Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:22:33 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: a question for left-liberals  (Read 20817 times)
nickwit
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80


View Profile
May 20, 2011, 11:13:34 AM
 #101

I'm a socialist liberal.

Jonathan Haidt did a global study a couple of years back on the core moralities that separate liberals and conservatives. Everywhere in the world they boiled down to 3 things.

Conservatives:

1) respect authority whether right or wrong
2) are loyal to their side whether right or wrong
3) are concerned with "purity" often to do with sexuality and race.

Now - he tried to hold an olive-branch out to conservatives... but I think this was a mistake. Conservative moralities are profoundly maladaptive for life in the late 20th/early 21st C... particularly in an urban context.

So.

This idea "You folks are big on sexual freedom, be it homosexuals, deviants or whatever"... it's not so much that we're big on them than we're not fucked up about them. It doesn't even cross our minds that other people's sexuality is a problem. What we do object to are people who are not content to repress their own sexuality, but want to repress other people's as well.

And self-repression doesn't work. Before you start talking about "sexual freedom, deviants and whatever" please bear in mind that there is a HUGE correlation between those that want to supress something, and those that are secretly doing it.

http://exitstage-left.blogspot.com/2007/07/republican-sexual-deviants.html

---

Now - to the economic argument:

The core value that underpins liberal morality is to protect and empower. That is the moral duty of anyone in any sort of power.

What has happened in the US, is that 30 years of relentless deep-framed propaganda (see http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml ) that started around the time of the Powell Manifesto, has completely warped political discourse in the US... to the point where people who a generation ago would have been union-guys, are now unwitting shills for mega-conglomerated corporations.

I am old enough, and well travelled enough to have seen what gives people the most freedom. It's not "everyone out for themselves", it's not "small government", it's not "privatise everything"... it's a state that protects and empowers its citizens through tax contributions made by the citizens, with a greater percentage of tax being paid by corporations and the wealthy.

We've been through this before. This is how we got out of the 1930s depression

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html


When I went to university it was in a time/country when the state paid all my expenses, and gave me a grant. I also worked in a strongly unionised industry in the holidays - which paid enough for me to buy a house, while I was at university. When I left, I was able to travel for years, play in bands etc for years - I had freedom. I am happy to pay tax so other people can have the same freedoms I did.

Today kids leaving university have a life of never-ending debt to look forward to... because the state no longer protects and empowers. You're on your own, at the mercy of usurious corporations that have you over a barrel.

Now you may think you're going to be best off... going it alone... going all unibomber... stocking up on gold (or bitcoins), baked beans and shotguns.

You're wrong. Organised labour is the only reliable way to protect yourself against the chronic excesses of a class-system. This is the only reliable leverage you have - to stop business. It's the only thing that has ever worked.

So yea, I'm socialist / liberal - and I'm not alone. Here is a poll conducted before the last US election where people got do decide on issues rather than candidates... the results were then matched with the candidates

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

That is what people, on the whole, are like.


Good luck with going it alone.

1481325753
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481325753

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481325753
Reply with quote  #2

1481325753
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481325753
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481325753

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481325753
Reply with quote  #2

1481325753
Report to moderator
chickenado
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 172


View Profile
May 20, 2011, 12:15:50 PM
 #102


3) are concerned with "purity" often to do with sexuality and race.


Liberals are concerned with purity too, see the organic food craze.

I think we all have a deep instinct that tells us "If it disgusts me it must be bad/immoral", though this is probably stronger in conservatives.

This instict gets it wrong a lot of the time.  For example, people can be conditioned to be disgusted by almost anything during their upbringing.

But even such a primitive instinct gave us a survival advantage in hunter gatherer times when a lot of things in daily life could get you killed.  It was advantageus to have an over-sensitive instinct that gave a lot of false positives.  It was better to run away from the grass rustling in the wind 100 times, than being killed by the lion the 101st time because you thought the rusting in the grass was just the wind.

"Shoot first, ask questions later" is of course a terrible strategy to follow in the modern world.  Very few things can get us killed, and anyhow it's not the ones we usually worry about.

Modern life is a constant battle to use reason to overcome a misfiring of those evolved insticts.

Conservatives suffer from a misfiring of fear and disgust. Liberals suffer from a misfiring of love and envy.
Anonymous
Guest

May 20, 2011, 12:48:25 PM
 #103


Now - to the economic argument:

The core value that underpins liberal morality is to protect and empower. That is the moral duty of anyone in any sort of power.


So, you believe people who earn more with their labor are somehow obligated to serve the whims and desires of people other than themselves. Alright, let's move forward.

What has happened in the US, is that 30 years of relentless deep-framed propaganda (see http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml ) that started around the time of the Powell Manifesto, has completely warped political discourse in the US... to the point where people who a generation ago would have been union-guys, are now unwitting shills for mega-conglomerated corporations.
You're aware mega-conflomerated corporatism is the result of government empowerment, right?


I am old enough, and well travelled enough to have seen what gives people the most freedom. It's not "everyone out for themselves", it's not "small government", it's not "privatise everything"... it's a state that protects and empowers its citizens through tax contributions made by the citizens, with a greater percentage of tax being paid by corporations and the wealthy.

We've been through this before. This is how we got out of the 1930s depression

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html

Arbitrary. Your idea of pleasure is getting the launchpad of your life provided by stolen funds. A coerced cut off others labor. Their happiness can't possibly matter? I mean, the whims and desires of the less valuable are so much more important in your world-view. Anyways, I disagree.

It only empowers and protect the whims and the desires of the coercing democratic majority. Not the supposed "people".

Also, the corporations and the wealthy don't pay as much tax as they "should" since they manipulate the government to their bidding. It simply doesn't work. They actually pay less taxes in the end.

Also, the great depression was continued by pervasive stimulus and government regulation. It would of been over in 2 years tops if the government just stayed the fuck out.


When I went to university it was in a time/country when the state paid all my expenses, and gave me a grant. I also worked in a strongly unionised industry in the holidays - which paid enough for me to buy a house, while I was at university. When I left, I was able to travel for years, play in bands etc for years - I had freedom. I am happy to pay tax so other people can have the same freedoms I did.

Today kids leaving university have a life of never-ending debt to look forward to... because the state no longer protects and empowers. You're on your own, at the mercy of usurious corporations that have you over a barrel.

Good for you.

However, you know why loans are the way they are? The government has a monopoly over student loans and the corporations are so happy the government is putting them at an advantage. Again, your socialist tool, the government, is what's putting a burden on the people. Not just free business alone.


Now you may think you're going to be best off... going it alone... going all unibomber... stocking up on gold (or bitcoins), baked beans and shotguns.

I know what's best for me. You don't know squat. Stay out of my life. I am the only ruler of it. Stay away.

You're wrong. Organised labour is the only reliable way to protect yourself against the chronic excesses of a class-system. This is the only reliable leverage you have - to stop business. It's the only thing that has ever worked.

Unions are great when they are voluntary and not overly-empowered by the state so I am not working just for the sake of working. Businesses are private property. You shouldn't mandate how they are ran, period. It removes all incentive for their existence in the first-place. Without incentive, you get slums. Tons of slums with parasites gasping for more to destroy.


So yea, I'm socialist / liberal - and I'm not alone. Here is a poll conducted before the last US election where people got do decide on issues rather than candidates... the results were then matched with the candidates

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

That is what people, on the whole, are like.


Good luck with going it alone.

Good luck enslaving people, parasite.
BCEmporium
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 20, 2011, 02:01:26 PM
 #104

I wasn't quite up to keep replying to this redundant thread. But taken it insists to not die...
For starters there's a "shit load" of mix-concepts around on labor rights and duties (yes, employees have duties).

When we talk about employment covered by minimum wage we're talking about labor and therefore the following duties applies over the employee:

  • Have a working schedule during which he has to perform within the functions he was hired to do.
  • Have a non-disclosure and loyalty agreement with his employer party.

Therefore, the minimum wage is a small fee to pay for such deal. The use of market fallacies such as "if I underpay someone will pay more" would imply that someone else outside the company knows you're underpaying, so the NDA is most likely broken. Also if you put someone working 12 hours/day I doubt the poor bastard still get time enough to look for another job.

There're however "jobs" where minimum wages doesn't apply, such a voluntary, partnership, cooperative...

If you want plain old "I own you" sort of employment, then I believe it's pretty fair that you get the whole package that comes along with it: minimum wage included.
Anonymous
Guest

May 20, 2011, 03:30:55 PM
 #105

I don't understand why it's so essential that be entitled to be paid more than they are worth if it happens to be less than the supposed minimum wage. They know what they are agreeing to and they should know what's best for themselves.

Otherwise, the job would cease to exist in many cases if they wage couldn't be priced according to market value.

Also, there is no "I own you" type of employment unless it's a military draft or something.
BCEmporium
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 20, 2011, 03:49:13 PM
 #106

Hardly "minimum wage" is to "pay more", taken it's already "minimum".
Still, if you want to give away your "boss-rights" to bargain for "employee-rights", it's another sort of deal.

I can believe to be fair an arrangement like; you can publish how much I pay you on your FB page, or wherever you want. You can apply your skills and knowledge acquired during performing your duties to me wherever you want, you can show of to work when you please and I pay you 50% or less of minimum hourly wage (when you show up... of course).
But NOT fair if the employer party still wants to keep its "rights" untouched.

And yes, mostly jobs are "I own you" - just not 24 hours/day, but during work period.
Anonymous
Guest

May 20, 2011, 03:54:39 PM
 #107

There are no "boss-rights" and "employee-rights". There are only terms in a private contract. Depending on who owns the businesses assets, anything goes. It's their property.

I simply don't understand why all these formalities should be enforced.
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
May 20, 2011, 05:18:06 PM
 #108

I'm a socialist liberal.

And I'm a free-market anti-capitalist libertarian-anarchist voluntaryist-liberal.


Jonathan Haidt did a global study a couple of years back on the core moralities that separate liberals and conservatives. Everywhere in the world they boiled down to 3 things.

Conservatives:

1) respect authority whether right or wrong
2) are loyal to their side whether right or wrong
3) are concerned with "purity" often to do with sexuality and race.

...

The core value that underpins liberal morality is to protect and empower. That is the moral duty of anyone in any sort of power.

What has happened in the US, is that 30 years of relentless deep-framed propaganda (see http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml ) that started around the time of the Powell Manifesto, has completely warped political discourse in the US... to the point where people who a generation ago would have been union-guys, are now unwitting shills for mega-conglomerated corporations.

This George Lakoff fellow seems to suffer from the Left-vs-Right mindset that views the state as a parental figure:

Quote
Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

Stefan Molyneux has a great video "The State as Family" discussing this mindset:

Quote
Most kids want stuff -- toys, candy, electronics -- and of course they want their parents to pay for it. They have the idea that daddy and mommy just sort of "have money." If you ask most little kids where that money comes from, they will say daddy works, or mommy works, but they don't really get it. They don't really think about the future, or deferring gratification, and they really don't understand what it means in the long run if their parents go into debt.

Most voters want stuff -- pensions, health care, welfare -- and of course they want the "government" to pay for it. They have the idea that politicians just sort of "have money." If you ask most voters where that money comes from, they will say -- er -- my taxes, but they don't really get it. They don't really think about the future, or deferring gratification, and they really don't understand what it means in the long run if their government goes into debt.

Parents often say that their kids should obey them because they pay the bills, and in particular, own the house -- "As long as you live under my roof, you'll live by my rules!" "If you don't like it here, feel free to leave!" Of course, it is very hard for children or teenagers to leave home, so the threat is fairly empty, but it seems to squelch debate anyway.

Patriots often say that citizens should obey the government because it provides services -- and in particular, because it runs the country. "If you live in this country, you obey the rules." "America -- love it or leave it." Of course, it's very hard for people to leave a country -- and go where -- to another tax cage? -- so the threat is fairly empty, but seems to squelch debate anyway.

In general, parents will take feedback from their children, but kids don't get any kind of binding vote. Parents also often bribe children to comply, and punish them if they disobey -- neither of which is any kind of rational argument.

Governments will take feedback from their citizens, but citizens don't get any kind of binding vote. Governments also bribe citizens to comply, and punish them if they disobey -- neither of which is any kind of rational argument.

Children who are spoiled with appeasement and unrealistic expectations will throw temper tantrums whenever their bribes are limited in any way.

Government dependents who are spoiled with appeasement and unrealistic expectations will throw temper tantrums whenever their bribes are limited in any way.

Patriotic propaganda explicitly references the family, and uses parental metaphors all the time... The Founding Fathers, the Department Of Homeland Security, the Fatherland in Germany, Mother Russia, the Strict Father (Republican) and the Caring Mother (Democrat), Uncle Sam and Homerule. Soldiers are "brothers in arms." Stalin was "Father of the Country." Mao was the "Father of the Chinese Revolution." And what's more American than "Mom and apple pie"? Just look at the parallels -- "My country, right or wrong," and "Blood is thicker than water."

The arguments are almost identical... If you receive government services, you owe obedience to the government -- just as if you take food and shelter from your parents, you owe obedience to your parents. Your parents own the house, so you have to obey them, or leave. The government owns the country, and so you have to obey it, or leave.

These "arguments" make no sense, but we all hear them a thousand times from our parents, so when politicians repeat this crap, it's almost impossible to resist, because it's been so deeply ingrained in our brains. This is why people take politics so personally, because they're really talking about their families. Numerous studies show that political biases tend to occur at the unconscious level, in patterns formed during early childhood. Don't you see the pattern? The government is an effect of the family. People try to change governments all the time, from the top down, using politics and laws and lobbying and voting, and it never really works. If you want to change the government, change the family. If you want a more peaceful society, have more peaceful families. Very, very few people can view politics outside the lens of their own family histories. Children eventually grow up and understand working, salaries, income and debt. Most voters never do. Most voters view government finances the way a five-year-old views his parents' money. And the reason for that is simple. Government schooling starts around the age of five. And that's when the indoctrination begins, and the thinking -- stops.

That was a very powerful video.  So maybe the answer to the question of "Should the government act as an authoritative father or a nanny mother?" is neither.  But before we can break society out from this left-right state-as-a-parent mindset, we need to stop having coercive families.

I am old enough, and well travelled enough to have seen what gives people the most freedom. It's not "everyone out for themselves", it's not "small government", it's not "privatise everything"... it's a state that protects and empowers its citizens through tax contributions made by the citizens, with a greater percentage of tax being paid by corporations and the wealthy.

We've been through this before. This is how we got out of the 1930s depression

Yes, I have heard the theories about how FDR's giant warfare-welfare state managed to get out of the depression.  The better question is whether or not the great depression would have been so long, deep or possibly even would have happened without the enormous government intervention in the money supply by the FED and other destructive government policies that need an entire book to discuss: pdf of "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard.

When I went to university it was in a time/country when the state paid all my expenses, and gave me a grant. I also worked in a strongly unionised industry in the holidays - which paid enough for me to buy a house, while I was at university. When I left, I was able to travel for years, play in bands etc for years - I had freedom. I am happy to pay tax so other people can have the same freedoms I did.

Your personal guilt about government bribes you received should have no bearing on whether I should be forced to pay taxes to pay back for your lavish lifestyle.

Today kids leaving university have a life of never-ending debt to look forward to... because the state no longer protects and empowers. You're on your own, at the mercy of usurious corporations that have you over a barrel.

Umm...maybe instead because the government has created a bubble in education.  Haven't you heard that ~54% of college grads nowadays are unemployed and ~%85 go back home to live with their parents?

Now you may think you're going to be best off... going it alone... going all unibomber... stocking up on gold (or bitcoins), baked beans and shotguns.

You're wrong. Organised labour is the only reliable way to protect yourself against the chronic excesses of a class-system. This is the only reliable leverage you have - to stop business. It's the only thing that has ever worked.

Well gosh, I don't have anything against organized labor.  In fact, if you replace "Organised labour is the only reliable way" with "Organised labour is one way" then that would be the only part of your rant that I would actually agree with.


I don't understand why it's so essential that be entitled to be paid more than they are worth if it happens to be less than the supposed minimum wage. They know what they are agreeing to and they should know what's best for themselves.

+1.

There are no "boss-rights" and "employee-rights". There are only terms in a private contract. Depending on who owns the businesses assets, anything goes. It's their property.

+1.  What is thought of as "boss" and "employee" are really just two traders: one who exhanges his labor for money, and one who exchanges her money for labor.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
kuba_10
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 99



View Profile
May 20, 2011, 06:45:42 PM
 #109

"Left-liberalism" makes me laugh. Left-liberal party rules Poland for 3 years right now, and during those 3 years it transformed from modern, trendy and young into a formless grey matter without political views. "Left-liberals" should be supporting all freedoms, yet they still are afraid of black people by most. I think my country isn't mature enough for democracy.

EN<->PL, GER->EN, GER->PL TRANSLATIONS? Send a PM, will do it cheaper than others!
If someone gets kind: 1CtV2wKbQGFe1sfVPDYGroGSxehNfd1bHN
BCEmporium
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 20, 2011, 07:43:15 PM
 #110

"Boss and employee" are NOT traders, if you want to find a valid analogy, try marriage.

Unless the employee is just there for a single task in a short time, but for such we use to hire a contractor. You don't "employ" a plumber to fix your bathroom, just contract him.
Anonymous
Guest

May 20, 2011, 07:48:05 PM
 #111

You can easily negotiate hourly service in a contract.
BCEmporium
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 20, 2011, 08:22:05 PM
 #112

Sure, it's an one time service.
However when you hire someone is at either he retires, or got dismissed/fired.

Removing barriers would cause an economic catastrophe due to domino effect. Like bitcoin2cash said early that if he underpays his employees he will "spend more wisely and not on burning cigarettes"... One of the core things that make capitalism efficient is exactly diversification and decentralization, you everybody to consume whatever they want and therefore keep the money flowing.
Let's say all bosses are more up to Pepsi, what would be of Coke then? And who will buy houses? Get a loan in a "MtGox-like labor market"? (means heavily inflated and deflated) It doesn't work that way.

If sometimes (if left alone quite always) many people will try to wage as more as he can, it takes some enforcement to not let the system hang over a single persons' greed - actually such person will "hurt himself" at medium term, but as people lacks wide-view and tend to consider only direct wage vs direct expenses nobody will even think about it.

Sorry folks! You keep talking about "violence" as if it was a linear one-kind only thing. The violence you normally refer is to brutality, but let people starve is a form of violence, exploit people is a form of violence, coerce by economic means is a form of violence...
Andris
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
May 21, 2011, 04:11:09 PM
 #113

You folks are big on sexual freedom, be it homosexuals, deviants or whatever. I hear the phrase "between two consenting adults" all the time. My question is, why do you people disable your logic circuits as soon as these two consenting adults leave the bedroom? If two consenting adults agree that one will work for the other for less than minimum wage, what business is it of yours? Why is it only sexual acts that get this special treatment?

I can already hear the word "exploitation" ringing in my ears but who are you to decide what counts as exploitation? If someone desperately wants to work for $3 an hour then obviously they prefer that situation over the alternative, doing nothing and getting nothing (or getting an equivalent $3 an hour welfare check). Why are you willing to override personal freedom when it comes to work but not sex? Someone please make sense of this for me because all I see is hypocrisy right now.

I'm an anarchist, voluntaryist, agorist, whatever term is fashionable these days. I think personal liberty should apply to all spheres of interaction, bedroom, workplace, front lawn, whatever. If you want to run around nude or work for next to nothing then I think you should be free to do so, even though I wouldn't do either of those things personally.

What is it with the assumption that left-liberal==support minimum wage?

Paul Krugman opposes the minimum wage, for crying out loud.

The only reason the minimum wage deserves any discussion is lack of worker mobility - I.e. you remove the consent from the equation. "You can either work for me at this ridiculous wage, or starve." That is the situation that the minimum wage is supposed to address - when someone has a monopoly or ologoply on the available labor a population has access to.

This sortof thing works the other way, too. When a union becomes so large that it controls the industry, dictating ridiculous wages and benefits.

Is minimum wage the proper solution? Is union busting the proper solution?

Those things are all just tools - however ham-fisted - to achieve a goal that libertarians in general support - worker and employer mobility. You need both for a healthy economy.
MacFall
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


Agorist


View Profile WWW
May 26, 2011, 02:50:13 PM
 #114

Now - to the economic argument:

The core value that underpins liberal morality is to protect and empower. That is the moral duty of anyone in any sort of power.

The only way anyone in any kind of power can protect and empower another person is to abdicate.

No king but Christ; no law but Liberty!

Fledge Press: Pro-Liberty Fiction and Art
1JBmYmG2U5ETj8BXZUBCXDKWCQcFoERBNP
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
May 27, 2011, 12:54:18 AM
 #115

Those things are all just tools - however ham-fisted - to achieve a goal that libertarians in general support - worker and employer mobility. You need both for a healthy economy.

I don't know what definition you're using but as a Libertarian qua Libertarian, I have absolutely no opinion about "mobility". I'm just looking for a voluntary system free of coercion.
da2ce7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Live and Let Live


View Profile
May 27, 2011, 07:15:22 AM
 #116

Sorry folks! You keep talking about "violence" as if it was a linear one-kind only thing. The violence you normally refer is to brutality, but let people starve is a form of violence, exploit people is a form of violence, coerce by economic means is a form of violence...

See we have got down to the basic difference between those who are 'left' and those who are 'right' (Fuck I hate those terms):

Do people have positive 'rights?'

Well as a voluntarist, I believe people are only compelled 'not to do something.'  E.g. I can not push you into the pool, but I have no requirement to save you from drowning.  (however if I bumped you in, I would be required to save you).

Violence is when you threaten somebody else's freedoms.  Aka:  "I will put you in jail if you don't trade with me."  or "I will kill you if you don't give me your house."

All you can claim is that I don't 'directly infringe' on your freedoms.  If you claim anything more, you MUST also claim some form of ownership over me.

So for anyone who claims a positive right, they are claiming that they ever directly (themselves) or indirectly (society as a whole) own other people.

One off NP-Hard.
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
May 27, 2011, 09:50:23 AM
 #117

Is anyone in this thread actually saying that if I pay someone less than X/hr they think it is right to use force against me? 

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
May 27, 2011, 04:56:17 PM
 #118

Is anyone in this thread actually saying that if I pay someone less than X/hr they think it is right to use force against me? 
Isn't that what anyone who supports minimum wage laws is saying?
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
May 27, 2011, 06:02:25 PM
 #119

Is anyone in this thread actually saying that if I pay someone less than X/hr they think it is right to use force against me? 
Isn't that what anyone who supports minimum wage laws is saying?

Implicitly, yes. It's important to make it explicit though.
DATA COMMANDER
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
May 29, 2011, 12:08:59 AM
 #120

Quote from: da2ce7
Well as a voluntarist, I believe people are only compelled 'not to do something.'

So if I move into an unused house and grow my food in the backyard, you're not going to use violence against me just because a piece of paper says that you are God over that house, right? That would be initiating force against me.

Tips are appreciated (very tiny tips are perfectly okay!) 13gDRynPfLH3NNAz3nVyU3k3mYVcfeiQuF
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!