a question for left-liberals

[SgtSpike]

SgtSpike,

Sure... but one thing is for your venture to get profitable fair and square other is for it to be profitable out of others' being underpaid.

Actually we already have it around, with the exploitation of chinese. "Far from sight slavery". Everything has its production costs and if you're buying it too cheap, someone else's paying the "difference".

But I already see your points, and we are becoming redundant. Yep, politically we wouldn't get along, but luckily money is color (and wing)-blind.

How can you call it underpaid if someone is willing to work at that pay scale?

[1714174112]

1714174112

[1714174112]

1714174112

[1714174112]

1714174112

[NghtRppr]

Wait! Let me check... white skin, probably red blood inside (but I really don't want to split it now), arms, legs... guess I'm a human being myself  

So, are you saying that if you don't have white skin you aren't a human?

[Alex Beckenham]

Wait! Let me check... white skin, probably red blood inside (but I really don't want to split it now), arms, legs... guess I'm a human being myself  

So, are you saying that if you don't have white skin you aren't a human?

Noooooooo, he's clearly saying if you don't have arms or legs you aren't a human.

[SgtSpike]

Wait! Let me check... white skin, probably red blood inside (but I really don't want to split it now), arms, legs... guess I'm a human being myself  

So, are you saying that if you don't have white skin you aren't a human?

Noooooooo, he's clearly saying if you don't have arms or legs you aren't a human.

Now that reminds me.... what do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a pool?

[Alex Beckenham]

Wait! Let me check... white skin, probably red blood inside (but I really don't want to split it now), arms, legs... guess I'm a human being myself  

So, are you saying that if you don't have white skin you aren't a human?

Noooooooo, he's clearly saying if you don't have arms or legs you aren't a human.

Now that reminds me.... what do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a pool?

I've never heard that joke before but I'm guessing it's starts with F and ends with UCKED.

[SgtSpike]

Wait! Let me check... white skin, probably red blood inside (but I really don't want to split it now), arms, legs... guess I'm a human being myself  

So, are you saying that if you don't have white skin you aren't a human?

Noooooooo, he's clearly saying if you don't have arms or legs you aren't a human.

Now that reminds me.... what do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a pool?

I've never heard that joke before but I'm guessing it's starts with F and ends with UCKED.

Starts with B and ends with ob.

Also, what do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a pile of leaves?

[BCEmporium]

Actually I mean that if I'd green scales instead of skin I probably wouldn't be human... effects from V - Final Battle series 

Also if I've tentacles... I probably wouldn't be human either. People without "arms and legs" still have their place and unless in extreme rare genetic diseases, they had them once.

[Alex Beckenham]

Also, what do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a pile of leaves?

Google told me his name is Russell.

What about a man with a truck on his head?

[SgtSpike]

Also, what do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a pile of leaves?

I cheated and Google told me his name is Russell.

What about a man with a truck on his head?

Jack. 

Ok, I'm done with bringing this thread wildly off topic.

[MacFall]

SgtSpike,

Sure... but one thing is for your venture to get profitable fair and square other is for it to be profitable out of others' being underpaid.

How can you call it underpaid if someone is willing to work at that pay scale?

Easily - by believing that his (BCE's) subjective values are superior to the subjective values of the parties to the exchange, and therefore that they may be forceably imposed upon them (and upon us, as we - not he - will be paying for it all). Paternalism in rare form.

Now if someone who objected to the exchange offered to donate from their own funds, or to raise funds from other voluntary contributors, to rectify what they perceive as an inequitable exchange, then I would applaud them.

[SgtSpike]

SgtSpike,

Sure... but one thing is for your venture to get profitable fair and square other is for it to be profitable out of others' being underpaid.

How can you call it underpaid if someone is willing to work at that pay scale?

Easily - by believing that his (BCE's) subjective values are superior to the subjective values of the parties to the exchange, and therefore that they may be forceably imposed upon them. Paternalism in rare form.

Isn't that the fault of his own ignorance?

[MacFall]

Isn't that the fault of his own ignorance?

I don't know. He may be ignorant of the fact that he would subsume other people's values to his own by force. He might just not care. Most likely, he does know and thinks that it's just because his values are "better".

Which gets back to the OP's question - why it is wrong for me to impose my (conservative) social values on people's sexual, recreational, or other lifestyle choices, while it is perfectly fine for him to impose his values on others when it comes to pecuniary matters? Obviously, the assumption is being made. I (along with the OP) want to know WHY.

I think it's far more consistent to say that one may not impose his values on other people through force, period. Liberty is the absence of coercion. One can't say he is "for liberty" if he supports coercion in either people's personal OR economic choices.

[SgtSpike]

Isn't that the fault of his own ignorance?

I don't know. He may be ignorant of the fact that he would subsume other people's values to his own by force. He might just not care. Most likely, he does know and thinks that it's just because his values are "better".

Which gets back to the OP's question - why it is wrong for me to impose my (conservative) social values on people's sexual, recreational, or other lifestyle choices, while it is perfectly fine for him to impose his values on others when it comes to pecuniary matters? Obviously, the assumption is being made. I (along with the OP) want to know WHY.

I think it's far more consistent to say that one may not impose his values on other people through force, period.

I absolutely agree.  If people want to kill themselves with drugs, I don't care.  As long as it's not affecting other people, I don't see a reason it should be regulated.

[BCEmporium]

«Not force», «not coerce»... all relative, all roundabout to nothing.

If a person has no food will work for whatever it takes, or steal, or do something to get his stomach refill... if he goes to work is has been coerced by hunger to do it, if he goes steal he will coerce somebody into give him food.
Either way and on any way, coercion exists and remains.

I've to say I'd so far found more coercive rules within those "anarchist groups" than anything else. Like somebody once said: Nobody is against dictatorships, they might is be against the dictator not be themselves.

[Anonymous]

«Not force», «not coerce»... all relative, all roundabout to nothing.

If a person has no food will work for whatever it takes, or steal, or do something to get his stomach refill... if he goes to work is has been coerced by hunger to do it, if he goes steal he will coerce somebody into give him food.
Either way and on any way, coercion exists and remains.

I've to say I'd so far found more coercive rules within those "anarchist groups" than anything else. Like somebody once said: Nobody is against dictatorships, they might is be against the dictator not be themselves.

It's not all relative. You either let people manage their lives and labor or you don't. There's no middle-ground, no room for compromise.

All organisms are coerced by their bodies to sustain themselves. Welcome to life. Unfortunately we are not immortal, invincible beings. Somebody still has to put food in our bellies -- either the hungry individuals themselves or others that have to take on double-duty.

Forcing others to feed themselves plus others is the coercion we are talking about. Don't be silly.

[gigitrix]

Money is not morals, Two different concepts, no matter what you believe. Personally, I think minimum wage provides a useful floor on labour as supply is, by definition, most always lower than demand (in unskilled labour anyway). Free market economics applied to the social construct of employment doesn't scale, as there are always people willing to work for far less.

[The Script]

Wait! Let me check... white skin, probably red blood inside (but I really don't want to split it now), arms, legs... guess I'm a human being myself  

So, are you saying that if you don't have white skin you aren't a human?

Noooooooo, he's clearly saying if you don't have arms or legs you aren't a human.

Now that reminds me.... what do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a pool?

"Nick".   I'm just going to leave this here...    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc4HGQHgeFE   Minute 1:45

[Anonymous]

Money is not morals, Two different concepts, no matter what you believe. Personally, I think minimum wage provides a useful floor on labour as supply is, by definition, most always lower than demand (in unskilled labour anyway). Free market economics applied to the social construct of employment doesn't scale, as there are always people willing to work for far less.

Employment is not a social construct. It is individuals negotiating their labor at market value. It's a person's right to work for whatever they please. It's their labor. They can choose to give it to whomever for whatever in return and it should not be subjected to the mere whims and desires of others.

[DATA COMMANDER]

I respect your right to hold that opinion. Do you respect my right to hold the opposite opinion? In other words, if I disagree with you and start claiming property as my own, are you going to use violence against me or my property

The circular reasoning gets slipped in so quickly and subtly, it's almost beautiful. Like a magic trick.

[Timo Y]

You folks are big on sexual freedom, be it homosexuals, deviants or whatever.

What's deviant for one person is vanilla for another, and vice versa.  Sexual freedom isn't so much the issue here as sexual equality.  If I can't tell you how to have sex then neither can you tell me.  Obviously there are limits to sexual freedom as soon as sex becomes coercive, but those limits should apply to everyone equally.  Things like religion cannot be an excuse for exemptions.  


But to answer your question:

I'm a leftist of sorts, but not of the authoritarian variety.

I believe that we could all be better off if we acted more cooperatively and shared more things. But this kind of collectivism should always be voluntary. I believe that people and companies who refuse to act cooperatively should be encouraged through reputation systems, ostracism, education and negotiation, but never through force.


The minimum wage issue is complex. In principle I'm against mandatory minimum wages. But in the real world, governments already forcefully priviledge large corporations over workers, freelancers, and small entrepreneurs.   So in practice, any government force that tips the balance away from large corporations has a positive effect.

Two wrongs don't make a right of course.