Thoughts on elimination of the state and privatization of property

[guerilla]

You do realize odds are you would be a part of the vast majority of indentured serfs in the above scenario, right?

What do you call being a taxpayer under threat of violence, bound to the whim of politicians and the majority?

No one owns their land. There is no private property. All property, and all labor, is owned by the government. Individuals are allowed to use their land (until they stop paying rent aka property taxes on it) and are allowed to produce, as long as they pay an arbitrary percentage of their wages in various tax schemes.

And lastly, if you operate in the jurisdiction of a government, you are bound by their legal tender laws. Since our complex modern economy requires an intermediary good (money) instead of direct barter, the government provides the product used in half of nearly every exchange (you buy good s and services with money). So they have a monopoly on the intermediary good, and they regulate that half of every transaction by default. Which means that with taxes on every exchange, government regulates more than 50% of every transaction.

Think about that the next time someone says, "the free market failed, and more regulation is needed".

You don't own anything now. The defacto owners are the political class. While they may not hold the deeds to the property, they have complete control of how it is used, how much citizens can keep, and what the terms of the arrangement are.

Monopoly control (for all intents and purposes) is ownership.

 

[hellblazer]

And the comparison to Nazism?...

The right-wing is far more nationalistic than the left...

How could the left be National Socialists if they hate America?...

Any nationalism that was derived from the Nazis was almost purely of racial origin. Nationalism or patriotism in the American sense generally means pride in the civic ideals and ideas that make America, i.e. freedom(speech, religion, markets, etc..), i.e. what has commonly been called civic nationalism. The two couldn't be more different. One reveres mere genetics, the other ideas.

Once that issue has been dealt with, the policy similarities between the National Socialists of old and the international Left today are eerily close.

 

[Refrozen]

Philosophical libertarianism is as much of a myth. I agree that I don't have the moral justification to force you to live under my government, but I also believe that there's an disequilibrium reached with no governance. Extremely small, strictly defined government seems to be the only sustainable solution. Primarily because: how does the guy with the biggest guns not become the government - but also the moral issue related to children; it seems clear that we can't have homeless children because their parents threw them out at 8 years old, but it isn't clear to me that charity can adequately deal with that issue. It may, and this argument does not in any way justify stealing your money to pay for someone else's children.

Re: the crowding out study, that's very true for sure, but the effects of "crowding out" in capital investment can be justified by the lower returns. We're still not sure whether crowding out in charity is due to the charities not working for the money as hard (because they feel there's less need or because they get the money injections from the government) or because individuals don't donate as much - a project I'm working on right now is addressing exactly that question.

If this thread is still alive when I finish collecting and regressing the data, I'll summarize some of the findings.

 

[guerilla]

Philosophical libertarianism is as much of a myth.

Ethics can't be a myth. They are an individual preference.

agree that I don't have the moral justification to force you to live under my government, but I also believe that there's an disequilibrium reached with no governance.

To the former, good, we agree. To the latter, you're arguing against the market.

Extremely small, strictly defined government seems to be the only sustainable solution.

What are the incentives to keep a government small? If there is no competition, and the monopoly is reinforced by the government being the sole arbiter of its own size, then ....

How does the guy with the biggest guns not become the government?

Government doesn't rule by force. It rules by consent. That is why the Soviet Union collapsed without a shot being fired.

When the government can no longer provide bread and vodka, no amount of propaganda will keep people from taking to the streets.

Re: the crowding out study, that's very true for sure, but the effects of "crowding out" in capital investment can be justified by the lower returns. We're still not sure whether crowding out in charity is due to the charities not working for the money as hard (because they feel there's less need or because they get the money injections from the government) or because individuals don't donate as much - a project I'm working on right now is addressing exactly that question.

If this thread is still alive when I finish collecting and regressing the data, I'll summarize some of the findings.

Even if this thread is done, let me know. I have some friends who might be interested in your work. Nothing like nerd on nerd action.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

...Knock knock

WHO'S THERE?!

Logic!

Logic Who?

Logic....you know, I'm sort of like your long lost father...

both of whom you've never met

vel primus vel cum primis - not


(uncontrollable yawning...)

 

[Refrozen]

OK, but as far as I can tell, your 'pure market' literally does mean that the guy with the biggest guns wins. You'll end up with inter-corporation war in a "libertarian" corporatocracy. I suspect violence tends towards monopoly.

What's important here I think is that, the "market" as we see it is as much of a creation of our culture and environment inputs (such as government and "market structure") as it is an intrinsic human characteristic. The assumption that contracts can be enforced without involving things that may be morally reprehensible (like say, shooting someone over a $5 contract) is a fundamental tenet of a functioning economy.

What are the incentives to keep a government small? If there is no competition, and the monopoly is reinforced by the government being the sole arbiter of its own size, then ....

I'm not entirely sure how you do it. This is one of my major sticking points with regard to government in general. I assume the best way is to cultivate a culture of strict constitutionalism: a fear of government. The U.S. is a good example of how that doesn't work long-term though.

 

[hellblazer]

Logic....you know, I'm sort of like your long lost father...

both of whom you've never met

Socialism sucks. Europe sucks. You suck. Your desperate facade to appear 'above it all' sucks. Now go make some more money using the one medium that isn't totally controlled by the government(yet), the one that hasn't yet been infected with the syphilis of your socialism.

 

[Justinw]

You all need to get out more.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I had a well crafted response to Guerrilla but then I read Riddarhussetgal's post and decided that I would rather stab myself in the face with a rusty spoon that subject myself to such .... whatever the fuck it is. Too late, too drunk, I'm out, I give - you win.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

What do you call being a taxpayer under threat of violence, bound to the whim of politicians and the majority.

I see society as beneficial, on the whole. It provides a stable framework in which to live and work. We all benefit from roads, schools, police and fire service, public transportation, rule of law, so on. We have collectively agreed that these are beneficial enough to society as a whole that we've made them available to everyone. These are provided by society, and since we all benefit, it is our obligation to contribute (as we are able).

We have a political process in place for the purpose of making changes. I get that you don't agree with the majority, but that's just the reality of living in a world with other people. You have to make compromises.

 

[Bofu2U]

Personally, I say we make Dr House president for 6 months and watch the country suddenly thrive.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

A few points:

1. In capitalism any person is free to take up any career path he wants to. Unskilled workers are free to learn new skills to fill positions in higher-paying jobs. They are also free to take what they know of their craft and start their own company producing a good or service, provided they are willing to take that risk.

Learning new skills typically costs money and time, as does starting a business. For the working poor living paycheck-to-paycheck, time and money are both in very short supply. Social programs can make these obstacles much more manageable, thereby increasing social mobility and the probability of escaping poverty.

Everyone has an equal (in terms of outside factors) chance to succeed or fail.

This is naive. Women are paid less and are promoted less. Same is true of minorities. It's fortunate that there is public (and private) support available for people who wouldn't otherwise be able to go to university, else we'd still just have mostly kids with rich parents getting high quality educations.

Public school is free so not sure how people with no money can't afford school.

Sounds like support for public education. But actually in that paragraph I wasn't referring to the US, I was talking about globalization and cheap labor in countries where there is little or no public education, or where economic realities require children to cut their education short and enter the workforce.

Poor people become rich and rich people become poor ALL THE TIME.

It's nevertheless a rare event on the whole, and is no doubt much more likely to occur in industrialized societies with good social support structures (again, increasing social mobility). We certainly are lucky to be amongst the minority in the world to have that opportunity available to us.

2. If wages for unskilled workers drop, and the cost of goods also goes down, then the people buying those goods have the same (or close to the same) buying power as they did before. As wages go down and rent becomes too expensive, landlords have to lower rent to fill property (or build a cheaper community with cheaper housing). People will almost always have buying power of some level, it just depends on what they are willing to buy.

Wages will tend towards subsistence at the bottom, i.e., cost of goods goes down, but wages go down further until they only just cover food+rent.

3. 50 years ago people worked 12 hours a day and lived paycheck to paycheck as well. It's not like living paycheck to paycheck is a new concept. That type of labor will always be around, but the people who take those jobs are free to learn another skill if they want.

Again, "learning another skill" has significant obstacles to it for someone in that position.

4. A truly capitalist society may even come to realize one day that they create a better product paying their workers MORE and creating better working conditions. As companies evolve and collect more data, i have a feeling this will be the trend. Obviously an assembly line worker won't make 6 figures, but they will have better working conditions and pay than the same type of worker 50 years ago. But according to your logic that shouldn't be the case, working conditions for that type of unskilled labor should be worse today, but thanks to capitalism, they are not. They have improved.

It sounds like you are thinking in US-centric terms here. I would argue that many of those jobs have been moved offshore and the working conditions for many of those workers is just as bad as ever. Can you get more productivity from a worker treated well versus driving them as hard as possible? Depends on the type of work. At the most unskilled level, a slave driven to exhaustion is probably always going to be more productive.

 

[guerilla]

OK, but as far as I can tell, your 'pure market' literally does mean that the guy with the biggest guns wins.

It is not mine. I won't argue it from authority, but this position is only radical because it is generally not taught in schools, and people are only familiar with what they have been told not what they discover for themselves.

You'll end up with inter-corporation war in a "libertarian" corporatocracy.

Who would create corporations without the legal foundation for such? How would they get so big without the regulatory protections of the state and fiat money? How would they exercise so much leverage when they would rely entirely on the market, and not the state for support?

I suspect violence tends towards monopoly.

And yet my argument is the reverse. Monopoly leads to violence. Monopoly leads to intolerance, welfarism and warfarism. It leads to corruption and inefficiency. We both know that monopoly removes all of the good incentives created by competition, incentives which put the consumer (citizen) first and allow markets to work.

I'm having trouble understanding but I think you're arguing for markets and monopoly at the same time. If some socialism is acceptable, then it is up to you to reconcile how much. Without those limits being arbitrary then the idea of limited government is (IMO) very hard to support. What you want in government, I might not, and likewise. At the end of the day, everyone ends up with a government so big it can't deliver on any promises, but imposes all of the costs (democracy).

What's important here I think is that, the "market" as we see it is as much of a creation of our culture and environment inputs (such as government and "market structure") as it is an intrinsic human characteristic.

I disagree. I think exchange and cooperation are fundamental human social values. This is always the part of the argument where I go, "so humans as a species only have fundamental "evil" attributes like a lust for violence and domination but they don't have love, cooperation or exchange as part of their socio-biology?"

Perhaps we differ on our definition of the market.

The assumption that contracts can be enforced without involving things that may be morally reprehensible (like say, shooting someone over a $5 contract) is a fundamental tenet of a functioning economy.

You can have that without the state. The state just legalizes plunder by the few of the many while promising to plunder the few for the many.

I'm not arguing for no law or no rules. I am arguing for the same relationship that exists between states like Japan and Mexico to exist between individual people. That's known as "natural order". Neither Japan nor Mexico is sovereign over the other but they do trade and work out disputes peacefully.

Why pay any price demanded by some third party to impose solutions neither of us may want? That's an unnecessary inefficiency which I think seriously erodes the pragmatist's case (no price determination mechanism for the arbitration, justice and legal markets).

I'm not entirely sure how you do it. This is one of my major sticking points with regard to government in general.

Whatever solution you come up with, constitutional state or market anarchy, never aim for Utopia. There will always be bad people, liars, cheats and scoundrels. There is no system to stop that short of complete abolition of free will. The capacity to act freely can lead to good and bad outcomes. We have to accept that. Once we do ...

The question is, do you give some people all of the guns and allow them complete legal immunity to run your life (in the case of some governments, destroy your life, wolves/sheep) or do you at all times maintain your individual right to self-determination and self-ownership?

I assume the best way is to cultivate a culture of strict constitutionalism: a fear of government. The U.S. is a good example of how that doesn't work long-term though.

The Soviet Union had a constitution as well and that turned out super bad.

I don't think fear is the answer. If they fear THE government, they consent to whatever the government demands. If they fear ANY government, then it becomes impossible to organize socially. Fear leads to chaos (lack of order).

We can make two arguments here. One, that there are no long run solutions because life is not a destination, it is a journey, and even global social progress will be subject to fits and starts, leaps and regressions (exactly what the 20th century was, a Keynesian/socialist regression). So really, there is no one system that is perfect forever nor would we necessarily want that sort of evolutionary stagnation in a limitless universe.

Two, even if we can argue that a particular form of government is best, which individual or group decides what is the objective standard for best, if it isn't negotiated by all parties, isn't it an imposition? My take is, one can be a communist, a socialist, a capitalist, a republican, a union member, lesbian, super genius whatever. They just can't impose their preferences on me for my own good, without admitting that they are (1) violating my free will and (2) asserting their superiority over me. Both are examples of tyranny.

There is a voluntarist (I prefer that term to ancap myself) who makes the following point. The state is there to protect your rights from everyone except the state. If the state does not have the power to act on you with authority, then it has no power at all. So a state you do not explicitly agree to by definition is a violator of your rights, while claiming to be the protector of your rights. It's contradictory at best.

Put differently, I can't be sovereign, and have a sovereign over me at the same time.

Want to reiterate, I am for order and peace as most everyone is. I believe the best way to get there is market order. I am not for democratic order (mob rule), order by violence, or order by coercion. I do not think it is more right for a corporation to rule than a government. But a corporation can only have monopoly power, when it becomes a government (monopoly on law and security). Any smaller size corporation must bow to competitive forces.

I feel that modern economies are so vertical because of the state, not due to capitalism. A free market (I suspect) would have a tendency to be flatter, because agent costs couldn't be offloaded to the taxpayer.

If one is predisposed to believe that markets create violence, and that socialism creates peace, then that is essentially Marxism. That is the logical extension of the markets can work for some things, but are not necessary argument.

I have a bad habit of applying reductios to everything.

Great conversation so far. Thanks.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Any nationalism that was derived from the Nazis was almost purely of racial origin. Nationalism or patriotism in the American sense generally means pride in the civic ideals and ideas that make America, i.e. freedom(speech, religion, markets, etc..), i.e. what has commonly been called civic nationalism. The two couldn't be more different. One reveres mere genetics, the other ideas.

Once that issue has been dealt with, the policy similarities between the National Socialists of old and the international Left today are eerily close.

So guilt by association? Socialism is bad because the Nazis did bad things?

The average European living in a social democracy seems to be doing fine. I don't see them becoming totalitarian.

Besides that, one could draw just as many parallels to the modern American right. For example, from Wikipedia (yeah yeah, forgive me):

In 1920, the Nazi Party published their 25-point National Socialist Program, the key tenets being: anti-parliamentarism, pan-Germanism, racism, anti-Semitism, collectivism, social Darwinism, eugenics, anti-communism, totalitarianism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.
...

in practice, Nazism is a far right form of politics

...

German Nazism reject liberalism, democracy and Marxism

...

Nazi militarism was based upon the belief that great nations grow from military power, and maintain order in the world.

...

The racialist philosophy of Nazism derived from (...) white supremacist works

So yeah, a lot of that doesn't play well on the left. You'll find it on the right though, to varying degrees.

Nationalism, militarism, and totalitarianism are the dangerous bits, IMO, and while the last is debatable, the first two are definitely properties of the right.


Responding to a couple of items in the post you linked:

A shocking disrespect for life is coincidentally also something you'll find on the American left today. Who is it that's in bed with the abortion industry?

I've thought a lot about the philosophical issues raised by abortion, and the bottom line for me is that we can't know with any certainly (at the present, anyway) when a person becomes a person. Is it enough that the biological structures are in place to support consciousness? On the other hand, what of the right of a woman to control her own body, to manage her own biological processes? And a fetus does fit the definition of a parasite. If it were a highly intelligent sentient non-human species that used humans as incubation chambers, would that change the equation? What it comes down to for me is that it's a personal decision for a woman to make about her body. Maybe there should be a do-by date for that - third trimester for example - or the right of the unborn fetus to its life supersedes the right of the mother to control over her body. I don't know. As far as I can know, I think Roe v. Wade is an acceptable compromise.

What we can know, however, is that use of military force results in tremendous loss of life - of fully mature, living, breathing human beings, with hopes and ideas and accomplishments and a vested interest in their life. Taking a life in its prime is by far the greater injustice than stopping a potential life, IMO. That is a true disregard for life. The left tends to strongly oppose use of force, while the right is more supportive generally. For whatever reason, the right is more accepting of loss of life in military action, particularly when they feel the cause is "just" (which is rather easy to sell conservatives on, unfortunately).

Who was it who derided Sarah Palin for not murdering her Down Syndrome child? Who is it that regards the handicapped as not worth bringing into this world?

I don't know, who? I suspect that if you tend only to read/hear conservative pundits you'll get a pretty skewed impression of the other side (goes both ways, I fully acknowledge that; I may be off on my generalizations). Yes, there are some on the left who may do such things, but it's not a rule.

Who is it that is constantly using fearmongering tactics to institute a climate police? Who is constantly warning of global warming while there's blizzards outside?

The latter half of your assertion displays some ignorance of the issue. Warming temperatures can result in more evaporation, resulting in more water vapor in the air and consequently more severe weather. In summer this means more rain and storms, in winter you get blizzards. More snow doesn't necessarily mean it's colder, only that there's more moisture in the air.

As for the former, well, if global climate change is truly occurring, then it behooves us to take an honest look at the data and take reasonable and prudent steps to ameliorate the potential for catastrophe. It's naive to think we can't possibly have an affect on our climate; I believe it's been shown airplane contrails in major air coriddors have an affect on local weather systems, inducing more cloud formation. Increased cloud cover increases reflectivity; it's not hard to imagine that a few percent difference in the light reaching the ground over a large area could have a noticeable effect.

I'm not sold on global warming; we may well be in a period of climate instability that could potentially end with us in an ice age instead. Regardless, there are plenty of other good reasons to move away from burning hydrocarbons for energy. It's a public health issue, as well.

And how about guns? Surely a 'far right wing' swastika party like the National Socialists would want unfettered gun access for all, right?

A lot of liberals are against guns because they hold peaceful living in high regard and they see guns as symbols and tools of violence, rather than as a means of protecting peace. The liberal ideal is a world in which violence is extremely rare because there aren't the driving forces behind it - economic inequity being one of the largest. Think about it - if everyone was more or less content with their lot in life, what would they want with your property? There'd still be the occasional sociopath or crime of passion, but violent crime would certainly be much lower, and murders practically non-existent. This is what some countries are already tending toward. The US has by far a higher murder rate than any other industrialized country.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

Learning new skills typically costs money and time, as does starting a business. For the working poor living paycheck-to-paycheck, time and money are both in very short supply. Social programs can make these obstacles much more manageable, thereby increasing social mobility and the probability of escaping poverty.

I prefer having businesses who want to be more competitive to offer their employees incentives in the form of tuition assistance and continuing education programs privately than a government confiscatory tax-to-handout social mess. Win - win situation from a market perspective.

This is naive. Women are paid less and are promoted less. Same is true of minorities. It's fortunate that there is public (and private) support available for people who wouldn't otherwise be able to go to university, else we'd still just have mostly kids with rich parents getting high quality educations.

Once again, lifting the women and minorities up is better facilitated via private enterprise. Businesses that seek profits don't care if you are man or woman, black, white, yellow or purple if you can do the job and are skilled in getting the business owner what he wants ($$$). Creating any kind of government installed mandate to ensure this is happening is only going to stifle the competitiveness of the business by burdening them with regulatory compliance red tape.

A lot of liberals are against guns because they hold peaceful living in high regard and they see guns as symbols and tools of violence, rather than as a means of protecting peace.

and the reasons a tyrannical government would promote this ideology escapes you somehow

 

[Pseudo Nym]

I prefer having businesses who want to be more competitive to offer their employees incentives in the form of tuition assistance and continuing education programs privately than a government confiscatory tax-to-handout social mess. Win - win situation from a market perspective.

If a business relies on cheap unskilled labor, why would they spend money on something like that? The employee would then leave for a better job.

Once again, lifting the women and minorities up is better facilitated via private enterprise. Businesses that seek profits don't care if you are man or woman, black, white, yellow or purple if you can do the job and are skilled in getting the business owner what he wants ($$$). Creating any kind of government installed mandate to ensure this is happening is only going to stifle the competitiveness of the business by burdening them with regulatory compliance red tape.

Are you implying then that women and minorities produce less value for employers? Because they are paid less, for the same job even. I think part of the problem is cultural, I don't know if there's a good solution to it. I was just pointing out the assertion you made that external factors don't affect one's chances of success.

and the reasons a tyrannical government would promote this ideology escapes you somehow

It doesn't at all. But being anti-gun does not equate to being pro-tyranny.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

If a business relies on cheap unskilled labor, why would they spend money on something like that? The employee would then leave for a better job.

Not necessarily. A more skilled worker becomes more valuable to a business that is now more competitive in the market.

Are you implying then that women and minorities produce less value for employers? Because they are paid less, for the same job even.

What I am saying is I will pay the same for any worker based on their value to my business. Having the government require me to hire a less-skilled worker based solely on social quotas is asinine and will only result in higher unemployment for these workers.

You seem to be basing your social beliefs on the premise that greedy business owners are somehow racially suppressive and must be punished through mandates and laws but the reality of this situation is the exact opposite result that you seek.

It doesn't at all. But being anti-gun does not equate to being pro-tyranny.

All I'm saying is promoting an anti-gun society fits nicely into a tyrannical government's agenda. An armed population is harder to exert dominance over.
I am sure we would all still be having our afternoon tea every day if our founding fathers weren't gun owners.

 

[rgordon83]

Learning new skills typically costs money and time, as does starting a business. For the working poor living paycheck-to-paycheck, time and money are both in very short supply. Social programs can make these obstacles much more manageable, thereby increasing social mobility and the probability of escaping poverty.

Exactly, and it cost time and money for everyone who started a business, but some people were willing to take the risk and some people were not. Some people have ideas good enough to get outside funds, some people don't.

Plus, PRIVATE charities can support these people and so people can have DIRECT control over which social programs they support and which ones they don't VS the govt taking my money and deciding what social programs IT wants to support.

This is naive. Women are paid less and are promoted less. Same is true of minorities. It's fortunate that there is public (and private) support available for people who wouldn't otherwise be able to go to university, else we'd still just have mostly kids with rich parents getting high quality educations.

Again, this is where private institutions can support causes they feel close with. Successful minorities can support other minorities if they want, successful woman can support women. Plus, this comes down to analyzing data properly, minorities get paid less b/c statistically they work in lower paying jobs. But when it comes to comparing the exact same jobs, the difference is negligible. Some minorities even get paid more b/c of affirmative action

As far as women, they get paid slightly less than men for the same job (about 77 cents on the dollar), But isn't it possible that some woman are less productive than men at certain jobs? So depending on their output, the wage may be equal or GREATER than a man would make for the same output. Not to sound sexist, but i don't see whats wrong with acknowledging that men and woman are different creatures with different skills and different capabilities. It's not saying one is worse then the other, it's just saying they are different.

Sounds like support for public education. But actually in that paragraph I wasn't referring to the US, I was talking about globalization and cheap labor in countries where there is little or no public education, or where economic realities require children to cut their education short and enter the workforce.

I don't support public education, but i was assuming you were bashing the US since you were bashing capitalism and the US is the most capitalist society around, and in the US we have public education, so I was just pointing out that poor people are educated for free by wealthier people's tax dollars in our country, so the argument about people not being able to switch classes b/c of lack of education is a bad one in terms of US social structure

It's nevertheless a rare event on the whole, and is no doubt much more likely to occur in industrialized societies with good social support structures (again, increasing social mobility). We certainly are lucky to be amongst the minority in the world to have that opportunity available to us.

It's probably not as rare as you think. Maybe poor people getting rich and rich people getting poor is, but not poor people becoming middle class and middle class becoming upper class and visa versa.

Also, one of the reasons it is less common is because most people are averse to the risk involved in making a big class switch.

Wages will tend towards subsistence at the bottom, i.e., cost of goods goes down, but wages go down further until they only just cover food+rent.

The other thing your argument fails to realize is that the innovation of capitalism creates new markets all the time. If you assume there are only a finite number of jobs available, then you're right, wages will go way down to the bare minimum. But since new industries pop up all the time, new jobs are always created. So a company has to raise wages and/or benefits to attract workers so it can have a workforce.

If a new industry pops up and they have a better wage than another industry, they will have an influx of workers, so the other company needs to raise wages to retain its labor force. And this acts just like the market in terms of evening out at a price that workers are willing to work and companies are willing to pay.

It sounds like you are thinking in US-centric terms here. I would argue that many of those jobs have been moved offshore and the working conditions for many of those workers is just as bad as ever. Can you get more productivity from a worker treated well versus driving them as hard as possible? Depends on the type of work. At the most unskilled level, a slave driven to exhaustion is probably always going to be more productive.

Yes, i thought you were talking in terms of US. While many jobs are moved off shore, many new jobs are created on shore. Also, if there was no minimum wage, jobs would not be moved off shore, they would be filled here. And i would have to see some concrete proof to show that working conditions are worse than ever (again, i'm talking in the US).

A slave driven to exhaustion is likely LESS efficient then a slave worked 8 hours a day with meals and lodging provided. That's how most things (machines/animals/people) function at their peak performance. There is likely a certain point when paying for certain benefits for workers will get you more profit b/c of increased productivity. It's the same idea as companies trying to promote health programs to keep workers healthy so their insurance costs go down. It costs them money, but saves them money in the long run.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Not necessarily. A more skilled worker becomes more valuable to a business that is now more competitive in the market.

If you have a berry farm, sending your berry pickers to college isn't going to help your bottom line.

What I am saying is I will pay the same for any worker based on their value to my business. Having the government require me to hire a less-skilled worker based solely on social quotas is asinine and will only result in higher unemployment for these workers.

Hey, I don't actually disagree with you here. I don't think affirmative-action style programs are ideal at all. Again, I was only pointing out the fallacious notion that success is not influenced by external factors, because it obviously is.

You seem to be basing your social beliefs on the premise that greedy business owners are somehow racially suppressive and must be punished through mandates and laws but the reality of this situation is the exact opposite result that you seek.

Nah, I don't think forcing businesses to do things is the right way to go about it. Rather, social programs to help people when they need it. Government funded education or training, helping people get on their feet, that sort of thing.

All I'm saying is promoting an anti-gun society fits nicely into a tyrannical government's agenda. An armed population is harder to exert dominance over.
I am sure we would all still be having our afternoon tea every day if our founding fathers weren't gun owners.

I'm not personally anti-gun, just FYI. But i also think the world's not the same place it was 240 years ago and the notion of armed revolt against a tyrannical government is a bit of an anachronism. If there ever is anything like tyranny it will almost certainly be a "comfortable" tyranny, with most of the population complacent. Being a guy with a gun that's mad as hell at some government rule or other is a recipe for suicide. They've got UAVs with laser-guided hellfires and forward-looking infrared. You've got an M14. Losing proposition. No, I think if it ever came to armed revolt, it would play out more like the asymmetrical warfare that's been going on in the middle east, e.g., improvised explosives, that sort of thing.

But I don't think that's a realistic scenario. A lot of the fringey fear mongering conspiracy-theory stuff has made some inroads recently into the mainstream, with guys like Glenn Beck feeding the frenzy. I've been hearing about the New World Order, UN invasion, FEMA deathcamps, Illuminati, etc. for a long long time now, and I've come to the conclusion that a lot of it is paranoid delusion which is unfortunately now being tapped for political gain. There are elements of truth to some of it, as with most things, but overall it's just not realistic. At the end of the day, it's a lot more likely you'll be shot by someone with a gun than oppressed by a tyrannical government.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

If you have a berry farm, sending your berry pickers to college isn't going to help your bottom line.

It would if my employees learned how to engineer/grow new crops of larger, juicier, better tasting berries. Then my investment paid off with my company growing a superior product and making more money for myself and my now higher-educated employees.

A lot of the fringey fear mongering conspiracy-theory stuff has made some inroads recently into the mainstream, with guys like Glenn Beck feeding the frenzy. I've been hearing about the New World Order, UN invasion, FEMA deathcamps, Illuminati, etc. for a long long time now, and I've come to the conclusion that a lot of it is paranoid delusion which is unfortunately now being tapped for political gain. There are elements of truth to some of it, as with most things, but overall it's just not realistic.

The same could be said about Al Gore and the Global Warming lie.