tolerating unequal outcomes

[rambot]

The rights he claims are what we used yo call common sense

What's with the "common sense" mantra in the last few months? I'm hearing it more and more often and yet the things people are claiming as common sense are anything but common.

 

[MachZer0]

What's with the "common sense" mantra in the last few months? I'm hearing it more and more often and yet the things people are claiming as common sense are anything but common.

You've never heard of common sense before?

 

[TheQuietRiot]

You've never heard of common sense before?

Turns out common sense isnt so common after all

 

[JustABit]

What's with the "common sense" mantra in the last few months? I'm hearing it more and more often and yet the things people are claiming as common sense are anything but common.

Rule of thumb: a person who invokes the term 'common sense' automatically loses any discussion. It's like saying, "I've got nothing but my feelings." You just can't take a multifaceted social issue and distill it down to common sense.

 

[MachZer0]

Turns out common sense isnt so common after all

Apparently not although all of my conservative friends use it

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Apparently not although all of my conservative friends use it

There is so much more to be said about a person then which kind of politics they support.

 

[rambot]

You've never heard of common sense before?

Oh sure I've heard of it. It's just a load of horse whallop. The thought that there is a relatively HUGE swath of values that 300 million agree on is utterly insane in my opinion.
And I wouldn't say I'm the only one:
“Common sense is not so common.”
― Voltaire

“Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.”
― René Descartes

 

[Belk]

The rights he claims are what we used yo call common sense

Jim Crow, brought to you by 'Common sense'.

 

[MachZer0]

Jim Crow, brought to you by 'Common sense'.

Jim Crow was brought to us by Democrats, not common sense

 

[MachZer0]

There is so much more to be said about a person then which kind of politics they support.

It wasn't meant to be a point that conservatives use common sense and liberals don't. It meant that I associate more in conservative circles and can thus recognize their use of common sense. I don't associate with enough liberals to speak for them

 

[MachZer0]

Oh sure I've heard of it. It's just a load of horse whallop. The thought that there is a relatively HUGE swath of values that 300 million agree on is utterly insane in my opinion.
And I wouldn't say I'm the only one:
“Common sense is not so common.”
- Voltaire

“Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.”
- René Descartes

Nobody said that 300 million would agree

 

[lordbt]

Market systems existed before that point too so you obviously miss the point that we should expect abuses like child labor even in an industrialized society that makes them completely unnecessary. We should expect the people who profit from such abuses to want to continue to abuse their workers.

What caused us to move away from such conditions?

What mechanism does the free market provide to get from there to here?

It was of course not the way such things were settled.



My point is that child labor is unnecessary in an industrialized society, and it doesn't just go away because of the free market.

It goes away because the conditions that made it necessary in the first place go away, not because of the beneovlent actions of the state.

Yes I understand exactly why they were employed, capitalization on despair.

Nonsense. How did those children get in those factories in the first place? Were they chained to the machines by the evil owners? No, children worked because children always worked. It was only the introduction of free markets that gave children the opportunity escape therkforce.

We have found a better way as a society. One you don't like, but it requires people who benefit from things like child labor to stop it. I can't and don't blame them for not immediately and dramatically altering their political and economic structure to meet the new complexity of society, it is exactly what we should expect to happen.

Are there really that many industries out there today that would actually "benefit from child labor?' And isnt that really the responsibilityof the parents not the state, or do you just tview the two as interchangable?

You misunderstand again.

I don't blame the industrialization I blame the exploitation of those who have little choice in a so called free market. The process of industrialization makes the problem more intense but it also gives us the ability to move beyond the sincere exploitation.

The industrialization is not the problem the way people treat each other is.

But if no ones rights are being violated and the agreement is between consenting adults, it is just none of your business, nor is it the business of the state.

I am not. Your take on the issue is backward looking, mine forward looking.

Hardly. You are the one who brought up the Gilded Age and child labor laws (that would be things in the distant past) not me.

I can look back on the last 150 years and see what happened and who made it happen and talk frankly about the conditions that existed before that and why they are bad.

It is a nonsense position to say that the way capitalism went forward in the guiled age was not the fault of the people running the show. Did it exasperate already existent problems? Yes. Do we still blame the market system and the forces at work for doing that? Yes.

Can we look to how these abuses were ended and learn how to build a better society?

Most certainly.

Right. Do you want to know why leftists and statists hate capitalism so much? And no, it goes way beyond envy. For all of human history, the state has been the oppressor of mankind. Then along comes the moral concepts of individual rights, liberty and capitalism that frees man from the stagnation and poverty of tyrannical government. The statists cant have that so they attack the concept of innate rights, they ridicule liberty and they blame capitalism for the evils of the state. What we get now is the bizarre spectacle of the liberated turning to their old master to free them from their liberators. Not to worry though, this time the state is going to nice; you know, kind of the way the witch was nice to Hansel and Gretel. At first.

 

[lordbt]

That case is the argument for your position. We should all be "free" to work long hrs in squalid conditions for low pay.

You know what your freedom is? If you are stuck in a bad job with long hours and poor pay, you are free to find emplyment elsewhere.

I prefer modern governments. You're going to be waiting a while if you want me to expound on the virtues of feudalism. They are significant improvements on what came before. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You blame all bad things on government, even the direct actions of people free to do what they wish. Who apparently inherited social strife and were completely unable to fix it using the mechanisms you wish us to implement.

What does this say about your preferred solutions going forward? You are going to inherit social strife, at what point should we expect the free market to sort it out? By what mechanism should we expect this all to work?

What social srife are you talking about?

 

[lordbt]

It wasn't meant to be a point that conservatives use common sense and liberals don't. It meant that I associate more in conservative circles and can thus recognize their use of common sense. I don't associate with enough liberals to speak for them

Wow, I never knew the mere mention of the phrase "common sense" would stir up so much commotion on the left. Either that or you just know how to get under their skin, Mach.

 

[bricklayer]

Good sense is not common.

 

[Harpuia]

It wasn't meant to be a point that conservatives use common sense and liberals don't. It meant that I associate more in conservative circles and can thus recognize their use of common sense. I don't associate with enough liberals to speak for them

It takes all kinds.

I've seen liberals and conservatives both who use good common sense and those who very much don't.

 

[variant]

It goes away because the conditions that made it necessary in the first place go away, not because of the beneovlent actions of the state.

And yet, this is not how it happened. The free market had to be dragged kicking and screaming every time.

Are there really that many industries out there today that would actually "benefit from child labor?' And isnt that really the responsibilityof the parents not the state, or do you just tview the two as interchangable?

Are there any industries that would benefit from a class of people who they don't have to pay or treat well?

Industry today generally farms out child labor overseas where it can be kept from view more easily.

But if no ones rights are being violated and the agreement is between consenting adults, it is just none of your business, nor is it the business of the state.

It is not the states business to foster an environment where people succeed more and are treated better?

See the history of these issues is one of improvement via state intervention whether you choose to ignore it or not.

Hardly. You are the one who brought up the Gilded Age and child labor laws (that would be things in the distant past) not me.

Forward looking to today. You keep saying that a long time has passed since we discarded your ideas. I agree. They were such good ideas that we have not truly revisited them for over a century.

I have to look back pretty far to see a society governed by anything like them. I can see how they were discarded and why.

What we get now is the bizarre spectacle of the liberated turning to their old master to free them from their liberators. Not to worry though, this time the state is going to nice; you know, kind of the way the witch was nice to Hansel and Gretel. At first.

What you don't get is that what flipped the states roll was answering to the people. Before the widespread use of democracy what we had was the government as the protector of the wealthy aristocracy. What we got was people who used that government answerable to them to create a better relationship between each other through measures meant to improve conditions. That is something you seem to despise.

You can say people like me hate capitalism which is entirely untrue, I recognize the market forces for the good they have done and also as a new way to accumulate power. It's abuses should be checked just like we try to check the abuses of the state.

 

[JustABit]

It goes away because the conditions that made it necessary in the first place go away, not because of the beneovlent actions of the state.

How about both?

Making child labor illegal increases the cost of child labor to business, reducing demand. Having adequate shelter and food as well as better opportunities for future wealth, like through public education, gives families less incentive to let children work.

Are there really that many industries out there today that would actually "benefit from child labor?'

If you believe in free markets, then you understand that many businesses seek to maximize profit. Human ingenuity is pretty much boundless, too. Being illegal at present, child labor is not something businesses need to spend much time worrying about. If that restriction was lifted, I trust business would try to maximize their benefit from this 'resource'.

Right. Do you want to know why leftists and statists hate capitalism so much? And no, it goes way beyond envy. For all of human history, the state has been the oppressor of mankind. Then along comes the moral concepts of individual rights, liberty and capitalism that frees man from the stagnation and poverty of tyrannical government. The statists cant have that so they attack the concept of innate rights, they ridicule liberty and they blame capitalism for the evils of the state. What we get now is the bizarre spectacle of the liberated turning to their old master to free them from their liberators. Not to worry though, this time the state is going to nice; you know, kind of the way the witch was nice to Hansel and Gretel. At first.

Rant of the day.

I like capitalism. Really. I even agree with you that capitalism is a huge enabler. The wealth it has created has helped humanity in so many ways. Child labor? If it weren't for the wealth that capitalism created, I can't imagine it could have ever disappeared. The luxuries that we enjoy, including this exchange on the internet - thank you capitalism ( and Al Gore ).

But reality isn't as simple as you make it out to be. At the same time that capitalism emerged, we also gained political freedoms that we've never before enjoyed. As much as I appreciate capitalism, the society that we presently enjoy is also a product of us exercising that political freedom to solve problems.

The issue for me is, because political freedom and capitalism arose at the same time, I can't really separate their influences and so I can't determine precisely where each is positive and negative - there are just too many variables to consider. You think you have the answer, and that it's always "free markets are good, collective will is bad". I'm not so sure and I accept points of evidence that contradict your assertion.

Communists thought they understood the world. They credited collective will and blamed capitalism for everything. This seems to have been a big mistake. You seem ( and I could be mistaken, so correct me if I'm wrong ) to want to go the other way, blaming collective will for everything and crediting everything to the individual. This scares me as much as communism does. It feels just as extreme. Especially given we don't have clear examples of laissez-faire societies.

I am open to being persuaded, I'm not opposed to the idea that you could be right. But when you base your ideas on things like, "leftists want to stamp out our freedoms" and "you're just envious" - let's just say these aren't persuasive arguments. They strengthen my view that you're an extremist. I'm not willing to risk political freedom for that.

 

[lordbt]

And yet, this is not how it happened. The free market had to be dragged kicking and screaming every time.

There is one thing all kids have in common--parents. Why is it you blame the free market for everything including the decisions of individuals to send their children into the labor force? Did it ever occur to you that economic conditions of the world dictated such behavior and not evil capitalists?

Are there any industries that would benefit from a class of people who they don't have to pay or treat well?

And how would these kids get to work each morning? Their parents maybe? I have a 14 year old daughter who I want out in the evil capitalist workforce, but because of the eteral goodess of our benevolent state and people like you who support it, no can legally hire her. Even though she needs money and has a millio ideas of where she could spend it and is in need of real life work experience, leftist know-it-alls have made hiring her a criminal act.

Industry today generally farms out child labor overseas where it can be kept from view more easily.

Farms it out to where? Places where children would otherwise be roaming through garbage dumps for their next meal. But industry is evil and exploitive. You cant be serious, yet you are.

It is not the states business to foster an environment where people succeed more and are treated better?

The states role is to secure individual rights, not enforce some arbitrary standard of goodness.

What you don't get is that what flipped the states roll was answering to the people. Before the widespread use of democracy what we had was the government as the protector of the wealthy aristocracy. What we got was people who used that government answerable to them to create a better relationship between each other through measures meant to improve conditions. That is something you seem to despise.

I despise mob rule as much as any other form of tyranny. Government should be answerable to the people, on that we agree, But following the mob to do injustice to the the individual or violating the rights of some to the benefit of others is just as much a moral crime as a king or emperor doing it.

You can say people like me hate capitalism which is entirely untrue, I recognize the market forces for the good they have done and also as a new way to accumulate power. It's abuses should be checked just like we try to check the abuses of the state.

The abuses of capitalism that result in rights violations should be heandled by the state. That is what the state is there for. The abuses of the state, as you call them, are properly described as those actions that violate the rights of idividuals. Its just that you dont mind that happening.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You know, I just got through saying that if government backed legal discrimination had taken place a government remedy was necessary, so I dont understand your point. But yes, the incompetent the lazy, and the parasites of society have nothing to gain whatsoever from a society based upon individual rights and liberty. They would actually have to take the burden of their own survival on their own backs and not the backs of others.

The trouble is that the way you define "a society based upon individual rights and liberty" is indistinguishable from anarchy, which only promotes freedom for the very few.

"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." - Bertrand Russell