tolerating unequal outcomes

[Archaeopteryx]

I have always found your understanding of liberty to be very childish. In fact, I find that of most libertarians. There are many forms of bondage and bondage by the state is merely one. People can also have their liberty reduced by poverty, family situations, mental illness, drug addiction, crime and others in addition to being reduced by the state. Libertarianism only ever seems to look at one form of bondage and their ideals tend to support the expansion of the others.

Let's take the classic example of someone who as water in the desert and someone who is dying of thirst. This is really an example of economic coersion. The person who is dying of thirst has very little liberty because their choices have been reduced to live or die. The person with water knows this and knows that he can make the other do pretty much whatever he wants as most will choose life over death.

QFT.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To claim that everyone from Ayn Rand to Joseph Stalin are statists is just a way to render the term meaningless. When I use the term statist, I refer only to the part I quoted.

So to avoid rendering the term meaningless, you render it meaningless.

 

[bricklayer]

On what basis should it be prohibited?

What right is it violating?

Prohibit and mandate away only that very small portion of liberty that maximizes the liberty secured.

To define anything that comes from other people as a right, one must fundamentally redefine a right.
My right to life obligates no one to give or take my life.
My right to liberty obligates no one to give or take my liberty.
My right to pursue happiness obligates or empowers no one to give or take for me.

There is one hundred and eighty degrees of difference between having a personal responsibility to God,
toward each other and having a public responsibility to each other, toward each other.

We have been redefined from a nation of people endowed by our Creator with certain and unalienable rights
into a nation of people endowed by each other with therefore uncertain and quite alienable rights.

 

[Redac]

I raked leaves, shovelled snow, cleaned pools, delivered newspapers starting at about 10 years old. When I was 16--still technically a child by the way, I worked at McDonalds. So child labor exists to this day. It has always existed even prior to industrialization.

I don't have a problem with children doing things like having a paper route or some small part-time task to do after school. What I have a problem with is poverty-stricken children being forced to forgo education or some other opportunity and work full days for next to nothing because they and their families have no other option.

Some, not too many any more.

Not in this part of the world. In other areas it's still fairly widespread.

Children have zero skills, little education and arent particularly productive. Technology is what doesw in child labor, not the benevolent state.

How productive they are depends a lot on the child and on what work they're being given. There are plenty of places out there where a child can be productive enough that it's worth whatever pittance the boss pays them.

To claim that everyone from Ayn Rand to Joseph Stalin are statists is just a way to render the term meaningless.

It's not meaningless, it's just much broader than you'd like. It's part of the reason I dislike using outside discussions about the state itself, especially when contrasted with anarchism. Otherwise it's all just varying amounts of statism.

When I use the term statist, I refer only to the part I quoted.

I'll keep that in mind when I read your posts, but I'd still say it's not particularly helpful. The word has an actual definition and use; it's not conducive to conversation to decide that it means something different.

 

[Redac]

If you are desperate and I offer you steady work and a means for survival, how am I exploiting you?

If I'm so desperate that I'll take anything at all that you're willing to offer, then I can't realistically say no. So you have all the power and you can drop the offered wage as low as you think you can get away with, and I don't really have a choice but to take it because I need something. Perhaps you see no problem with this situation, but it's hardly the free, open negotiation libertarians make it out to be.

 

[JustABit]

Right. Children have the same rights as adults and sex with a child is rape. So the same right that makes a rape of you immoral is the same one that makes it so for a child.

Why does "the right to freedom from sexual exploitation" fall under individual liberty, while "the right to freedom from starvation" does not? ( Or maybe they both actually do fall under individual liberty, if so, please say as much. I don't want to misrepresent your position. ) What makes government coercion in the former case acceptable, while government coercion in the latter case remains unacceptable. And if you believe the market fixes the latter problem, why shouldn't it also fix the former problem.

( And before you answer, I'll throw in the question: can I sell you on the idea of providing free and abundant food to children up to a certain age? If not, why not. )

 

[bricklayer]

If I'm so desperate that I'll take anything at all that you're willing to offer, then I can't realistically say no. So you have all the power and you can drop the offered wage as low as you think you can get away with, and I don't really have a choice but to take it because I need something. Perhaps you see no problem with this situation, but it's hardly the free, open negotiation libertarians make it out to be.

Is it better for one to be prohibited from employment that does not have an adequate value than to allow that one to accept employment of inadequate value?

In theory, there is a minimum wage of $7.25. In practice, the real minimum wage is zero.
In theory, practice is no different than theory, but in practice it is.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

 

[jgarden]

It is my experience that the vast majority of those I have personally encountered who have a low tolerance for unequal outcomes are also the least able to produce quality outcomes.

Is one's tolerance for unequal outcomes a good measure of that one's ability to produce quality outcomes?

When hiring, it is one of the "telling" things I attempt to get a feel for.
I have taken it as a baseline assumption for years, and it has never failed me.

What do you think?

I was always of the opinion that "equality" was always one of the inherent themes of the American Revolution - if one was content with "unequal outcomes," why not just accept the 18thC British monarchy, afterall they were appointed by God!

This thread appears to support the agenda that we now have a new set of American "monarchs" (who are not appointed by God) and we who are not at the top of the economic "pecking order" should know our place!

 

[bricklayer]

I was always of the opinion that "equality" was always one of the underlying themes of the American Revolution - if one was content with "unequal outcomes," why not just accept the 18thC British monarchy, afterall they were appointed by God!

We're having just that discussion in another thread.
Some say that because we are to "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's" that any resistance or revolution is sin.
I do not agree.

Equal regard for those among whom no two are exactly the same will always result in unequal outcomes.
To achieve equal outcomes among such disparate people, no two could be regarded as equal from the outset.

 

[MachZer0]

I was always of the opinion that "equality" was always one of the inherent themes of the American Revolution - if one was content with "unequal outcomes," why not just accept the 18thC British monarchy, afterall they were appointed by God!

This thread appears to support the agenda that we now have a new set of American "monarchs" (who are not appointed by God) and we who are not at the top of the economic "pecking order" should know our place!

Because Equality ≠ Equal Outcomes

 

[lordbt]

Because Equality ≠ Equal Outcomes

Right. Equality means equality before the law; that justice and judgement do not take into considerations ones position or status, but view each man as equal in his standing and his rights.

 

[lordbt]

I don't have a problem with children doing things like having a paper route or some small part-time task to do after school. What I have a problem with is poverty-stricken children being forced to forgo education or some other opportunity and work full days for next to nothing because they and their families have no other option.

So in other words, you have a family who is poverty striken and desperate and you want the state to step in and make it illegal for one of the members of that family to work so that they can rmemdy that situation.

Not in this part of the world. In other areas it's still fairly widespread.


How productive they are depends a lot on the child and on what work they're being given. There are plenty of places out there where a child can be productive enough that it's worth whatever pittance the boss pays them.

There are certain parts of the world where this is true, but not here in the US. It is true elsewhere because the wage rate is so small. If the average man in Costa Rica makes $20 per day before a factory arrives and the new factory offers offers that prevailing wage to anyone who walks in the door, how are they taking advantage of those people? It may look like it from your perspective, but it may be seen by them as a lifeline.

It's not meaningless, it's just much broader than you'd like. It's part of the reason I dislike using outside discussions about the state itself, especially when contrasted with anarchism. Otherwise it's all just varying amounts of statism.

Again, if the defintion is so broad as to include everyone, what is the point of the word? I use the word to describe people who look to the state to handle or manage just about every aspect of life. If you have a better word to describe such people let me know what it is and I will use it. Until then, I will use statist.

 

[lordbt]

If I'm so desperate that I'll take anything at all that you're willing to offer, then I can't realistically say no. So you have all the power and you can drop the offered wage as low as you think you can get away with, and I don't really have a choice but to take it because I need something. Perhaps you see no problem with this situation, but it's hardly the free, open negotiation libertarians make it out to be.

The problem with that situation is the condition you find yourself in prior to encountering someone willing to offer you a job. It is not the employers fault that you are deperate and have no skills. You got yourself into that position. So you do what everyone has do do in that position, what I had to do in fact, take a job that doesnt pay very well and one you dont like and use it as a stepping stone to a better one.

 

[lordbt]

Why does "the right to freedom from sexual exploitation" fall under individual liberty, while "the right to freedom from starvation" does not? ( Or maybe they both actually do fall under individual liberty, if so, please say as much. I don't want to misrepresent your position. )

Food is a metaphysical requirement, so there is no way to ever be have a 'freedom from starvation.' Nature cannot violate your rights, only people can. Sexual exploitation, or rape, is the initiation of an act of violence against you which is why it is immoral.

What makes government coercion in the former case acceptable, while government coercion in the latter case remains unacceptable. And if you believe the market fixes the latter problem, why shouldn't it also fix the former problem.

Government force is moral in the same manner that your use of force against another man would be considered moral--as an act of defense or a response to the initiation of force. It is immoral, for example, for a man to stroll into a kindergarten and start shooting children, but moral for someone to put a bullet between his eyes.

( And before you answer, I'll throw in the question: can I sell you on the idea of providing free and abundant food to children up to a certain age? If not, why not. )

And from where would this food come? Who would provide it? It is important to point out here principle behind my statement before I make it. I support as a primary the concept of individual rights, and believe that the proper role of the state is to defend those rights. The state cannot rob Peter to pay Paul without robbing Peter. No matter how worthy the outcome, robbing Peter is theft and a violation by the state of Peters rights. So as much as I may wish all children to be fed, I cannot support the idea of the state accomplishing this goal through force and rights violations. To paraphrase the Bible, you dont do evil that good amy come.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And from where would this food come? Who would provide it? It is important to point out here principle behind my statement before I make it. I support as a primary the concept of individual rights, and believe that the proper role of the state is to defend those rights. The state cannot rob Peter to pay Paul without robbing Peter. No matter how worthy the outcome, robbing Peter is theft and a violation by the state of Peters rights. So as much as I may wish all children to be fed, I cannot support the idea of the state accomplishing this goal through force and rights violations. To paraphrase the Bible, you dont do evil that good amy come.

"No matter how worthy the outcome." Even if the outcome is to secure the rights you claim the State ought to secure?

 

[lordbt]

We're having just that discussion in another thread.
Some say that because we are to "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's" that any resistance or revolution is sin.
I do not agree.

Right. Jesus was not endorsing Ceasar or the state, that is what they were trying to get him to do. What he was doing was laying down a broadwer principle.

 

[variant]

You, like kermit, keep throwing the term coersion around with regard to the employer when the employer uses no coersion whatsoever. What compelled children to work was the demands of reality, not coersion on the part of evil capitalists.

You mean paying someones parents so little that their children have to work too is not the fault of the people employing the people?

I have a hard time fathoming how that could be the case. People are responcable for the conditions they ask those to work for them under and they are definitely responcable for using desperate people and treating them little better than you would treat an animal.

So you say. As I mentioned earlier, I have a 14 year old daughter that I want to work and I am perfectly capable of making sure she is not 'exploited.' I dont need the government to babysit my child, I want my child to get real world work experience, but that is impossible because people like you think you know what is best for me and my family. Well, you dont.

Your child wants to work out of choice rather than necessity.

If you are desperate and I offer you steady work and a means for survival, how am I exploiting you?

By exploiting my despair and paying me so low as to keep me and my children from ever being able to move from that position in the economy.

Agreed to by whom?

The people in society.

You are right, I dont understand that. Explain to me what my rights to life, liberty and happiness is weithed against.

An absolute right to property and contract should be weighed against some semblance of decent treatment in the economic environment.

So you say.

Me and concrete examples from history. I notice you like to have this discussion in the abstract.

Give me an example of me grinding you under my thumb where no rights of your have been violated.

I've given you plenty of examples of businesses purposefully doing so.

If we outline people rights and build a system based upon them and some are still treated like dirt by those who have power over them then we've obviously missed something.

Of course you dont. that is because you require the confiscation of the property of others to achieve your ends. You cant get what you want through voluntary means so you resort to government force. the difference between you and the tyrant is only in degree. You both use the same methods.

You equate taxes to tyranny. And the right to be part of a mistreated underclass as freedom. This is laughable.

Actually, the market has demonstrated itself to be remarkable ineffective at limiting tyranny.

You don't think market economies had anything to do with our social evolution against tyranny? Who do you think it was that was standing up against King George? Just some high minded idealists?

Large companies are often all too willing to cozy up to statist thugs. Their wealth enables them to buy political favors and absorb regulations that will strangle their smaller competitors. So if you are looking for capitalist CEO's to save you from tyranny, you are in for a major disappointment. If you want to fight it, you have to do it.

What in your system keeps this from happening?

What is going to cause all people to just be virtuous and respect the free market once we have removed all regulations to keep it's abuses from making most of us into the underclass? Once they have accumulated all the power in society why would they not turn to the government to consolidate it?

Ultimately what keeps us from tyranny is the people in the system.

Yes, and the proper role of the state is to secure the rights of the individual. if some evil capitalist tramples your rights, you turn to the state for a remedy. When the state tramples your rights, there is nowhere for you to turn.

I turn to the people. To whom the state answers.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You equate taxes to tyranny. And the right to be part of a mistreated underclass as freedom. This is laughable.

Isn't it interesting how he says "You cant get what you want through voluntary means so you resort to government force. the difference between you and the tyrant is only in degree. You both use the same methods." I was under the impression that he was okay with the use of state force when it comes to securing Libertarian ideals.

 

[lordbt]

You mean paying someones parents so little that their children have to work too is not the fault of the people employing the people?

That condition existed throughout all f human history yet you focus only on the Guilded Age and the Industrial Revolution. Why is that?

I have a hard time fathoming how that could be the case. People are responcable for the conditions they ask those to work for them under and they are definitely responcable for using desperate people and treating them little better than you would treat an animal.

Employment is a voluntary arrangement. If you are being treated like an animal at work, work elsewhere.

Your child wants to work out of choice rather than necessity.

Which is completely irrelevant since people like you have miade it illegal for her to be emplyed in either case.

By exploiting my despair and paying me so low as to keep me and my children from ever being able to move from that position in the economy.

It is not capitalism that creates a permanent underclass. A permanent underclass is what existed prior to capitalism. But that wont stop you from continuing to blame the free market for things that existed prior.

An absolute right to property and contract should be weighed against some semblance of decent treatment in the economic environment.

That is meaningless and arbitrary and puts the concept of rights beneath the whims of the mob.

Me and concrete examples from history. I notice you like to have this discussion in the abstract.

Of course. I am talking principles.

I've given you plenty of examples of businesses purposefully doing so.

If we outline people rights and build a system based upon them and some are still treated like dirt by those who have power over them then we've obviously missed something.

You are free to help those people.

You equate taxes to tyranny. And the right to be part of a mistreated underclass as freedom. This is laughable.

Taxes can certainly be tyrannical, it is laughable that you cannot know this, and if a class of people is being mistreated--as in their rights are being violated--then there absolutely should be a state remedy. The problem is, you want a state remedy when no violation of rights has taken place.

What in your system keeps this from happening?

The state is unable to dispense favors

What is going to cause all people to just be virtuous and respect the free market once we have removed all regulations to keep it's abuses from making most of us into the underclass? Once they have accumulated all the power in society why would they not turn to the government to consolidate it?

There isnt a single regulation that keeps industry from"making most of us into the underclass." And your fear that a handful of evil men will rise to the top of the capitalist pyramid and enslave the whole of mankind tells me you have been watching too many James Bond movies. But I am curious as to what makes you believe that it is only the most evil that will rise to dominate a free market system? I am going to guess that you will blame it on the profit motive, but you would simply be ignoring all the efficiencies and improvements and competition that the profit motive spawns. But I realize it is much more fun to imagine a capitalist Dr. Evil out there somewhere trying to enslave you.