Thread Tools
Old October 4, 2003, 01:27   #61
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595
Quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Really, so if I starve someone to death, it is starvation that kills them and not me.

What about negligence?

You really don't want to go down this road.
Ugh, I know where you are going, and I think its dumb, so I'll take a stroll down irrational commie lane.

If I choose not to put food in my mouth I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to go to the cupboard and get that food I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If i choose not to go shopping for groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to get a job to afford groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself.

Though of course the response is groceries should be given to everyone by a guy in a kakki jumpsuit with a handlebar mustasche. Kinda like an evil Santa Claus. And of course I can't be blamed for not bringing the food to my mouth, obviously some oppressive capitalist is (through some vague and indirect means) preventing me from doing so, so evil Santa Claus must create a feeder corps. Effective to stop extremely lazy people from starving and a jobs program all rolled into one! Brilliant!

Point? Oh hell, don't bother me about a point, I'm wandering down Commie road at 1:30 in the morning when I'm too groggy to make any decent arguments besides witty, directionless rants. I was warned not to walk down this road, but I underestimated my sleepiness and ignored the warning.

So I'll quit while I'm ahead...or behind...or totally sleepy and confused. Let me end with these final words of groggy wisdom... Die Commie Scum!

Though of course I don't want anyone to die, just uh.. take a nap or something. Ah.. a nap. I'm going to sleep now. Night all.
__________________
I was thinking to use a male-male jack and record it. - Albert Speer

When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
OzzyKP is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 02:40   #62
Ted Striker
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Batallón de San Patricio, United States of America
Posts: 3,696
Man, I really really don't understand this fascination that some westerners have with being wannabe Commies! How many more examples of failure do you need to see? Are you guys just trying to be different?

And "example country XYZ wasn't an example of TRUE COMMUNISM" doesn't cut it!
__________________
"Let the People know the facts and the country will be saved." Abraham Lincoln

Mis Novias
Ted Striker is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 02:50   #63
Drake Tungsten
Deity
 
Drake Tungsten's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the closet...
Posts: 10,604
Being raised in the 80's, I hate commies with a passion, like all real Americans should. I've noticed that people younger than I, however, don't seem to have been brought up to hate commies with the proper fervor. It seems the defeat of communism in the Cold War, while great, has removed the reality of communist rule from the public eye and created a generation who don't really understand how completely evil communism is. These naive saps seem to revel in their support for leftist and communist policies, something that in the past was limited to the moronic and smelly hippy fringe. I don't know what the reasons are for this continued belief in communism, but it scares me that this many people could still believe in such a failed and evil ideology.
__________________
KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!
Drake Tungsten is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 03:32   #64
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
UR -
Quote:
Just because such charities has always existed within a capitalistic society does not mean that it is an intrinsic component of capitalism. I am not aware of any theorists advocating this.

Such charities had been in existence long before capitalism.
You can't disconnect what is inherent to being human from the economic systems devised by humans, unless of course people don't have the wealth to be charitable (communism) or they are punished for being charitable. Capitalism allows for charity by allowing people to accumulate wealth and allowing them to give it away.

Agathon -
Quote:
This doesn't matter, since "work or starve" is a form of punishment - a communist system could use that as its form of worker motivation and be no different from capitalism in that respect.
Aside from the fact the largest man-made, mass starvations occured under Stalin and Mao trying to "motivate" farmers to "join" the new system, the capitalist doesn't pass a law forbidding me from growing or buying food. If I don't want their food, they walk away. The communist kills me and takes my food...

Quote:
It most certainly is not, since there is no such thing as a "natural punishment".
It would be illogical to say the nature that gave us life "punishes" us, but if I refuse to work and starve because nature makes demands upon me, that isn't your fault unless you restrain me from eating. But according to you, it is your fault if you don't feed me with your own food. And the communist solution? Force me to work. What happens if I refuse? The gulag? Execution? The capitalist may be "guilty" of allowing me to starve (if in fact he does allow me to starve), but at least he doesn't kill me for not working.

Ozzy -
Quote:
work or starve is a natural "punishment", work or be sent to the gulag is not.
The communists aren't getting that.

chegitz -
Quote:
Oh, and all those millions of people starvnig to death every year in the capitalist 3rd world are really not starving to death?
Capitalist 3rd world? Can you document this?

Templar -
Quote:
More likely -

Captialist solution: threaten to fire non-unionized workers who do not meet quota.

Just a different sort of whip.
So you go find a new job and boycott your former employer and tell others. What happens under communism if you raise a fuss? A real whip? My God, how you guys can even compare the two is ridiculous.

Odin -
Quote:
Reagan not allowing airline employees to strike is an example of the evils of capitalism.
Yeah, it's so evil for people to be fired for walking off the job. Nope, businesses should just go bankrupt instead so even more people lose their jobs.
Berzerker is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 10:19   #65
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595
Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Yeah, it's so evil for people to be fired for walking off the job. Nope, businesses should just go bankrupt instead so even more people lose their jobs.
Well I dunno Berz. We shouldn't be supporting what Reagan did, and it isn't part of capitalism. I support unions, and I think they are totally compatible and necessary for capitalism. Using the power of the state to break unions is an abuse of government power.

If the airlines couldn't hire enough scabs, and if they couldn't reach a speedy and satisfactory agreement with their workers then they should suffer the economic consequences. The free market will handle it. If companies go under then everyone looses, and I would hope both the executives and the workers realize that. It is not in the best interests of the workers to destroy their company cause then they are out of a job. Its also not in their best interest to create public antagonism toward unions cause that'll weaken the future of their organization.

The military should not be running commercial airline companies. Its unconstitutional and amounts to corporate welfare.

Unions are the perfect, non-government and non-coercive regulation on the excesses of big business. The horrors of capitalism that communists always talk about simply won't happen in a unionized world. I think all industries should be unionized.

As long as the strikers aren't violent toward the scabs and the companies aren't violent toward the strikers, its a perfect system. Same with consumer boycotts. This is how capitalism regulates itself.
__________________
I was thinking to use a male-male jack and record it. - Albert Speer

When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
OzzyKP is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 11:50   #66
Agathon
Mac
Emperor
 
Agathon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wal supports the CPA
Posts: 3,948
Quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP


Ugh, I know where you are going, and I think its dumb, so I'll take a stroll down irrational commie lane.

If I choose not to put food in my mouth I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to go to the cupboard and get that food I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If i choose not to go shopping for groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to get a job to afford groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself.

Though of course the response is groceries should be given to everyone by a guy in a kakki jumpsuit with a handlebar mustasche. Kinda like an evil Santa Claus. And of course I can't be blamed for not bringing the food to my mouth, obviously some oppressive capitalist is (through some vague and indirect means) preventing me from doing so, so evil Santa Claus must create a feeder corps. Effective to stop extremely lazy people from starving and a jobs program all rolled into one! Brilliant!

Point? Oh hell, don't bother me about a point, I'm wandering down Commie road at 1:30 in the morning when I'm too groggy to make any decent arguments besides witty, directionless rants. I was warned not to walk down this road, but I underestimated my sleepiness and ignored the warning.

So I'll quit while I'm ahead...or behind...or totally sleepy and confused. Let me end with these final words of groggy wisdom... Die Commie Scum!

Though of course I don't want anyone to die, just uh.. take a nap or something. Ah.. a nap. I'm going to sleep now. Night all.
You misunderstood me. Identifying responsibility with causality leaves out all sorts of cases of negligence. People have this dream that if they didn't do anything they aren't responsible. I mean that's dumb - my forgetting to put on the parking brake is me failing to do something, but my failure can result in death or injury.

Trying to say that "work or starve" is somehow different from "work or be flogged" commits the same fallacy.
__________________
Only feebs vote.
Agathon is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 12:00   #67
SKILORD
Never Ending StoriesCivilization III MultiplayerApolyton Storywriters' Guild
King
 
SKILORD's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Don't you feel silly now?
Posts: 2,140
Brilliant post Ozzy.
SKILORD is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 12:03   #68
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595
Quote:
Originally posted by SKILORD
Brilliant post Ozzy.
My witty but slightly incoherant post from last night or my discussion of unions from today?
__________________
I was thinking to use a male-male jack and record it. - Albert Speer

When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
OzzyKP is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 12:10   #69
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595
Agathon, I don't discount negligence, but it has to be more than an indirect connection. If I am trusted with the care of someone who is incapable or has diminished capacity to take care of themselves then I have a positive responsibility to act. For example if I'm taking care of a young child or crippled adult.

In this case however the relation is very direct. I am understood by all parties to be sustaining someone in need. The question becomes how this responsibility is handled when that understanding is lacking. If I see an injured person on the side of the road am I obligated to help? Morally, most deffinately. Legally...I dunno.

This idea also becomes muddy when we try to decide who has the capacity to take care of themselves. No doubt I'd put many more people in that category than you would.
__________________
I was thinking to use a male-male jack and record it. - Albert Speer

When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
OzzyKP is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 14:38   #70
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
Quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP


Well I dunno Berz. We shouldn't be supporting what Reagan did, and it isn't part of capitalism. I support unions, and I think they are totally compatible and necessary for capitalism. Using the power of the state to break unions is an abuse of government power.

If the airlines couldn't hire enough scabs, and if they couldn't reach a speedy and satisfactory agreement with their workers then they should suffer the economic consequences.
Ozzie, this post seems to suggest that you believe air traffic controllers were somehow working for the airlines. In fact they were working for the US government. I also believe that they were prohibited by law from striking against the US government.

Now think about this. Should any union have a right to strike against the people of the United States? This is not a private matter between two private entities negotiating fair wages or fair working conditions. What the union was proposing to do was an assault on America itself.
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Ned is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 15:47   #71
chequita guevara
ACDG The Human HiveDiplomacyApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
chequita guevara's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Fort LOLderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Posts: 9,091
Quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Now think about this. Should any union have a right to strike against the people of the United States?
When the government broke the contract, what recourse did the union have? If the people of the US make a contract with you and they break, why should you still be exected to uphold your end of the contract?
__________________
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
chequita guevara is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 16:04   #72
Az
Emperor
 
Local Time: 12:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: A pub.
Posts: 3,161
Quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara


When the government broke the contract, what recourse did the union have? If the people of the US make a contract with you and they break, why should you still be exected to uphold your end of the contract?
Actually, Che, this is NOT an easy question.

What about union strikes to get higher wages?
__________________
urgh.NSFW
Az is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 16:51   #73
Agathon
Mac
Emperor
 
Agathon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wal supports the CPA
Posts: 3,948
Quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP
Agathon, I don't discount negligence, but it has to be more than an indirect connection. If I am trusted with the care of someone who is incapable or has diminished capacity to take care of themselves then I have a positive responsibility to act. For example if I'm taking care of a young child or crippled adult.

In this case however the relation is very direct. I am understood by all parties to be sustaining someone in need. The question becomes how this responsibility is handled when that understanding is lacking. If I see an injured person on the side of the road am I obligated to help? Morally, most deffinately. Legally...I dunno.
But it isn't a legal question. If we are talking about which is the just system to institute then questions of morality will be prior to questions of law. Otherwise, we have no way of comparing the situations since each system will have its own laws.

All I am claiming so far is that offering someone the choice to work or starve is just as coercive as actively threatening harm to get them to work. In each case the demander has the power over the situation.
__________________
Only feebs vote.
Agathon is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 17:27   #74
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 09:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
Well I dunno Berz. We shouldn't be supporting what Reagan did, and it isn't part of capitalism. I support unions, and I think they are totally compatible and necessary for capitalism. Using the power of the state to break unions is an abuse of government power.
Now wait a second. You are right - the government shouldn't be the arbiter of who is hired and fired, unless they are the actual employer. Now, you can argue that the government was the employer of the air traffic controllers, but I think most Libertarians would agree that government shouldn't be involved in that kind of thing.

But in general? There is absolutely nothing wrong with firing workers who walk off the job.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 17:32   #75
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 09:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
All I am claiming so far is that offering someone the choice to work or starve is just as coercive as actively threatening harm to get them to work. In each case the demander has the power over the situation.
Sorry, this isn't a proper example. An employer doesn't offer someone the choice of working or starving. Nature offers us the choice of eating or starving. If one can grow enough food on his own to avoid starving, he doesn't need a job (this ignores the fact that he already has one - farming).

Now, let's say a potential employer enters the picture. He tells the farmer that if he comes to work at "the company" (wherever), then the farmer will be paid a certain wage, with which he can buy food to avoid starving. The employer isn't telling the farmer that if he doesn't take the job his only option is to starve - he'll only starve if he doesn't eat. But his food supply is no one's problem but his own - the employer is just offering him an alternative to farming.

I suppose you could argue that the fact that one must work in order to produce his own food means that the choice is between working and starving. That's correct, but this is a natural example of "work or starve" and it has nothing to do with your implied example of working a 9-5 job at the office. No one is imposing that choice, that choice just IS, and calling the choice "eat or starve" makes a whole lot more sense in terms of semantics. In fact, if we called it that on a regular basis, we wouldn't even have this argument - I would bring it up, and you would say, very sarcastically, "Oh really?".
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 17:43   #76
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595
Quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Ozzie, this post seems to suggest that you believe air traffic controllers were somehow working for the airlines. In fact they were working for the US government. I also believe that they were prohibited by law from striking against the US government.

Now think about this. Should any union have a right to strike against the people of the United States? This is not a private matter between two private entities negotiating fair wages or fair working conditions. What the union was proposing to do was an assault on America itself.
Ok, I was mistaken over who the air traffic controllers were working for. Of course as David Floyd noted the government shouldn't be running that in the first place. So in light of this I suppose I don't have a problem with the government, as employer, bringing in other employees to respond to a strike. But striking in general shouldn't be illegal, no matter what industry it is in.

As for your second point, I find it humorous the short exchange you and Che are having. You said the strike was against "the people" sounds like a very communist concept, that people should be forced to work for the good of society or "the people." Che on the other hand is talking about enforcing contract law and such, sounds capitalist to me. Hehe.

Beyond pointing out the humor, I disagree with the idea Ned. It wasn't an assault against America, no more than a Pepsi strike is an assault against Pepsi drinkers everywhere. Its a matter between the employees and employers. Not to say the consumers aren't involved, they certainly are, and if the actions of either side piss off the consumers then the entire industry is in jeopardy.

Look at the damage done to baseball caused by the strike in '94. Now people can argue over whether it was the fault of the players or the owners, I don't know nor do I care. Both sides should be smart enough to realize that not resolving their labor disputes will hurt everyone.
__________________
I was thinking to use a male-male jack and record it. - Albert Speer

When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
OzzyKP is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 17:54   #77
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595
Quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
But it isn't a legal question. If we are talking about which is the just system to institute then questions of morality will be prior to questions of law. Otherwise, we have no way of comparing the situations since each system will have its own laws.

All I am claiming so far is that offering someone the choice to work or starve is just as coercive as actively threatening harm to get them to work. In each case the demander has the power over the situation.
Well I meant it shouldn't be a legal question. The moral decision to help the person in need shouldn't be enforced by law. It is moral to help your brother in need, but it is immoral to force someone to do so. That is why voluntary charity is the solution, not forced government wealth exchange programs.

The demander only has the power over the situation if the demander is the one administering the punishment. If I am an employer I cannot demand someone work or starve. My employee would just tell me to f_ck off and go find a different job. I have no control over the person, only over my own business and property.
__________________
I was thinking to use a male-male jack and record it. - Albert Speer

When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
OzzyKP is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 17:59   #78
Agathon
Mac
Emperor
 
Agathon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wal supports the CPA
Posts: 3,948
Quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP

Well I meant it shouldn't be a legal question. The moral decision to help the person in need shouldn't be enforced by law. It is moral to help your brother in need, but it is immoral to force someone to do so. That is why voluntary charity is the solution, not forced government wealth exchange programs.
This isn't true. If someone lets someone else die, when they could have easily prevented it at no cost to themselves, they have committed a moral wrong.

Are you telling me that if someone saw your son drowning in a pond and could have saved him at the cost of nothing other than wet trousers, but does nothing and watches him drown, that you think this is morally acceptable behaviour?

Quote:
The demander only has the power over the situation if the demander is the one administering the punishment. If I am an employer I cannot demand someone work or starve. My employee would just tell me to f_ck off and go find a different job. I have no control over the person, only over my own business and property.
If there is scarcity of employment, or available employment is unsafe or objectionable for other reasons, the employer can offer the same opportunity and it will be just as coercive.
__________________
Only feebs vote.
Agathon is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 18:01   #79
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Agathon -
Quote:
Identifying responsibility with causality leaves out all sorts of cases of negligence. People have this dream that if they didn't do anything they aren't responsible. I mean that's dumb - my forgetting to put on the parking brake is me failing to do something, but my failure can result in death or injury.
It would be your car you parked on a slope and didn't secure that caused the death. If you did secure your car and I broke into it and hotwired it and went for a joyride running over pedestrians, you're not morally culpable. Virtually all deaths from starvation result from the direct actions of others whether it be warlords in Somalia starving non-supporters or ideologues like Stalin and Mao "re-educating" the masses.

Quote:
Trying to say that "work or starve" is somehow different from "work or be flogged" commits the same fallacy.
Not based on your example of negligence. You don't starve because I compelled you to eat, nature does that. That isn't analogous to flogging someone for refusing to work in a communist system. But it is interesting that you're trying to equate communsim with capitalism when I thought your position was that the former is superior and the latter is immoral.
Berzerker is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 18:04   #80
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Agathon - read his post again, he agrees with you.
Berzerker is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 18:09   #81
Agathon
Mac
Emperor
 
Agathon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wal supports the CPA
Posts: 3,948
Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon - read his post again, he agrees with you.
Sorry, that's my fault.

My position goes a bit further and claims that the law ought to be used to enforce helping others in extreme cases. At least, this moral position provides justification for a minimalist welfare system funded by compulsory taxation (and perhaps more).

Berz - I disputed the notion that being the direct physical cause of an action makes one responsible for it in a previous post.

After all I can think of consequences where an action of mine is part of the causal chain leading to a bad result, which I am not responsible for, and cases where I am not causally involved and am responsible.
__________________
Only feebs vote.
Agathon is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 18:23   #82
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Quote:
My position goes a bit further and claims that the law ought to be used to enforce helping others in extreme cases. At least, this moral position provides justification for a minimalist welfare system funded by compulsory taxation (and perhaps more).
You've gone from extreme situations to a welfare state. Why not compel us to help people throughout the world? If you follow your argument, your welfare state won't be minimalist, it will be worldwide with wealthier nations footing the bill for everyone. This "might" have validity (at least in your system of morals) if welfare wasn't destructive in how it creates dependency, increases out of wedlock births, and institutionalises poverty. Besides, how is it moral to threaten the lives of people to obtain their money - with jail or death as a consequence of non-compliance - to provide for this welfare system?

Quote:
After all I can think of consequences where an action of mine is part of the causal chain leading to a bad result, which I am not responsible for, and cases where I am not causally involved and am responsible.
If we're still talking about the car example, you were the direct cause just as I would be if I randomly fired a gun into the air and a bullet struck someone.
Berzerker is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 18:24   #83
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595
Quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
This isn't true. If someone lets someone else die, when they could have easily prevented it at no cost to themselves, they have committed a moral wrong.

Are you telling me that if someone saw your son drowning in a pond and could have saved him at the cost of nothing other than wet trousers, but does nothing and watches him drown, that you think this is morally acceptable behaviour?
No, as I said it is very immoral to watch him drown, and immoral in general to not help someone in need when you are able. We agree on this. I feel however it is *also* immoral to force someone to help.

Quote:
If there is scarcity of employment, or available employment is unsafe or objectionable for other reasons, the employer can offer the same opportunity and it will be just as coercive.
Well those are all ifs, and factors of the environment that are beyond the control of the employer. You can't blame me because you can't find another job.

However there is some sense in your argument that libertarians often ignore. It is the problem of choice that I haven't resolved in my own mind yet. In the practical sense there is almost always other choices the employee can make, and communists just ignore or belittle this fact. But in theory it would be possible for literally all options to be restricted but working for 1 employer or starving. Again this is very unlikely to happen, and one would have to look *very* hard to see it anywhere currently, but in principle it could. What does David and Berz and others say then?

Libertarians maintain that the actions of a private entity like an employer are never force because you have other options, whereas actions of a state are considered force because you don't have other options. But if we look at this theoretically, this may not be true.

For example it is ok for a private company to charge you whatever fees it wants, because if you don't like it you can always switch companies. Libertarians maintain that it is wrong for governments to charge taxes because it is force. But in a commercial model by living in this country we are enjoying the benefits of it and thus have a contractual obligation to pay the fees (taxes) if we don't like it we can just move to another country.

They seem to me to be identical situations. Unless the government is stopping you from leaving the country, then you always have the option to leave, just as we always have the option to switch companies.

The response i've heard from libertarians is that well all countries have taxes, and it'd be too difficult or costly to move to another country anyways. This sounds very much like the argument communists make that all employers have X policy they don't like, and if there aren't very many employers in the area it could be very difficult or costly to find another.

How does a libertarian get out of this trap?
__________________
I was thinking to use a male-male jack and record it. - Albert Speer

When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
OzzyKP is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 18:34   #84
Agathon
Mac
Emperor
 
Agathon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wal supports the CPA
Posts: 3,948
Quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP

No, as I said it is very immoral to watch him drown, and immoral in general to not help someone in need when you are able. We agree on this. I feel however it is *also* immoral to force someone to help.
But is it immoral to force criminals to pay back what they owe, or to require people to help when it costs them nothing. We don't need to force this person to help, just make sure that punishment is due. After all we don't force people to refrain from stealing either.

Quote:
Well those are all ifs, and factors of the environment that are beyond the control of the employer. You can't blame me because you can't find another job.
No one is saying that they are under the control of the employer. Indeed, it doesn't matter whether they are or are not. It is just as coercive in either case.

Quote:
However there is some sense in your argument that libertarians often ignore. It is the problem of choice that I haven't resolved in my own mind yet. In the practical sense there is almost always other choices the employee can make, and communists just ignore or belittle this fact. But in theory it would be possible for literally all options to be restricted but working for 1 employer or starving. Again this is very unlikely to happen, and one would have to look *very* hard to see it anywhere currently, but in principle it could.
Well that's because we have a welfare system. If you look at pre-welfare state societies you will find a host of examples.

You are right, Libertarians often ignore it.

Quote:
Libertarians maintain that the actions of a private entity like an employer are never force because you have other options, whereas actions of a state are considered force because you don't have other options. But if we look at this theoretically, this may not be true.
Because merely having options is not enough. Some attention has to be paid to the quality of those options.

Quote:
For example it is ok for a private company to charge you whatever fees it wants, because if you don't like it you can always switch companies. Libertarians maintain that it is wrong for governments to charge taxes because it is force. But in a commercial model by living in this country we are enjoying the benefits of it and thus have a contractual obligation to pay the fees (taxes) if we don't like it we can just move to another country.
Exactly, wrongful coercion needs to be defined in a way such as to avoid this problem, if Libertarianism is to work. The problem is that once you start doing this, you lose much of what they find attractive about it.

Quote:
They seem to me to be identical situations. Unless the government is stopping you from leaving the country, then you always have the option to leave, just as we always have the option to switch companies.
But what if we don't. I may not have enough money to leave?

Quote:
The response i've heard from libertarians is that well all countries have taxes, and it'd be too difficult or costly to move to another country anyways. This sounds very much like the argument communists make that all employers have X policy they don't like, and if there aren't very many employers in the area it could be very difficult or costly to find another.
Yep. The quality of options offered to someone matter, not just the fact that there is an option.

Quote:
How does a libertarian get out of this trap?
I don't know. Dump Libertarianism for an extreme right version of welfare liberalism, I suppose.
__________________
Only feebs vote.
Agathon is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 18:42   #85
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595
I think this is a bigger question that is a divergion from the current topic, so I made a new one. Agathon, send your reply over there. Thanks
__________________
I was thinking to use a male-male jack and record it. - Albert Speer

When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
OzzyKP is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 18:58   #86
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595
Quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
But is it immoral to force criminals to pay back what they owe, or to require people to help when it costs them nothing. We don't need to force this person to help, just make sure that punishment is due. After all we don't force people to refrain from stealing either.
Well thats the same thing though. Punishment for doing or not doing something is the same as forcing someone. I think it is am impractical policy to have since it would be impossible to determine whether someone is capable of helping or not. A lot of my friends claim to be incapable of doing things that I think they could easily do, but how could I prove it?

But assuming this problem were resolvable I might be amenable to a good samaritan law thing. Holding people criminally negligent for not helping someone who's life is in danger. But ugh, once I make that allowance I discredit my moral stance against welfare and communism. Changing my objection to a matter of degrees rather than some universal anti-coercion principle.

Not that I've ever been much of a dogmatic libertarian. I'm not sure I'd want to see the ideal libertarian world, but I deffinately want the world to be much more libertarian.

But I dunno. Berz and David, pull me back I'm dangerously near the edge.
__________________
I was thinking to use a male-male jack and record it. - Albert Speer

When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
OzzyKP is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 19:13   #87
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
Quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP


Ok, I was mistaken over who the air traffic controllers were working for. Of course as David Floyd noted the government shouldn't be running that in the first place. So in light of this I suppose I don't have a problem with the government, as employer, bringing in other employees to respond to a strike. But striking in general shouldn't be illegal, no matter what industry it is in.

As for your second point, I find it humorous the short exchange you and Che are having. You said the strike was against "the people" sounds like a very communist concept, that people should be forced to work for the good of society or "the people." Che on the other hand is talking about enforcing contract law and such, sounds capitalist to me. Hehe.

Beyond pointing out the humor, I disagree with the idea Ned. It wasn't an assault against America, no more than a Pepsi strike is an assault against Pepsi drinkers everywhere. Its a matter between the employees and employers. Not to say the consumers aren't involved, they certainly are, and if the actions of either side piss off the consumers then the entire industry is in jeopardy.

Look at the damage done to baseball caused by the strike in '94. Now people can argue over whether it was the fault of the players or the owners, I don't know nor do I care. Both sides should be smart enough to realize that not resolving their labor disputes will hurt everyone.
Point taken. Che has previously argued that unions are not required in communist countries because the people own the means of production. I have argued the opposite. So we are both inconsistent, are we not?

But still the point remains. When you have a government monopoly on an essential service, it is critical that the service remain in operation. Just as a strike in the military is mutiny, so a strike by the ATC's was mutiny. Now, you might want to argue distinctions between the military and the ATC's, but as to being important to the United States, both are critical that they continue to function.

If there was breach of contract by the Govt., there is a court in Washington to handle the claim. The union was not without remedy. If they think overall working condidtions are unfair, they can petition Congress. There is absolutely no reason to strike when there are alternatives available.

So Che, have you recognized the errors of your support of the ATC union, or do you change you position on communism?
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Ned is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 19:46   #88
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Ozzy -
Quote:
But in theory it would be possible for literally all options to be restricted but working for 1 employer or starving. Again this is very unlikely to happen, and one would have to look *very* hard to see it anywhere currently, but in principle it could. What does David and Berz and others say then?
It can't happen, but if it did, then work or starve or rely on the charity of those who do work.

Quote:
Libertarians maintain that the actions of a private entity like an employer are never force because you have other options, whereas actions of a state are considered force because you don't have other options. But if we look at this theoretically, this may not be true.
Theory has to be able to exist or it's irrelevant and this can only happen under communism, not capitalism. But it's not because there are or are not options, options are just the reality. It's force and who is using it and why. The employer doesn't force me to do anything I don't want to do.

Quote:
But in a commercial model by living in this country we are enjoying the benefits of it and thus have a contractual obligation to pay the fees (taxes) if we don't like it we can just move to another country.
What contract? If we want these benefits, we should pay for them. If we don't want these benefits, then don't offer them. This is not about paying for a sheriff, it's about the massive forced "re-distribution" of wealth. Those who want this re-distribution will mention sheriffs to distract from what they really want - other people to pay for what they want. If I want a sheriff's protection, I should pay for it. If I don't pay for it, the sheriff is not obliged to protect me.

Quote:
The response i've heard from libertarians is that well all countries have taxes, and it'd be too difficult or costly to move to another country anyways. This sounds very much like the argument communists make that all employers have X policy they don't like, and if there aren't very many employers in the area it could be very difficult or costly to find another.

How does a libertarian get out of this trap?
Morality. I have no moral obligation to pay for services you want from government. Forcing me to pay is immoral. Libertarians only bring up the fact that governments are everywhere in response to people who say we can move if we don't like it. Is that a moral response to the victims of Mafia extortion/protection rackets? Of course not, so why is it a moral response to the victims of government? When leftists here complain about Bush and Ashcroft, do supporters of the administration tell them to move if they don't like it? I haven't seen such a crass response, but if it was offered, the left wouldn't like it one bit.
Berzerker is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 19:54   #89
OzzyKP
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsDiploGamesPolyCast TeamCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG The Mercenary TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
ACS Staff Member
 
OzzyKP's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 10,595
Berz, repost all that good stuff in the force, liberty and choice thread i made.
__________________
I was thinking to use a male-male jack and record it. - Albert Speer

When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
OzzyKP is offline  
Old October 4, 2003, 20:47   #90
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 09:45
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
But still the point remains. When you have a government monopoly on an essential service, it is critical that the service remain in operation. Just as a strike in the military is mutiny, so a strike by the ATC's was mutiny. Now, you might want to argue distinctions between the military and the ATC's, but as to being important to the United States, both are critical that they continue to function.
Well now hang on for a second. Forcing someone to do a job they no longer want to do is getting pretty close to slavery, now isn't it?

I understand if there is a contract clause making it a breach of contract for you to strike - if you sign that, then you are locked into the job. But even then there are going to be exceptions with regards to contract law.

But in any case, I don't care how critical the "service" is - no one should be able to force you to do it against your will, in the absence of some sort of contractual agreement on your part.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:45.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team