For my Libertarian friends

JLocke wrote: Lozlan wrote: JLocke wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Boo minimum wage laws.  What do you think about work-hours laws? Or about laws forcing employers to give vacation and time off? Or laws forcing employers to pay overtime when for example a workers works in a holiday?  I know you weren't addressing me, but here is my answer any-old-how. I don't think business owners should be forced to pay employees more than they think they deserve. Just like I don't think they should be forced to hire a certain amount of minorities members. I think people should be hired and payed according to their own ability as an employee, and if they do exceptional work, then it's up to the boss to decide what actions are appropriate.  If the boss is an a****le, then he most likely won't pay the worker for any additional work put in, but that's when the valuable employee is free to take his services elsewhere to a more appreciative business or company. Then, the jerk employer is out a good worker, and loses more than he gains while searching for an adequate replacement.  All's fair in love and war, and all that.  We don't need arbitrary rules put into place to 'guide' us to make the best decisions. Not when it comes to issues like this. So...how in the world do you enact this system without ensuring wholesale inequality and the enslavement of the lower class to the higher?  I'm asking this question to be polite: I genuinely think the entire libertarian construction of reality is a blithe fable, but if you have an honest method of preventing society from turning into striations of absolute privilege and absolute destitution I'd like to hear it.  You seem to operate off the assumption that hard work, talent, and responsibility will inevitably pay off.  I suspect this is accompanied by the caveat that the reason society doesn't currently work like this is due to government oversight and intrusion?  I would also like to put out a general call: of all the libertarians here, how many of you are poor?  Also, of all the libertarians here, how many of you achieved the prosperity in your life based on a stiff upper lip and honest hard work, and not on inheritance, family privilege etc.? First of all, the nerve of your ass to tell me how 'blithe' my worldview is without spending any significant time speaking with me whatsoever is quite rude and assumptive, and frankly, I don't know why you chose to come at me with such hostility and disdain when I didn't say anything even remotely close to bringing such a reaction on. So you think libertarians in general believe in a fable, but you're willing to give me a chance to redeem myself? Well pardon the hell out of me if I don't take that as much of a gracious gesture at all, good sir.  Enslavement? Is it enslavement to work hard for what I want? To truly earn my keep in a society that is fixed to favor only certain people? I'd say it's pretty noble, myself. As for if the world worked the way I would wish it to, I'd say the world we live in now could certainly get a lot worse, but I'm not going to roll over and simply accept the notion that the government and state lawmakers know better than I do about my own personal needs and ambitions.  So, you're one of those bitter folks who feels like honest determination and good old-fashioned work amounts to nothing much? Who feels that we truly need some type of intervention from strangers in suits who have no real concern for any of us individually? If I'm incorrect in this observation, please set me straight. But I would rather try to make something of myself and fail than have a sub-par wage and circumstance handed to be for no reason, then told to just be thankful for that, because it could be much worse.  I'm not a very well-to-do guy. I take odd jobs from time to time, still young enough and free enough to consider college at some point in the near future, but at the moment, I'm taking my time. I'm aiming to make the best life for myself as I can, and if that means all I'll ever manage to do is keep the rent payed and not much else, then so be it. At least it will be something I can proudly say I did for myself, rather than being handed pointless favors that I probably didn't deserve. So, to answer your question, if I would end up being prosperous, it would indeed be by my own doing, and not as a result of some fictional inheritance story you've dreamt up.

Ach.  I'll apologize for the blithe comment, at least.  I know a fair number of staunch libertarians in my everyday existence, and they generally go out of their way to make trouble.  However, I recognize that I came into your thread, your house as it were,  so I am indeed sorry.  I'm a pretty firm believer in prosperous discourse: that being said, I do hold your philosophy in personal contempt.  I reserve that right.  However, I also believe that separating the person from the belief is important.  When I first came to this site, I got in quite a back-and-forth scuffle with Epignosis and thellama73.  Since then I've realized that we have a lot of the same tastes in music (Epignosis actually shares my heartfelt belief that Somewhere to Elsewhere is Kansas's best album!); they are actually nice chaps, and I get a kick out of their reviews. I do harbour a great amount of hostility towards the libertarian movement, but at the same time I really, really want you to be able to live your life as you choose.  As long as it doesn't involve kitten murder or something similar, which (last I checked) wasn't a part of your philosophy.

As for being bitter...yes, I am.  I have worked at horrible, dead-end jobs for years.  I have been fired for other people's mistakes, simply because the owner in question was best friends with the manager who made the mistake.  I'm a very, very dedicated worker, and I come from a long line of dedicated workers: my parents moved from government rations to being upper-middle class, mostly based on my dad's relentless hard work.  That does not mean that I believe in the concept of equivalent exchange, sadly.  I fully agree that hard work SHOULD be valued and rewarded; however, we are not rewarded based on our merits, but on the whims of employers and the fickle waters of beaurocracy.  I have the utmost faith in the worker, and no faith whatsoever in the employer.  I am highly suspicious of privatization, and I firmly disbelieve that any corporation has the good of the people in mind. 

Lozlan wrote: However, I also believe that separating the person from the belief is important.  When I first came to this site, I got in quite a back-and-forth scuffle with Epignosis and thellama73.  Since then I've realized that we have a lot of the same tastes in music (Epignosis actually shares my heartfelt belief that Somewhere to Elsewhere is Kansas's best album!); they are actually nice chaps, and I get a kick out of their reviews.

Epignosis wrote: Lozlan wrote: However, I also believe that separating the person from the belief is important.  When I first came to this site, I got in quite a back-and-forth scuffle with Epignosis and thellama73.  Since then I've realized that we have a lot of the same tastes in music (Epignosis actually shares my heartfelt belief that Somewhere to Elsewhere is Kansas's best album!); they are actually nice chaps, and I get a kick out of their reviews.

Prog is the great uniter!

manofmystery wrote: dtm7843 wrote: JLocke wrote: dtm7843 wrote: . . . If we are to only love those that deserve it, this inherently inhuman philosophy is a contradiction. It's natural selection, man. Not poetry. Human beings are walking contradictions.  *EDIT* Holy hell, you changed your avatar during me writing my response, and I revisited the page only to see Guy Fawkes gawking at me ominously from where your original picture was. Nearly gave me a heart-attack.  haha. Im a big V for Vendetta fan     Comic or movie?

I saw the movie first, but I actually got the comic from Amazon last week

Lozlan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Lozlan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Lozlan wrote: JLocke wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Boo minimum wage laws.  What do you think about work-hours laws? Or about laws forcing employers to give vacation and time off? Or laws forcing employers to pay overtime when for example a workers works in a holiday?  I know you weren't addressing me, but here is my answer any-old-how. I don't think business owners should be forced to pay employees more than they think they deserve. Just like I don't think they should be forced to hire a certain amount of minorities members. I think people should be hired and payed according to their own ability as an employee, and if they do exceptional work, then it's up to the boss to decide what actions are appropriate.  If the boss is an a****le, then he most likely won't pay the worker for any additional work put in, but that's when the valuable employee is free to take his services elsewhere to a more appreciative business or company. Then, the jerk employer is out a good worker, and loses more than he gains while searching for an adequate replacement.  All's fair in love and war, and all that.  We don't need arbitrary rules put into place to 'guide' us to make the best decisions. Not when it comes to issues like this. So...how in the world do you enact this system without ensuring wholesale inequality and the enslavement of the lower class to the higher?  I'm asking this question to be polite: I genuinely think the entire libertarian construction of reality is a blithe fable, but if you have an honest method of preventing society from turning into striations of absolute privilege and absolute destitution I'd like to hear it.  You seem to operate off the assumption that hard work, talent, and responsibility will inevitably pay off.  I suspect this is accompanied by the caveat that the reason society doesn't currently work like this is due to government oversight and intrusion?  I would also like to put out a general call: of all the libertarians here, how many of you are poor?  Also, of all the libertarians here, how many of you achieved the prosperity in your life based on a stiff upper lip and honest hard work, and not on inheritance, family privilege etc.? I owe $80,000 in student loans and have less than that in my bank account so I am not rich. The more pertinent question would be is my family poor? The answer is we were. I grew up in the ghetto in North Philly. It wasn't a terrible life; actually it was a great one. There were things that were just normal to me. Like talking salt, pepper, ketchup, milk, mayo, forks, spoons, etc from convienece stores to use at home instead of buying them. Some nights I remember eating popcorn for dinner because we had nothing else in the house. My two best friend's families didn't have a car until I was 16. One of them ate out at McDonalds for Thanksgiving. That was a fancy day out for his family. I won't say I was poor, because I think describing any American as poor is a disgrace to the people who are really poor. However, we were on the lower end of the income distribution. Now we live quite well as a middle-middle class family. My dad and my mother worked 16 hour days when I was child so that we live comfortably now. That's my backstory. Why would enslavement follow from the situation described above? I would happily defend it, but you haven't really given me something to defend. Allotting absolute power to an employer places the worker in a position of disempowerment.  Without wage laws, without reasonable restrictions on the amount an employer can demand an employee work, without incentives like double pay on holidays...there is no conceivable way that this can result in a utopia.  In the good ol' US of A, the distance between the upper and lower classes is already growing at an alarming rate.  I simply reject the concept that if the government was stripped of its power, civilization would suddenly (or even eventually) rectify itself.  The libertarian position stems from a concept that government is a wicked, restrictive force that prevents the individual from realizing their personal potential; however, when it is functioning properly, that selfsame government prevents the privileged few from dominating the disenfranchised many.  I very firmly believe that, given the chance, corporations and their ilk would gladly harvest their employee's organs for bus fare.  Rejecting Unionization and all the various laws safeguarding workers would cement the hapless employee's complete lack of power.  Viola!  Endless seas of disposable wage slaves and unrestricted exploitation of the labor pool. These debates are always much, much harder with those who have successfully achieved class mobility.  The fact that you are currently middle-class as a result of your labor serves as a marvelously durable ideological mortar.  Correct me if I am mistaken, but Libertarianism also believes that each individual should achieve the level of success and comfort that their relative talents allow.  This means that, if someone is unemployed, downtrodden, or persistently poor, that they deserve to be so.  This, for me, is a violation of every belief and ethical code I hold dear.  The concept of the complete equality of man does not, in truth, state that we ARE all equal; rather, it states the desperate need for us to be treated as equals, to avoid catastrophic suffering and class oppression. I have a great many qualms with our system, actually.  I favor the full socialization of health care, college, etc., so it's doubtful that you or I are going to clasp each other like bosom ideological buddies anytime soon.  I also confess that I haven't read through the 200+ (!) pages of this debate, but my perspective didn't seem to be satisfactorily represented, so I thought I'd drop my line in the pool.  Hopefully I won't regret it.  Your argument simply does not work. Let me ask you something. How is it that a doctor is paid more than a janitor? How is it that a secretary with 10 years experience is paid more than one with one year of experience? Government does not dictate these prices, yet somehow they are different. Your argument rests on the assumption that businesses have the power to dominate. However, they do not. Businesses only operate through mutual cooperation. You are assuming that a business can unilaterally make decisions such as setting a wage. Unfortunately for them, the supply of labor is not infinite. Just as a consumer does when purchasing  a product, businesses are forced to compete for the scarce resource of labor. There's a reason the work day now is shorter than a century ago. There is a reason that businesses offer vacation leave. Hint: it is not government. The workday has shortened and wages have risen due to an accumulation of capital which allows each worker to be more productive per hour worked. You accuse the free-market of elevating the privileged few. This is laughable for this is exactly what government does. Government allows the politically well connected to enjoy luxuries not possible in a free market of willing exchange. Remember that the free market is what created the middle class. Are you then going to assert the very same thing is destroying it? Government is destroying the middle class, particularly Fed policies. You are b*****dizing Libertarian theory in your critique. LIbertarianism is not utopian. It recognizes that people will inevitably draw a short stick. It merely holds that it is not moral to correct perceived imbalances in society by stealing money and redistributing it. Do poor people deserve to be poor in a pure free market? I would say no. The poor should be helped most libertarians will tell you. This should be done through private charity. In fact, a purely free market can elevate the lower classes more than anything charities can do. I find it insulting that you attribute my beliefs to my "class mobility". Whoo boy.  Some raw nerves in this forum! I wasn't attributing your views to class mobility.  I was merely stating that class mobility can reinforce libertarian views by proving that class mobility is possible, good work is rewarded etc. As for people drawing the short stick, I completely open myself to your tutelage.  Not being snotty, I genuinely want to know how the poor would be assisted in a libertarian society.  Please fill me in. As for the eight hour work day etc., I reject your concept that this owes itself to accrued capital.  In 1866 this was a cause taken up by the International Workingmen's Association, and often improved working conditions depended on the blood, sweat, and tears of striking workers and reformers, most of them harboring Socialist and Communist agendas.

Experiments reinforce that gravity exists. That's not a negative. It would seem to be that it lends credence to my view.

It's quite simple really. Why are poor people now better off than the poor in the 1500s? It has to do with the amount of wealth and capital that society has accumulated since then. They are afforded the luxuries of modern life. Their hours at work produce more thanks to machinery. How does this capital accumulation come about then? Well a system of free market capitalism is the surest way for economic growth to occur.  Other than that there would be the direct assistance provided by private charities which would experience a boom after government removes itself from the business of providing forced charity.

I don't see how unions taking up the cause for a shorter work week means that capital accumulation wasn't shortening the work week. I'll provide some data to support my point if you desire.

JLocke wrote: ^ I watched the movie first, also. I watched it for one reason, and one reason only: Natalie Portman.

Do you prefer the bald look or the one with hair? 

Slartibartfast wrote: I believe gravity is just a theory.

THANK YOU.

Yes, it really is exhausting being a Marxist.  And not just because everybody makes fun of your personal political philosopher's grooming habits.





Edited by Lozlan - October 20 2010 at 18:13

I honestly don't want to chase you off, Lozlan. I hope you will stick around and listen to what some of us hav to say. If I jumped down your throat before, I'm sorry. I feel very strongly about these issues.

The essential point is this: You say that big business doesn't have the good of the little guy as its first priority. I completely agree with you, but counter that the government doesn't have the good of the little guy as its first priority either. The difference is that if a company behaves badly, we can simply not buy from it or not work there. We have no such option with the government.

thellama73 wrote: The essential point is this: You say that big business doesn't have the good of the little guy as its first priority. I completely agree with you, but counter that the government doesn't have the good of the little guy as its first priority either. The difference is that if a company behaves badly, we can simply not buy from it or not work there. We have no such option with the government.

Nice in theory, but if a bad business in the only gainful employment in your town, if it's the only store in your town, you really don't have a lot of choice. When it comes to employees big business is dedicated to profit before people unless you're at the top.   With the government, you can ship things via the USPS, but you still have the options of non government companies like the UPS, Fed-X and many others.  Which brings up one of my primary pet peeves about so called health care reform: to public option for most people.  You would think that private health insurance would be able to compete.


Edited by Slartibartfast - October 20 2010 at 21:16

Slartibartfast wrote: thellama73 wrote: The essential point is this: You say that big business doesn't have the good of the little guy as its first priority. I completely agree with you, but counter that the government doesn't have the good of the little guy as its first priority either. The difference is that if a company behaves badly, we can simply not buy from it or not work there. We have no such option with the government. Nice in theory, but if a bad business in the only gainful employment in your town, if it's the only store in your town, you really don't have a lot of choice. When it comes to employees big business is dedicated to profit before people unless you're at the top.   With the government, you can ship things via the USPS, but you still have the options of non government companies like the UPS, Fed-X and many others.  Which brings up one of my primary pet peeves about so called health care reform: to public option for most people.  You would think that private health insurance would be able to compete.