still be work or starvation. In other words, you are criticizing the market for something that is inherent and inevitable in existence. You cannot call wages slavery unless you are willing to admit that all life is born into slavery, rendering it useless as an argument against capitalism or free markets in particular. If you went to a country in Africa where there was a drought and the crops failed and offered people food in exchange for signing contracts selling themselves into slavery, shipped them over to the American south and then set them picking cotton would that be slavery? Yes, that would be slavery, which is defined as ownership of human beings. Care to actually respond to my argument, or will you keep deflecting? even if every subsequent day in the lives of the workers are identical in both scenarios.
Here is the fallacy now. It leaps around a lot.
If you have a contract selling yourself into slavery, then yes, that is the reality of your existence for the rest of your life, guaranteed.
If you have a low paying job, you are not guaranteed to stay in that position for life. You have choices. You have opportunities. You can advance, you can get an education, you can quit and find a new job. You aren't a slave, by any perverted stretch of language or the imagination.
I used to earn some pretty shit wages. Now I don't earn shit wages. It wasn't a miracle, and it wasn't luck. It happens every day. And you compare that to selling yourself into slavery? Tell me you are joking, please.
|
Canada11264 Posts
On June 03 2013 11:59 Ingsoc101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:53 Falling wrote:
I don't know. I'm a free market guy. I hear this Adam Smith guy was too.
"But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage*, there is however a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least by sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more: otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation." Wealth of Nations (Wages of Labour)
*referring to labour combinations vs master cominations with the support of civil magistrates Exactly right. And absolutely no one in the US is starving to death. When people say "living wages" what they mean is a particularly high standard of living, a standard of living which isn't even enjoyed by the majority of people on the planet. To make a leap from that to slavery is pure offensive hyperbole.
Well there are bunch of social safety nets in place and a bunch of charitable organizations to prevent that eventuality. But if a workers must rely upon this in addition to work, then I do not think they can be said to be living by his/her work. On the otherhand the governmental and volunteer safety nets do help as a safety valve to help prevent revolution or bread riots. But I don't know that this is sustainable for a considerable time.
|
United States41938 Posts
On June 03 2013 12:19 Ingsoc101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:13 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 12:04 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 12:01 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 11:53 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The choice of the workers to work under those conditions is not a meaningful choice when the alternative is starvation Focus on this statement very carefully, because this is where the fallacy lay. In the absence of a market or their employer, what would their options be? It would still be work or starvation. In other words, you are criticizing the market for something that is inherent and inevitable in existence. You cannot call wages slavery unless you are willing to admit that all life is born into slavery, rendering it useless as an argument against capitalism or free markets in particular. If you went to a country in Africa where there was a drought and the crops failed and offered people food in exchange for signing contracts selling themselves into slavery, shipped them over to the American south and then set them picking cotton would that be slavery? Yes, that would be slavery, which is defined as ownership of human beings. Care to actually respond to my argument, or will you keep deflecting? even if every subsequent day in the lives of the workers are identical in both scenarios. Here is the fallacy now. It leaps around a lot. If you have a contract selling yourself into slavery, then yes, that is the reality of your existence for the rest of your life, guaranteed. If you have a low paying job, you are not guaranteed to stay in that position for life. You have choices. You have opportunities. You can advance, you can get an education, you can quit and find a new job. You aren't a slave, by any perverted stretch of language or the imagination. I used to earn some pretty shit wages. Now I don't earn shit wages. It wasn't a miracle, and it wasn't luck. It happens every day. And you compare that to selling yourself into slavery? Tell me you are joking, please.
We're talking about a hypothetical scenario which doesn't exist in any country due to government intervention in the free market, not your life story. I keep repeating that, it hasn't leaped once. The hypothetical has always been a subsistence existence in exchange for labour, no money to save or invest, no free time for education, no way of saving money to look elsewhere.
Sure if you're one of the men I'm characterising as slaves but only have an employment contract then you might be randomly made CEO of the company or get a letter from Hogwarts or whatever but equally if you're one of the men you agree are slaves due to their bill of sale then you might one day be freed following a civil war. That doesn't make you less of a slave today.
Again, I am not comparing your life story to slavery. I am not joking about doing it. I am not being serious about doing it. I'm just not doing it. You were not, nor ever could be, a victim of the scenario I am discussing because government intervention and the nature of man to cast off his shackles have made it impossible in the modern world. It is merely the end result of the free market nightmare which, as a nightmare, has no basis in reality.
|
On June 03 2013 12:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:19 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 12:13 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 12:04 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 12:01 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 11:53 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The choice of the workers to work under those conditions is not a meaningful choice when the alternative is starvation Focus on this statement very carefully, because this is where the fallacy lay. In the absence of a market or their employer, what would their options be? It would still be work or starvation. In other words, you are criticizing the market for something that is inherent and inevitable in existence. You cannot call wages slavery unless you are willing to admit that all life is born into slavery, rendering it useless as an argument against capitalism or free markets in particular. If you went to a country in Africa where there was a drought and the crops failed and offered people food in exchange for signing contracts selling themselves into slavery, shipped them over to the American south and then set them picking cotton would that be slavery? Yes, that would be slavery, which is defined as ownership of human beings. Care to actually respond to my argument, or will you keep deflecting? even if every subsequent day in the lives of the workers are identical in both scenarios. Here is the fallacy now. It leaps around a lot. If you have a contract selling yourself into slavery, then yes, that is the reality of your existence for the rest of your life, guaranteed. If you have a low paying job, you are not guaranteed to stay in that position for life. You have choices. You have opportunities. You can advance, you can get an education, you can quit and find a new job. You aren't a slave, by any perverted stretch of language or the imagination. I used to earn some pretty shit wages. Now I don't earn shit wages. It wasn't a miracle, and it wasn't luck. It happens every day. And you compare that to selling yourself into slavery? Tell me you are joking, please. We're talking about a hypothetical scenario which doesn't exist in any country due to government intervention in the free market, not your life story. I keep repeating that, it hasn't leaped once. The hypothetical has always been a subsistence existence in exchange for labour, no money to save or invest, no free time for education, no way of saving money to look elsewhere. Sure if you're one of the men I'm characterising as slaves but only have an employment contract then you might be randomly made CEO of the company or get a letter from Hogwarts or whatever but equally if you're one of the men you agree are slaves due to their bill of sale then you might one day be freed following a civil war. That doesn't make you less of a slave today. Again, I am not comparing your life story to slavery. I am not joking about doing it. I am not being serious about doing it. I'm just not doing it. You were not, nor ever could be, a victim of the scenario I am discussing because government intervention and the nature of man to cast off his shackles have made it impossible in the modern world. It is merely the end result of the free market nightmare which, as a nightmare, has no basis in reality.
From whence do you attribute wealth, if not from the voluntary action of trade? It just magically appears, right? We can all be wealthy if only the politicians would write legislation...lol.
|
So we are now arguing against a non-existent dystopian society with massive amounts of hyperbole, in order to argue against changes in our existing social policy. Thanks for clarifying that I'm wasting my time here against pure straw men. If you'd like to discuss reality some time, instead of your dystopian vision of the right wing future, please let me know.
|
United States41938 Posts
On June 03 2013 12:32 Ingsoc101 wrote:
So we are now arguing against a non-existent dystopian society with massive amounts of hyperbole, in order to argue against changes in our existing social policy. Thanks for clarifying that I'm wasting my time here against pure straw men. If you'd like to discuss reality some time, instead of your dystopian vision of the right wing future, please let me know.
My argument hasn't changed once. We have always been arguing against a pure free market which has no basis in reality due to government intervention. I discuss reality quite often, I just wasn't this time. You're being evasive about the difference between wage slavery in a scenario that allows for worker exploitation (like the city with the failed industry mentioned earlier) and actual slavery when there are no government protection, seeing as you have thrown yourself into this argument and my belief is that you have lost it I'd like a conclusion if you're willing. All you have done thus far is misunderstand the question being posed. If you'd like I can repeat it.
|
On June 03 2013 12:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:32 Ingsoc101 wrote:
So we are now arguing against a non-existent dystopian society with massive amounts of hyperbole, in order to argue against changes in our existing social policy. Thanks for clarifying that I'm wasting my time here against pure straw men. If you'd like to discuss reality some time, instead of your dystopian vision of the right wing future, please let me know. My argument hasn't changed once. We have always been arguing against a pure free market which has no basis in reality due to government intervention. I discuss reality quite often, I just wasn't this time. You're being evasive about the difference between wage slavery in a scenario that allows for worker exploitation (like the city with the failed industry mentioned earlier) and actual slavery when there are no government protection, seeing as you have thrown yourself into this argument and my belief is that you have lost it I'd like a conclusion if you're willing. All you have done thus far is misunderstand the question being posed. If you'd like I can repeat it.
My argument hasn't changed either, whether we are talking about an imaginary society or the current one.
In neither can voluntary work be called slavery, so long as the only coercion that is applied is applied by nature itself, and not by man. Because if we define the coercion of nature to be slavery, then slavery has no meaning. Slavery only has meaning if it is induced purely by human action and/or institutions.
|
On June 03 2013 12:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:32 Ingsoc101 wrote:
So we are now arguing against a non-existent dystopian society with massive amounts of hyperbole, in order to argue against changes in our existing social policy. Thanks for clarifying that I'm wasting my time here against pure straw men. If you'd like to discuss reality some time, instead of your dystopian vision of the right wing future, please let me know. My argument hasn't changed once. We have always been arguing against a pure free market which has no basis in reality due to government intervention. I discuss reality quite often, I just wasn't this time. You're being evasive about the difference between wage slavery in a scenario that allows for worker exploitation (like the city with the failed industry mentioned earlier) and actual slavery when there are no government protection, seeing as you have thrown yourself into this argument and my belief is that you have lost it I'd like a conclusion if you're willing. All you have done thus far is misunderstand the question being posed. If you'd like I can repeat it.
Many cities come and go (hence Ghost towns), but the bones of the inhabitants do not litter the area. Again, free people have the right to travel and move, which you seem to just overlook to make it look like your 'point' has any relevance. People move all the time for employment, and in a market-society these rights are fundamental. It is the very basis of the society itself (Non-proviso Lockean self-propriety and homesteading).
|
On June 03 2013 12:40 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:36 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 12:32 Ingsoc101 wrote:
So we are now arguing against a non-existent dystopian society with massive amounts of hyperbole, in order to argue against changes in our existing social policy. Thanks for clarifying that I'm wasting my time here against pure straw men. If you'd like to discuss reality some time, instead of your dystopian vision of the right wing future, please let me know. My argument hasn't changed once. We have always been arguing against a pure free market which has no basis in reality due to government intervention. I discuss reality quite often, I just wasn't this time. You're being evasive about the difference between wage slavery in a scenario that allows for worker exploitation (like the city with the failed industry mentioned earlier) and actual slavery when there are no government protection, seeing as you have thrown yourself into this argument and my belief is that you have lost it I'd like a conclusion if you're willing. All you have done thus far is misunderstand the question being posed. If you'd like I can repeat it. Many cities come and go (hence Ghost towns), but the bones of the inhabitants do not litter the area. Again, free people have the right to travel and move, which you seem to just overlook to make it look like your 'point' has any relevance. People move all the time for employment, and in a market-society these rights are fundamental. It is the very basis of the society itself (Non-proviso Lockean self-propriety and homesteading).
So why aren't moving trucks free?
|
United States41938 Posts
On June 03 2013 12:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:27 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 12:19 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 12:13 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 12:04 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 12:01 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 11:53 Ingsoc101 wrote:On June 03 2013 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The choice of the workers to work under those conditions is not a meaningful choice when the alternative is starvation Focus on this statement very carefully, because this is where the fallacy lay. In the absence of a market or their employer, what would their options be? It would still be work or starvation. In other words, you are criticizing the market for something that is inherent and inevitable in existence. You cannot call wages slavery unless you are willing to admit that all life is born into slavery, rendering it useless as an argument against capitalism or free markets in particular. If you went to a country in Africa where there was a drought and the crops failed and offered people food in exchange for signing contracts selling themselves into slavery, shipped them over to the American south and then set them picking cotton would that be slavery? Yes, that would be slavery, which is defined as ownership of human beings. Care to actually respond to my argument, or will you keep deflecting? even if every subsequent day in the lives of the workers are identical in both scenarios. Here is the fallacy now. It leaps around a lot. If you have a contract selling yourself into slavery, then yes, that is the reality of your existence for the rest of your life, guaranteed. If you have a low paying job, you are not guaranteed to stay in that position for life. You have choices. You have opportunities. You can advance, you can get an education, you can quit and find a new job. You aren't a slave, by any perverted stretch of language or the imagination. I used to earn some pretty shit wages. Now I don't earn shit wages. It wasn't a miracle, and it wasn't luck. It happens every day. And you compare that to selling yourself into slavery? Tell me you are joking, please. We're talking about a hypothetical scenario which doesn't exist in any country due to government intervention in the free market, not your life story. I keep repeating that, it hasn't leaped once. The hypothetical has always been a subsistence existence in exchange for labour, no money to save or invest, no free time for education, no way of saving money to look elsewhere. Sure if you're one of the men I'm characterising as slaves but only have an employment contract then you might be randomly made CEO of the company or get a letter from Hogwarts or whatever but equally if you're one of the men you agree are slaves due to their bill of sale then you might one day be freed following a civil war. That doesn't make you less of a slave today. Again, I am not comparing your life story to slavery. I am not joking about doing it. I am not being serious about doing it. I'm just not doing it. You were not, nor ever could be, a victim of the scenario I am discussing because government intervention and the nature of man to cast off his shackles have made it impossible in the modern world. It is merely the end result of the free market nightmare which, as a nightmare, has no basis in reality. From whence do you attribute wealth, if not from the voluntary action of trade? It just magically appears, right? We can all be wealthy if only the politicians would write legislation...lol.
I don't have a problem with the general principles of capitalism, nor free trade, nor the invisible hand. However I believe that circumstances can naturally occur in which the natural running of the system would enslave and degrade the workers and that in those situations government intervention is required to artificially empower the workers. A voluntary exchange relies upon a degree of parity between both parties which is not always the case. Furthermore I believe that without these government interventions the workers will end up simply murdering the capitalist class which is no good for anyone.
I don't believe the government could pass a law to make everyone wealthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
