Relative Slavery

[XTE]

I didn't mention why it is important to vote selfishly in our elections:

If you do not vote what YOU NEED and WANT, then our government will not reflect your needs.

 

[brindisi]

Then we have a warped definition of "earned." Anyone contributing 60 hours of necessary work per week to the economy of the country should be able to not worry about getting sick. I don't care if you're job is scrubbing toilets, you're still putting in full time hours to keep the country running. It seems to me like anyone with a full time job should "earn" healthcare, rent, and food.

Every single resource or asset that exists in the economy has a value associated with it, not as an inherent worth, but as a market worth. That is the funciton of price; it tells us what anything is worth to us relative to all other things we might want. This is true of labor as well as everything else. Whan an employer decides how he can spend his limited capital he puts a relative value on everything and then makes decisions. What is the relative value of an hour of Umaro's labor to his employer? What value does his labor add?

No employer, and no society, has unlimited capital, and everything evantually has to be justified on the basis of it's relative value. No employer can afford to pay us for our labor if it doesn't add value to the organization. The task for all of us is to educate ourselves, and become as valuable as we can relative to other resources.

 

[acropolis]

I wish those who have contempt for the poor would at least own that contempt instead of trying to justify it.

 

[brindisi]

I wish those who have contempt for the poor would at least own that contempt instead of trying to justify it.

Who has contempt for the poor?

 

[allhart]

People can't decern between rational thought and their subjective feelings on the matter. Knowing the difference between what is right and wrong anymore..... That's how you get all these news groups asking you to call in and tell us how you feel about the issue!we used to talk about information and conclude on fact or base our conclusions that anthers facts where wrong not based over how one feels about it

 

[Umaro]

No, everyone who is PRODUCTIVE contributes to a functioning society. Some peopole think they should get paid just for showing up. If you produce ten dollars worth of widgets in a day, what makes you think I should pay you twenty dollars for them? After you are paid for the value of your productivity, anything more is CHARITY, not a right.

But what happens when all the wealth created by the productivity goes to a few at the top? Consider my job. I make $8 an hour to sell and stock hardware. If I work for 8 hours and the store makes $2000 in profit that day, I get $64. If I work for 8 hours and the store makes $4000 in profit that day, I still get $64. I worked twice as hard, but saw none of the rewards. The owner, who's job was largely the same, takes all the extra money. I don't consider it "CHARITY" for him to pitch in a little extra when full time workers still can't make ends meet.

Well sure, preferably anyone but you, I suppose. But from where do you derive the 'right' to take what belongs to someone else and use it for your own purposes? Within their means? You mean within the means of others.

If/when I make it to the top of the pyramid, I'll be happy to pay my share of the taxes toward healthcare.

The "right" comes from my belief that a society has an obligation to look out for it's weakest members. I know you disagree with this point fundamentally though, we've had this conversation.

By within their means I mean just that. Nearly all the poor people I know personally are way, way more frugal with their money than the middle class is, they just don't quite make enough for all the bills.

 

[Umaro]

Every single resource or asset that exists in the economy has a value associated with it, not as an inherent worth, but as a market worth. That is the funciton of price; it tells us what anything is worth to us relative to all other things we might want. This is true of labor as well as everything else. Whan an employer decides how he can spend his limited capital he puts a relative value on everything and then makes decisions. What is the relative value of an hour of Umaro's labor to his employer? What value does his labor add?

No employer, and no society, has unlimited capital, and everything evantually has to be justified on the basis of it's relative value. No employer can afford to pay us for our labor if it doesn't add value to the organization. The task for all of us is to educate ourselves, and become as valuable as we can relative to other resources.

But pay isn't related to value. A worker could earn $2000 a day or $4000 a day for his employer, and he'll still make the same $64 per day wage. We don't define "value" as what one produces.

 

[acropolis]

Who has contempt for the poor?

Republicans and libertarians, primarily. Poor people are just lazy and jealous, you see. Anyone who would rather see kids die of preventable disease, all for the crime of being born into poverty, rather than part from even a small percentage of their income must have, on some level, a contempt for those too poor to survive.

It's particularly hilarious, and kinda sad, that people who are opposed to any kind of social support for the poor would call themselves christian. Jesus explicitly said: if you do not provide for the poor I will send you to hell.

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

You can blather on all you'd like about property rights and market definitions of worth and efficiencies of production, but if you claim to be a christian and do not support the poor, guess what you're a goat and will go to hell. You'll notice he doesn't say anything about protecting the assets of the wealthy, nor does he espouse a particular system of economics. What he says, in unambiguous terms, is that those who do not want to support the less fortunate are unworthy of anything but damnation. But who am I kidding, conservatives worship at the altar of Rush Limbaugh and others like him, and only pretend to care about anything christ said.

 

[lordbt]

Republicans and libertarians, primarily. Poor people are just lazy and jealous, you see. Anyone who would rather see kids die of preventable disease, all for the crime of being born into poverty, rather than part from even a small percentage of their income must have, on some level, a contempt for those too poor to survive.

The only one I have seen showing contempt for anything around here is you, and the contempt is for individual rights. What you you seem unwilling or unable to grasp is the idea that people can support the idea of individual charity while opposing the idea of state mandated wealth confiscation and transfer. Quote Scripture all you want, but you will find no evidence to support the notion that good should be sought through evil means or that one man is justified in his theft if it is done for altruistic ends.

 

[XTE]

You can blather on all you'd like about property rights and market definitions of worth and efficiencies of production, but if you claim to be a christian and do not support the poor, guess what you're a goat and will go to hell. You'll notice he doesn't say anything about protecting the assets of the wealthy, nor does he espouse a particular system of economics. What he says, in unambiguous terms, is that those who do not want to support the less fortunate are unworthy of anything but damnation. But who am I kidding, conservatives worship at the altar of Rush Limbaugh and others like him, and only pretend to care about anything christ said.

Conservatives are rewriting the Bible for the thousandth time, just to justify greed and cast envy as the worst sin of all, even above murder me thinks. How "divine words" are subject to interpretation is beyond me. Holy Spirit seems to be just a way for someone to interpret things to make their actions justified.

Believers believe whatever they want to...

 

[XTE]

The only one I have seen showing contempt for anything around here is you, and the contempt is for individual rights. What you you seem unwilling or unable to grasp is the idea that people can support the idea of individual charity while opposing the idea of state mandated wealth confiscation and transfer. Quote Scripture all you want, but you will find no evidence to support the notion that good should be sought through evil means or that one man is justified in his theft if it is done for altruistic ends.

This is a clear demand for Evidence For Opinion. Failed logic.

Legal Definition:

Evidence of what the witness thinks, believes, or infers in regard to facts in dispute, as distinguished from personal knowledge of the facts themselves. The rules of evidence ordinarily do not permit witnesses to testify as to opinions or conclusions.

It's a good thing the rules do not permit this too. It is simply not logical. But there we see it, in all it's glory: someone actually demanding we look for it, just to not find it. OF COURSE WE WON'T FIND IT, IT LOGICALLY CANNOT EXIST!

If you cannot wrap your head around that idea before putting it to paper on this forum, then I would question your ability to speak for any side at all. Please understand that some "folks" cannot speak logically, even though they think they are bastions of such, because they were not born with the mental capacity to see the inherent math in language. Not saying this is you, but this is evidence of such, and I see it all too often from your side.

BTW, quit pretending you hold wealth in this country. One disease, and you'll lose it all and maybe hold some compassion thereafter.

 

[acropolis]

The only one I have seen showing contempt for anything around here is you, and the contempt is for individual rights. What you you seem unwilling or unable to grasp is the idea that people can support the idea of individual charity while opposing the idea of state mandated wealth confiscation and transfer. Quote Scripture all you want, but you will find no evidence to support the notion that good should be sought through evil means or that one man is justified in his theft if it is done for altruistic ends.

Allowing children to die simply for having been born to poor or irresponsible parents is a much greater crime than requirement the wealthy to surrender some of their wealth. You only care about money, fine, whatever, but I care about life. I think everyone should care about life more than money. I don't understand how anyone can't, in fact.

I don't see why people elevate the sanctity of property above all other moral considerations. For example, lying is bad, but if it their are Jewish children in my attics I'm sure as hell not going to tell the truth when asked by Nazis. It's the same way with money. Of course it would be super if we could all be rich and comfortable, but many people are born into situations that make it difficult or impossible to work and earn enough money to survive. Like quadriplegics and mentally disabled people, for example. Shall we allow them to simply die, or should we inconvenience the wealthy slightly and thereby ensure the life and happiness for people who are unable to help themselves? No person can allow people like that to suffer and die simply to get slightly richer and call themselves moral. So own up to your total lack of compassion for anyone but yourself. You just look silly if you don't.

 

[lordbt]

Actually, the only way I can 'just look silly' is if I continue with this conversation. So, see ya.

 

[brindisi]

Republicans and libertarians, primarily. Poor people are just lazy and jealous, you see. Anyone who would rather see kids die of preventable disease, all for the crime of being born into poverty, rather than part from even a small percentage of their income must have, on some level, a contempt for those too poor to survive.

Hoo boy,...you have a very strange and inaccurate idea about Republicans and Libertarians.

... but if you claim to be a christian and do not support the poor, guess what you're a goat and will go to hell... But who am I kidding, conservatives worship at the altar of Rush Limbaugh and others like him, and only pretend to care about anything christ said.

Yikes! I'm a goat? I'm pretty sure I haven't been a goat before.

 

[XTE]

Allowing children to die simply for having been born to poor or irresponsible parents is a much greater crime than requirement the wealthy to surrender some of their wealth. You only care about money, fine, whatever, but I care about life. I think everyone should care about life more than money. I don't understand how anyone can't, in fact.

I don't see why people elevate the sanctity of property above all other moral considerations. For example, lying is bad, but if it their are Jewish children in my attics I'm sure as hell not going to tell the truth when asked by Nazis. It's the same way with money. Of course it would be super if we could all be rich and comfortable, but many people are born into situations that make it difficult or impossible to work and earn enough money to survive. Like quadriplegics and mentally disabled people, for example. Shall we allow them to simply die, or should we inconvenience the wealthy slightly and thereby ensure the life and happiness for people who are unable to help themselves? No person can allow people like that to suffer and die simply to get slightly richer and call themselves moral. So own up to your total lack of compassion for anyone but yourself. You just look silly if you don't.

You are exactly right!

It's hilarious that people that on average deny the Theory of Evolution as fact, involuntarily(without thinking) give it all it needs to do its work. They feed Evolution. Today's Social Darwinism is the worship of wealth in this country.

You are exactly right in telling Republican Voters(Conservative or Libertarian) that they demonize the poor and condemn them. Look at that guy actually ask you a question as to whom is doing the condemning, then watch as you give him an answer he fails to address later on, thinking telling you that you are the one condemning is fine enough in addressing the issue. It did not address the issue, and it would be great if you called him on the carpet for dodging the accusation.

It helps believers to believe someone's problems are all their own fault. Remember, if there is an invisible hand(be it a god's or the market's) guiding us, there is a measure of faith at work that believes it will "work it out" somehow. But, if you see a mentally ill patient on the street, or an underfed child, you don't blame society, you either blame the parents or write it off to something unaccountable saying "the market is correcting itself" or "he works in mysterious ways." That way, you are distanced from accusation yourself, you don't need to own up to a society so many worked hard to build and maintain(until you came along), and most importantly since it is so "mysterious": you do not have to follow up with an explanation YOU DO NOT HOLD TO BEGIN WITH. It is extremely lazy thought, riddled with excuses, and the only way I can justify these mental tricks is that they are memes that work with these "folks" without them ever truly realizing how pathetic and lazy it all seems to, again, someone that can see the inherent math in language.

 

[XTE]

Hoo boy,...you have a very strange and inaccurate idea about Republicans and Libertarians.

Let me use this guy as an example of my previous post.

He tells you literally here that you have "a very strange and inaccurate idea about Republicans and Libertarians."

OK!

But where is the explanation past that? Where is the compulsory need(that is in me) to explain what a Republican or Libertarian ACTUALLY IS?! Can he not explain it himself? Is he too lazy? Can you imagine any other excuse besides those two? I can't....

People choose not to explain themselves for only a couple of reason:

1) They don't hold it, so they just preach by fiat or through assertion, or;

2) The explanation itself sounds more ridiculous than the assertion alone.

This guy had to leave it at assertion because you are probably correct and he cannot explain himself out of it through proper definition(as he sees it), and to be honest, for his side, just asserting something like this is enough. They really do not demand explanations.

Try this: ask "why" or "how" from a Conservative and Libertarian and just look at their face. They are stressed to gills just for having to answer for themselves with any complexity in answer.

 

[XTE]

Actually, the only way I can 'just look silly' is if I continue with this conversation. So, see ya.

Here is an example of "too much stress, walk away..."

 

[brindisi]

Let me use this guy as an example of my previous post.

Can he not explain it himself? Is he too lazy? Can you imagine any other excuse besides those two? I can't....

Suffer from limited imagination, do you?

Actually, if you were really interested in knowing my views, and those of many others, on the political philosophies of Republicans and Libertarians, this forum is chock full of such posts. Do a lttle research, save your insults, and try for something a little more intelligent.

 

[XTE]

Keep in mind too, these guys walk away and say "I'd just look silly if I continued this conversation" EVEN THOUGH THEY THINK YOU HOLD A MENTAL DISEASE! LOL!

They truly think Liberalism is a bad thing, BUT THEY DO NOT WANT TO INVEST SOME TIME IN GETTING RID OF IT! It's so easy to defeat as a philosophy, YET THEY GIVE UP AT JUST A LITTLE PRESSURE! ROFL!

If anything about them starts making comprehensive sense, I might look at their positions a little more closely...

Until that, all I see is opportunism. The type that saves them some temporary pride, for only their sake. Completely selfish...

You just keep typing 'acropolis' and they'll just keep running away and failing to provide examples. It's completely within the realm of possibility that they simply cannot construct one.

Oh, if they ever call you an Elitist, you thank them for saying you appear to be Elite!

 

[XTE]

Suffer from limited imagination, do you?

Actually, if you were really interested in knowing my views, and those of many others, on the political philosophies of Republicans and Libertarians, this forum is chock full of such posts. Do a lttle research, save your insults, and try for something a little more intelligent.

Still cannot provide any! LOL!

I'm not insulting you, I'm telling the truth. The truth insults you!

You're asking that if I cared, I would read other posts. Well, here, if you cared, you'd detail it for the poor man. You still haven't provided anything of substance. You only came back to tell everyone how victimized you are by someone stating the truth in your lack of explanation. You poor thing!

I have at least 3 times the post you do. I've been a member on this forum for much longer. I DO CARE! You can see it in my post because I ACTUALLY EXPLAIN MY POSITIONS! I'd bet my post are on average at least 5 times longer than yours WITHOUT EVEN TRYING! Explanations are usually much longer than assertions!

So, send your boohoos where they'll do some good. I do not buy that idea that someone practicing constant condemnation of the less fortunate financially should be labeled a victim by anyone but themselves...