So (I haven’t read the other thread) is the argument that you’re making simply informational, like you think unions have a bad rep and you think that consumers and investors should support unionized companies because they’re more moral than non-union companies?
Or are your arguming that employers should not be able to legally terminate/evict employees at will (if, for example, they chose to unionize)?
The first one.
This thread is painful to read.
If by painful you mean hilarious, I would agree.
I think more compensation in ownership is a good way to go.
Ownership predicates assumption of risk–should the laborer bear consequences other than unemployment if the employer goes bankrupt?
Of course they should, the same risk anyone else in the market takes. Now, if a company raids the fund to pay their CEO’s before they go bankrupt, I think they should probably be compensated. But of course they should assume the same risk anyone else does.
I’m so lost… You’re entirely incoherent.
I’m so lost… You’re entirely incoherent.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks this.
Everyone is trying to get the labor of all forms to have higher marginal productivity. That is how they are able to increase productivity overall. This allows the production of more things with the same amount of resources. This is what allows more compensation.
Some skills and labor are figured to increase productivity a little bit, other skills and labor, much more. No one is trying to keep productivity down, as increases in it benefit everyone.
I think people can be compensated on whatever terms they agreed to be compensated on. I don’t think that pushing for more employee ownership would necessarily be a good idea, though. Some people are just bad at being owers of capital.
It’s pretty coherent to me; i cringe when people hate on the masses, and I want to find a way to take the animal-ness living completely out of human society. I don’t want people to worry about food and healthcare, and education.
Everyone is trying to get the labor of all forms to have higher marginal productivity. That is how they are able to increase productivity overall. This allows the production of more things with the same amount of resources. This is what allows more compensation.
Ok. Now, what problems would arise were we to get more people into the investment of expanding and/or sophisticating capital? Remember the thread that was here about the “productive leisure society?” That’s basically the human society I desire (tho my means are far different).
I think people can be compensated on whatever terms they agreed to be compensated on. I don’t think that pushing for more employee ownership would necessarily be a good idea, though. Some people are just bad at being owers of capital
Generally, other than when bubbles burst, most people that don’t take wild shots on the market see steady gains. It’s not like it’s poor people are bad at it, and rich people aren’t. It’s just, as you said, “some” people.
Nobody wants to see this. We just would object to the way you want to accomplish this. My Professor continually commits the fallacy that Bastiat coined. Just because we don’t want the state involved in providing these things, doesn’t mean that we don’t want them provided at all.
That’s just erroneous.
That being laid down, I have a tough time accepting that people ‘deserve’ things because they exist. Who exactly is going to be doing the slave labor in order to provide these things? Don’t give a counter example of parent and child; the parent implicitly consented to bringing up the kid when he/she DID IT.
We only talk about stealing from other people when there are other productive people to leech off of. Who would you take your complains to as a solitary person on an island?
Would you demand healthcare from the trees? Education from the bears?
It’s because I believe in human rights that I have to say that people don’t deserve those extra things because that would mean abrogating the rights of others en masse.
Nobody wants to see this. We just would object to the way you want to accomplish this. My Professor continually commits the fallacy that Bastiat coined. Just because we don’t want the state involved in providing these things, doesn’t mean that we don’t want them provided at all.
That’s just erroneous.
That being laid down, I have a tough time accepting that people ‘deserve’ things because they exist. Who exactly is going to be doing the slave labor in order to provide these things? Don’t give a counter example of parent and child; the parent implicitly consented to bringing up the kid when he/she DID IT.
We only talk about stealing from other people when there are other productive people to leech off of. Who would you take your complains to as a solitary person on an island?
… Me. I’m going to do all the stealing. I will put you all in chains and take your property to give to my welfare friend drug addicts.
lol. This is what I’m talking about. I don’t want it stolen, I abhor slavery. Keep trying to pin it on me, but I’m sorry, it’s not my style. Is there no voluntary way to eliminate artificial scarcity, in real time?
And solitary on an island, I would have a place to stay and food to eat (assuming there is food). The only person I could blame is god, and that would be just silly.
Would you demand healthcare from the trees? Education from the bears?
Trees give me breath, bears taught me not to feed them
In reality, there’s enough land and food to go around for all people. These are just artificial scarcities created by ownership. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against ownership, just being realistic. Education is another matter tho.
It’s because I believe in human rights that I have to say that people don’t deserve those extra things because that would mean abrogating the rights of others en masse
Why? Are people naturally greedy (remember I differentiate between greed and self-interest)? I don’t think so. I think the system is designed to favor greed more than mutually beneficial self-interest. And I think we can change that.
I think you’re mistaking people pointing out economic inefficiency, unsustainability, and waste of scarce resources with people “hating on the masses”.
Even if you redistributed all the wealth on Earth, people would still need to worry about those things.
What do you have in mind?
Isn’t that exactly the main issue? That the State owns everything? Land, income, and even the decisions people make are owned by the state. Without this type of ownership then there’s all sorts of abundance.
Yes. Now, who controls the state?
I have no idea
The answer to that question is what makes me identify with the left.
Even if you redistributed all the wealth on Earth, people would still need to worry about those things.
I must say, if you had redistribution of all the wealth on earth, people would especially need to worry about those things before long
Just a quick question; is charity “redistribution of wealth?” Or is redistribution only done through coercion?
Redistribution is a technical term, so yes, coercion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth
Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism “such as tax laws, monetary policies, or tort law”.[1]