I never said this guy was an authority of anything. These thoughts just echo my own and I chose to use them.
Yes, you choose to use them. You choose to use them as we all do sometimes when someone can echo our thoughts better than we can. You chose him as an authority on this topic. Any Libertarian would support your right to do that. A fascist, however, might impose their authority upon you.
Communal ownership which includes everyone. I believe we are all connnected to each other and our actions should always reflect that.
This is going to get offensive...but it's the best way to explain it. My apologies in advance.
Tell me, do you sleep with every guy who comes along? Or do you withhold your body based on the idea that we are not "all connected" and that, in fact, each of us owns ourselves, our choices, and the products that come of them.
They own it because it's theirs.
Circular logic.
The power hungry and abusers of your system have proven your system can not work with any hope for equality in this world. Power of a few over many always corrupts whether it be a state or bussinessmen.
My system? You mean a democracy without limits wherein individual rights become secondary to governmental whims and where corrupt politicians, businessmen and "community leaders" bargain with property that isn't theirs? That ain't my system.
You speak of "equality" as if two unequal things should be equal. And you speak of "power" as if your "community" wouldn't be just a new incarnation of the state or the businessman. The instant you demand something against your neighbor's will is not only the instant you stop being a Libertarian but its also the instant you justify every crime you professed to be better than.
Yes, you choose to use them. You choose to use them as we all do sometimes when someone can echo our thoughts better than we can. You chose him as an authority on this topic. Any Libertarian would support your right to do that. A fascist, however, might impose their authority upon you.
I choose to use him as voice for an idea. That gives him no autority in indivdual interpretation or any final say on the matter.
This is going to get offensive...but it's the best way to explain it. My apologies in advance.
Tell me, do you sleep with every guy who comes along? Or do you withhold your body based on the idea that we are not "all connected" and that, in fact, each of us owns ourselves, our choices, and the products that come of them.
Of course I own my own body. No one can force me to let them use my body. Has any socialist society claimed otherwise? You just love the opportunity to be a pimp, eh?
My system? You mean a democracy without limits wherein individual rights become secondary to governmental whims and where corrupt politicians, businessmen and "community leaders" bargain with property that isn't theirs? That ain't my system.
You speak of "equality" as if two unequal things should be equal. And you speak of "power" as if your "community" wouldn't be just a new incarnation of the state or the businessman. The instant you demand something against your neighbor's will is not only the instant you stop being a Libertarian but its also the instant you justify every crime you professed to be better than.
Why would someone wish to sell their labor instead of owning themselves and earning a higher profit for it?
And what's not equal? People? Some people are more deserving than others of the resources of this land?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I choose to use him as voice for an idea. That gives him no autority in indivdual interpretation or any final say on the matter.
So his words have no meaning? They just are?
Of course I own my own body. No one can force me to let them use my body. Has any socialist society claimed otherwise? You just love the opportunity to be a pimp, eh?
All socialists claim otherwise, and all socialist societies have embraced the principle that they have a right to use the bodies of others to accomplish their aims.
Now, let's say I were a pimp. How could I not use the following argument to get you to sleep with the fat, drooling, drunken slob who just happens to be my sister's cousin:
"Communal ownership which includes everyone. I believe we are all connnected to each other and our actions should always reflect that."
Why would someone wish to sell their labor instead of owning themselves and earning a higher profit for it?
Good question. Do you have an employer? If so, why?
And what's not equal? People?
Of course. You an I are not the same. We are not equal.
Some people are more deserving than others of the resources of this land?
No one "deserves" the resources of this land. That's a silly concept and would imply someone to grant those resources. It's what socialism is based upon -- that all people somehow "deserve" something, regardless of their qualities. Nature did not give you life in order to "deserve" things, Nature gave you life such that you have to sustain it by your effort. It prescribes earning things, not deserving things. And regardless of whatever political system you implement, you cannot escape that truth. Effort consistent with life is the only thing that will sustain you, be it your own or someone else's.
People use the resources of this land. And those who should own those resources are those who best serve those uses. And that is not determined by me, or by you, or by "the community" (by which of course you mean a sub-set of the community) but rather by all of us through our participation in a market, wherein we exchange our efforts with the efforts of others.
Your system would grant a farm to a fool, because he "deserves" it. Mine would make him earn it, based on the abilities of his efforts. My system is cold-hearted. But my system is what makes sure hearts continue beating. In every socialist experiment, the only thing that has sustained men through the fascism is production. And production and labor are not necessarily the same thing, abook.
All socialists claim otherwise, and all socialist societies have embraced the principle that they have a right to use the bodies of others to accomplish their aims.
Now, let's say I were a pimp. How could I not use the following argument to get you to sleep with the fat, drooling, drunken slob who just happens to be my sister's cousin:
"Communal ownership which includes everyone. I believe we are all connnected to each other and our actions should always reflect that."
As part of the community, I still own my own body. Also, communal ownership is not without morals. Has this happened in any experiments on socialism?
Of course. You an I are not the same. We are not equal.
No one "deserves" the resources of this land. That's a silly concept and would imply someone to grant those resources. It's what socialism is based upon -- that all people somehow "deserve" something, regardless of their qualities. Nature did not give you life in order to "deserve" things, Nature gave you life such that you have to sustain it by your effort. It prescribes earning things, not deserving things. And regardless of whatever political system you implement, you cannot escape that truth. Effort consistent with life is the only thing that will sustain you, be it your own or someone else's.
People use the resources of this land. And those who should own those resources are those who best serve those uses. And that is not determined by me, or by you, or by "the community" (by which of course you mean a sub-set of the community) but rather by all of us through our participation in a market, wherein we exchange our efforts with the efforts of others.
Your system would grant a farm to a fool, because he "deserves" it. Mine would make him earn it, based on the abilities of his efforts. My system is cold-hearted. But my system is what makes sure hearts continue beating. In every socialist experiment, the only thing that has sustained men through the fascism is production. And production and labor are not necessarily the same thing, abook.
I think we are equal in many ways. Just because some in life will to control and own the resources does not make it right. It takes our differences and makes them deadly and creates the conflict that has consumed this world. Work to provide for you. But I see a problem in working to own so much that your fellow human being has to buy it back from you at a higher cost indebting them to you.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
...
You CAN stop paying your car loan or your credit cards... you will be subjected to the consequences... JUST LIKE these soldiers are.
In case you didn't know... 'Brig' is a military term for 'Jail'.
That's kinda my point.
ADD... And just because you signed up for a car loan doesn't mean the lender can tell you how to operate and where to drive your car, right?
Now, let's say I were a pimp. How could I not use the following argument to get you to sleep with the fat, drooling, drunken slob who just happens to be my sister's cousin:
...
How about the part not in the contract where the lender says, "You have 15 more months of payments" after the loan has been paid off? This is because they really need your money.
Like the way the Army is not letting soldiers out of active duty after their term has been fufilled.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
How about the part not in the contract where the lender says, "You have 15 more months of payments" after the loan has been paid off? This is because they really need your money.
Like the way the Army is not letting soldiers out of active duty after their term has been fufilled.
...
Yeah. They mention you the rates are going to be about 1% or so... they weren't lying but, they really weren't telling the truth and it ends up being 23%. It's not listed anywhere in the contract except where it says 'plus interest charges'. You bought the car and are getting screwed and i say, 'You're an idiot because no one forced you to buy the car'. That supporting you, ain't it?
My point is saying no one forced them to enlist is not supporting the troops... it's calling them idiots.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Yeah. They mention you the rates are going to be about 1% or so... they weren't lying but, they really weren't telling the truth and it ends up being 23%. It's not listed anywhere in the contract except where it says 'plus interest charges'. You bought the car and are getting screwed and i say, 'You're an idiot because no one forced you to buy the car'. That supporting you, ain't it?
My point is saying no one forced them to enlist is not supporting the troops... it's calling them idiots.
My thoughts exactly.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So condoning them breaking the law and paying them a salary for a job they refuse to so is 'supporting the troops'? WTF?
Those particluar 'soldiers' are idiots.
...
I'm not condoning or condeming them... you are. I simply support them to fight or object to fight. Either way, they are in uniform and are soldiers of my country who all voluenteered, they are not slaves to my elected leaders.
And I know recruiters. They work the Air Shows at Edwards AFB and NAS/MCAS Mira Mar and talk to young people about military service... "You like jets? Want to someday fly an F-22?" The recruits don't fly F-22s... they mop up oil stains in hangars.
I have respect for our military people... whether they fall in line with the politics of war or not.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Soldiers and politics should be kept as seperate as church and state.
...
If this were the case... why are our soldiers involved in a political crisis in Iraq? Iraqis didn't ask us to take out Hussein... we decided that shit on our own. Whose best interests were in mind? Ours or theirs?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Soldiers and politics should be kept as seperate as church and state.
politicians use soldeirs like expendable pawns in their quest for hegemony cloaked in the lies of patriotism, freedom, and fear...
so me may agree, but for much different reasons... you want them seperate because you dont like that politics and democracy can actually stop the agression... i would like them seperate so the politicians cant start any fucking wars.
As part of the community, I still own my own body. Also, communal ownership is not without morals.
Along with the rest of the community, right? Isn't it completely selfish to proclaim that you have sole ownership of your body? And what morals does "the community" have? Where do these morals reside?
Has this happened in any experiments on socialism?
Of course. It happened in Russia, Japan, China, East Germany and nearly every other established socialistic society. That said, it's happened in plenty of non-socialistic societies as well.
My point in bringing this concept up is not to say "if you form a socialist nation, your women will be raped". That's silly since rape is not primarily a function of society, rape is a function of individual morality in which society simply plays a role. My point in bringing this concept up is to show you four things:
1) That you recognize the validity of ownership, when it comes to your own body.
2) That ownership can exist outside the social construct (the concept of I)
3) That "communal ownership" is to property what rape is to willing sex between two people -- a horrific contradiction.
4) Similarly, that socialism is to freedom what fiat is to a contract -- a horrific contradiction.
Nope So answer my question without asking me another first.
Fair enough. I figured your own experience would be an answer, but obviously not. I'll answer your question ("Why would someone wish to sell their labor instead of owning themselves and earning a higher profit for it?") from my experience.
I've held 3 employers in my life. The first taught me how a business runs. The second taught me how to use computers. The third taught me how to use computers even better. The instant I decided that I could do things better myself for myself than my employers could do things for me, I left and started my own business. A number of my employees since have done the same. In other words, I sold my labor to someone else because I did not have the knowledge, nor was my labor valuable enough, to stand on its own. I used my employers to gain knowledge and experience up until the point that I felt I had nothing else to learn there that I could not learn on my own. I used employment to learn.
Speaking for my experience with employees, there is another reason people choose to sell their labor to an employer: minimized risk. When I started my first business I had negative money (debt), no health insurance, little sleep, and little social life. I sacrificed those things in exchange for what I felt would be greater returns in each category in the future. That sacrifice worked out for me. For others, it has not. Entrepeneurs accept great risk in exchange for potential great reward. Employees, however, forgo risk for minimal reward. Both approaches are completely valid, depending on those who make the choice. I have a good friend who owns his own remodling/construction company. Some days he would be considered a wealthy man. Other days he would be considered a poor man. He just had a child and the risks associated with his operation may very well make him return to an employment situation.
I think we are equal in many ways.
You cannot be "half equal". You either are, or you are not.
Just because some in life will to control and own the resources does not make it right. It takes our differences and makes them deadly and creates the conflict that has consumed this world.
Huh? More conflicts have been started in the name of "communal ownership" than will ever be started in the name of individual ownership. Nearly every war, every murder, every rape, every theft is committed by a man or woman who has decided that the words "ownership" and "control" are synonymous, just like your friend who provided that quote.
Do you think that "communal ownership" will put an end to conflict? Simply ask yourself how you'll achieve that "communal ownership" to begin with.
Work to provide for you. But I see a problem in working to own so much that your fellow human being has to buy it back from you at a higher cost indebting them to you.
What "problem" do you see here? What do my "fellow human beings" have to "buy back" from me??? What do I have that was once theirs, and how does it represent a debt?
...
If this were the case... why are our soldiers involved in a political crisis in Iraq? Iraqis didn't ask us to take out Hussein... we decided that shit on our own. Whose best interests were in mind? Ours or theirs?
Not what I mean...
I mean a soldier's political beliefs, religious beliefs, or any other beliefs for that matter need to be put on the back-burner and orders need to be followed (i.e. being a 'good nazi').
Along with the rest of the community, right? Isn't it completely selfish to proclaim that you have sole ownership of your body? And what morals does "the community" have? Where do these morals reside?
Of course. It happened in Russia, Japan, China, East Germany and nearly every other established socialistic society. That said, it's happened in plenty of non-socialistic societies as well.
My point in bringing this concept up is not to say "if you form a socialist nation, your women will be raped". That's silly since rape is not primarily a function of society, rape is a function of individual morality in which society simply plays a role. My point in bringing this concept up is to show you four things:
1) That you recognize the validity of ownership, when it comes to your own body.
2) That ownership can exist outside the social construct (the concept of I)
3) That "communal ownership" is to property what rape is to willing sex between two people -- a horrific contradiction.
4) Similarly, that socialism is to freedom what fiat is to a contract -- a horrific contradiction.
I believe you're comparing apples to oranges here.
Fair enough. I figured your own experience would be an answer, but obviously not. I'll answer your question ("Why would someone wish to sell their labor instead of owning themselves and earning a higher profit for it?") from my experience.
I've held 3 employers in my life. The first taught me how a business runs. The second taught me how to use computers. The third taught me how to use computers even better. The instant I decided that I could do things better myself for myself than my employers could do things for me, I left and started my own business. A number of my employees since have done the same. In other words, I sold my labor to someone else because I did not have the knowledge, nor was my labor valuable enough, to stand on its own. I used my employers to gain knowledge and experience up until the point that I felt I had nothing else to learn there that I could not learn on my own. I used employment to learn.
Speaking for my experience with employees, there is another reason people choose to sell their labor to an employer: minimized risk. When I started my first business I had negative money (debt), no health insurance, little sleep, and little social life. I sacrificed those things in exchange for what I felt would be greater returns in each category in the future. That sacrifice worked out for me. For others, it has not. Entrepeneurs accept great risk in exchange for potential great reward. Employees, however, forgo risk for minimal reward. Both approaches are completely valid, depending on those who make the choice. I have a good friend who owns his own remodling/construction company. Some days he would be considered a wealthy man. Other days he would be considered a poor man. He just had a child and the risks associated with his operation may very well make him return to an employment situation.
You cannot be "half equal". You either are, or you are not.
Huh? More conflicts have been started in the name of "communal ownership" than will ever be started in the name of individual ownership. Nearly every war, every murder, every rape, every theft is committed by a man or woman who has decided that the words "ownership" and "control" are synonymous, just like your friend who provided that quote.
Do you think that "communal ownership" will put an end to conflict? Simply ask yourself how you'll achieve that "communal ownership" to begin with.
What "problem" do you see here? What do my "fellow human beings" have to "buy back" from me??? What do I have that was once theirs, and how does it represent a debt?
I believe people should work together to make the load easier for concerned while still living for today, no one is promised tomorrow. I don't think people who choose not to make that gamble such have to suffer because of your overly competitve nature. I view working harder just to have power over another group of people as wrong and selfish. It's like if we were playing in the backyard as kids and I raced outside early every morning and grabbed all the blocks first and hid them for myself but you choose to enjoy your fruit loops and cartoons because you really enjoyed those things. Then once you got outside, I asked you to give me 5 baseball cards for 10 of our blocks. Your view says I was right because I worked hard and sacrificed my fruit loops and cartoons for personal gain. My view says I'm a friggin brat and should learn how to share more equally. We are always gonna clash with this no matter how many go rounds we engage in. So can't we ever just agree to disagree?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I believe you're comparing apples to oranges here.
No, I'm comparing the underlying philosophy of owning apples and oranges here. You wouldn't suggest, in your socialistic philosophy, that apples should be owned by a community but oranges should be owned by individuals, would you?
I believe people should work together to make the load easier for concerned while still living for today, no one is promised tomorrow.
Cool. Then work with those who think similarly -- I have no problem with that.
I don't think people who choose not to make that gamble such have to suffer because of your overly competitve nature.
What "sufferring" happens because of their choice? And who am I "competing" with? And what makes that competition "overly"?
I view working harder just to have power over another group of people as wrong and selfish.
Who do I have "power" over? And where am I proposing that "working harder" should give someone power over "another group of people"?
It's like if we were playing in the backyard as kids and I raced outside early every morning and grabbed all the blocks first and hid them for myself but you choose to enjoy your fruit loops and cartoons because you really enjoyed those things. Then once you got outside, I asked you to give me 5 baseball cards for 10 of our blocks. Your view says I was right because I worked hard and sacrificed my fruit loops and cartoons for personal gain. My view says I'm a friggin brat and should learn how to share more equally. We are always gonna clash with this no matter how many go rounds we engage in.
Abook, my view says that what you do with your fruit loops, cartoons, and blocks should be up to you. My view doesn't say that you shouldn't share, particularly if you recognize that you're being a brat. It's your view the prescribes the clash when you either force someone to share or, alternatively, force someone to be selfish.
So can't we ever just agree to disagree?
Of course! If you don't agree with me, do what you'd like. Share whatever you wish to share.
No, I'm comparing the underlying philosophy of owning apples and oranges here. You wouldn't suggest, in your socialistic philosophy, that apples should be owned by a community but oranges should be owned by individuals, would you?
Nope, I'm saying everything can't be compared along the same lines.
What "sufferring" happens because of their choice? And who am I "competing" with? And what makes that competition "overly"?
You said you took a chance and they didn't. So you consider yourself to have more merit. Suffering happens when everyone doesn't earn your 'merit' and has a harder life because of it. Look around, do you think people choose to be impoverished? These choices are often based on personalities and surely everyone isn't going to have your personality traits so that makes the playing field uneven, imo.
Abook, my view says that what you do with your fruit loops, cartoons, and blocks should be up to you. My view doesn't say that you shouldn't share, particularly if you recognize that you're being a brat. It's your view the prescribes the clash when you either force someone to share or, alternatively, force someone to be selfish.
So what happens when people don't share...you know like it is now most often? You view doesn't say you shouldn't share, just don't force me to share? So, I know I should share the blocks but I decide not to anyways. Where does that leave you? And you think the power hungry are gonna just start sharing under your view OR are they gonna to be more free to be gain MORE power?? When few have power over many...that is not liberty.
Of course! If you don't agree with me, do what you'd like. Share whatever you wish to share.
I do and I am of course fine with you doing the same. I just don't care for every thread to be turned into this clash of the same ideals which we never agree on. If you feel you must then fine go ahead, I'm just expressing how I feel about it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nope, I'm saying everything can't be compared along the same lines.
Ok. But I'm comparing how things are owned based on blanked statements on how things should be owned. Doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch.
You said you took a chance and they didn't. So you consider yourself to have more merit.
No. I said both approaches are completely valid, based on the person who makes them and the reasons for them.
Suffering happens when everyone doesn't earn your 'merit' and has a harder life because of it. Look around, do you think people choose to be impoverished?
Often times, yes. Often times, no. You're confusing "choose to be" and "want to be".
No one suffers because they don't "earn my merit". You say that because you think I'm withholding something from them. But what you need to understand is that what I'm "withholding" from them wouldn't have existed in the first place if I didn't earn it for myself. And no where would I suggest that the same opportunities shouldn't be open to them.
These choices are often based on personalities and surely everyone isn't going to have your personality traits so that makes the playing field uneven, imo.
Huh? Couldn't I claim that my personality then blocks me from having what they have or doing what they do?
You have the buying power. You have the power to determine what they earn. Or of course go else where, where someone else will also determine it.
The "buying power" of what? And I have no power to determine what they earn. I don't force anyone to work for me. I don't force anyone to accept the wage I offer. I leave that choice to them, and many have turned me down that I would have liked to have "power" over.
So what happens when people don't share...you know like it is now most often? You view doesn't say you shouldn't share, just don't force me to share? So, I know I should share the blocks but I decide not to anyways. Where does that leave you? And you think the power hungry are gonna just start sharing under your view OR are they gonna to be more free to be gain MORE power?? When few have power over many...that is not liberty.
You're again confusing my position. I'm not saying you "shouldn't share". You should share, if that's what you believe is right. And to prescribe sharing or selfishness on another is to decrease liberty, either way.
Liberty is not a measure of property. Liberty is what makes property possible. When Proudhon tells you "all property is theft", he forgets that theft is impossible without property. Theft cannot disprove property -- it can only exist with it.
I do and I am of course fine with you doing the same. I just don't care for every thread to be turned into this clash of the same ideals which we never agree on. If you feel you must then fine go ahead, I'm just expressing how I feel about it.
Often times, yes. Often times, no. You're confusing "choose to be" and "want to be".
No, I'm not confusing them at all. You're ignoring the 'choose to' be because you know no one wants that but it happens all the time because of circumstances along with choices, perhaps bads ones, perhaps risks that didn't pan out. Your view leaves these people in suffering.
No one suffers because they don't "earn my merit". You say that because you think I'm withholding something from them. But what you need to understand is that what I'm "withholding" from them wouldn't have existed in the first place if I didn't earn it for myself. And no where would I suggest that the same opportunities shouldn't be open to them.
What did you earn that they didn't? A position of power. And opportunities are not availiable to all equally.
Huh? Couldn't I claim that my personality then blocks me from having what they have or doing what they do?
That's why we work together for one another. Because we are all different in so many ways. To me, it's not right for the path to be much harder for some. I believe very much in common good and cooperation. I see no need to earn a position to own anothers labor for personal gain. When we can all share the load and flourish equally.
The "buying power" of what? And I have no power to determine what they earn. I don't force anyone to work for me. I don't force anyone to accept the wage I offer. I leave that choice to them, and many have turned me down that I would have liked to have "power" over.
So you think the working class have all the opportunities just unfolding before their very eyes and they don't have to settle for jobs they hate to put food on the table for children, pay hospital bills etc. Your view leaves no room for the circumstances that are LIFE. It's all based on principle only. Reality shows us millions of people barely getting by here...starving elsewhere.
You're again confusing my position. I'm not saying you "shouldn't share". You should share, if that's what you believe is right. And to prescribe sharing or selfishness on another is to decrease liberty, either way.
I didn't say you said shouldn't. Read again. Having no means to equal liberty based on circumstances isn't true liberty, imo.
Liberty is not a measure of property. Liberty is what makes property possible. When Proudhon tells you "all property is theft", he forgets that theft is impossible without property. Theft cannot disprove property -- it can only exist with it.
If it belongs to all then theft occurs when one decides he has earned the right to it moreso than others. Like with the blocks...they were ours together. I decided I 'earned' the right to them and gained control over them. Now OUR blocks are in my possession. What was once there for us to enjoy and share equally has been taken by me. I call that kid a brat, you call her an entrepreneur.
It does to me. And both views require a blanket view. Principles work that way, often.
Certainly both views require a blanket view. I'm not the one, however, holding a blanket view while at the same time talking about "comparing apples and oranges". You're trying to have it both ways.
I never said you thought one was invalid. You do, however, think one is more deserving because of the chooses he has made.
Both are equally deserving of the ends they receive. A person who makes similar choices to mine, whose business fails miserably because the public has no interest in his or her product, deserves exactly what they get: nothing. An entrepeneur, by default, deserves nothing. An employee, by default, deserves nothing. What they deserve is based on who they are, the choices they make, and, most importantly, the judgments of whomever they sell their products to.
No, I'm not confusing them at all. You're ignoring the 'choose to' be because you know no one wants that but it happens all the time because of circumstances along with choices, perhaps bads ones, perhaps risks that didn't pan out. Your view leaves these people in suffering.
My view does not "leave them sufferring". My view simply states that they have no right to enslave their neighbors. My view simply states that they cannot proclaim a right to property while also with their mindsets destroying everything the concept of property is based upon.
What did you earn that they didn't? A position of power. And opportunities are not availiable to all equally.
You keep suggesting that I am in "a position of power"? How is that? Do you think I have power because I can fire my employees? They also have the power to quit and I cannot stop them. They have the power to strike, and I cannot stop them. They have to power to turn down the salary I offer, or demand I higher one in exchange for their labor. Where is this "power" of mine?
That's why we work together for one another. Because we are all different in so many ways. To me, it's not right for the path to be much harder for some. I believe very much in common good and cooperation. I see no need to earn a position to own anothers labor for personal gain. When we can all share the load and flourish equally.
You believe in cooperation? What do you think a business is? My employees would be lost without me, and I would be lost without them. We come together as willing individuals who work together to solve problems, each based upon our own desires and standards. You believe in "common good"? Where do you think the property you're fighting over comes from?
We cannot "share the load and flourish equally". Because what you're proposing is only the latter, not the former. You're proposing that someone should be able to consume more than they produce, while the producers are
enslaved by the unproductive.
Go ahead and start a business. Diversify your labor and then reward everyone the same. See how long it lasts. See how happy your employees are. See what "flourishes".
So you think the working class have all the opportunities just unfolding before their very eyes and they don't have to settle for jobs they hate to put food on the table for children, pay hospital bills etc. Your view leaves no room for the circumstances that are LIFE. It's all based on principle only. Reality shows us millions of people barely getting by here...starving elsewhere.
My view accounts for the circumstances that are LIFE -- yours simply pretend that those circumstances do not exist. You ignore that nature has created us to apply our minds and produce, not to simply demand from this Earth or its inhabitants whatever we want regardless of our choices.
I do not pretend that every person could easily be wealthy. I simply understand that life is a series of choices, and the reverberations of those choices shape our fate. Pretending those choices don't exist will simply perpetuate them, excuse them, and sanction them.
I didn't say you said shouldn't. Read again. Having no means to equal liberty based on circumstances isn't true liberty, imo.
The "means to liberty" is the absence of social oppression. The society you're proposing creates unequal liberty since the people who make the worst choices will be allowed to oppress the people who make the best one. The society I'm proposing allows both sets of people to make whatever choices they wish, and to allow everyone to determine the value and worth of those choices while rejecting the right of anyone, rich or poor, to force his neighbor to live for him.
If it belongs to all then theft occurs when one decides he has earned the right to it moreso than others. Like with the blocks...they were ours together. I decided I 'earned' the right to them and gained control over them. Now OUR blocks are in my possession. What was once there for us to enjoy and share equally has been taken by me. I call that kid a brat, you call her an entrepreneur.
This completely contradicts what you've said elsewhere because, if the above is negative, why are you proposing it by giving part of society the right to simply demand from another their "earned" property? All you're doing is transferring the brat-ism from one set of people to another.
An entrepeneur, when successful, is a person who creates wealth, abook. All wealth is the product of the minds of entrepeneurs both great and small. Your analogy above might work if wealth were a static thing. But it is not. Look back through history and ask yourself if there has always been the same amount of wealth as there is today. And at that point I think you'll understand how silly it is to call all entrepeneurs "brats" -- they've given you the value you're now demanding everyone "deserves" as if it is some birthright.
To clarify, I meant sharing how I felt I about the constant clash in every thread.
I know there are plenty here who will say if you sign up then it's your duty and you have to obey....but I say bullshit! You're always going to be a human before a soldier. Your conscience and your abilty to choose to not participate in something you feel is wrong, unjust or not in your own best interest should always come first. People make bad decisions, are mislead, change their minds after seeing the true nature of a situation and no one should feel locked into participating in actions that they feel are wrong....I don't care how papers they have signed.
I haven't read your link yet, but I totally support the stance of Lt. Watada, and others like him in the fight against being redeployed/deployed to to Iraq on the gorunds it is an immoral and illegal war. I think Watada is a true soldier.
Certainly both views require a blanket view. I'm not the one, however, holding a blanket view while at the same time talking about "comparing apples and oranges". You're trying to have it both ways.
Which is perhaps why we have a mix of both principles in our society today.
Both are equally deserving of the ends they receive. A person who makes similar choices to mine, whose business fails miserably because the public has no interest in his or her product, deserves exactly what they get: nothing. An entrepeneur, by default, deserves nothing. An employee, by default, deserves nothing. What they deserve is based on who they are, the choices they make, and, most importantly, the judgments of whomever they sell their products to.
I think it's wrong to thrive while your fellow man struggles. Humans are deserving of equality because they are human, not because they have an eye for marketing.
My view does not "leave them sufferring". My view simply states that they have no right to enslave their neighbors. My view simply states that they cannot proclaim a right to property while also with their mindsets destroying everything the concept of property is based upon.
I don't think sharing resources equally is enslaving anyone. There's plenty for all.
You keep suggesting that I am in "a position of power"? How is that? Do you think I have power because I can fire my employees? They also have the power to quit and I cannot stop them. They have the power to strike, and I cannot stop them. They have to power to turn down the salary I offer, or demand I higher one in exchange for their labor. Where is this "power" of mine?
Their choices are limited and you know it. The greed of people sharing your view has given many working class people nowhere to turn. Opportunities are limited. I feel man as my brothers and sisters not as a leech even when they seemingly take more than they give. Because everyone has something to give and given the proper, positive treatment, they might surprise you. Even if they don't, I don't view people as taking what's rightfully mine for simply wanting something better.
You believe in cooperation? What do you think a business is? My employees would be lost without me, and I would be lost without them. We come together as willing individuals who work together to solve problems, each based upon our own desires and standards. You believe in "common good"? Where do you think the property you're fighting over comes from?
You need each other, work together...yet it is their labor that creates your wealth and they only see a fraction of it compared to your lion's share.
We cannot "share the load and flourish equally". Because what you're proposing is only the latter, not the former. You're proposing that someone should be able to consume more than they produce, while the producers are
enslaved by the unproductive.
That is such a negative outlook. I will not look at people in that light. You create thieves with your negativity and disrespect. If you treat people like thieves, you better believe that's what they're gonna be. It's the end product of negativity. You would not be enslaved, you just wouldn't be able to capitalize on their labor. Poor guy.
Go ahead and start a business. Diversify your labor and then reward everyone the same. See how long it lasts. See how happy your employees are. See what "flourishes".
I guess there's always the brat kid who wants more. We can share the load no one told you to expect more for choosing to work harder. You might gain admiration and respect for it and that's fine. When we cook out and invite the family over, I don't give my brother, who showed up late, a fraction of the food we eat. That's childish. And if my sister decides to do all the dishes. She doesn't come up to me asking for a bigger dish of desert. She'd rather everyone get enough desert instead of her taking twice the amount and leaving someone else without. The dinner is for everyone, regardless. If my nephew helped put everything away, I might choose to reward him with some of my share of the desert but only brats demand it.
My view accounts for the circumstances that are LIFE -- yours simply pretend that those circumstances do not exist. You ignore that nature has created us to apply our minds and produce, not to simply demand from this Earth or its inhabitants whatever we want regardless of our choices.
Producing and applying my mind can be used for everyone's benefit not just my own. It makes me feel nice if I make it easier on someone. I don't hold my hand out wanting to rewarded for it. I help someone because they are lacking something they need. I don't ask why. I don't say 'get a job, loser'. People, all people, deserve my compassion. It's only the people who lack this compassion for everyone regardless that I have the difficulty feeling for. They choose to split humanity up into the deserving and the undeserving. Putting a negative connotation on the latter. They just didn't work hard enough to come to the table...perhaps we'll throw them the scraps. All are welcomed to the table out of love not because I logically decided their worth.
I do not pretend that every person could easily be wealthy. I simply understand that life is a series of choices, and the reverberations of those choices shape our fate. Pretending those choices don't exist will simply perpetuate them, excuse them, and sanction them.
I never said these choices don't exist. I simply choose to be more tolerant.
The "means to liberty" is the absence of social oppression. The society you're proposing creates unequal liberty since the people who make the worst choices will be allowed to oppress the people who make the best one. The society I'm proposing allows both sets of people to make whatever choices they wish, and to allow everyone to determine the value and worth of those choices while rejecting the right of anyone, rich or poor, to force his neighbor to live for him.
Not oppress, simply share. You'll be as good off as he. That's a big improvement of living standards overall! Isn't that enough to make you happy with what you've got? No one has to go without.
This completely contradicts what you've said elsewhere because, if the above is negative, why are you proposing it by giving part of society the right to simply demand from another their "earned" property? All you're doing is transferring the brat-ism from one set of people to another.
I still believe man is good at heart. ~ Anne Frank
That's all I need. I'll give tolerance based on that. As long as I'm doing ok, I'm happy to know no children are hungry tonight, no elderly are without proper medical care, no woman is up crying all night wondering how she'll put food on the table next week. That happiness and unity is worth all the wealth in the world.
An entrepeneur, when successful, is a person who creates wealth, abook. All wealth is the product of the minds of entrepeneurs both great and small. Your analogy above might work if wealth were a static thing. But it is not. Look back through history and ask yourself if there has always been the same amount of wealth as there is today. And at that point I think you'll understand how silly it is to call all entrepeneurs "brats" -- they've given you the value you're now demanding everyone "deserves" as if it is some birthright.
Wealth is the product of the labor, as well. One needs the other so they can share equality. The great minds don't have to have the bigger share. They can acheive happiness without more wealth but harmony.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The "means to liberty" is the absence of social oppression. The society you're proposing creates unequal liberty since the people who make the worst choices will be allowed to oppress the people who make the best one. The society I'm proposing allows both sets of people to make whatever choices they wish, and to allow everyone to determine the value and worth of those choices while rejecting the right of anyone, rich or poor, to force his neighbor to live for him.
This paragraph raised some questions for me. You seem to feel 'the less fortunate' just want to 'oppress' the ones that make 'good choices'. I feel this is an egotistical and shallow conclusion. There are folks that are born with disabilities, mental or physical. I think an enlightened society is one that uplifts & protects the disadvantage. This is what separates us from the animals. Certainly there are those that abuse that help, but I don't think this is the rule. What happens to the mentally & physically disabled in your 'ideal' society?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
This paragraph raised some questions for me. You seem to feel 'the less fortunate' just want to 'oppress' the ones that make 'good choices'. I feel this is an egotistical and shallow conclusion. There are folks that are born with disabilities, mental or physical. I think an enlightened society is one that uplifts & protects the disadvantage. This is what separates us from the animals. Certainly there are those that abuse that help, but I don't think this is the rule. What happens to the mentally & physically disabled in your 'ideal' society?
This paragraph raised some questions for me. You seem to feel 'the less fortunate' just want to 'oppress' the ones that make 'good choices'.
No. I'm saying that some of 'the less fortunate', or those that profess to speak for them, want to do that. The reverse is also true -- there are plenty of 'fortunate' who want to oppress the less fortunate. I simply disagree that property itself represents "oppression". The opposite is true. Property, as an accepted social construct, is what prevents oppression.
I feel this is an egotistical and shallow conclusion. There are folks that are born with disabilities, mental or physical. I think an enlightened society is one that uplifts & protects the disadvantage. This is what separates us from the animals. Certainly there are those that abuse that help, but I don't think this is the rule. What happens to the mentally & physically disabled in your 'ideal' society?
This is a silly question. I'm not prescribing anything for the "mentally & physically disabled". I'm simply not going to agree with a society wherein the mentally & physically disabled are given license to oppress others because of their "disadvantage", anymore than I would agree with a society wherein the non-disabled are given license to enslave the mentally & physically disabled.
Comments
Yes, you choose to use them. You choose to use them as we all do sometimes when someone can echo our thoughts better than we can. You chose him as an authority on this topic. Any Libertarian would support your right to do that. A fascist, however, might impose their authority upon you.
This is going to get offensive...but it's the best way to explain it. My apologies in advance.
Tell me, do you sleep with every guy who comes along? Or do you withhold your body based on the idea that we are not "all connected" and that, in fact, each of us owns ourselves, our choices, and the products that come of them.
Circular logic.
My system? You mean a democracy without limits wherein individual rights become secondary to governmental whims and where corrupt politicians, businessmen and "community leaders" bargain with property that isn't theirs? That ain't my system.
You speak of "equality" as if two unequal things should be equal. And you speak of "power" as if your "community" wouldn't be just a new incarnation of the state or the businessman. The instant you demand something against your neighbor's will is not only the instant you stop being a Libertarian but its also the instant you justify every crime you professed to be better than.
I choose to use him as voice for an idea. That gives him no autority in indivdual interpretation or any final say on the matter.
Of course I own my own body. No one can force me to let them use my body. Has any socialist society claimed otherwise? You just love the opportunity to be a pimp, eh?
Why would someone wish to sell their labor instead of owning themselves and earning a higher profit for it?
And what's not equal? People? Some people are more deserving than others of the resources of this land?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So his words have no meaning? They just are?
All socialists claim otherwise, and all socialist societies have embraced the principle that they have a right to use the bodies of others to accomplish their aims.
Now, let's say I were a pimp. How could I not use the following argument to get you to sleep with the fat, drooling, drunken slob who just happens to be my sister's cousin:
"Communal ownership which includes everyone. I believe we are all connnected to each other and our actions should always reflect that."
Good question. Do you have an employer? If so, why?
Of course. You an I are not the same. We are not equal.
No one "deserves" the resources of this land. That's a silly concept and would imply someone to grant those resources. It's what socialism is based upon -- that all people somehow "deserve" something, regardless of their qualities. Nature did not give you life in order to "deserve" things, Nature gave you life such that you have to sustain it by your effort. It prescribes earning things, not deserving things. And regardless of whatever political system you implement, you cannot escape that truth. Effort consistent with life is the only thing that will sustain you, be it your own or someone else's.
People use the resources of this land. And those who should own those resources are those who best serve those uses. And that is not determined by me, or by you, or by "the community" (by which of course you mean a sub-set of the community) but rather by all of us through our participation in a market, wherein we exchange our efforts with the efforts of others.
Your system would grant a farm to a fool, because he "deserves" it. Mine would make him earn it, based on the abilities of his efforts. My system is cold-hearted. But my system is what makes sure hearts continue beating. In every socialist experiment, the only thing that has sustained men through the fascism is production. And production and labor are not necessarily the same thing, abook.
They are whatever you take from them.
As part of the community, I still own my own body. Also, communal ownership is not without morals. Has this happened in any experiments on socialism?
Nope
I think we are equal in many ways. Just because some in life will to control and own the resources does not make it right. It takes our differences and makes them deadly and creates the conflict that has consumed this world. Work to provide for you. But I see a problem in working to own so much that your fellow human being has to buy it back from you at a higher cost indebting them to you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That's kinda my point.
If it's in the contract they could.
Why are you bringin ME into this?
How about the part not in the contract where the lender says, "You have 15 more months of payments" after the loan has been paid off? This is because they really need your money.
Like the way the Army is not letting soldiers out of active duty after their term has been fufilled.
Hail, Hail!!!
Kinda like a change in your interest rates?
Yeah. They mention you the rates are going to be about 1% or so... they weren't lying but, they really weren't telling the truth and it ends up being 23%. It's not listed anywhere in the contract except where it says 'plus interest charges'. You bought the car and are getting screwed and i say, 'You're an idiot because no one forced you to buy the car'. That supporting you, ain't it?
My point is saying no one forced them to enlist is not supporting the troops... it's calling them idiots.
Hail, Hail!!!
My thoughts exactly.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So condoning them breaking the law and paying them a salary for a job they refuse to so is 'supporting the troops'? WTF?
Those particluar 'soldiers' are idiots.
I'm not condoning or condeming them... you are. I simply support them to fight or object to fight. Either way, they are in uniform and are soldiers of my country who all voluenteered, they are not slaves to my elected leaders.
And I know recruiters. They work the Air Shows at Edwards AFB and NAS/MCAS Mira Mar and talk to young people about military service... "You like jets? Want to someday fly an F-22?" The recruits don't fly F-22s... they mop up oil stains in hangars.
I have respect for our military people... whether they fall in line with the politics of war or not.
Hail, Hail!!!
Soldiers and politics should be kept as seperate as church and state.
If this were the case... why are our soldiers involved in a political crisis in Iraq? Iraqis didn't ask us to take out Hussein... we decided that shit on our own. Whose best interests were in mind? Ours or theirs?
Hail, Hail!!!
politicians use soldeirs like expendable pawns in their quest for hegemony cloaked in the lies of patriotism, freedom, and fear...
so me may agree, but for much different reasons... you want them seperate because you dont like that politics and democracy can actually stop the agression... i would like them seperate so the politicians cant start any fucking wars.
Along with the rest of the community, right? Isn't it completely selfish to proclaim that you have sole ownership of your body? And what morals does "the community" have? Where do these morals reside?
Of course. It happened in Russia, Japan, China, East Germany and nearly every other established socialistic society. That said, it's happened in plenty of non-socialistic societies as well.
My point in bringing this concept up is not to say "if you form a socialist nation, your women will be raped". That's silly since rape is not primarily a function of society, rape is a function of individual morality in which society simply plays a role. My point in bringing this concept up is to show you four things:
1) That you recognize the validity of ownership, when it comes to your own body.
2) That ownership can exist outside the social construct (the concept of I)
3) That "communal ownership" is to property what rape is to willing sex between two people -- a horrific contradiction.
4) Similarly, that socialism is to freedom what fiat is to a contract -- a horrific contradiction.
Fair enough. I figured your own experience would be an answer, but obviously not. I'll answer your question ("Why would someone wish to sell their labor instead of owning themselves and earning a higher profit for it?") from my experience.
I've held 3 employers in my life. The first taught me how a business runs. The second taught me how to use computers. The third taught me how to use computers even better. The instant I decided that I could do things better myself for myself than my employers could do things for me, I left and started my own business. A number of my employees since have done the same. In other words, I sold my labor to someone else because I did not have the knowledge, nor was my labor valuable enough, to stand on its own. I used my employers to gain knowledge and experience up until the point that I felt I had nothing else to learn there that I could not learn on my own. I used employment to learn.
Speaking for my experience with employees, there is another reason people choose to sell their labor to an employer: minimized risk. When I started my first business I had negative money (debt), no health insurance, little sleep, and little social life. I sacrificed those things in exchange for what I felt would be greater returns in each category in the future. That sacrifice worked out for me. For others, it has not. Entrepeneurs accept great risk in exchange for potential great reward. Employees, however, forgo risk for minimal reward. Both approaches are completely valid, depending on those who make the choice. I have a good friend who owns his own remodling/construction company. Some days he would be considered a wealthy man. Other days he would be considered a poor man. He just had a child and the risks associated with his operation may very well make him return to an employment situation.
You cannot be "half equal". You either are, or you are not.
Huh? More conflicts have been started in the name of "communal ownership" than will ever be started in the name of individual ownership. Nearly every war, every murder, every rape, every theft is committed by a man or woman who has decided that the words "ownership" and "control" are synonymous, just like your friend who provided that quote.
Do you think that "communal ownership" will put an end to conflict? Simply ask yourself how you'll achieve that "communal ownership" to begin with.
What "problem" do you see here? What do my "fellow human beings" have to "buy back" from me??? What do I have that was once theirs, and how does it represent a debt?
Not what I mean...
I mean a soldier's political beliefs, religious beliefs, or any other beliefs for that matter need to be put on the back-burner and orders need to be followed (i.e. being a 'good nazi').
I believe you're comparing apples to oranges here.
I believe people should work together to make the load easier for concerned while still living for today, no one is promised tomorrow. I don't think people who choose not to make that gamble such have to suffer because of your overly competitve nature. I view working harder just to have power over another group of people as wrong and selfish. It's like if we were playing in the backyard as kids and I raced outside early every morning and grabbed all the blocks first and hid them for myself but you choose to enjoy your fruit loops and cartoons because you really enjoyed those things. Then once you got outside, I asked you to give me 5 baseball cards for 10 of our blocks. Your view says I was right because I worked hard and sacrificed my fruit loops and cartoons for personal gain. My view says I'm a friggin brat and should learn how to share more equally. We are always gonna clash with this no matter how many go rounds we engage in. So can't we ever just agree to disagree?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No, I'm comparing the underlying philosophy of owning apples and oranges here. You wouldn't suggest, in your socialistic philosophy, that apples should be owned by a community but oranges should be owned by individuals, would you?
Cool. Then work with those who think similarly -- I have no problem with that.
What "sufferring" happens because of their choice? And who am I "competing" with? And what makes that competition "overly"?
Who do I have "power" over? And where am I proposing that "working harder" should give someone power over "another group of people"?
Abook, my view says that what you do with your fruit loops, cartoons, and blocks should be up to you. My view doesn't say that you shouldn't share, particularly if you recognize that you're being a brat. It's your view the prescribes the clash when you either force someone to share or, alternatively, force someone to be selfish.
Of course! If you don't agree with me, do what you'd like. Share whatever you wish to share.
Nope, I'm saying everything can't be compared along the same lines.
You said you took a chance and they didn't. So you consider yourself to have more merit. Suffering happens when everyone doesn't earn your 'merit' and has a harder life because of it. Look around, do you think people choose to be impoverished? These choices are often based on personalities and surely everyone isn't going to have your personality traits so that makes the playing field uneven, imo.
You have the buying power. You have the power to determine what they earn. Or of course go else where, where someone else will also determine it.
So what happens when people don't share...you know like it is now most often? You view doesn't say you shouldn't share, just don't force me to share? So, I know I should share the blocks but I decide not to anyways. Where does that leave you? And you think the power hungry are gonna just start sharing under your view OR are they gonna to be more free to be gain MORE power?? When few have power over many...that is not liberty.
I do and I am of course fine with you doing the same. I just don't care for every thread to be turned into this clash of the same ideals which we never agree on. If you feel you must then fine go ahead, I'm just expressing how I feel about it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ok. But I'm comparing how things are owned based on blanked statements on how things should be owned. Doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch.
No. I said both approaches are completely valid, based on the person who makes them and the reasons for them.
Often times, yes. Often times, no. You're confusing "choose to be" and "want to be".
No one suffers because they don't "earn my merit". You say that because you think I'm withholding something from them. But what you need to understand is that what I'm "withholding" from them wouldn't have existed in the first place if I didn't earn it for myself. And no where would I suggest that the same opportunities shouldn't be open to them.
Huh? Couldn't I claim that my personality then blocks me from having what they have or doing what they do?
The "buying power" of what? And I have no power to determine what they earn. I don't force anyone to work for me. I don't force anyone to accept the wage I offer. I leave that choice to them, and many have turned me down that I would have liked to have "power" over.
You're again confusing my position. I'm not saying you "shouldn't share". You should share, if that's what you believe is right. And to prescribe sharing or selfishness on another is to decrease liberty, either way.
Liberty is not a measure of property. Liberty is what makes property possible. When Proudhon tells you "all property is theft", he forgets that theft is impossible without property. Theft cannot disprove property -- it can only exist with it.
Me too.
It does to me. And both views require a blanket view. Principles work that way, often.
I never said you thought one was invalid. You do, however, think one is more deserving because of the chooses he has made.
No, I'm not confusing them at all. You're ignoring the 'choose to' be because you know no one wants that but it happens all the time because of circumstances along with choices, perhaps bads ones, perhaps risks that didn't pan out. Your view leaves these people in suffering.
What did you earn that they didn't? A position of power. And opportunities are not availiable to all equally.
That's why we work together for one another. Because we are all different in so many ways. To me, it's not right for the path to be much harder for some. I believe very much in common good and cooperation. I see no need to earn a position to own anothers labor for personal gain. When we can all share the load and flourish equally.
So you think the working class have all the opportunities just unfolding before their very eyes and they don't have to settle for jobs they hate to put food on the table for children, pay hospital bills etc. Your view leaves no room for the circumstances that are LIFE. It's all based on principle only. Reality shows us millions of people barely getting by here...starving elsewhere.
I didn't say you said shouldn't. Read again. Having no means to equal liberty based on circumstances isn't true liberty, imo.
If it belongs to all then theft occurs when one decides he has earned the right to it moreso than others. Like with the blocks...they were ours together. I decided I 'earned' the right to them and gained control over them. Now OUR blocks are in my possession. What was once there for us to enjoy and share equally has been taken by me. I call that kid a brat, you call her an entrepreneur.
To clarify, I meant sharing how I felt I about the constant clash in every thread.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Certainly both views require a blanket view. I'm not the one, however, holding a blanket view while at the same time talking about "comparing apples and oranges". You're trying to have it both ways.
Both are equally deserving of the ends they receive. A person who makes similar choices to mine, whose business fails miserably because the public has no interest in his or her product, deserves exactly what they get: nothing. An entrepeneur, by default, deserves nothing. An employee, by default, deserves nothing. What they deserve is based on who they are, the choices they make, and, most importantly, the judgments of whomever they sell their products to.
My view does not "leave them sufferring". My view simply states that they have no right to enslave their neighbors. My view simply states that they cannot proclaim a right to property while also with their mindsets destroying everything the concept of property is based upon.
You keep suggesting that I am in "a position of power"? How is that? Do you think I have power because I can fire my employees? They also have the power to quit and I cannot stop them. They have the power to strike, and I cannot stop them. They have to power to turn down the salary I offer, or demand I higher one in exchange for their labor. Where is this "power" of mine?
You believe in cooperation? What do you think a business is? My employees would be lost without me, and I would be lost without them. We come together as willing individuals who work together to solve problems, each based upon our own desires and standards. You believe in "common good"? Where do you think the property you're fighting over comes from?
We cannot "share the load and flourish equally". Because what you're proposing is only the latter, not the former. You're proposing that someone should be able to consume more than they produce, while the producers are
enslaved by the unproductive.
Go ahead and start a business. Diversify your labor and then reward everyone the same. See how long it lasts. See how happy your employees are. See what "flourishes".
My view accounts for the circumstances that are LIFE -- yours simply pretend that those circumstances do not exist. You ignore that nature has created us to apply our minds and produce, not to simply demand from this Earth or its inhabitants whatever we want regardless of our choices.
I do not pretend that every person could easily be wealthy. I simply understand that life is a series of choices, and the reverberations of those choices shape our fate. Pretending those choices don't exist will simply perpetuate them, excuse them, and sanction them.
The "means to liberty" is the absence of social oppression. The society you're proposing creates unequal liberty since the people who make the worst choices will be allowed to oppress the people who make the best one. The society I'm proposing allows both sets of people to make whatever choices they wish, and to allow everyone to determine the value and worth of those choices while rejecting the right of anyone, rich or poor, to force his neighbor to live for him.
This completely contradicts what you've said elsewhere because, if the above is negative, why are you proposing it by giving part of society the right to simply demand from another their "earned" property? All you're doing is transferring the brat-ism from one set of people to another.
An entrepeneur, when successful, is a person who creates wealth, abook. All wealth is the product of the minds of entrepeneurs both great and small. Your analogy above might work if wealth were a static thing. But it is not. Look back through history and ask yourself if there has always been the same amount of wealth as there is today. And at that point I think you'll understand how silly it is to call all entrepeneurs "brats" -- they've given you the value you're now demanding everyone "deserves" as if it is some birthright.
I understand.
I haven't read your link yet, but I totally support the stance of Lt. Watada, and others like him in the fight against being redeployed/deployed to to Iraq on the gorunds it is an immoral and illegal war. I think Watada is a true soldier.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Which is perhaps why we have a mix of both principles in our society today.
I think it's wrong to thrive while your fellow man struggles. Humans are deserving of equality because they are human, not because they have an eye for marketing.
I don't think sharing resources equally is enslaving anyone. There's plenty for all.
Their choices are limited and you know it. The greed of people sharing your view has given many working class people nowhere to turn. Opportunities are limited. I feel man as my brothers and sisters not as a leech even when they seemingly take more than they give. Because everyone has something to give and given the proper, positive treatment, they might surprise you. Even if they don't, I don't view people as taking what's rightfully mine for simply wanting something better.
You need each other, work together...yet it is their labor that creates your wealth and they only see a fraction of it compared to your lion's share.
That is such a negative outlook. I will not look at people in that light. You create thieves with your negativity and disrespect. If you treat people like thieves, you better believe that's what they're gonna be. It's the end product of negativity. You would not be enslaved, you just wouldn't be able to capitalize on their labor. Poor guy.
I guess there's always the brat kid who wants more. We can share the load no one told you to expect more for choosing to work harder. You might gain admiration and respect for it and that's fine. When we cook out and invite the family over, I don't give my brother, who showed up late, a fraction of the food we eat. That's childish. And if my sister decides to do all the dishes. She doesn't come up to me asking for a bigger dish of desert. She'd rather everyone get enough desert instead of her taking twice the amount and leaving someone else without. The dinner is for everyone, regardless. If my nephew helped put everything away, I might choose to reward him with some of my share of the desert but only brats demand it.
Producing and applying my mind can be used for everyone's benefit not just my own. It makes me feel nice if I make it easier on someone. I don't hold my hand out wanting to rewarded for it. I help someone because they are lacking something they need. I don't ask why. I don't say 'get a job, loser'. People, all people, deserve my compassion. It's only the people who lack this compassion for everyone regardless that I have the difficulty feeling for. They choose to split humanity up into the deserving and the undeserving. Putting a negative connotation on the latter. They just didn't work hard enough to come to the table...perhaps we'll throw them the scraps. All are welcomed to the table out of love not because I logically decided their worth.
I never said these choices don't exist. I simply choose to be more tolerant.
Not oppress, simply share. You'll be as good off as he. That's a big improvement of living standards overall! Isn't that enough to make you happy with what you've got? No one has to go without.
I still believe man is good at heart. ~ Anne Frank
That's all I need. I'll give tolerance based on that. As long as I'm doing ok, I'm happy to know no children are hungry tonight, no elderly are without proper medical care, no woman is up crying all night wondering how she'll put food on the table next week. That happiness and unity is worth all the wealth in the world.
Wealth is the product of the labor, as well. One needs the other so they can share equality. The great minds don't have to have the bigger share. They can acheive happiness without more wealth but harmony.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This paragraph raised some questions for me. You seem to feel 'the less fortunate' just want to 'oppress' the ones that make 'good choices'. I feel this is an egotistical and shallow conclusion. There are folks that are born with disabilities, mental or physical. I think an enlightened society is one that uplifts & protects the disadvantage. This is what separates us from the animals. Certainly there are those that abuse that help, but I don't think this is the rule. What happens to the mentally & physically disabled in your 'ideal' society?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
he hires them at sub-standard wages.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
damn.
god bless joe strummer.
and you.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
No. I'm saying that some of 'the less fortunate', or those that profess to speak for them, want to do that. The reverse is also true -- there are plenty of 'fortunate' who want to oppress the less fortunate. I simply disagree that property itself represents "oppression". The opposite is true. Property, as an accepted social construct, is what prevents oppression.
This is a silly question. I'm not prescribing anything for the "mentally & physically disabled". I'm simply not going to agree with a society wherein the mentally & physically disabled are given license to oppress others because of their "disadvantage", anymore than I would agree with a society wherein the non-disabled are given license to enslave the mentally & physically disabled.