Whenever a law enforcement does something blatantly unethical, they lose reputation and... then what?
And then you end up with a society where the reputation of law enforcement officers is such that "fuck the police", "don't snitch", etc., become popular sentiments, and respect for the rule of law is replaced by a hatred for the agents of an oppressive state. The failure by the police to police their own (blue code of silence, etc.), entirely expected (and deemed inevitable) by many, has gotten us to where we are today. Where we go from here is anyone's guess.
I'm not sure where you live, but here in the US, our only "high speed" rail (Amtrak's Acela service, and I use "high speed" very loosely here) is a dramatically different experience. It's not smooth, and it's not fast. Train cars are bobbing around on shitty rails, and when you pass a train heading in the opposite direction the relative speed is insufficient to cause any noticeable jostling.
Actually, I found it to be quite the opposite. There you are, coasting along in comfort, and then out of nowhere you're passing a train heading in the opposite direction. At a relative speed of ~350mph and a separation of (I'd estimate) about a foot, the effects of the atmosphere are most definitely noticeable. If the sudden (and I mean sudden) sound doesn't startle you, the air pressure difference causes the train to bounce to the side a bit. Definitely got my heart rate elevated the first time it happened, as I was totally not expecting it.
Shinkansen is awesome. Amazingly smooth, unbelievably fast. I had the pleasure of riding one between Tokyo and Kyoto earlier this year. According to my phone's GPS, I topped out at 173mph (278km/h). It's amazing to me that they've been running for a half century already, while in the States we're nowhere near this level of rail technology, even today.
Also, hai means yes in Japanese. You hear it very frequently there. If someone's on their cell phone, oftentimes all you hear is "Hai! Hai, hai, hai. Hai!" What an agreeble culture!
I've had law enforcement officers plant "something" in my car during an anything-but-routine traffic stop. In the end, no arrests were made, and the law enforcement officers settled for merely assaulting one of my passengers.
Disclaimer: The corruption of this municipal police force was documented by CBS News' program 60 Minutes in the year 2000, which is right around the time of the incident I described. They may not be representative of law enforcement officers elsewhere.
This quote is often used by people that don't know the whole quote or do and intentionally omit the end. Here is the rest of it. "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." No where does Jesus proclaim that a man is entitled to another man's property.
It seems that the goalposts just moved again. I offered this verse as a response to your statement "I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation". I did not offer it in support of an argument that a man is entitled to another man's property. This should have been apparent from the context, as I immediately preceeded this verse by the relevant quote from your own post.
How did I do that, please don't tell me it's because I didn't explicitly say owning the means of production? We are talking about worker owner relationships, your quote was about the threat of workers rioting because the owners are pocketing what is rightfully theirs. That has nothing to do with owning a house, car, or any other possession, it's hard to believe you are that dumb.
You moved the goalposts by changing the subject of conversation from "no private property" to "means of production owned by workers", which are two very different things. Socialism does require the means of production being owned by workers. It does not require the absence of private property. If you look through the last few posts, you'll notice that you went from talking about "no private property" to suddenly talking about "means of production owned by the workers". You'll not that my objection was to your "no private property" definition of socialism (which is incorrect), and not your "means of production owned by workers" definition. My latest objection was that you "moved the goalposts" by abandoning your previous definition (which was incorrect) while pretending that your new "means of production owned by workers" definition was what you were saying all along. Also, it's unclear why I have to spell this out for you when it should all be apparent from context.
Could you find where I stated that violence is only a tool of socialism? Didn't think so?
Could you find where I stated that you stated that violence is only a tool of socialism? Two can play at this game of disingenuousness. Also, I'll note that you (once again) conveniently ignore the question I posed here.
Using violence because you think you are entitled to someone else's property is socialism and is how socialism has taken hold.
So when the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre in 1911 by Vincenzo Peruggia, this was socialism? I grow tired of your absurd attempts at redefining socialism. I figured after a few attempts, you'd give up and agree to the standard definition. Clearly I was wrong.
Is it possible that the owner is in his tractor plowing the fields? Here is your quote.
However, we've established that the people footing the bill aren't working hard, they're merely owning capital.
That has not been established the people footing the bill can be working hard, just not doing unskilled labor.
It is possible. However, that's orthogonal to the discussion we're having. You stated that workers don't see the full benefit of their labor because they lack an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency. The necessary implication of that claim is that an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid. Consequently, it is not relevant whether or not the people footing the bill are working hard or not: it is their capital ownership that gets them money, regardless of whether they work hard or not at all. If you insist on focu
I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation. What Jesus is saying is that is you give up your possessions, give the money to the poor and follow him you will be rewarded with eternal salivation. He did not say that is the only way to end up in heaven.
And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Can you have socialism with ownership of the means of production? Please give me your definition of socialism that does not include the means of production being controlled by the people. Gravity being inverse square to the distance is just as fundamental part of the definition of gravity as the means of production being owned by the collective is to socialism.
Yes, you can. Indeed, it is required to be so. That's not the same as "no private property", though. You've just moved the goalposts.
The threat of violence either through the government or mob riots to demand "a fair share" is socialism. Negotiating wages is not socialism, unionizing and refusing to work until demands are met is not socialism. There are many avenues that can be taken without the threat of violence to get "a fair share". The use of violence implies that the workers are entitled to the profits beyond what they originally agreed to, and they are simply taking what is theirs.
No, the means of production being owned by the workers is socialism. Threat of violence is merely one mechanism through which socialism can be brought about. The threat of violence can similarly be used to bring about other forms of socioeconomic organization. It's not peculiar to socialism. Capitalists have used the threat of violence against workers as well; was this also socialism?
We have not established that, you would need to show that the owner is not working, which has not been done. There are many other things that have to be done on a farm besides picking fruit.
You argued that it was their ownership of technology that entitled them to the gains afforded by it, did you not? Or are you now saying that its their work, not the ownership stake, that entitles them to reap the majority of the benefits provided by technology? Make up your mind.
That how a business works, you have to make more money then you are putting in other wise you lose money and go out of business and then nobody is working. Do you think all business should lose money?
*whoosh*
It does when you have safety nets. Someone has to pay for those benefits. When you have more people receiving them you need more money to pay for them, since the contributor base is shrinking because you have more lazy people the larger burden will fall on the rest of the people working.
Why wouldn't it fall on the people making the bulk of the money (the capitalists who own technology, as opposed to those who labor)? You seem to be contradicting yourself again.
No it does not, it sounds like you are free to choose to sell your possessions and give them to the poor. Socialism doe not allow for a choice it's give up your wealth by force or threat of force.
I can't really see how imprisonment by a government is qualitatively worse than damnation to the fiery pits of hell for all eternity.Disingenuous argument.
Let me put it this way, if the understanding of gravity being inverse square to the distance was known before Newton officially defined gravity. Would that concept of gravity being inverse square to the distance not be considered an idea that lead to the Newtonian definition of gravity? That idea is in the Newtonian definition.
Sure.
Rousseau's idea that there is no private property is a socialists idea.
This is where I disagree. Much like "things fall to the ground" is an oversimplification of gravity (and as such, is not "gravity"), "there is no private property" is an oversimplification of socialism (and as such, is not "socialism"). If your understanding of socialism can be summed up as "there is no private property", then I can see how you could come to such a conclusion. However, that's not an accurate or complete characterization of what's generally understood to constitute socialism.
Your idea that the land owners should give more to their workers less they revolt and take from the land owner is a socialists concept as well.
Not really, any more than the idea that police should enforce laws or that courts should adjudicate trials are socialist concepts. By your reasoning, anything beyond anarchy is a socialist concept. That's not what most people mean when they talk about socialism. The idea that land owners should give more to their workers less [sic] they revolt is more rational self-interest than anything else.
If you owned the technology you could work significantly less. How much depends on how fast a person could plow with a tractor, seed with machinery, spraying with herbicide, insecticide and fertilizer, mowing/harvesting with a tractor, and transporting to sell. You would also need to account for costs to maintain your tractor, amortize your equipment over it's life, and consumables like seed, fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides, and diesel. I don't know where your coming up with minutes per week but you could definitely work much less.
The seasonal migrants all ready do work less only 1/4 of the the year. The year round workers don't own the technology so they don't see lions share of the benefit but yes if they choose to forgo modern technology they would not have to work as much to provide for them selves.
So let's put this in context. This discussion started with me expressing indignation towards effectively-compulsory labor, towards the fact that people still need to work just to have food, clothing, and a place to live, despite dramatic gains in productive efficiency resulting from technological development. Your rebuttal was:
When you reward lazy behavior more people are lazy, you then get to a point where the people footing the bill refuse to work hard because their hard work just goes to the lazy people.
However, we've established that the people footing the bill aren't working hard, they're merely owning capital. That's why they're the ones reaping the benefits of technological development. Nobody needs to "work hard" except to satisfy the owners of capital, not to meet the cost of maintaining society. That's my point. If you don't think such an arrangement will breed unrest, you're entitled to your opinion. But digressing to debate the finer points of life as a migrant worker doesn't really change the fact that rewarding lazy behavior and creating more lazy people doesn't negatively impact those who "work hard" nor does it necessarily have any adverse effect on society as a whole.
21559/88 = 245 is more than "a few" hours; it's actually over 6 weeks of full-time work. Also, why do you have a roommate if you know of an $88/hr job? Why don't you apply for one of these jobs yourself so that you can make 6 figures and get your own place? Furthermore, how can you say she is "out of a job for 10 months" if she's doing work for money? Additionally, what benefit is it to you to spread awareness of this fantastic opportunity?
The argument that poor people can't afford to cook rice and beans and eat cheaply is, in a word, bullshit.
Note that I never said that poor people can't afford to cook rice and beans.
Do you know how little is involved in cooking rice? Did pasta or fresh root vegetables somehow get hard to prepare? Do chicken thighs and pork shoulders not just go in an oven with little to no prep? One week of skipping fast food for real CHEAP groceries pays for a rice cooker. One MEAL of skipping fast food pays for a used crock pot.
It takes roughly one order of magnitude more time to prepare white rice than to purchase a fast food meal. Additionally, white rice can (usually) only be cooked at home (and most people only have one home), whereas fast food can be purchased at a great many locations. Consequently, someone who is poor (and likely has much less free time) is much less likely to be able to cook their own food than to eat fast food. This is corroborated by the fact that poor people eat lots of fast food. Your ideas about pork shoulders are fascinating, but they're not born out by the facts. In any case, these folks explain it fairly well so that I don't have to.
Anyone eating fast food "because it's cheaper" is intellectually dishonest.
It's not a "theory" that groceries are cheaper than fast food.
You're the one that's hung up on cost. I'm talking about the reality that poor people eat fast food.
A sandwich in a lunch bag to eat between jobs has been cheaper and better for you than going to McDonalds for, well, forever.
See my above reference.
...especially with no taxes.
Sales tax is nowhere near significant enough to be a determining factor here. Indeed, poor people eat fast food despite the additional tax burden. You can argue all you want about whether or not this makes sense, but that's not going to change the reality that poor people eat more fast food, which is taxed, while wealthy people eat more unprepared food, which is not taxed.
Are you saying that "Rational or not, justifiable or not, inequitable distribution of wealth breeds unrest. That's a fact, and the wealthy among us would do well to keep that in mind." is not a socialists concept?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with collective ownership and it's true in any society (to varying extents) regardless of how it is governed.
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or death" was the slogan of the French revolution. Fraternity was a concept that people had a legal responsibility to ensure that everyone gets their fair share. That sounds like the beginning of socialism to me.
Indeed, and "If you will be perfect, go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow Me" was something that Jesus supposedly said. Does this also sound like the beginning of socialism to you? Is any statement opposing unbridled greed "the beginning of socialism" to you? Most people have a slightly less superficial understanding of socialism, so that might explain why they aren't as quick as you to label everything "socialism". The same applies to your Rousseau quote.
So I guess it's safe to say that bounding ideas or concepts by the date is pretty foolish. Did gravity not exists before Newton defined it?
Gravity the concept as we understand it today, or gravity the force? One indeed did not exist before Newton's definition, while the other did.
80% of migrant workers have cell phones [nih.gov]
42% drive a car to work, 8% walk, 35% ride with others, 8% take a bus, 7% use Raitero (shuttle). [doleta.gov]
95% had water for washing, 80% drinking water and cups, 93% had a toilet [doleta.gov]
Living space? serfs had live stock living in their "houses". I don't know if you know this but goats and sheep crap all the time. I don't know about you but I would rather live in a house cramped with people then with animals, feces, and urine.
Now for your claim of leisure time. From the study I cited the average hours worked per week was 43 hours. It's safe to say that is the average for a year round worker, serfs worked more then that. Now to the seasonal migrant. Seasonal migrant workers are not working 3/4 of the year, they would have to work 23 hours a day every day to work the same hours as someone who works 40 hours a week year round.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept all of the statistics you've provided. Are you suggesting that by merely foregoing cell phone ownership, avoiding modern transportation, and eschewing indoor plumbing, thereby returning to conditions comparable to those experienced by serfs, they'd only need to work a few minutes per week to support their newly-lowered standard of living? Or is this tangent a red herring, totally irrelevant to the the fact that technologically-inspired gains in productive efficiency have not really provided much benefit at all to an overwhelming majority of people in society?
Also, I'd like to note that your claim that "serfs worked more then [sic] that" is uncorroborated. I mentioned that your claim that serfs worked "60-80 hours" per week lacked a citation several posts ago.
You can stop responding any time you like, yet you still continue to respond.
Part of me finds it painful, but another part finds it entertaining. I'm impressed by the patience some people have for inconsequential arguments online. Here we are, bickering over serfs and migrant workers. In a sense, it's totally asinine. On the other hand, we're (well, at least I'm) learning some arbitrary trivia along the way. For example, I'm surprised that 1 in 5 migrant workers lacks either drinking water or cups (or both).
The Forest Service is still a fucking joke. Read A Walk in the Woods (generally a hilarious and insightful travel book) by Bill Bryston if you want an honest critique of the US Forest Service.
I second this sentiment. A Walk in the Woods is fucking hilarious. I've been wanting to thru-hike the AT for many years, so recently I settled for reading Bill's book instead. Fantastic read.
New Jersy fucked it up, so it's a bad idea? Is that the take-away?
New Jersey fucked it up? Find me a state that did a better job. For the record, New Jersey gets quite a bit of business from shoppers from neighboring New York, as we exempt quite a few more categories of goods from sales tax than they do. I doubt these people are submitting their use tax properly.
Anyway, of all the things you could criticize the shithole that is NJ for, you choose their rather reasonable implementation of sales tax?
Right, between their second and third jobs, they're supposed to find the time to cook rice and beans?
It's just not convenient.
Ah, so it's reasonable to expect that they'll simply not eat between jobs. What a reasonable policy you're advocating for.
All of your theoretical "can absolutely afford" is very nice, but reality doesn't see things that way. Poor people eat fast food, which is subject to sales tax, and that's just how it is.
Generally, poor people making loans to other poor people (such as family loans or loans to friends) don't have the money to pursue litigation to be made whole. Anyone that can afford "lawyers, eviction/repossession proceedings" is not poor.
Is it possible to have socialists ideas before the term socialism was coined? It doesn't matter what you were referencing, the idea you were conveying is a socialist one.
So you're saying that the proletariat of France were socialists before socialism was cool? What hipsters! For the record, proto-socialist ideas started popping up in France distinctly after the revolution. I suppose that these distinctions are lost on you, though, since you're using the word in a prejorative sense, not a technical one.
Did you read below that I will repeat it since you missed it, if you are saying they had it equally as good you need to find something that made up for a serf's lack of technology, like cell phones, clean drinking water, indoor plumbing, living quarters without livestock, cars, laundry facilities,... What area did the serfs have it better then migrant workers to make up for all those things I listed.
First, I'll reiterate my objection that those aren't things that migrant workers have, generally speaking. Second, I'll reiterate the response I offered earlier: leisure time and living space.
If they are only given enough not to riot then they are way over compensated.
Your "they" refers to people risking their capital, according to the rules of English grammar. There is no meaningful risk of them rioting, so that interpretation of your words doesn't make sense. I don't think you meant to refer to the poor either, since then you'd be saying that they should be paid less so as to cause riots. Riots are generally undesirable for a society, so that interpretation doesn't make sense either. I can't think of any other ways to parse this statement, so I'm genuinely not sure what you're trying to say here.
People are breaking the law just for the opportunity to go work as a migrant worker, that is a long way away from a revolt.
I'mgladyouthinkso. You may think the distribution of wealth in this country is just fine, but 92% of Americans would disagree with you, despite the fact that a majority of Americans actually underestimate the actual inequity in wealth distribution. See aforementioned Forbes link as reference for this claim.
I repeat, yet again, this thread got rather long. I don't like that. The last time I participated in a thread this long, it got way too long. The lesson I learned there is that some people have trouble communicating with me, and that it takes a considerable amount of effort to resolve the issue. Since I'm not willing to dedicate sufficient effort to accomplish that in this thread, I think this is as good a time as any to throw in the towel.
The disclaimer I've added to the end of my last three posts (as well as this one) has been rather prophetic, don't you think? Perhaps you're interested in breaking the 76-post-long-thread record I set with bingoUV? That would be even more impressive with this disclaimer in place the whole time. I totally think you should go for it.
Let's look at how sales tax works in my home state of New Jersey. Bare necessities are not subject to sales tax here. The reason bare necessities are not taxed is to attempt to correct for the regressive nature of a sales tax. The idea was that the poor will still be able to buy themselves food and clothing without worrying about sales tax while the rich are taxed on their luxury purchases. That's the stated intent.
The well-meaning tax code that ensures that "necessities" are not taxed actually fails to accomplish this goal, as the type of food that is considered a "necessity" is often too expensive for poor people to afford, and the only food they can afford is taxed. The end result is that the poor end up paying a higher aggregate sales tax on food since their financial situation limits them to taxable prepared foods, whereas the rich end up paying a lower aggregate sales tax on food since a larger proportion of their food is purchased raw and is consequently not subject to sales tax. Thus the intent of correcting for the regressive nature of a sales tax is not satisfied.
So you see, while the idea itself sounds great on paper, in reality it actually has an opposite effect. My point was not that organic grapes are the problem, but instead that shit is complicated, and simple solutions can sometimes fail to accomplish their goals, or even serve the opposite purpose.
Well, no, in Germany, the caller pays their own rate, plus a surcharge for calling a mobile phone; it just shifts the expense to the caller.
Right. And the expense of the caller in Germany is less than the summed expense of the caller and receiver in the US and Canada. That's what they're saying, and that's why they doubled the US and Canadian rates. To make for a fair comparison.
If it's bothering you that they doubled the US and Canadian rates, think of it differently: They're comparing the sum total of both calling and receiving rates for each call. Outside of the US and Canada, the receiving rate is zero, so the total rate is simply the caller's rate. In the US and Canada, the receiving rate is equal to the calling rate, so the total rate is double the caller's rate.
All problems are largely due to government regulations.
Not all, but many.
well, except for those inconvenient parts about universal availability of complete information...and the whole issue of monopolies...
Those are some the reasons the free market wins over government regulations when it comes to business and competition.
Dude, I was being facetious because I've grown weary of Saint Reagan's apostles on slashdot. And now you're saying that the two biggest failures of the free market (lack of complete information and formation of monopolies) are why it wins over government regulations?
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever a law enforcement does something blatantly unethical, they lose reputation and... then what?
And then you end up with a society where the reputation of law enforcement officers is such that "fuck the police", "don't snitch", etc., become popular sentiments, and respect for the rule of law is replaced by a hatred for the agents of an oppressive state. The failure by the police to police their own (blue code of silence, etc.), entirely expected (and deemed inevitable) by many, has gotten us to where we are today. Where we go from here is anyone's guess.
I'm not sure where you live, but here in the US, our only "high speed" rail (Amtrak's Acela service, and I use "high speed" very loosely here) is a dramatically different experience. It's not smooth, and it's not fast. Train cars are bobbing around on shitty rails, and when you pass a train heading in the opposite direction the relative speed is insufficient to cause any noticeable jostling.
Actually, I found it to be quite the opposite. There you are, coasting along in comfort, and then out of nowhere you're passing a train heading in the opposite direction. At a relative speed of ~350mph and a separation of (I'd estimate) about a foot, the effects of the atmosphere are most definitely noticeable. If the sudden (and I mean sudden) sound doesn't startle you, the air pressure difference causes the train to bounce to the side a bit. Definitely got my heart rate elevated the first time it happened, as I was totally not expecting it.
Fascinating story about beach season etiquette. Seems very much in line with my perception of Japanese culture.
ie!
Shinkansen is awesome. Amazingly smooth, unbelievably fast. I had the pleasure of riding one between Tokyo and Kyoto earlier this year. According to my phone's GPS, I topped out at 173mph (278km/h). It's amazing to me that they've been running for a half century already, while in the States we're nowhere near this level of rail technology, even today.
Also, hai means yes in Japanese. You hear it very frequently there. If someone's on their cell phone, oftentimes all you hear is "Hai! Hai, hai, hai. Hai!" What an agreeble culture!
I've had law enforcement officers plant "something" in my car during an anything-but-routine traffic stop. In the end, no arrests were made, and the law enforcement officers settled for merely assaulting one of my passengers.
Disclaimer: The corruption of this municipal police force was documented by CBS News' program 60 Minutes in the year 2000, which is right around the time of the incident I described. They may not be representative of law enforcement officers elsewhere.
This quote is often used by people that don't know the whole quote or do and intentionally omit the end. Here is the rest of it. "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." No where does Jesus proclaim that a man is entitled to another man's property.
It seems that the goalposts just moved again. I offered this verse as a response to your statement "I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation". I did not offer it in support of an argument that a man is entitled to another man's property. This should have been apparent from the context, as I immediately preceeded this verse by the relevant quote from your own post.
How did I do that, please don't tell me it's because I didn't explicitly say owning the means of production? We are talking about worker owner relationships, your quote was about the threat of workers rioting because the owners are pocketing what is rightfully theirs. That has nothing to do with owning a house, car, or any other possession, it's hard to believe you are that dumb.
You moved the goalposts by changing the subject of conversation from "no private property" to "means of production owned by workers", which are two very different things. Socialism does require the means of production being owned by workers. It does not require the absence of private property. If you look through the last few posts, you'll notice that you went from talking about "no private property" to suddenly talking about "means of production owned by the workers". You'll not that my objection was to your "no private property" definition of socialism (which is incorrect), and not your "means of production owned by workers" definition. My latest objection was that you "moved the goalposts" by abandoning your previous definition (which was incorrect) while pretending that your new "means of production owned by workers" definition was what you were saying all along. Also, it's unclear why I have to spell this out for you when it should all be apparent from context.
Could you find where I stated that violence is only a tool of socialism? Didn't think so?
Could you find where I stated that you stated that violence is only a tool of socialism? Two can play at this game of disingenuousness. Also, I'll note that you (once again) conveniently ignore the question I posed here.
Using violence because you think you are entitled to someone else's property is socialism and is how socialism has taken hold.
So when the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre in 1911 by Vincenzo Peruggia, this was socialism? I grow tired of your absurd attempts at redefining socialism. I figured after a few attempts, you'd give up and agree to the standard definition. Clearly I was wrong.
Is it possible that the owner is in his tractor plowing the fields? Here is your quote.
However, we've established that the people footing the bill aren't working hard, they're merely owning capital.
That has not been established the people footing the bill can be working hard, just not doing unskilled labor.
It is possible. However, that's orthogonal to the discussion we're having. You stated that workers don't see the full benefit of their labor because they lack an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency. The necessary implication of that claim is that an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid. Consequently, it is not relevant whether or not the people footing the bill are working hard or not: it is their capital ownership that gets them money, regardless of whether they work hard or not at all. If you insist on focu
Here's a working link, as provided by the AC here.
404.
There's nothing modern about IRC channel names.
I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation. What Jesus is saying is that is you give up your possessions, give the money to the poor and follow him you will be rewarded with eternal salivation. He did not say that is the only way to end up in heaven.
And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Can you have socialism with ownership of the means of production? Please give me your definition of socialism that does not include the means of production being controlled by the people. Gravity being inverse square to the distance is just as fundamental part of the definition of gravity as the means of production being owned by the collective is to socialism.
Yes, you can. Indeed, it is required to be so. That's not the same as "no private property", though. You've just moved the goalposts.
The threat of violence either through the government or mob riots to demand "a fair share" is socialism. Negotiating wages is not socialism, unionizing and refusing to work until demands are met is not socialism. There are many avenues that can be taken without the threat of violence to get "a fair share". The use of violence implies that the workers are entitled to the profits beyond what they originally agreed to, and they are simply taking what is theirs.
No, the means of production being owned by the workers is socialism. Threat of violence is merely one mechanism through which socialism can be brought about. The threat of violence can similarly be used to bring about other forms of socioeconomic organization. It's not peculiar to socialism. Capitalists have used the threat of violence against workers as well; was this also socialism?
We have not established that, you would need to show that the owner is not working, which has not been done. There are many other things that have to be done on a farm besides picking fruit.
You argued that it was their ownership of technology that entitled them to the gains afforded by it, did you not? Or are you now saying that its their work, not the ownership stake, that entitles them to reap the majority of the benefits provided by technology? Make up your mind.
That how a business works, you have to make more money then you are putting in other wise you lose money and go out of business and then nobody is working. Do you think all business should lose money?
*whoosh*
It does when you have safety nets. Someone has to pay for those benefits. When you have more people receiving them you need more money to pay for them, since the contributor base is shrinking because you have more lazy people the larger burden will fall on the rest of the people working.
Why wouldn't it fall on the people making the bulk of the money (the capitalists who own technology, as opposed to those who labor)? You seem to be contradicting yourself again.
You can be out of a job, or unemployed, and still earn some money as an independent contractor. So, that part isn't totally illogical.
I've worked as a 1099 contractor before. I wasn't an "employee" per tax law, but I was still working, and I still had a job.
Valid points about thumbs and sex dungeon, though.
No it does not, it sounds like you are free to choose to sell your possessions and give them to the poor. Socialism doe not allow for a choice it's give up your wealth by force or threat of force.
I can't really see how imprisonment by a government is qualitatively worse than damnation to the fiery pits of hell for all eternity.Disingenuous argument.
Let me put it this way, if the understanding of gravity being inverse square to the distance was known before Newton officially defined gravity. Would that concept of gravity being inverse square to the distance not be considered an idea that lead to the Newtonian definition of gravity? That idea is in the Newtonian definition.
Sure.
Rousseau's idea that there is no private property is a socialists idea.
This is where I disagree. Much like "things fall to the ground" is an oversimplification of gravity (and as such, is not "gravity"), "there is no private property" is an oversimplification of socialism (and as such, is not "socialism"). If your understanding of socialism can be summed up as "there is no private property", then I can see how you could come to such a conclusion. However, that's not an accurate or complete characterization of what's generally understood to constitute socialism.
Your idea that the land owners should give more to their workers less they revolt and take from the land owner is a socialists concept as well.
Not really, any more than the idea that police should enforce laws or that courts should adjudicate trials are socialist concepts. By your reasoning, anything beyond anarchy is a socialist concept. That's not what most people mean when they talk about socialism. The idea that land owners should give more to their workers less [sic] they revolt is more rational self-interest than anything else.
If you owned the technology you could work significantly less. How much depends on how fast a person could plow with a tractor, seed with machinery, spraying with herbicide, insecticide and fertilizer, mowing/harvesting with a tractor, and transporting to sell. You would also need to account for costs to maintain your tractor, amortize your equipment over it's life, and consumables like seed, fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides, and diesel. I don't know where your coming up with minutes per week but you could definitely work much less.
The seasonal migrants all ready do work less only 1/4 of the the year. The year round workers don't own the technology so they don't see lions share of the benefit but yes if they choose to forgo modern technology they would not have to work as much to provide for them selves.
So let's put this in context. This discussion started with me expressing indignation towards effectively-compulsory labor, towards the fact that people still need to work just to have food, clothing, and a place to live, despite dramatic gains in productive efficiency resulting from technological development. Your rebuttal was:
When you reward lazy behavior more people are lazy, you then get to a point where the people footing the bill refuse to work hard because their hard work just goes to the lazy people.
However, we've established that the people footing the bill aren't working hard, they're merely owning capital. That's why they're the ones reaping the benefits of technological development. Nobody needs to "work hard" except to satisfy the owners of capital, not to meet the cost of maintaining society. That's my point. If you don't think such an arrangement will breed unrest, you're entitled to your opinion. But digressing to debate the finer points of life as a migrant worker doesn't really change the fact that rewarding lazy behavior and creating more lazy people doesn't negatively impact those who "work hard" nor does it necessarily have any adverse effect on society as a whole.
21559/88 = 245 is more than "a few" hours; it's actually over 6 weeks of full-time work. Also, why do you have a roommate if you know of an $88/hr job? Why don't you apply for one of these jobs yourself so that you can make 6 figures and get your own place? Furthermore, how can you say she is "out of a job for 10 months" if she's doing work for money? Additionally, what benefit is it to you to spread awareness of this fantastic opportunity?
The argument that poor people can't afford to cook rice and beans and eat cheaply is, in a word, bullshit.
Note that I never said that poor people can't afford to cook rice and beans.
Do you know how little is involved in cooking rice? Did pasta or fresh root vegetables somehow get hard to prepare? Do chicken thighs and pork shoulders not just go in an oven with little to no prep? One week of skipping fast food for real CHEAP groceries pays for a rice cooker. One MEAL of skipping fast food pays for a used crock pot.
It takes roughly one order of magnitude more time to prepare white rice than to purchase a fast food meal. Additionally, white rice can (usually) only be cooked at home (and most people only have one home), whereas fast food can be purchased at a great many locations. Consequently, someone who is poor (and likely has much less free time) is much less likely to be able to cook their own food than to eat fast food. This is corroborated by the fact that poor people eat lots of fast food. Your ideas about pork shoulders are fascinating, but they're not born out by the facts. In any case, these folks explain it fairly well so that I don't have to.
Anyone eating fast food "because it's cheaper" is intellectually dishonest.
It's not a "theory" that groceries are cheaper than fast food.
You're the one that's hung up on cost. I'm talking about the reality that poor people eat fast food.
A sandwich in a lunch bag to eat between jobs has been cheaper and better for you than going to McDonalds for, well, forever.
See my above reference.
...especially with no taxes.
Sales tax is nowhere near significant enough to be a determining factor here. Indeed, poor people eat fast food despite the additional tax burden. You can argue all you want about whether or not this makes sense, but that's not going to change the reality that poor people eat more fast food, which is taxed, while wealthy people eat more unprepared food, which is not taxed.
Are you saying that "Rational or not, justifiable or not, inequitable distribution of wealth breeds unrest. That's a fact, and the wealthy among us would do well to keep that in mind." is not a socialists concept?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with collective ownership and it's true in any society (to varying extents) regardless of how it is governed.
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or death" was the slogan of the French revolution. Fraternity was a concept that people had a legal responsibility to ensure that everyone gets their fair share. That sounds like the beginning of socialism to me.
Indeed, and "If you will be perfect, go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow Me" was something that Jesus supposedly said. Does this also sound like the beginning of socialism to you? Is any statement opposing unbridled greed "the beginning of socialism" to you? Most people have a slightly less superficial understanding of socialism, so that might explain why they aren't as quick as you to label everything "socialism". The same applies to your Rousseau quote.
So I guess it's safe to say that bounding ideas or concepts by the date is pretty foolish. Did gravity not exists before Newton defined it?
Gravity the concept as we understand it today, or gravity the force? One indeed did not exist before Newton's definition, while the other did.
80% of migrant workers have cell phones [nih.gov]
42% drive a car to work, 8% walk, 35% ride with others, 8% take a bus, 7% use Raitero (shuttle). [doleta.gov]
95% had water for washing, 80% drinking water and cups, 93% had a toilet [doleta.gov]
Living space? serfs had live stock living in their "houses". I don't know if you know this but goats and sheep crap all the time. I don't know about you but I would rather live in a house cramped with people then with animals, feces, and urine.
Now for your claim of leisure time. From the study I cited the average hours worked per week was 43 hours. It's safe to say that is the average for a year round worker, serfs worked more then that. Now to the seasonal migrant. Seasonal migrant workers are not working 3/4 of the year, they would have to work 23 hours a day every day to work the same hours as someone who works 40 hours a week year round.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept all of the statistics you've provided. Are you suggesting that by merely foregoing cell phone ownership, avoiding modern transportation, and eschewing indoor plumbing, thereby returning to conditions comparable to those experienced by serfs, they'd only need to work a few minutes per week to support their newly-lowered standard of living? Or is this tangent a red herring, totally irrelevant to the the fact that technologically-inspired gains in productive efficiency have not really provided much benefit at all to an overwhelming majority of people in society?
Also, I'd like to note that your claim that "serfs worked more then [sic] that" is uncorroborated. I mentioned that your claim that serfs worked "60-80 hours" per week lacked a citation several posts ago.
You can stop responding any time you like, yet you still continue to respond.
Part of me finds it painful, but another part finds it entertaining. I'm impressed by the patience some people have for inconsequential arguments online. Here we are, bickering over serfs and migrant workers. In a sense, it's totally asinine. On the other hand, we're (well, at least I'm) learning some arbitrary trivia along the way. For example, I'm surprised that 1 in 5 migrant workers lacks either drinking water or cups (or both).
I would've guessed the Mujahadeen we armed in the 1970s, or maybe the rebels in Syria more recently. It could be anything, though.
The Forest Service is still a fucking joke. Read A Walk in the Woods (generally a hilarious and insightful travel book) by Bill Bryston if you want an honest critique of the US Forest Service.
I second this sentiment. A Walk in the Woods is fucking hilarious. I've been wanting to thru-hike the AT for many years, so recently I settled for reading Bill's book instead. Fantastic read.
New Jersy fucked it up, so it's a bad idea? Is that the take-away?
New Jersey fucked it up? Find me a state that did a better job. For the record, New Jersey gets quite a bit of business from shoppers from neighboring New York, as we exempt quite a few more categories of goods from sales tax than they do. I doubt these people are submitting their use tax properly.
Anyway, of all the things you could criticize the shithole that is NJ for, you choose their rather reasonable implementation of sales tax?
Poor people can absolutely afford rice and beans
Right, between their second and third jobs, they're supposed to find the time to cook rice and beans?
It's just not convenient.
Ah, so it's reasonable to expect that they'll simply not eat between jobs. What a reasonable policy you're advocating for.
All of your theoretical "can absolutely afford" is very nice, but reality doesn't see things that way. Poor people eat fast food, which is subject to sales tax, and that's just how it is.
Generally, poor people making loans to other poor people (such as family loans or loans to friends) don't have the money to pursue litigation to be made whole. Anyone that can afford "lawyers, eviction/repossession proceedings" is not poor.
Is it possible to have socialists ideas before the term socialism was coined? It doesn't matter what you were referencing, the idea you were conveying is a socialist one.
So you're saying that the proletariat of France were socialists before socialism was cool? What hipsters! For the record, proto-socialist ideas started popping up in France distinctly after the revolution. I suppose that these distinctions are lost on you, though, since you're using the word in a prejorative sense, not a technical one.
Did you read below that I will repeat it since you missed it, if you are saying they had it equally as good you need to find something that made up for a serf's lack of technology, like cell phones, clean drinking water, indoor plumbing, living quarters without livestock, cars, laundry facilities,... What area did the serfs have it better then migrant workers to make up for all those things I listed.
First, I'll reiterate my objection that those aren't things that migrant workers have, generally speaking. Second, I'll reiterate the response I offered earlier: leisure time and living space.
If they are only given enough not to riot then they are way over compensated.
Your "they" refers to people risking their capital, according to the rules of English grammar. There is no meaningful risk of them rioting, so that interpretation of your words doesn't make sense. I don't think you meant to refer to the poor either, since then you'd be saying that they should be paid less so as to cause riots. Riots are generally undesirable for a society, so that interpretation doesn't make sense either. I can't think of any other ways to parse this statement, so I'm genuinely not sure what you're trying to say here.
People are breaking the law just for the opportunity to go work as a migrant worker, that is a long way away from a revolt.
I'm glad you think so. You may think the distribution of wealth in this country is just fine, but 92% of Americans would disagree with you, despite the fact that a majority of Americans actually underestimate the actual inequity in wealth distribution. See aforementioned Forbes link as reference for this claim.
I repeat, yet again, this thread got rather long. I don't like that. The last time I participated in a thread this long, it got way too long. The lesson I learned there is that some people have trouble communicating with me, and that it takes a considerable amount of effort to resolve the issue. Since I'm not willing to dedicate sufficient effort to accomplish that in this thread, I think this is as good a time as any to throw in the towel.
The disclaimer I've added to the end of my last three posts (as well as this one) has been rather prophetic, don't you think? Perhaps you're interested in breaking the 76-post-long-thread record I set with bingoUV? That would be even more impressive with this disclaimer in place the whole time. I totally think you should go for it.
Let's look at how sales tax works in my home state of New Jersey. Bare necessities are not subject to sales tax here. The reason bare necessities are not taxed is to attempt to correct for the regressive nature of a sales tax. The idea was that the poor will still be able to buy themselves food and clothing without worrying about sales tax while the rich are taxed on their luxury purchases. That's the stated intent.
The well-meaning tax code that ensures that "necessities" are not taxed actually fails to accomplish this goal, as the type of food that is considered a "necessity" is often too expensive for poor people to afford, and the only food they can afford is taxed. The end result is that the poor end up paying a higher aggregate sales tax on food since their financial situation limits them to taxable prepared foods, whereas the rich end up paying a lower aggregate sales tax on food since a larger proportion of their food is purchased raw and is consequently not subject to sales tax. Thus the intent of correcting for the regressive nature of a sales tax is not satisfied.
So you see, while the idea itself sounds great on paper, in reality it actually has an opposite effect. My point was not that organic grapes are the problem, but instead that shit is complicated, and simple solutions can sometimes fail to accomplish their goals, or even serve the opposite purpose.
Well, no, in Germany, the caller pays their own rate, plus a surcharge for calling a mobile phone; it just shifts the expense to the caller.
Right. And the expense of the caller in Germany is less than the summed expense of the caller and receiver in the US and Canada. That's what they're saying, and that's why they doubled the US and Canadian rates. To make for a fair comparison.
If it's bothering you that they doubled the US and Canadian rates, think of it differently: They're comparing the sum total of both calling and receiving rates for each call. Outside of the US and Canada, the receiving rate is zero, so the total rate is simply the caller's rate. In the US and Canada, the receiving rate is equal to the calling rate, so the total rate is double the caller's rate.
All problems are largely due to government regulations.
Not all, but many.
well, except for those inconvenient parts about universal availability of complete information...and the whole issue of monopolies...
Those are some the reasons the free market wins over government regulations when it comes to business and competition.
Dude, I was being facetious because I've grown weary of Saint Reagan's apostles on slashdot. And now you're saying that the two biggest failures of the free market (lack of complete information and formation of monopolies) are why it wins over government regulations?