"Occupy" Protests

The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: I can never understand this idea so many seem to have that if someone else has more money than you, that means you are "oppressed" and somehow not free. Freedom is not about having stuff. It's about being able to make your own choices without someone else using force against you. If someone takes my house away from me with guns, that is not the same thing as if I simply don't earn enough money to buy a house. Going to exaggerate here a bit, but take it as an extreme hypothetical situation.  I work for a company for 20 years and then my company sells out America by shipping most of its jobs overseas.  I lose my job.  Now, I haven't been able to save up a lot of money because, in spite of my longevity with the company, I was paid low wages so that the CEO and stockholders would get most of the profits from MY labor (I consider this theft personally).  This puts me in a very bad situation.  I will run out of money in a few weeks, and my only other option is that someone has offered me a job at $2.00 an hour and if I don't live up to daily quotas for my work, I will be subject to daily beatings.  My choices are therefore starvation or slavery.  That IS oppression.  Again, I have exaggerated, but the basic principle is sound.  Those with money have ALL the bargaining power and I have none.  That is not freedom, but oppression. MoM.  I believe the above applies to your response as well.  No one has a duty to offer you work. It's your responsibility to develop skills that other people will pay for. A company voluntarily offers you work, but you feel it is too low paying. That company is not oppressing you. You are free to seek opportunity elsewhere. They didn't have to offer you anything. If you quit your job, you leave the company with a hole it needs to fill. Depending on circumstances, this good be a big problem for them, but no one whines that employees have an obligation to stay with one company. The problem is that you think you should be payed money, not because of any skills which you bring to the marketplace, but simply because you exist. Existence confers a right upon you to other people's money. To that I cry "shenanigans!" First sentence, I disagree completely.  I think everyone has a right to a job with a living wage paid.  Social Darwinism should have been left behind when we left the caves.  Civilization exists to provide rights and freedom to all, not just to a select few.  Yes, we all have a responsibility to provide what we can to civilization as a whole and in return we have the right to demand certain rights.  The simple fact is right now, laborers have no control over their wages, job security or benefits.  It is all in the hands of the wealthy elite in this country, who have shown time and again that they will abuse that power.  Those in charge want America to become a race to the bottom, bottom in wages, bottom in worker safety, bottom in benefits, or else they will ship all the jobs overseas.  I, and many like me are sick of it.  And I'm glad that finally the people are starting to fight back.  How far this fight will go is up to the monied aristocracy.  Either they can begin to play fair or...... I think that is all I will say on the matter as this thread seems littered with only libertarians (whether that's from a true philosophical standpoint, or a desire to protect what they or their families have - I don't know).

Edited by Catcher10 - October 19 2011 at 14:28

The T wrote: TheDoctor, I make about 12 bucks an hour. My mom is 60 and still works. Her husband is 73 and still works. We are not rich. The one making false assumptions is you. The one painting whole lots of people with the same brush is you. That's why I fear the likes of you: you don't see people as individuals but as belonging to a group, and they only have value because they belong to a group. You are dangerous. In order to save the world, or your idea of the world, you would 't stop at anything. You are scary.

Awesome. 

^ The govt has good benefits......

^ Generalisations

akamaisondufromage wrote: ^ Generalisations   What proof is there that the 'Free Market' will find us all employed?  Not doing too well so far

Oh, but in libertarian paradise, people are free to starve.  Free to go homeless.  Free to die without health insurance.  And on the flip side, free to underpay their employees or free to ship jobs overseas so that a very few can get stinking, filthy rich.  The goal of libertarianism is not full employment, but rather maximized profit for the wealthy aristocracy.  Social darwinism at its finest.  The caves are beckoning us back. 

The T wrote: Henry Plainview wrote:   The T wrote: Having a job is not a right. It depends on someone hading something to you even if you are unskilled or just plain lazy. The only way to eliminate unemployment is to free the market... Or maybe have everybody working for the government. Eliminate? Do you honestly believe you could have 0% unemployment in Libertopia, or that that would even be a good thing?   akamaisondufromage wrote: What proof is there that the 'Free Market' will find us all employed?  Not doing too well so far oh god 1. Yes I shouldn't have said eliminate. There will ALWAYS be unemployment. But reduce it, it certainly will. 2. We don't have a free market right now. Not even close.

 

akamaisondufromage wrote: The T wrote: Henry Plainview wrote:   The T wrote: Having a job is not a right. It depends on someone hading something to you even if you are unskilled or just plain lazy. The only way to eliminate unemployment is to free the market... Or maybe have everybody working for the government. Eliminate? Do you honestly believe you could have 0% unemployment in Libertopia, or that that would even be a good thing?   akamaisondufromage wrote: What proof is there that the 'Free Market' will find us all employed?  Not doing too well so far oh god 1. Yes I shouldn't have said eliminate. There will ALWAYS be unemployment. But reduce it, it certainly will. 2. We don't have a free market right now. Not even close.   Yes there will always be unemployment whatever system.     2)  No but its closer to that than any other system. And its getting worse. I suppose libertarians would say this is some kind of Communism

It's quite the farthest from a free market it has been in here.

But no, it's no communism. That's what TheDoctor wants, but we are not there... yet.

akamaisondufromage wrote: The T wrote: Henry Plainview wrote:   The T wrote: Having a job is not a right. It depends on someone hading something to you even if you are unskilled or just plain lazy. The only way to eliminate unemployment is to free the market... Or maybe have everybody working for the government. Eliminate? Do you honestly believe you could have 0% unemployment in Libertopia, or that that would even be a good thing?   akamaisondufromage wrote: What proof is there that the 'Free Market' will find us all employed?  Not doing too well so far oh god 1. Yes I shouldn't have said eliminate. There will ALWAYS be unemployment. But reduce it, it certainly will. 2. We don't have a free market right now. Not even close.   Yes there will always be unemployment whatever system.     2)  No but its closer to that than any other system. And its getting worse. I suppose libertarians would say this is some kind of Communism

I would say it's fascism. By getting worse, I really hope you don't mean we're getting close to a free market.

Anyway, it being close really has nothing to do with the argument. You're assuming some kind of nice uniform continuity of the economy as a function of "freeness".

As a crude analogy, suppose we have an argument about the best way to cure the problem of people being unable to swim. You propose that we buy everyone a life vest and require them to wear it. The swimming problem is solved. I say that people left to their own devices will naturally learn how to swim and this will be more efficient of a method.

Suppose we chose my method but in addition you chain everyone's legs and arms together. Then a flood comes and we have massive amounts of people unable to swim and drowning. "See" you shout, "people left to their own devices won't learn how to swim!"

"But no!", say I, "This wasn't the system I proposed!"

You retort, "But it's the closest we've ever come to the system!"

The logic sounds good until you actually think about it. You can't disable fundamental parts of a system and expect it to still function logically. 

In addition, I would say we are in no way close to being what I would consider capitalist.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - October 19 2011 at 15:53

Equality 7-2521 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: The T wrote: Henry Plainview wrote:   The T wrote: Having a job is not a right. It depends on someone hading something to you even if you are unskilled or just plain lazy. The only way to eliminate unemployment is to free the market... Or maybe have everybody working for the government. Eliminate? Do you honestly believe you could have 0% unemployment in Libertopia, or that that would even be a good thing?   akamaisondufromage wrote: What proof is there that the 'Free Market' will find us all employed?  Not doing too well so far oh god 1. Yes I shouldn't have said eliminate. There will ALWAYS be unemployment. But reduce it, it certainly will. 2. We don't have a free market right now. Not even close.   Yes there will always be unemployment whatever system.     2)  No but its closer to that than any other system. And its getting worse. I suppose libertarians would say this is some kind of Communism I would say it's fascism. By getting worse, I really hope you don't mean we're getting close to a free market. Anyway, it being close really has nothing to do with the argument. You're assuming some kind of nice uniform continuity of the economy as a function of "freeness". As a crude analogy, suppose we have an argument about the best way to cure the problem of people being unable to swim. You propose that we buy everyone a life vest and require them to wear it. The swimming problem is solved. I say that people left to their own devices will naturally learn how to swim and this will be more efficient of a method. Suppose we chose my method but in addition you chain everyone's legs and arms together. Then a flood comes and we have massive amounts of people unable to swim and drowning. "See" you shout, "people left to their own devices won't learn how to swim!" "But no!", say I, "This wasn't the system I proposed!" You retort, "But it's the closest we've ever come to the system!" The logic sounds good until you actually think about it. You can't disable fundamental parts of a system and expect it to still function logically.  In addition, I would say we are in no way close to being what I would consider capitalist.

 

The Doctor wrote: I think that is all I will say on the matter

You apparently thought wrong.