"Occupy" Protests

The Doctor wrote: The T wrote: The Doctor wrote: The T wrote: The Doctor wrote: King of Loss wrote: Guys, being realistic here. It's hard for that to be accomplished these days. There's too many people for that to happen. Fine.  Then we take care of those who can't get work.  And that will be my responsibility as much as anyone else's (through the tax system).  Again, 1. why? 2. Can we at least ask why some of them can't get work? 3. Why?  If there aren't enough jobs to go around (because half of them have been shipped to China) Because all the regulations and taxes have made it cheaper for companies to move overseas - yet you want to add MORE of these....  - that's why they can't get jobs.  Why?  Because we should be a civilized society that takes care of all of its members. We should be a civilized society that lets every person be free to decide what's good/bad for him/her You said earlier that I don't care about individuals, only about groups.  But that couldn't be further from the truth.  Every individual has a right to be able to feed, house and provide medical care for him/herself. Every individual is an important part of society, not just the few that are wealthy.  By giving government more power and enacting more regulations and taxes, you will be making each individual even less important...  You didn't answer # 2. Can you even imagine a situation where one person who has no job doesn't have it because of facts other than "there are no jobs"?  Sure.  There could be plenty of reasons someone doesn't have a job besides there are no jobs.  He could be a layabout.  Maybe he shows up to interviews with a beer.  Maybe he's a drug addict.  So what?  He is still a member of society and has value even if he can't get a job.So the company has to prefer to hire this alcoholic and losing money instead of hiring people in other countries which will be more productive and will produce the goods that the people here want to buy. Nice.  Of course that person still has value. But we don't have to find it for him.  Greed, plain and simple is what is moving jobs overseas.  Wrong. There might be a few cases, but if companies stayed here and payed their employees much more, don;t you see that would create even MORE unemployment since they wouldn't be able to afford having so many employees? They can pay people in China $3 a day that would cost them much more here.  And why give that money to employees when you can pay slave wages and stuff your own pockets even fatter?You really hate the wealthy.  How am I making each individual less important?You want a group to decide for everybody. That's why. And you want the less fortunate to be carried around instead of giving them a chance to come back on their own.

The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: Answer my question, Doc. When exactly does a person move from being the exploited to exploiter? You say you can't hire people because you can't afford it. I'm sure most small businesses would say the same thing. As long as they aren't shipping jobs overseas so they can pay slave wages, they don't have to hire more than what they need/can afford.

Fair enough, but that position doesn't mesh with your view that everyone has a right to a job. Hypothetically, if no one was outsourcing and there was still unemployment, you would either have to force people to hire when they can't afford it allow people to go without jobs. How do you reconcile that?

TheDoctor, quick question: do you think that, if given the power, you could set things straight in this world? 

The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: Answer my question, Doc. When exactly does a person move from being the exploited to exploiter? You say you can't hire people because you can't afford it. I'm sure most small businesses would say the same thing. As long as they aren't shipping jobs overseas so they can pay slave wages, they don't have to hire more than what they need/can afford.

thellama73 wrote: Answer my question, Doc. When exactly does a person move from being the exploited to exploiter? You say you can't hire people because you can't afford it. I'm sure most small businesses would say the same thing.

As long as they aren't shipping jobs overseas so they can pay slave wages, they don't have to hire more than what they need/can afford. 

The T wrote: The Doctor wrote: King of Loss wrote: Guys, being realistic here. It's hard for that to be accomplished these days. There's too many people for that to happen. Fine.  Then we take care of those who can't get work.  And that will be my responsibility as much as anyone else's (through the tax system).  Again, 1. why? 2. Can we at least ask why some of them can't get work? 3. Why?

If there aren't enough jobs to go around (because half of them have been shipped to China) - that's why they can't get jobs.  Why?  Because we should be a civilized society that takes care of all of its members.  You said earlier that I don't care about individuals, only about groups.  But that couldn't be further from the truth.  Every individual has a right to be able to feed, house and provide medical care for him/herself.  Every individual is an important part of society, not just the few that are wealthy. 

Even the homeless individual.  Even the lazy individual has value.  Even the stupid individual has value.  And we as a society should value all of our members.  Not just the ones who meet some social darwinistic concepts of value.


Edited by The Doctor - October 19 2011 at 18:54

King of Loss wrote: Guys, being realistic here. It's hard for that to be accomplished these days. There's too many people for that to happen.

Fine.  Then we take care of those who can't get work.  And that will be my responsibility as much as anyone else's (through the tax system). 

The T wrote: ^So you are a victim TheDoctor? Were it not for the b*****dly rich people, you would be... what... rich? Oh, so then you would be one of them, and I would be entitled to ask you to pay me for rubbing my balls on the clock....  I ask: who do you work for? Are you being exploited right now? Do you have chains that stop you from leaving?

That was damn funny.  I'm going to spruce up my resume and see if I can get a job rubbing my balls on the clock.

I work as an I.C., when I should actually be classified as an employee, so yeah, I am exploited.  The chains that are stopping me from leaving is the difficulty in finding a real job at a real wage.  That and the prospect of homelessness, starvation, etc. 

Slartibartfast wrote: The T wrote:   Nice. So you advocate fascism. Of a different kind. The one called communism. I really hope those in charge of "redistributing" the assets are as pure and honest as they need to be and so good and far-from-power-hungry so they don't do anything else besides "just" stealing money. I'm really scared if this Occupy movement ever becomes an actual party and ever achieves power. I'd be happy if some of the injustices they talk about cease to exist though, but they wanting more government to make that happen assures me it will not happen. Nice so you're happy with corporate fascism.  False choices we want better government if happens to be more, so be it.  We're a growing country.  This thread has gone on too long since I dropped in on my lunch break.  Geeze don't you people have jobs or something? This place needs to be aired out "That right-wing hooey sure stunk up the joint"

thellama73 wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Yeah, well being so close to oil production helps, and it's also easier for them to have hydropower and other renewable energy because of their geography as I recall. thellama73 wrote: Okay, The Doctor. Since you believe that a job and a living wage are every American's right, and if someone doesn't offer you one, you are being oppressed, then I demand that you give me a job and pay me a living wage! If you fail to do so, you are fascist and oppressor according to your own standards. I should add that I am lazy and have no skills of any value, but that doesn't matter because that job is my right! I will be eagerly awaiting your job offer. You surely have slain that strawman. That's not a strawman at all. Those are his own words. He said it was everyone's right to have a job and a living wage, so I am simply asking him to put his money where his mouth is. Of course I expect that he will come back with something like "oh well, it's not MY responsibility. I meant the rules to only apply to other people, not me."

Error Logan. It's not his responsibility. It's "society's."