TheRPGSite

Man, simply WTF? Its crap like this that makes me think the death penalty is a good thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_re_us/forced_labor

Bill

Well the wife got 11 years!  That's not bad.  Nice to see some justice served, certainly.

Quote from: walkerp;220300Well the wife got 11 years!  That's not bad.  Nice to see some justice served, certainly.

And each of the women will get 1.1 mil but damn. The husband though, gets 3 1/3 years ands 12,500 fine. The fine just seems, I don't now, kind of trivial compared to the crime.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;220298Man, simply WTF? Its crap like this that makes me think the death penalty is a good thing.

From what I understand, that sort of thing is not all that uncommon in certain wealthy parts of the Middle East.  There is also plenty of sex-based slavery going on in the US and Europe.  Most of those women will never see a penny.  Look closely and there is still a lot of nasty in the world.

I just saw something similar to this on Law and Order SVU last night!

I wonder if the guy was schtupping the maids on the side as well, which is why the wife was so particularily cruel, or if not actually doing it, maybe attracted to one of them.

The UN and Amnesty tell us that while the percentage of the world population enslaved is the lowest in human history, the absolute number of people enslaved is the highest ever.

Slavery takes many forms. Commonly these days the slavers don't call their victims "slaves", it's just, "well, I smuggled her into this country, that cost me a lot, I lent her the money, now I pay her wages, hey look at that once I subtract the cost of her accommodation and interest on her debt to me, she has nothing left, oh well I guess she works for me forever, what a shame. But she's in this country now, she should be grateful to me."

Indentured labour is the most common form of slavery in the modern day, from Mexican illegals picking fruit in Arizona to Russian prostitutes in London (or Vietnamese in Melbourne) to domestics in Mali to former independent farmers now labourers on a landlord's farm in India or Bangladesh.

I read an article a few months back by a reporter who decided to find out how easy it was to buy someone.

He flew to Romania, and had bought a twelve year old girl with Down's Syndrome for about $800.   The whole process took less than 48 hours, no working knowledge of crime syndicates.  Just a willingness to ask cabbies if they knew where to find such things.

That is some seriously fucked up and scary shit.  Makes me wish guys like the Punisher were real.

Yeah...eeewwww.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;220333The UN and Amnesty tell us that while the percentage of the world population enslaved is the lowest in human history, the absolute number of people enslaved is the highest ever.

Slavery takes many forms. Commonly these days the slavers don't call their victims "slaves", it's just, "well, I smuggled her into this country, that cost me a lot, I lent her the money, now I pay her wages, hey look at that once I subtract the cost of her accommodation and interest on her debt to me, she has nothing left, oh well I guess she works for me forever, what a shame. But she's in this country now, she should be grateful to me."

Indentured labour is the most common form of slavery in the modern day, from Mexican illegals picking fruit in Arizona to Russian prostitutes in London (or Vietnamese in Melbourne) to domestics in Mali to former independent farmers now labourers on a landlord's farm in India or Bangladesh.

While not quite slaves, I am seeing the problem here in downtown Cedar Rapids.  After the floods finally died down, independent contracting firms swarm in to do the cleanup.  And several of them use a lot of probably-not-legal immigrants - who they make sign contracts in English for low pay, and then further reduce the pay to mere pennies a day by taking out the "costs" of lodging, transportation, and meals.

Worse, no one in law enforcement or government is doing anything about it because they want the restoration work to get done as fast and cheap as possible.

A group of local ministers tried to talk to some of the workers, but their handlers get quite upset and threatening if you approach any of them.  After the newspapers and the churches started making noise, all the non-white guys suddenly stopped working outdoors where anyone could see/talk to them.

I have to wonder if the interior workers have any level of protective equipment from all the mold and fumes.  The health effects of long-term exposure could be very bad.

And to think that these workers have it much better off than all the poor people in actual indentured servant or slave positions.

That's the free market, jgants. Just, you know, without that pesky "democracy" thing to mess it up. It's a brave new world!

Quote from: jgants;221148Worse, no one in law enforcement or government is doing anything about it because they want the restoration work to get done as fast and cheap as possible.

Have you spoken to anyone in law enforcement or government to verify this and/or to report it? If they've just shut you down, have you spoken to the press?

Note I'm not saying you should - I wouldn't; I don't really care - but you seem to care, so I'm wondering if you've done something about it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221166That's the free market, jgants. Just, you know, without that pesky "democracy" thing to mess it up. It's a brave new world!

I don't know that democracy has much to do with it but it is buyer beware. I mean, if you sign up with a group to work as a slave, I don't know that I am all that upset. You are a big boy, you can make your own decisions. Now, if the deal changes, as with the original story, where you get where you are going to work and they take your passport, start beating you until your moral improves and lock you away...well, that is just one step away from raiding the village and taking the peasants as slaves.

I guess I am a bit of a hardass here. I am sure someone will do a bait and switch on me but indentured servitude, voluntary by a consenting adult, is the fault of the signee. If you volunteer for the suicide mission and die, hey, you volunteered. If the agreement is above board and enforced, yeah, I don't think the guy indenturing people is noble peace prize material, but as long as he is not forcing anyone, hey, it is their choice. I do not subscribe to "protect the ignorant from themselves". But then, I am probably some sort of heartless conservative now. ;)

Bill

QuoteA group of local ministers tried to talk to some of the workers, but their handlers get quite upset and threatening if you approach any of them. After the newspapers and the churches started making noise, all the non-white guys suddenly stopped working outdoors where anyone could see/talk to them.

On a lot of farms these days they've just flat out resorted to having them live entirely on site.  Not allowed to leave.  Not allowed any contact with the outside world.  Kept as slaves in shacks, often under threat of violence.  

It's fucking sick, it is.  And it goes on in part because the nature of the immigration situation.  It's the real reason behind much of the anti-immigration push, besides of course the big fat steamy racism.  It's not because they actually want to keep them out.  It's because they want to keep all those people in non-person status, terrified of being shipped back, because it's that fear they can exploit and use to get away with shite like what you describe.  

They want to keep exploiting the cheap labor, as long as possible, because this whole fucking country is built on the backs of glorified slave labor like that.  People whine about them "stealing our jobs", but who the fuck is going to go out and roof your house or pick lettuce for well below minimum wage?  If all these people suddenly become legal, become citizens, then they can suddenly start demanding better wages, better treatment, better working conditions.  

If there's any one thing I can still muster some respect for in our current President, it was his attempt to actually grant real legal status to these people, to finally open the doors like they were so long ago now, when my families came across the borders.  Of course, the bill was defeated, and he was torn apart by his own party for even daring threaten the new American slavery.  I wonder at times whether it's going to take as much, if not more, to tear apart this one as it did the last time.  

I do know one thing.  It, more than anything else in the whole country, makes me disgusted by my very citizenship.

Quote from: HinterWelt;221169I don't know that democracy has much to do with it but it is buyer beware.

Democracy has everything to do with it. Why do you think the Klan tried to stop blacks from voting after the Civil War? People who are active participants in the democratic process are harder to push around, and they tend to do vicious nasty things like demand a fair day's wage and not let you rape them.

Quote from: HinterWeltI mean, if you sign up with a group to work as a slave, I don't know that I am all that upset. You are a big boy, you can make your own decisions.

By which reasoning, every woman who stays with an abusive husband had it comin'. This lack of empathy may be common, but I don't share it.

People make choices in their lives without a full understanding of the consequences of those choices, and then find their later choices limited by their earlier choices. For example, once someone makes the choice to leave the slums, sneak across the border and become an illegal immigrant, their choices about other things become more restricted.

After all, the two women in the story you posted with such disgust could have walked out the door at almost any time. Of course, they didn't know where to go, and feared detention without charge or trial and deportation, but that was their choice, right?

jgants' little story differs from the one you posted only in degree.

Quote from: HinterWeltI guess I am a bit of a hardass here. I am sure someone will do a bait and switch on me but indentured servitude, voluntary by a consenting adult, is the fault of the signee.

Yes and no. It's a matter of degree.

A common form of indentured labour is in India or Africa, let's imagine that for a moment. You have a hectare of land, half of it goes to pasture for the cow which gives you and your family a gallon or two of milk a day, another three-eighths goes to rice or wheat or maize or sorghum or something, and the remaining eighth is a little vegie garden, with maybe a goat or some chickens. You have a wife and a few kids, they work on the farm, too.

In good years when the weather is right you do pretty well, you feed your family and have some surplus to sell. One year you buy a diesel pump for the well to irrigate your fields, now one of your kids can get off the treadle pump and go to school, maybe end up a clerk in Bombay or Lagos and send money back home, that'd be nice.

In bad years the land floods and everything is swept away. So you go to this guy in the village, he's pretty well-off, he has six hectares and three families working his land for him. You ask him for a loan, just enough to feed your family and you for a season while you rebuild. He generously allows you it, though with heavy interest. It's your choice, this loan. Your alternative is... um... living in the slums of the capital. But it's your choice. You figure there can't be two bad years in a row, next year will be good, you'll pay him back and that's that.

Next year is bad, there's a drought, you can barely feed your family, forget about the interest on the loan, let alone the principal. You take your kid out of school to work the land but it's still not good enough. Along comes the wealthy guy. He feels for you, really he does. He says he will take your land, but because he is so nice allow you to live on it rent-free and work it as before, but any surplus you generate goes to paying off your loan. Or you can just walk away to those slums, but really he likes you and wishes you'd stay. Hey, it's your choice.

You go to the local authorities but it turns out they don't care much. Some have been paid not to care, others once cared but after taking a few of theses cases to court and seeing all the indentured labourers line up as witnesses on behalf of their lord and master, they gave up. So you're back on what was once your land wondering what to do. It's your choice.

Congratulations, you are now an indentured labourer. A slave.

Alternatively, your land never suffered flood or drought, but a large country bordering yours made a free trade deal, and then flooded your country with cheap products, and you couldn't sell your crops for more than the cost of production. Same deal, you borrowed money then lost your land. So you went off to live in the slums, and if you were "lucky" got a job in the new free trade zone towns making shoes for ten cents a piece. You thought it was a bit rough that after eight hours work nobody was allowed to go to the toilet, so you got half the factory together and went to the boss demanding toilet breaks. He sacked you all, and replaced you within a day. But hey, it was your choice.

Back in the slums, you were watching tv, and saw pictures of the wonderful life in that country bordering yours, the one whose cheap products had fucked you. Why not go there? Surely they owed you something? So you scraped together some cash for some dodgy bastard to sneak you across the border late one night, you stayed with some cousins along the road, and now there's this city that's flooded and needs rebuilding, well you can do that. They get you to sign a contract, you don't understand the words very well but you know you'll be paid, at the end of the first week you get your pay packet, it's a lot thinner than you expected. So you go to the foreman and ask why, and he explains all the deductions you signed for. And he says, "if you don't like it, fuck off back to the slums." Hey, your choice, right?

If you are part of the democratic process in the country you're in, that shit just does not happen to you.

So I'm afraid it's not as simple as you paint it. People's choices are shaped by their circumstances and previous choices.

As JA points out, don't scorn their stupidity or servitude too much, it's a significant part of the basis of your prosperity. What George Orwell wrote of coal miners applies as much today to illegal immigrant workers in the US, or indentured labourers getting rubber or fruit for Australia.
   In a way it is even humiliating to watch coal-miners working. It raises in you a momentary doubt about your own status as an 'intellectual' and a superior person generally. For it is brought home to you, at least while you are watching, that it is only because miners sweat their guts out that superior persons can remain superior. You and I and the editor of the Times Lit. Supp., and the poets and the Archbishop of Canterbury and Comrade X, author of Marxism for Infants--all of us really owe the comparative decency of our lives to poor drudges underground, blackened to the eyes, with their throats full of coal dust, driving their shovels forward with arms and belly muscles of steel.

Quote from: HinterWelt;221169I guess I am a bit of a hardass here. I am sure someone will do a bait and switch on me but indentured servitude, voluntary by a consenting adult, is the fault of the signee. If you volunteer for the suicide mission and die, hey, you volunteered. If the agreement is above board and enforced, yeah, I don't think the guy indenturing people is noble peace prize material, but as long as he is not forcing anyone, hey, it is their choice. I do not subscribe to "protect the ignorant from themselves". But then, I am probably some sort of heartless conservative now. ;)

You think these people are taking these jobs out of ignorance?!  They are taking them out of need.

Quote from: walkerp;221224You think these people are taking these jobs out of ignorance?!  They are taking them out of need.

When people are desperate, the idea of consent becomes a very questionable.  Some of the people who get into these situations don't really understand what they are getting into until it's too late and they can't get out.  But regardless of whether it's desperation or ignorance, what makes it evil is when the people can't choose to get out of it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221216

I am not going to Morrow this with you. It comes down to choice. Those women had no choice. They arrived and they were imprisoned. Not with chains and whips but with documentation and ignorance. They did not sign up for what they were delivered. Now, if someone says "Come with me and live in America! Oh, and sign this." and you do, well, that is your fault. Does it suck? Sure. But you had a choice. If someone comes up to a person and they say "Here is something too good to be true." and they take it, who's fault is it? The guy offering it? The person who just signs up without reading it first?

So, you did pretty good with the bait and switch. Not too much but enough to cloud the issue. Back on track, if you get shanghaied, or have the deal switched, hell yeah, that is fundamentally wrong. If you walk into it and sign up hoping to get something for nothing, then you are greedy and stupid and get what you deserve. So, no, if you "must" do it as Walker says, then no, to me, that is unacceptable. Being forced into slavery is wrong. Signing up for it with your eyes open, I can't have too much sympathy.

Bill

Quote from: John Morrow;221233When people are desperate, the idea of consent becomes a very questionable.  Some of the people who get into these situations don't really understand what they are getting into until it's too late and they can't get out.  But regardless of whether it's desperation or ignorance, what makes it evil is when the people can't choose to get out of it.

More eloquently put than my point but true nonetheless. Choice is the key. Sometimes that choice is seemingly impossibly difficult but it is a choice.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;221241More eloquently put than my point but true nonetheless. Choice is the key. Sometimes that choice is seemingly impossibly difficult but it is a choice.

Part of my point, though, is that a choice made out of desperation may not be much of a choice.

Quote from: John Morrow;221247Part of my point, though, is that a choice made out of desperation may not be much of a choice.

And I appreciate that. However, if there is truly choice, and you seemed to touch on the illusion of choice that can exist, that must be a voluntary choice of entering into and participating in an agreement or to leave it behind. Either one has consequences. Life is hard and sometimes requires hard choices. On the other side though, if there is no choice (forced into slavery) then that is wrong.

I believe the problem I am facing is one of definition. To me, force is not a case of "you had another choice, but you wanted money and thought this was the way" but one of "A victim is bent to a slavers will, whether by force, legal manipulation or other anti-social methods".

Bill

I hope you go bust one day, Bill. I really do.

Quote from: J Arcane;221192On a lot of farms these days they've just flat out resorted to having them live entirely on site.  Not allowed to leave.  Not allowed any contact with the outside world.  Kept as slaves in shacks, often under threat of violence.

How do you know this?

Quote from: J Arcane;221192I do know one thing.  It, more than anything else in the whole country, makes me disgusted by my very citizenship.

Have you done anything about it?

Quote from: HinterWelt;221240So, you did pretty good with the bait and switch. Not too much but enough to cloud the issue.

The problem is that the issue is cloudy to begin with.

It's not either an entirely free and informed choice or ignorant-at-gunpoint. There are degrees to things.

That's not "bait and switch", that's "nuance".

I'm a bit puzzled as to why people in one situation of oppression it's "oh no, poor dears, the bastards who oppressed them must die!" and people in another situation of oppression it's "fuck 'em, their choice." Why tears and angst for one and smug contempt for the other? There is a difference of degree, but not as large as the difference in reaction. The strongest difference is the gender of the victims; we tend to have more sympathy for oppressed women than men.

In any case, it's a matter of degree. Things are cloudy to begin with.

The other issue is that there are some things which are wrong to do regardless of "consent". Sometimes people will be willing for you to fuck them over and rip them off - it's still wrong to do it. If a worker consents to a contract which allows the employer the right to flog him if he's late to work, he may have consented, but it remains wrong to flog him.

Society and people need to be guided by some principle better than "hey, if you can get away with it, fuck 'em."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221320The other issue is that there are some things which are wrong to do regardless of "consent". Sometimes people will be willing for you to fuck them over and rip them off - it's still wrong to do it. If a worker consents to a contract which allows the employer the right to flog him if he's late to work, he may have consented, but it remains wrong to flog him.

What makes it "wrong?"

Don't try that postmodernist, deconstructionist, moral relativist horseshit here, Engine. Take that shit to Tangency over on rpg.net, where when that crazy German killed his lover and ate him with his consent, people said, "Well, why not? He asked for it."

If you cannot see why some things are wrong even if consented to, then there is no basis for seeing them as wrong even if not consented to. If there is no basis for values higher than consent and human happiness, then there is no basis for the value of consent or human happiness, either. In which case there is no way of saying what is right or wrong, and logically we should all become sociopaths.

Not even Libertarians are that crazy, only people who spent too long in the literary criticism part of the English Faculty at uni.

Take that shit away from here and fuck off, otherwise I will end up swinging so far out I end up agreeing with John Morrow, and then where the fuck would we be?

Quote from: droog;221307I hope you go bust one day, Bill. I really do.

Thank you, been there, done that. I have been so poor I had nothing but the clothes on my back. Guess what? I pulled myself together and changed my life. Not an easy feat. Not a series of small decisions that had few consequences. Serious and painful choices. I am doing much better now. And before you ask, no, I do not come from wealth, I did not inherit anything and my family, when I was growing up, were below the poverty line for a family of 3 (hint: there were more than three people in my family). :0

Bill

I hope it happens again.

Sorry but I have to Morrow on you.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221320The problem is that the issue is cloudy to begin with.

Perhaps just a conflict of definitions since I see it as complex, not nuanced or cloudy.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221320It's not either an entirely free and informed choice or ignorant-at-gunpoint. There are degrees to things.

Ah, my issue is you present a couple of issues. First, democracy has littel to do with it to me. It is power. I think we agree with this but you are equating democracy with power. I am saying, if you have a monarchy, those who rank int he monarchy, have a say in the government, will not be slaves. This is not an integral part of democracy but can be a part of it like any governemnt. If you have a democracy and only the educated can vote, then those without the qualifications to vote are at risk. It is not a given that slavery will exist, a possibility yes, but not a given.

Second, what I believe your examples showed was poverty combined with cultural openness to usury and poor risk analysis skills. Sure, a pump would be good but you need to weigh that against what you stand to lose. Poverty tends to take choices out of the mix and make them much more difficult and nasty but they are still there.

Finally, tied to the above, is the idea that somehow you should be able to take a loan and not pay it back. More to the root of it, some sort of "Poverty sucks". Man, you will not get an argument from me. The difference is you need to alter the conditions so that it is not considered right and legal to use usury to take control of land. That is another complex issue.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221320That's not "bait and switch", that's "nuance".

I'm a bit puzzled as to why people in one situation of oppression it's "oh no, poor dears, the bastards who oppressed them must die!" and people in another situation of oppression it's "fuck 'em, their choice." Why tears and angst for one and smug contempt for the other? There is a difference of degree, but not as large as the difference in reaction. The strongest difference is the gender of the victims; we tend to have more sympathy for oppressed women than men.

Kyle, no. It does not matter if it is a man or a woman. It is about
1. it happened in my country. I was, and am, offended that it did. It is but one example although an extreme one.

2. In one case, it is about people being offered an opportunity. When they arrive, they have their passports confiscated and the mistreatment and detention begins. In another (not necessarily the one you seem to be ascribing to me) you sign a contract that says you will work for compensation minus housing, transportation, etc. One is akin to raiding the coast, the other is more like the Roman civitas gladitores. Note: I am not approving of writing up a contract that says one thing, then is ignored when you are under the power of the signor.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221320In any case, it's a matter of degree. Things are cloudy to begin with.

The other issue is that there are some things which are wrong to do regardless of "consent". Sometimes people will be willing for you to fuck them over and rip them off - it's still wrong to do it. If a worker consents to a contract which allows the employer the right to flog him if he's late to work, he may have consented, but it remains wrong to flog him.

Society and people need to be guided by some principle better than "hey, if you can get away with it, fuck 'em."

Again, I don't know who you are arguing with but it is not me. I have said that the anti-social behavior of the "slave-masters" is not appropriate. I am not saying they should be praised, rewarded or even tolerated. My point is, you need to own your decisions. If your ability to make decisions are taken from you, then you do not have a decision to make...

Bill

Quote from: droog;221338I hope it happens again.

And I hope you are raped by a rabid kangaroo...is there a point to this? I mean really? Do you want to discuss how decisions and risk analysis in your life can keep a great deal of these problems at bay or are you just venting at someone you feel has not suffered enough in his life?

If you trying to seriously discuss poverty and how your noble crusade will eliminate it then I am all ears. Me, I may go bust again. I tend to take risks. I am aware of my risks and tend to wager what I can lose but there are always factors that can figure in that push you over the edge. If I do, it will be hard for a bit but I will come back. Not because someone gives me a handout, not because someone protects me from my own bad decisions. It will be because I make good decisions, use what is available in my society, because i have planned and trained myself to be in demand in society and because I can evaluate risks.

So, party on Droog.

Bill

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221328Don't try that postmodernist, deconstructionist, moral relativist horseshit here, Engine.

If it's worth anything to you, I was asking an honest question; I didn't intend any horseshit, except perhaps deconstructionist horseshit, which is how I come to understand things. My apologies for any offense I may have inadvertently caused.

Quote from: HinterWelt;221343And I hope you are raped by a rabid kangaroo...is there a point to this? I mean really? Do you want to discuss how decisions and risk analysis in your life can keep a great deal of these problems at bay or are you just venting at someone you feel has not suffered enough in his life?

I've been laid off three times, my wife has been laid off twice, I've had tons of debt and an income lower than my basic expenses and managed to get out of it without declaring bankruptcy, which I easily could have.  In fact, I lost one of my jobs in government because the politicians I voted for cut taxes as promised and laid off goverment workers to pay for the tax cuts and I was one of them.

What some people just don't grasp is how a person could go through any sort of hardship without getting angry at the system and turning into a Marxist.  It's an extension of the silly idea that if we just understand issues the right way, we would all agree with each other.  So what they are really saying is that if you really understood the issue exactly the way they do, they'd expect you'd agree with them.  Since you don't, then either you don't really understand the issue properly (weren't poor enough, didn't suffer enough, etc.) or you are a heartless bastard who deserves to be cursed for eternity.

Well said.

Here's the thing, in my moral universe, fucking someone when they are over a barrel is wrong.

If you run across someone who is watching their kids starve, and decide it would be a good idea to write up a contract where you pay them little, and then fuck them down to nothing on some sort of bullshit "room and board" deal because you know damned well that they don't know how these things work, and don't have the means to figure it out ahead of time until they are a thousand miles from home, then you are a fuck.  Pure and simple.  There was no real choice there.  We should not demand that people be some sort of minor hero in order to navigate life.

Now, to break it down a bit, if it helps.  This is bad in both Kantian and Utilitarian terms.

In Kantian terms, you have the whole categorical imperative.  Which means that you can only consider something moral if it would be good for this to be a Universal Principle.  Now, fucking over the desperate doesn't look good on that level, because most of us can expect to be desperate one day, and presumably, we'd rather not be fucked.  But, see, you don't even need to go there for this to be wrong under Kantian morality.  The reason is, under Kantian morality, you have to respect a person's value as a person.  You are not allowed to use them as a means to an end.  By even making the kind of contract where someone signs up out of ignorance and desperation, you are trying to use them as a means to an end, which under Kantian morality, is bad.

From the Utilitarian perspective it is more complex, as everything is.  First off, there are advantages to fucking desperate people over in the short term.  You get as close as you can to all three of the Fast, Cheap, and Good trifecta that is so elusive.

But there are problems. The first off is that these people you have taken advantage of are fucked.  They are working their ass off for practically nothing, and at this point, can't do much about it.  There bad situation counts here.  Also, they were probably counting on that money to send back to the wife and kids, and now they get none either, so additional people are fucked, and probably fucked worse than the person you are fucking in the first place.    This counts too.  What counts also is that there are other ways to do this.  You could just pay these guys something a bit better than minimum wage, they'd probably still do the job, and even if you are covering room and board for this project you are still getting an awesome profit margin, probably, and they are still sending their paychecks home.  Or, you could pay locals to do the work, which costs more, but gets the community going with money in pocket as well as rebuilding, and likely they'll be looking to you to do business with in the future.

Or, we could make it really simple.  We could have compassion for people in shitty conditions who didn't do a bunch of stealing, raping, or murdering to get themselves there.

QuoteSo what they are really saying is that if you really understood the issue exactly the way they do, they'd expect you'd agree with them. Since you don't, then either you don't really understand the issue properly (weren't poor enough, didn't suffer enough, etc.) or you are a heartless bastard who deserves to be cursed for eternity.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I just think Bill deserves to lose it all again. You can agree or not.

I don't care how much you've suffered, nor anybody else. Anybody who displays that kind of attitude, though, gets no sort of sympathy or pity from me. Fuck you too, basically. If I saw Bill in a gutter after what he's said, I'd laugh.

Quote from: droog;221621I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I just think Bill deserves to lose it all again. You can agree or not.

I don't care how much you've suffered, nor anybody else. Anybody who displays that kind of attitude, though, gets no sort of sympathy or pity from me. Fuck you too, basically. If I saw Bill in a gutter after what he's said, I'd laugh.

And if I saw you with your arse in the air after being violated I would try and help you out. But that is just me, I am a nice guy and you, sir, are little more than a troll.

Bill

You're not a nice guy. I've got your number now.

Just remember: I returned, and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

Quote from: John Morrow;221414What some people just don't grasp is how a person could go through any sort of hardship without getting angry at the system and turning into a Marxist.  

Who the fuck's a Marxist? Maybe some middle class pampered fuckers on Tangency, but nobody here, not even droog.

You don't have to believe in Marxism to believe it's wrong to fuck people over as much as they'll put up with.

Don't give us that rush to extremes horseshit, Morrow. Just because I believe in human rights does not make me a Marxist. That's as stupid as Engine's deconstructionism.

Quote from: John MorrowSince you don't, then either you don't really understand the issue properly (weren't poor enough, didn't suffer enough, etc.) or you are a heartless bastard who deserves to be cursed for eternity

No, I think this:-

Quote from: HinterWelt[/I]I guess I am a bit of a hardass here. I am sure someone will do a bait and switch on me but indentured servitude, voluntary by a consenting adult, is the fault of the signee.

is the words of a heartless bastard. Whereas the words he had in his original post were not. Which is why I was confused.

When someone says, "I don't care about these guys, they got what they asked for," then yes, I say he's being heartless. Amazing, I know. And absolutely fuckall to do with Marxism.

I've told you before, but it's still true, Morrow: fight the fight that's here, not some fight you made up in your head from years ago. You're not on StalinHasNiceUndies.org. There are no commies here. Respond to what people have actually said.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221714That's as stupid as Engine's deconstructionism.

Hey! I'm standing right here. ;)

More seriously, if you don't want to publicly analyze the sources of your morality, I completely understand that - you've probably done so a dozen times in past discussions, with no real benefit to you - but it really isn't stupid to want to do so. If someone told you the sky was red with purple polka-dots, I'd think you'd try to figure out why they think so, too; thus it is for me with morality.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221714Who the fuck's a Marxist? Maybe some middle class pampered fuckers on Tangency, but nobody here, not even droog.

What d'yer mean, not even?

Leaving aside the question of whether I am or am not, in fact, a Marxist, nothing I've said in this thread has been from a Marxist perspective.

Quote from: droog;221727What d'yer mean, not even?

Well, I do think it's fair to say you're the most left-leaning person active on this forum...

Quote from: droogLeaving aside the question of whether I am or am not, in fact, a Marxist, nothing I've said in this thread has been from a Marxist perspective.

Of course not. It's been from the "it's bad to be an utter cunt to people even when you can get away it" perspective.

Which apparently is wild radicalism when we're talking to this particular bunch of Americans, who really belong on SJGames talking about bringing back duelling or something equally nutty.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221714Who the fuck's a Marxist? Maybe some middle class pampered fuckers on Tangency, but nobody here, not even droog.

If you say so.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221714You don't have to believe in Marxism to believe it's wrong to fuck people over as much as they'll put up with.

I never claimed you did.  Not only have I been disagreeing with Bill on the consent issue but I also agree with the points you've made on that issue concerning moral relativism.  To make it clear, I think taking advantage of the despiration of people is wrong and immoral.  However...

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221714Don't give us that rush to extremes horseshit, Morrow. Just because I believe in human rights does not make me a Marxist. That's as stupid as Engine's deconstructionism.

...where I'm seeing extremes is when people start assuming that almost any employment situation is exploitation and abuse.  That's where the class warfare and the Marxism creeps in and, on the flip side, where moral relativism and nutty libertarianism creeps in.  Isn't there a middle ground here and, if so, what is it?

Kyle, I will try and address the parts directed to me. To be honest, I think you are fighting someone in your past or some other person. You are not reading me and that is partly my fault for treating this as a quick vent. I made an off the cuff comment and you have taken it as a basic fundement of my morality.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221714No, I think this:-

is the words of a heartless bastard. Whereas the words he had in his original post were not. Which is why I was confused.

No, if you really read those words and do not add your own definitions, it says:
You are responsible for your own decisions.

It does not say:
Slavery is good.
Indentured servitude is good.
Con men are good.
Deception is acceptable.
Hurting someone when they are down is good.

NONE of the above are true to me except that you are responsible for your own decisions. If you are not, then a person would need someone to care for them and make those decisions. At time (childhood, sick, wounded, etc) you need help but you still need to be moving towards or take partial responsibility for your decisions, your actions.

Now, the point I think you missed and filled in with your own fight was that I use the word choice. If someone takes choice away from you, you do not have choice and this is wrong. This happens more seldom than people like to admit. When I was destitute, I could have gone on welfare. I was young and you could have easily outlined a scenario that sounded like "He has no choice, he must!" I refused the common wisdom, the advice of friends and family. I ended up chopping wood for food and place in the garage to sleep for two months. Did I have choices? Hell yes. What I lacked was opportunities. I used that time to manufacture some opportunities. I took the ACTs. I passed with incredible scores and god a scholarship (no, my parents aren't rich and will pay my way). I went to college. I improved my marketability.

So, what you sited in you examples to me, is endemic to poverty. Poverty sucks. You can wallow in your tears waiting for a handout or you can make your opportunities. The problem for some people is the opportunities are not there. However, that is not endemic of slavery, slavery is a symptom of poverty. We need to fight it.

And thus, we come full circle to me saying there should be the death penalty for owning/selling/making slaves.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221714When someone says, "I don't care about these guys, they got what they asked for," then yes, I say he's being heartless. Amazing, I know. And absolutely fuckall to do with Marxism.

No, that is what YOU said. Let's talk about choice for a moment. Do you consider it fundamental to freedom? No, nothing loaded, I am using the dictionary definition as in "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc." Sitation (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom). I do. That means sometimes you make bad decisions. Sometimes, you make fatal decisions. Now, before you go off labeling with the ad absurdum that has rushed to your frontal cortex, I am not saying that people should have the freedom to act anti-socially. I am saying, within the societal bounds, you should have the right to make your own choices. That choice should not be to perform an illegal action, your choice would be abridged then. Then we wander into the legal vs the moral or philosophical. These differ considerably in my mind interms of practical vs what we aspire to and would need a entire thread and more energy than I am interested in investing at the moment. Suffice it to say that you can often do the morally wrong thing but be perfectly legal.

Honestly, I am rather surprised this line of reasoning (we need to take care of people, make their decisions for them) would come from you who are so strident about not invading other countries, letting them decide for themselves. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not see capable of giving me and assume there is more to your position than I have seen here.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221714I've told you before, but it's still true, Morrow: fight the fight that's here, not some fight you made up in your head from years ago. You're not on StalinHasNiceUndies.org. There are no commies here. Respond to what people have actually said.

This is good advice Kyle. I hope you take it.

Bill

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;221741Well, I do think it's fair to say you're the most left-leaning person active on this forum...

I don't know, Walker wants us to kill ourselves off for the good of the planet.  Surely they are at least in a dead heat for the "most liberal" prize.

Quote from: John Morrow;221775...where I'm seeing extremes is when people start assuming that almost any employment situation is exploitation and abuse.  That's where the class warfare and the Marxism creeps in and, on the flip side, where moral relativism and nutty libertarianism creeps in.  Isn't there a middle ground here and, if so, what is it?

I agree with Morrow on this.  My point about the exploitation of illegal immigrants (which I was not saying was as bad as actual slavery btw, I just think its in the same ballpark of evil) was basically that people were being taken advantage of because of their situation.

I see Bill's point about consent, but for me the simple test is - could these companies get regular citizens to consent to the deal, or does it only work with illegal immigrants?  That's where I draw the line.  If the employment deal is something that regular citizens would consent to (even if it isn't the best deal), and it follows all the laws, then I agree with the "employee beware" philosophy.  There are lots of crappy paying jobs, after all.  But, if its an employment contract specifically designed to exploit someone because of their situation, then I think its morally and ethically wrong.

Rather than respond to any specific point, I'll just toss in my two cents about the general thrust of the conversation:

I think at the end of the day there are basically two kinds of people in this world:  People who will toss you a life preserver when you're drowning, and people who will sell you a life preserver when you are drowning.

Capitalism at its heart is basically a system by which those with life preservers sell them to those who are drowning.  I'm not surprised when the selling price for life preservers in shark infested waters is your very life and soul.

I find it a bit easier to sympathize with the drowning guy's need for a life preserver, and find it a bit easier to be disgusted by the guy selling it to him at an exploitive price.

Quote from: jgants;221832I don't know, Walker wants us to kill ourselves off for the good of the planet.  Surely they are at least in a dead heat for the "most liberal" prize.

That is a liberal position?  I'd hate to meet the liberals you know.

Quote from: Jackalope;221895I think at the end of the day there are basically two kinds of people in this world:  People who will toss you a life preserver when you're drowning, and people who will sell you a life preserver when you are drowning.

Would you agree that there are also other types of people in this world? I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, I just want to make sure it's recognized that there are more options than these.

Quote from: Jackalope;221895Capitalism at its heart is basically a system by which those with life preservers sell them to those who are drowning.

That's a fairly cynical view of capitalism; exploitation may be a part of capitalism, but it's hardly exploitative at its heart.

I suppose it depends on how you define "exploitative," on further reflection. Is it exploitation to sell food to people? They need it to survive, after all. Anyway, I'm using it above in its more conventional definition.

Quote from: Engine;221900That's a fairly cynical view of capitalism; exploitation may be a part of capitalism, but it's hardly exploitative at its heart.

In most ways, most of the time, Capitalism is a good thing.


Kind of like rifles are good things.

Capitalism is an excellent way to move goods and cash around, usually, for the good of all involved, hell, that needn't even be the motive.  So long as general conditions are good, someone acting purely from an "I've Got To Get Mine" perspective needn't be a bad thing.  Competition will keep his prices reasonable and his products decent.

Rifles are fun to shoot, are good for bringing down deer, and in a pinch, can help you protect your home.

Thing with capitalism and rifles both are, that in conditions that are not exactly vanishingly rare, they can be used to completely fuck over someone else.  

Hell, capitalism is even better for fucking people over than a rifle is.

Which means, like guns, you have to be careful with capitalism.

Quote from: Engine;221900Would you agree that there are also other types of people in this world? I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, I just want to make sure it's recognized that there are more options than these.

Sure.  There's also people who would just point and laugh.

QuoteThat's a fairly cynical view of capitalism; exploitation may be a part of capitalism, but it's hardly exploitative at its heart.

Yeah, well, it depends on how you define capitalism.  If you define it as "any and all forms of trade using currency" as some are wont to do, then yeah, that's not really fair.  I tend to think of capitalism as the sort of economic structures that only developed post-Royal India Tea Trading Company.  You know, large institutions.  I think it's a little silly to call shopkeepers and craftsmen "capitalists."  I think some people confuse markets and trade with capitalism.  I don't fall into that trap of thinking it's either capitalism or communism.  You can have capitalism without free markets, and you can have free markets without capitalism.

QuoteI suppose it depends on how you define "exploitative," on further reflection. Is it exploitation to sell food to people? They need it to survive, after all. Anyway, I'm using it above in its more conventional definition.

Well, I don't really want to get in a big thing about it, because if I end up arguing with a libertarian I'll get a migraine and that will suck.

I'm using it in the sense of "Taking advantage of someone else's misfortune to get them to agree to a deal that you know they wouldn't accept if they were not desperate."

For example, workers in China and Mexico have very little in the way of government protection.  They have no real civil rights, no ability to redress grievances, no ability to organize and negotiate with those who own the capital in those countries to ensure they are not unduly disadvantaged in their dealings with the capitalists in those countries.

As a result, their labor is cheaper than American labor.  So when a business sets up shop in China and uses Chinese labor because it's cheap, they are in fact exploiting the fact that those Chinese laborers live under a repressive government that does not allow them to organize.

Modern international capitalism, the system we all enjoy the benefits of right now, is founded on this sort of exploitation.  Everyone reading this is probably benefitting in countless ways right this moment from the exploitation of Chinese citizens by the collusion of capitalists and the government of China.  And the government of the US, the European Union, etc.

I don't begrudge anyone the right to sell food.  I do take issue with people taking advantage of the conflux of people's desperate need for food, inability to control their government, and general lack of education, to pay them starvation wages while they make enormous sums off of them.  I do take issue with one man living in poverty while the man he works for lives in style that would make the most self-indulgent of Roman emperors blush in shame.

I'm not saying I advocate communism, but I sure as hell understand the appeal of class war.

FWIW - not much nowadays - I happen to be a Marxist (or rather a heterodox Trotskyist with the odd neocon tendency).  

And very well said Jackalope.

QuoteYou can have capitalism without free markets

In point of fact, there has never been a free market. Capitalism requires intervention to make it work.

Quote from: Jackalope;221916I'm not saying I advocate communism, but I sure as hell understand the appeal of class war.

I understand the appeal of class war but know that engaging in it almost always makes everyone worse off in the end, particularly the poor.

Quote from: droog;221929In point of fact, there has never been a free market. Capitalism requires intervention to make it work.

Depends on how you define a free market.  There's probably never been a market that was entirely free, but there are plenty of examples of free markets.  The role-playing game industry is a prime example.  There's absolutely no oversight except the response of consumers.

I do agree that capitalism requires intervention to make it work though.  I really can't imagine modern corporations coming into existence without the government using taxation to raise enough money to oppress the people they were taxing and force them into factories and the like.

Quote from: Jackalope;221959Depends on how you define a free market.  There's probably never been a market that was entirely free, but there are plenty of examples of free markets.  The role-playing game industry is a prime example.  There's absolutely no oversight except the response of consumers.

The roleplaying industry isn't a market on its own. It's part of a rather huge leisure industry, which is part of a giant economy. Within that sub-sector, there are a lot of people who are hardly capitalists at all--they're small businessmen.

In order for that market to exist, it has to be supported by laws and policed. In your original example of the East India Companies, those companies had to be granted charters by governments and later given protection by those same governments.

The economy itself has to be continually massaged and adjusted in order to avoid a catastrophic crash.

Quote from: John Morrow;221775If you say so.

If I say so? No, the posts people have made say so. Not one post by anyone with more than 100 posts to their name has demonstrated anything like Marxism. If you think any have, point them out to me.

Quote from: John Morrow...where I'm seeing extremes is when people start assuming that almost any employment situation is exploitation and abuse.

Who's said that almost any employment situation is exploitation and abuse?

Quote from: John MorrowIsn't there a middle ground here and, if so, what is it?

My middle ground is this: treat vulnerable and non-vulnerable people the same in your dealings with them. If you employ illegal immigrants, give them the same pay as you'd give locals. Don't harass or con them, even if they'd let you.

Quote from: HinterWeltHonestly, I am rather surprised this line of reasoning (we need to take care of people, make their decisions for them) would come from you who are so strident about not invading other countries, letting them decide for themselves.

I didn't say that. I said that there is some shit you just don't do, even if the person consents to it. That includes violence to them, all kinds of abuse, ripping them off such as by paying them less than minimum wage, not paying them for overtime and so on. That includes implied threats of revealing their illegal status and so on. And it certainly includes getting them to sign a contract they can't read.

And jgants' example was a fairly clear one of people being exploited. Which is wrong, even if they consented to it.

Quote from: JackalopeI think at the end of the day there are basically two kinds of people in this world: People who will toss you a life preserver when you're drowning, and people who will sell you a life preserver when you are drowning.

I liked the definition I read a while back:

A man is drowning in a lake one hundred feet from shore. The liberal throws him a rope but doesn't tie it to anything and then wanders off to do good elsewhere; the conservative ties a rope to a tree stump, throws it fifty feet into the lake, and then tells the guy to swim.

Quote from: John Morrow;221948I understand the appeal of class war but know that engaging in it almost always makes everyone worse off in the end, particularly the poor.

You might tell that to all the fabulously wealthy winners of the war.

But then conservatives giving vast tax cuts to the rich and billion-dollar handouts to corporations is never class war while trade unionists demanding  demanding a living wage always is.

In fact your point is valid only in so far that given the current balance of forces struggling is indeed pretty pointless and we might as well roll over and let them do whatever they want to us - at least it will all be over quicker that way.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222040I didn't say that. I said that there is some shit you just don't do, even if the person consents to it.

You have said it in the past. citation (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=92836&postcount=106). Basically, it still sounds like you favor a hands off approach of self determination to countries but a hands on take bad decisions out of the hands of the poor ignorant bastard. It seems a bit contrary is all. Now, nothing wrong with that but you can hopefully understand why I made the statement.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222040That includes violence to them, all kinds of abuse, ripping them off such as by paying them less than minimum wage, not paying them for overtime and so on. That includes implied threats of revealing their illegal status and so on. And it certainly includes getting them to sign a contract they can't read.

Hmm, by your definition, my wife and I are part of these exploited masses. We do not get overtime. Due to that, it is quite possible that we would get paid less that minimum wage. Again, it comes back to choice. I choose not to let that happen.

Here is a scenario since folks are hot on these ridiculous vignettes. A rich man hands you a gun. Your family and you are starving. He offers you a million dollars to shoot and kill you wife. He has it right there. Are you the bad guy if you shoot your wife to feed you kids or is the rich man?

Now, me, I would find another way. But we have these ridiculous restraints where you cannot feed your family, you cannot do anything but the moral play as prescribed. The related point here would be about opportunity as it applies to choice. You do not want to hear that though. You wish to paint me as a heartless fuck who will abandon the poor to starvation. You really want a neo-con who thinks the poor are lazy. Again, I think you should take your own advice fight what is there, not what you want. If anything, I am giving poor folks more credit than you.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222040And jgants' example was a fairly clear one of people being exploited. Which is wrong, even if they consented to it.
[/I]

I don't know how many times I can state this or how many ways. I do not advocate fraud. I have stated the conditions the statement you are so offended by applies to. It does not apply to deceiving or misleading people into misery. Seriously, are you even reading what I am writing at this point or do you just so disparately want a neo-con to battle that you don't bother? If someone says "I have $20. Who wants to work for me for a day" and you jump up (without asking about the work, without asking where you are going) you deserve what you get (assuming it is hard labor and not kidnapping, slavery or other illegal/anti-social behavior). If someone says ""I will pay you 1 million dollars for a days work of laying around and sexing my harem" you should be wary but unless he follows through, he is conning you and wrong and should be punished. You shouldn't go with him so some of it is on you.

The simple version is, you are responsible for your choices, your actions. Don't  read anything into that.

Bill

Quote from: Hubert Farnsworth;222072But then conservatives giving vast tax cuts to the rich and billion-dollar handouts to corporations is never class war while trade unionists demanding  demanding a living wage always is.

Whilst i agree with you in the main, i want to indulge in going off on a little tangent.

There was a strike in the UK recently by the tanker drivers ferrying about all that very expensive petrol around the country. They said that they wanted a decent living wage. The report said they are currently paid £32,000 a year.

That's not a decent living wage?

I've never approached that sort of money and i've headed up research departments in the past (small ones admittedly, but still).

Edit: Contrast that wage with the typical wage of a private in the army - £17,000 per year.

Quote from: Hubert Farnsworth;222072But then conservatives giving vast tax cuts to the rich and billion-dollar handouts to corporations is never class war while trade unionists demanding  demanding a living wage always is.

Hubert, I like you.  You are my kind of people.

Quote from: HinterWelt;222084The simple version is, you are responsible for your choices, your actions. Don't  read anything into that.

Bill, I think I understand your position, but I also think your position is problematic.  It's not so much because of what you've said, but about how what you've said stands next to what other conservatives say and the reality of the situation that we're all looking.

I understand where you and Kyle are both coming from, it's just a matter of assumptions.

You're working on the assumption that freedom of choice is so important that we have to respect people's right to make bad choices.  You're saying that if someone makes an informed, consenting choice to contract for indentured servitude, that's their choice and it's horribly patronizing and elitist of others to insist they can make better choices for that person than that person.

I totally agree with you there.  100%.

But, I also get where Kyle is coming from.  Because he, and I, but apparently not you, recognize that -- outside of D/s sexual relationships --  no one enters into indentured servitude unless they are a) uninformed (i.e. fraud), b) non-consenting or consenting under duress, and/or c) not mentally competent to sign legal contracts.

So waving the banner of freedom of choice when the topic of economic exploitation comes up is...well, its obfuscation at best, simply clouding the issue.  It seems as if you are offering up the possibility that there isn't any exploitation going on, that all of these people are choosing to lead short, brutal dangerous lives scrambling for subsistence in ram-shackle villages while the people on the other side of the world who profit off their labor live more extravagantly than close friends of Louis XIV.

People make that "choice" because of a host of factors that make the phrase "freedom of choice" rather ironic.  Factors like lack of education and access to knowledge, particularly as regards the law; forced reliance on recruiters to explain contracts, recruiters may lie freely when nothing is written down and signer cannot understand text of contract; government oppression of labor groups that might provide access to legal information and lawyers to negotiate contracts; corrupt governments that allow crime to flourish and create predatory, desperate environment for citizens; etc.

When the choices are: a) Go work long hours in a dangerous factory for a subsistence wage with little or nothing in the way of rights; b) Sign a contract you can't read and travel illegally to another country to work for a company that won't let you leave the building; c) Take up a life of crime; d) Lay down in the street of some slum and wait to die; then choice is a pretty meaningless.

Quote from: Jackalope;222124Bill, I think I understand your position, but I also think your position is problematic.  It's not so much because of what you've said, but about how what you've said stands next to what other conservatives say and the reality of the situation that we're all looking.

I understand where you and Kyle are both coming from, it's just a matter of assumptions.

You're working on the assumption that freedom of choice is so important that we have to respect people's right to make bad choices.  You're saying that if someone makes an informed, consenting choice to contract for indentured servitude, that's their choice and it's horribly patronizing and elitist of others to insist they can make better choices for that person than that person.

I totally agree with you there.  100%.

Full Stop. That is what I meant. Now, we can continue with the other issues.

Quote from: Jackalope;222124But, I also get where Kyle is coming from.  Because he, and I, but apparently not you, recognize that -- outside of D/s sexual relationships --  no one enters into indentured servitude unless they are a) uninformed (i.e. fraud), b) non-consenting or consenting under duress, and/or c) not mentally competent to sign legal contracts.

Nit picky note: Uninformed is not necessarily fraud. You can just not read the contract. But I will agree that being misinformed is fraud and wrong.

I understand your premise, but I do not necessarily agree with it. There are people who sign up, knowing full well the downsides, to come to the US, work for diminished wages, live in horrid conditions so they can send money back to their homeland. Why do this? Because the economies of their homeland is low enough to make the dollar or less an hour they work for worth it. And no, I do not think this is right. It is indicative of a serious problem but again, that is another issue.

Quote from: Jackalope;222124So waving the banner of freedom of choice when the topic of economic exploitation comes up is...well, its obfuscation at best, simply clouding the issue.  It seems as if you are offering up the possibility that there isn't any exploitation going on, that all of these people are choosing to lead short, brutal dangerous lives scrambling for subsistence in ram-shackle villages while the people on the other side of the world who profit off their labor live more extravagantly than close friends of Louis XIV.

No. It was me, making one simple statement and Kyle running off with it. Big difference. Sigh. Look, if we want to talk about poverty let's do it but I was talking about choice.  You "seem" to want to regulate the existence of exploited people. You "seem" to want to do nothing about the source of the problem. See, making assumptions about others motivations just screws things up doesn't it?

Me, if we are now talking about poverty, my answer is again, offer opportunity and choice. I would set up learning missionaries. Small one man operations that can teach the basics of  math, reading and business. I would do so in a very focused curriculum that could be taught in one hour increments three to four times a week. In this way, they would be able to make informed choices. This would affect the supply side of the exploitation. Some organizations try to do this but I think again, close study and customization of the program is needed. A complex problem but not impossible.

All that said, there is not a vested interest by a corrupt, exploitative, self-absorbed government to allow that. So, first problem would be how to change those governments. Assuming the people do not like how they are treated, they need to rise up an effect change. Tall order and not an easy do.  

I have already discussed my rather simple solution to the demand side.

Quote from: Jackalope;222124People make that "choice" because of a host of factors that make the phrase "freedom of choice" rather ironic.  Factors like lack of education and access to knowledge, particularly as regards the law; forced reliance on recruiters to explain contracts, recruiters may lie freely when nothing is written down and signer cannot understand text of contract; government oppression of labor groups that might provide access to legal information and lawyers to negotiate contracts; corrupt governments that allow crime to flourish and create predatory, desperate environment for citizens; etc.

You just do not want to hear me do you. You really would like for me to be the big bad neo-con. I have stated this is wrong. All the bolded ones fall under the illegal/anti-social part. The previous is endemic to poverty and I said what I would do (and in ways do) to stem it. I still say, the root of the matter is choice.

Quote from: Jackalope;222124When the choices are: a) Go work long hours in a dangerous factory for a subsistence wage with little or nothing in the way of rights; b) Sign a contract you can't read and travel illegally to another country to work for a company that won't let you leave the building; c) Take up a life of crime; d) Lay down in the street of some slum and wait to die; then choice is a pretty meaningless.

No, see, this is a defeatist attitude, a victim mentality. I could just as easily quit and go on welfare. I could give up everything and beg for food. These are choices. I am not saying choices are good. I also do not believe life is inherently fair. I do believe we should strive to make our society better, we should have lofty goals. Now, that would be an interesting discussion. Still, on track, you list a series of bad choices. What makes you think those are the only choices? How about, learn a trade and sell your goods? How about revolt against the government? See, what you are talking about is improperly labeled under slavery/exploited poor. Slavery is a symptom. Poverty is the disease. So, why is this country poor? Why aren't there opportunities? These are the questions we should be asking.

That said, I do acknowledge your choices can lead you to a dead end or at least to a hard place. In your example, you have a series of questions unanswered. What is the nature of the area you live in that does not support anything but "the factory"? People need food, clothing, innumerable services. Can you do those. The point is, did you make a good decision before that lead you to these straights or was it maybe a bad one on your part? I fully acknowledge that things may happen outside your control. A runaway cart comes out a blind alley and mangles you. You can no longer work at your profession. Somehow, though, that is not what I think we are talking about. This is more systematic yes? So, now we ask about the economy, the government, business practices, laws and societal norms. A complex issue but again, one that could be solved if action is taken. Now, this is related only distantly to my original statement on choice but more to my statements on opportunities. Also, it broaches another subject on the role of governments, the responsibility of society to its members and businesses to their employees.

So, I have digressed quite a bit but hopefully addressed why I am a "heartless fuck". ;)

Bill

Quote from: One Horse Town;222086That's not a decent living wage?

That's a big problem with the whole concept of a "decent living wage"?  Who gets to decide what that means exactly?

Quote from: John Morrow;222172That's a big problem with the whole concept of a "decent living wage"?  Who gets to decide what that means exactly?

There are established methods and indexes of calculating living wage based on present cost of living, value of local currency, etc.

Is there one of those fancy Latin terms for "suggesting an issue is cloudier than it actually is"?

Quote from: J Arcane;222174There are established methods and indexes of calculating living wage based on present cost of living, value of local currency, etc.

And given that those methods make all sorts of subjectivve assumptions about standards of living and living costs, it's hardly that simple, nor do they account for the effects that a "living wage" would have on the assumptions used to calculate it.

For example, one comprehensive site that I looked at here (http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/) made all sorts of odd assumptions that I'd question, including the assumption that single people live alone and have to be responsible for maintaining a residence on their own, that two adults will have only one wage earner even if they don't have children, and so on.  Another site pegged their living wage to 130% of the average rent but ignores the impact that a "living wage" have on the prevailing rent, since rent is significantly determined by supply and demand.  

And in those places where a "living wage" has been implemented in the US, the average income rises slightly but the unemployment rate, particularly among the bottom end of the employment ladder, goes up (much as you see in Europe).  Why?  Because certain jobs just become uneconomical to pay someone for if they cost more.  Roughly speaking, it might be worth it for me to pay someone $20 to mow my lawn and save me an hour or two but it may not be worth $30 or $40 for me, at which point I'll do it myself.  There are a lot of service jobs that are paid minimum wage that do services that people could do without if they cost more.  And let's not forget that the people earning the "living wage" will have to pay those higher costs so that other people can earn a "living wage".  And do we also owe the people who don't work because of this a "living wage" on unemployment?  And if unemployed people can live more comfortably, doesn't that weaken their incentive to find work?

That's a typical right-wing argument John. That suddenly, under a social welfare system, people become lazy, money-grabbing slobs. Why should the better off help support them? Because they're better off.

You get your fair share of those who take advantage of social welfare systems, but you can't just chuck everyone into the same boat. Means-testing has some success in welfare and until there is an infallible system, it is my belief that those in need should be supported - even if it means supporting those who are on the fix. As soon as you start trying to make inflexible systems that don't differentiate people you get sickening travesties of justice. Like disabled people and injured soldiers losing their homes. Which has happened quite recently, here in the UK.

If you really, unequivicably want to call yourself a civilised society, you take care of those with less than you have and provide them with the means to get to a position where they can help those with less.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195That's a typical right-wing argument John. That suddenly, under a social welfare system, people become lazy, money-grabbing slobs. Why should the better off help support them? Because they're better off.

You get your fair share of those who take advantage of social welfare systems, but you can't just chuck everyone into the same boat. Means-testing has some success in welfare and until there is an infallible system, it is my belief that those in need should be supported - even if it means supporting those who are on the fix. As soon as you start trying to make inflexible systems that don't differentiate people you get sickening travesties of justice. Like disabled people and injured soldiers losing their homes. Which has happened quite recently, here in the UK.

If you really, unequivicably want to call yourself a civilised society, you take care of those with less than you have and provide them with the means to get to a position where they can help those with less.

Gee, Dan, I may lose my "heartless fuck" status but I agree with you.;) I think it should be limited in the vast majority of cases, say 6 months to a year, enough to get you back on your feet and working. In some cases, yes, you should have a means for permanently aiding the disabled of your society. That said, I do not think it is something a person should be proud of or think of it as normal and nothing to be ashamed of. There is something to be said of earing you own way and being proud of it. If, societally, you make a career welfare system that your members can be a part of and believe they are contributing, well, I think you have a problem. Now, I personally think disabled people and  elderly should be under a separate system from the unemployed. It is one thing to be permanently disabled and an entirely different thing to be down on your luck.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;222196Gee, Dan, I may lose my "heartless fuck" status but I agree with you.;) I think it should be limited in the vast majority of cases, say 6 months to a year, enough to get you back on your feet and working. In some cases, yes, you should have a means for permanently aiding the disabled of your society. That said, I do not think it is something a person should be proud of or think of it as normal and nothing to be ashamed of. There is something to be said of earing you own way and being proud of it. If, societally, you make a career welfare system that your members can be a part of and believe they are contributing, well, I think you have a problem. Now, I personally think disabled people and  elderly should be under a separate system from the unemployed. It is one thing to be permanently disabled and an entirely different thing to be down on your luck.

Bill

Simple unemployment is much easier to police, really. In the UK, if, within 6 months, you do not provide evidence that the social welfare people are convinced you've been looking for work (ie, rejection letters, job appliactions etc), then you have the choice of loosing your benifit or being placed on a training course or job of their choice.

Unfortunately, it's disability benifit that sees the greatest amount of fraud. It's a bit of a stigma, to begin with, telling someone they're 'not really sick' and as seen above, if you try to clamp down on the fraudsters, the genuinly needy are tarred with the same brush. Disability is where the problem is, or 'on the sick' as disreputable types call it.

Quote from: John Morrow;222194And given that those methods make all sorts of subjectivve assumptions about standards of living and living costs, it's hardly that simple, nor do they account for the effects that a "living wage" would have on the assumptions used to calculate it.

For example, one comprehensive site that I looked at here (http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/) made all sorts of odd assumptions that I'd question, including the assumption that single people live alone and have to be responsible for maintaining a residence on their own, that two adults will have only one wage earner even if they don't have children, and so on.  Another site pegged their living wage to 130% of the average rent but ignores the impact that a "living wage" have on the prevailing rent, since rent is significantly determined by supply and demand.

So when was the last time you made a working class wage, Mr. Morrow?  Those are hardly unreasonable assumptions, and in the case of the "130%", is actually a far tighter margin than I would even dream of trying to live on.  

QuoteAnd in those places where a "living wage" has been implemented in the US, the average income rises slightly but the unemployment rate, particularly among the bottom end of the employment ladder, goes up (much as you see in Europe).  Why?  Because certain jobs just become uneconomical to pay someone for if they cost more.  Roughly speaking, it might be worth it for me to pay someone $20 to mow my lawn and save me an hour or two but it may not be worth $30 or $40 for me, at which point I'll do it myself.  There are a lot of service jobs that are paid minimum wage that do services that people could do without if they cost more.  And let's not forget that the people earning the "living wage" will have to pay those higher costs so that other people can earn a "living wage".  And do we also owe the people who don't work because of this a "living wage" on unemployment?  And if unemployed people can live more comfortably, doesn't that weaken their incentive to find work?

Replace "living wage" with "minimum wage" and I've been hearing the same bloody arguments as long as I've been old enough to understand them, and I've yet to see the economy collapse from a minimum wage hike, no matter how much the business sector wants to go Chicken Little over some poor schlub getting an extra few cents or few dollars an hour.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222198Simple unemployment is much easier to police, really. In the UK, if, within 6 months, you do not provide evidence that the social welfare people are convinced you've been looking for work (ie, rejection letters, job appliactions etc), then you have the choice of loosing your benifit or being placed on a training course or job of their choice.

Unfortunately, it's disability benifit that sees the greatest amount of fraud. It's a bit of a stigma, to begin with, telling someone they're 'not really sick' and as seen above, if you try to clamp down on the fraudsters, the genuinly needy are tarred with the same brush. Disability is where the problem is, or 'on the sick' as disreputable types call it.

It would seem problematic from several points. First would be the formidable issue of definition. Who is disabled? Depending on your own life view, it could be limited to physically unable to move and maybe not even then. Alternatively, in the broadest sense, it could be if you are eliminated from any possible job despite being able to do many viable professions. For instance, my brother is color blind. Would he be disabled? So, yeah, out the gate we have issues. Follow that up with fraud as you mentioned and it gets sticky. So, tight regulation is needed but it must also be tempered with compassion. Again, and this might be unpopular, I still believe it should be an opportunity oriented program. Get as many working as possible. Not to torture them but to help with self image, self reliability and integration in society. This would also help decrease case load and thus allow closer attention to individual cases remaining.

Now, note, I am no expert in these matter and am speaking generally. For all I know, this is the way it works now.

Bill

Quote from: J Arcane;222206So when was the last time you made a working class wage, Mr. Morrow?  Those are hardly unreasonable assumptions, and in the case of the "130%", is actually a far tighter margin than I would even dream of trying to live on.

The 130% assumes you are living alone.  When I first graduated college, I had 4 roommates and made so little that I paid about a fifth of my take-home pay on commuting costs.  Then I got married and shared the rent with my wife.  And the single people I know all had roommates.  Why should the default assumption be a single person maintaining the rent on their own?

As for the last time I made a working class wage, it's been a while because I understood that the goal shouldn't be to do a job that any unskilled schmuck half your age can do just as well as you can for your entire adult life.  

Quote from: J Arcane;222206Replace "living wage" with "minimum wage" and I've been hearing the same bloody arguments as long as I've been old enough to understand them, and I've yet to see the economy collapse from a minimum wage hike, no matter how much the business sector wants to go Chicken Little over some poor schlub getting an extra few cents or few dollars an hour.

The economy hasn't collapsed from a minimum wage hike because there has never been one as high as the "living wage" advocates support.  But you can compare the unemployment rates and demographics in cities that have implemented a "llving wage" in the United States and the rates and demographics in countries in Europe that have implemented policies that make hiring employees very expensive and see the effect in action.  A "living wage" (the topic we are talking about here -- nice attempt to change the subject, though) would be substantially higher than the current minimum wage.  And if you really think working class people are worth a few extra dollars per hour, feel free to tip the working class employees whose labor you utilize a few extra dollars the next time you buy prepared food, buy groceries, get your hair cut, etc.  How much to you tip when you eat at a restaurant or get your hair cut?  There is nothing stopping you from giving working-class people more money out of your own pocket, rather than forcing other people to pay for it.  It's easy to be generous with someone else's money.  (That heartless rich talk radio host Rush Limbaugh is known to drop up to $5,000 tips at restaurants that he eats at (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&hp), by the way.)

Quote from: John Morrow;222219And if you really think working class people are worth a few extra dollars per hour, feel free to tip the working class employees whose labor you utilize a few extra dollars the next time you buy prepared food, buy groceries, get your hair cut, etc.  How much to you tip when you eat at a restaurant or get your hair cut?  There is nothing stopping you from giving working-class people more money out of your own pocket, rather than forcing other people to pay for it.  It's easy to be generous with someone else's money.  (That heartless rich talk radio host Rush Limbaugh is known to drop up to $5,000 tips at restaurants that he eats at (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&hp), by the way.)

Translated from Asshole:

"Why pay people enough money to thrive?  They should be happy with whatever bread crumbs wealthier people toss their way."

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195That's a typical right-wing argument John. That suddenly, under a social welfare system, people become lazy, money-grabbing slobs.

...with a sense of entitlement.  Yes.  It happens.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195Why should the better off help support them? Because they're better off.

No, the better off should help them get out of poverty.  People support children, dependents, pets, and slaves and that's exactly what the poor become when they are simply supported.  People should not be encouraged to exist like potted plants.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195You get your fair share of those who take advantage of social welfare systems, but you can't just chuck everyone into the same boat.

Unfortunately, while it sounds easy and reasonable to separate the deserving from the undeserving, it's not so simple when you try to institutionalize it and but bureaucrats in charge of making the decision.  Bear in mind that I've worked in government and have seen how these things work from the inside.  Impersonal bureaucracies are not the best way to help anyone do anything.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195Means-testing has some success in welfare and until there is an infallible system, it is my belief that those in need should be supported - even if it means supporting those who are on the fix. As soon as you start trying to make inflexible systems that don't differentiate people you get sickening travesties of justice. Like disabled people and injured soldiers losing their homes. Which has happened quite recently, here in the UK.

I agree that those truly in need should be taken care of and I do support some sort of safety net for people like the truly disabled or needy.  But I don't think that means we can disregard the abuse of benefits and ignore it.  And destroying families and trapping people in poverty is every bit as much of a travesty of justice as not helping a needy person.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222195If you really, unequivicably want to call yourself a civilised society, you take care of those with less than you have and provide them with the means to get to a position where they can help those with less.

In my experience, conservatives are not opposed to giving help to the disadvantaged, they are opposed to the government doing it and making it mandatory.  And they also realize that the rich do help those with less when they start businesses, make purchases of big-ticket items that require a lot of craftsmanship to manufacture, and hire staff to take care of their property and family.  If nobody was wealthy enough to buy a yacht, then nobody would have skilled work as a yacht builder.

Quote from: Jackalope;222224"Why pay people enough money to thrive?  They should be happy with whatever bread crumbs wealthier people toss their way."

Translation from Asshole:

"I love the idea of spending other people's money to impersonally help those in need but I'm too selfish and useless to earn and spend my own money and spend my own time to help them."

Quote from: John Morrow;222228Translation from Asshole:

"I love the idea of spending other people's money to impersonally help those in need but I'm too selfish and useless to earn and spend my own money and spend my own time to help them."

Yeah, except I never suggested anything of the sort, whereas you actually were asshole enough to suggest that poverty can be overcome by tipping better.

I don't actually support spending other people's money John.  I support shooting rich people in the head and taking their stuff.  I'll take warfare over welfare any day.  All welfare does is help secure the position of all those assholes who already have the money and the power.

Quote from: Jackalope;222236Yeah, except I never suggested anything of the sort, whereas you actually were asshole enough to suggest that poverty can be overcome by tipping better.

Why do you find it more preferable (and realistic) to overcome poverty by requiring employers to pay their employees more involuntarily, which will inevitably lead to them passing those costs on to their customers (or will encourage them to hire fewer workers, especially at the unskilled level), instead of those customers voluntarily paying those employees extra for their services?  You do realize that requiring businesses to spend more money inevitably gets passed on to consumers, making it a sort of sales tax, one of the most regressive forms of taxation there is, right?

But my main point is that if you really believe that checkout clerks, food service workers, stocking clerks, waiters, landscapers, and so on are worth more than they are being paid, then why don't you just give them some extra money yourself?  Tip them 50% of your bill.  Slip them a $5.  Give them some of your money.

Quote from: Jackalope;222236I don't actually support spending other people's money John.  I support shooting rich people in the head and taking their stuff.  I'll take warfare over welfare any day.  All welfare does is help secure the position of all those assholes who already have the money and the power.

Yeah, that's worked out well every time it's been tried (and it has been tried many times). :rolleyes:

You might want to consider why Mozambican president Samora Machel advised Robert Mugabe to, "Keep your whites," based on his own country's experience (90% of the whites in Mozambique fled) even though the whites clearly took and held the best land in those African nations in a situation that would be difficult if not impossible to see as anything other than unjust and unfair, and why once-prosperous Zimbabwe has become a famine-plagued basket case since Robert Mugabe decided to turn his back on that advice and, instead, started to abuse and kill the rich white people and take their stuff.  Large piles of dead poor people often start with small piles of dead rich people.

Quote from: John Morrow;222227...with a sense of entitlement.  Yes.  It happens.

Of course, under a social welfare system, there's no sense of entitlement, there's entitlement.

QuoteNo, the better off should help them get out of poverty.  People support children, dependents, pets, and slaves and that's exactly what the poor become when they are simply supported.  People should not be encouraged to exist like potted plants.

Read my last paragraph again, John.

QuoteIn my experience, conservatives are not opposed to giving help to the disadvantaged, they are opposed to the government doing it and making it mandatory.  And they also realize that the rich do help those with less when they start businesses, make purchases of big-ticket items that require a lot of craftsmanship to manufacture, and hire staff to take care of their property and family.  If nobody was wealthy enough to buy a yacht, then nobody would have skilled work as a yacht builder.

They stay wealthy by paying shit money. You know it and i know it.

How is it in the current fuel crisis that petrol companies are making record profits?

Quote from: Jackalope;222236All welfare does is help secure the position of all those assholes who already have the money and the power.

That's the irony of Morrow's viewpoint. Implement his ideas and we'd have a revolution.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222241Of course, under a social welfare system, there's no sense of entitlement, there's entitlement.

Are we talking about legal entitlement or moral entitlement?

Quote from: One Horse Town;222241Read my last paragraph again, John.

Yes, and there is a disconnect between the idea of supporting the poor and erring on the side of being too generous and the goals of your last paragraph.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222241They stay wealthy by paying shit money. You know it and i know it.

So you feel it has nothing to do with hard work because the rich don't actually work hard or do anything that anyone else couldn't do, right?

I highly recommend reading Thomas Sowell's writing on Middleman Minorities.  A pretty comprehensive example from one of his books can be found here (http://entitledtoanopinion.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/sowellgeneric.pdf).  People resent those who make profits distributing materials and goods because people predictably don't think of effort involved in making a business operate properly as "work" even though they'd be unable to run a business properly themselves if placed in that role.  Given your point about companies paying crap money in order to make money and stay wealthy, why is it that management positions, including middle-management positions that the "little guy" can work into, pay well?  If it's so easy to manage a business, couldn't they just hire random schmucks off the streets at minimum wage to do it for a lot less?  Or maybe if managing business is a useless parasitic activity, they could do without?

Quote from: One Horse Town;222241How is it in the current fuel crisis that petrol companies are making record profits?

I'm going to oversimplify but let's see if this makes any sense.  10% of $1.00 is $0.10.  10% of $4.00 is $0.40.  Thus if they sell 1000 gallons of $1.00 gas at a 10% profit, they'll earn $100.  If they sell 1000 gallons of $4.00 gas at a 10% profit, they'll earn $400 or 400% what they'd earn at $1.00 a gallon.  On a more basic level, it's more profitable to trade in something that is rare and is insufficient to meet demand that something that's a common commodity that you can get anywhere.  It's easier to sell gold at a high profit than gravel.

Quote from: droog;222244That's the irony of Morrow's viewpoint. Implement his ideas and we'd have a revolution.

Then we should implement his ideas!  Sometimes I think the only way to fix the system is to break it so badly that it explodes under its own weight.  Sure, it's messier that way, and you waste a lot of time rebuilding, but I don't think the liberal establishment has it in them to make any sort of real systematic change that might improve things.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy do you find it more preferable (and realistic) to overcome poverty by requiring employers to pay their employees more involuntarily, which will blah blah blah...

I don't recall saying I was in favor of the minimum wage or minimum wage increases.

QuoteYou do realize that requiring businesses to spend more money inevitably gets passed on to consumers, making it a sort of sales tax, one of the most regressive forms of taxation there is, right?

Sure John, I have a pretty firm grasp of basic economics.

QuoteBut my main point is that if you really believe that checkout clerks, food service workers, stocking clerks, waiters, landscapers, and so on are worth more than they are being paid, then why don't you just give them some extra money yourself? Tip them 50% of your bill. Slip them a $5. Give them some of your money.

Well, John, the real issue isn't the checkout clerks, food service workers, stocking clerks, waiters, landscapers, and so on.  Since yesterday was the 4th of July, let's say that -- today -- the real issue is the children who are forced to pack fireworks in dangerous conditions (http://sumsumthing.blogspot.com/2007/12/fireworks-and-child-labour.html).

Maybe tomorrow the issue will be something different.

QuoteYeah, that's worked out well every time it's been tried (and it has been tried many times).

Yeah, you'd think rich people would learn something from the fact that it keeps happening.  It's no surprise that desperately poor people don't, since, you know, they tend to lack a strong educational background.

That's changing though, as guerrilla education becomes more common.

Quote from: John Morrow;222250People resent those who make profits distributing materials and goods because...

(http://images.askmen.com/galleries/model/paris-hilton/pictures/paris-hilton-picture-1.jpg)

(http://hv3008.k12.sd.us/Year%20Born/George-Bush-Jr-Photograph-C10042275.jpg)

(http://soxkills.com/kenny%20boy.jpg)

(http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/scaife.jpg)

(http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/Jack-Abramoff-main.jpg)

Should I go on?  I could go on for a really long time.

People resent people with a lot of money and power because people with a lot of money and power use their money and power to cheat, rob, steal, and fuck over everyone else.  People with money and power fail upwards.  People with money and power have fucking obnoxious stupid children that are a carbuncle on the soul of humanity.

People resent the rich and powerful because they have obnoxious cocksuckers around like you to defend their virtuous natures, when we all know that they are in fact a bunch of fucking assholes.

I don't care how fucking hard it is to run a multinational corporation.  If you're living like a pig while the people who work for you are fucking dying, then you're an asshole, you deserve a bullet in the face, end of story.   We'll sort it out later.

Quote from: John Morrow;222250I highly recommend reading Thomas Sowell's writing on Middleman Minorities.  A pretty comprehensive example from one of his books can be found here (http://entitledtoanopinion.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/sowellgeneric.pdf).  People resent those who make profits distributing materials and goods because people predictably don't think of effort involved in making a business operate properly as "work" even though they'd be unable to run a business properly themselves if placed in that role.

That article is primarily about 'minorities'. As Sowell seems to recognise, indigenous middlemen do not suffer the same sort of disapprobation. It's a very old story: Edward I expelled the Jews from England.

This has a lot to do with the way in which those same minorities are exploited by ruling classes, as well as the fact that the middle classes are always squeezed between capital and labour. Never mind 'resentment'. How about the way in which small business is choked off by larger and more efficient business?

Quote from: Jackalope;222251Then we should implement his ideas!  Sometimes I think the only way to fix the system is to break it so badly that it explodes under its own weight.  Sure, it's messier that way, and you waste a lot of time rebuilding, but I don't think the liberal establishment has it in them to make any sort of real systematic change that might improve things.

Of course they don't. They call for more policemen instead.

Anyway, ideologues like Morrow doesn't realise their position. They are the modern equivalent of the toady.

Quote from: Jackalope;222251Well, John, the real issue isn't the checkout clerks, food service workers, stocking clerks, waiters, landscapers, and so on.  Since yesterday was the 4th of July, let's say that -- today -- the real issue is the children who are forced to pack fireworks in dangerous conditions (http://sumsumthing.blogspot.com/2007/12/fireworks-and-child-labour.html).

And according to that article, those fireworks are consumed domestically.  In my state, private use of even sparklers without a license is illegal.  So why is America responsible for the abuse of Indian children to pack fireworks used in India?  Isn't that the Indian government's problem to solve?  I could also ask where the parents are but I'm also aware that there is far worse in India (intergenerational indentured servitude).

Quote from: Jackalope;222251Maybe tomorrow the issue will be something different.

Of course.  It conveniently never ends.

Quote from: Jackalope;222251Yeah, you'd think rich people would learn something from the fact that it keeps happening.  It's no surprise that desperately poor people don't, since, you know, they tend to lack a strong educational background.

The poor don't rise up because they generally aren't as desperate as you make them out to be.  Desperate is what my father saw in China between the end of WW2 and the communist takeover when the people were people on boats collected the garbage from his ship and auctioned it off to hungry people on shore who were otherwise eating dirt and grass.  There is a reason why most communist revolutions have been supported by poor unhappy farmers rather than poor unhappy factory workers.

Quote from: Jackalope;222251That's changing though, as guerrilla education becomes more common.

It's called "propaganda" and, yes, the uneducated are particularly vulnerable to it.  That doesn't mean that they'll be better off.  History suggests that they odds are good that they'll wind up worse off, if not dead.

Quote from: Jackalope;222252People resent the rich and powerful because they have obnoxious cocksuckers around like you to defend their virtuous natures, when we all know that they are in fact a bunch of fucking assholes.

I don't care how fucking hard it is to run a multinational corporation.  If you're living like a pig while the people who work for you are fucking dying, then you're an asshole, you deserve a bullet in the face, end of story.   We'll sort it out later.

Just to be sure, there are business owners who do not "live like pigs while the people who work for them are fucking dying" then? I mean, is this a case that if you have any wealth you are evil? It sure sounds like it but I almost think it is a joke, seriously, no snark intended. I am having trouble believing either you or droog are interested in honest discussion since if you were truly this angry at any form of wealth, you would not have a computer, you would not have power to run the computer, you would be living on the street and begging for food. I know, that is an extreme but you are raging the machine something fierce here and painting a pretty simple picture. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but you really sound like you are trolling.

Let me point out that I think the folks you pointed to are pretty heinous and shallow as well but I also don't think money makes you evil. Being poor does not make you virtuous. Evil knows no class distinction.

Bill

Quote from: Jackalope;222252Should I go on?  I could go on for a really long time.

Please do.  And what percentage of rich people are you going to post pictures of?  Of the pictures you did post, Paris Hilton's grandfather pledged 97 percent of his estate to charity upon his death and much lot of the money she makes is because people seem to want to watch her.  Kenneth Lay was born poor and delivered newspapers and mowed lawns as a child.  He figured out how to get rich and then got greedy and got caught.  He seems like a case study in both the American dream (a poor kid rising to wealth) and the system working (he was indicted for his role in Enron's collapse).  Jack Abramoff was indicted and convicted during the Bush Presidency.  I'm sorry if I don't have the knee-jerk left-wing boogeyman reaction to these people that you seem to expect.

Quote from: Jackalope;222252People resent people with a lot of money and power because people with a lot of money and power use their money and power to cheat, rob, steal, and fuck over everyone else.  People with money and power fail upwards.

Really?  Is that why Kenneth Lay was indicted?  Is that way Jack Abramoff is in jail?  

Quote from: Jackalope;222252People with money and power have fucking obnoxious stupid children that are a carbuncle on the soul of humanity.

And most of those children wind up squandering their inheritance.  Rich families are the business equivalent of royal lines and just as you inevitably get a bad king that throws it all away, you inevitably get a bad heir that throws it all away.

Quote from: Jackalope;222252People resent the rich and powerful because they have obnoxious cocksuckers around like you to defend their virtuous natures, when we all know that they are in fact a bunch of fucking assholes.

It's not a matter of virtuous natures.  It's a matter of appreciating the role that they serve and that the alternative is worse for everyone, including the poor.

Quote from: Jackalope;222252I don't care how fucking hard it is to run a multinational corporation.  If you're living like a pig while the people who work for you are fucking dying, then you're an asshole, you deserve a bullet in the face, end of story.   We'll sort it out later.

Of course we will.  You care so very much that the people working for the multinational corporation but are totally indifferent to the thousands and millions who have died "sorting it out later".  What that tells me is that your concern about the poor is really a side-show and your top priority is getting the rich because they personally offend you, even if you have to let plenty of poor people suffer or die in the process of getting them.  And people wonder how things like the Khmer Rouge happen...

Quote from: John Morrow;222259Of course.  It conveniently never ends.

:thanx:

That made my day.

Quote from: droog;222255That article is primarily about 'minorities'.

The article is about the resentment of a specific type of minority -- those involved in running businesses that are often accused of exploiting the poor.

Quote from: droog;222255As Sowell seems to recognise, indigenous middlemen do not suffer the same sort of disapprobation. It's a very old story: Edward I expelled the Jews from England.

Sowell writes, "However, in a worldwide perspective, the most hated kinds of minorities are often not defined by race, color, religion, or national origin. Often they are generically "middleman minorities," who can be of any racial or ethnic background, and in fact are of many."  If you read the critiques leveled at middleman minorities, they are almost identical to the critiques being leveled at "the rich" because the origin of the resentment is the same.  

As Sowell writes in his book Race and Culture about the same general topic:

   Whatever the race or culture of the middlemen, they have aroused suspicions, resentments, and misunderstandings in the most disparate societies around the world.  Even where they were not a distinct minority at all, the very functions they performed have been misunderstood and the people performing them condemned.  Selling the same product for more than it cost the seller has been seen as morally objectionable, and requiring more money to be repaid than was lent originally has been condemned in both secular and religious laws.  Merchants were held in low esteem in Confucian China and usury was outlawed in both the Christian societies of medieval Europe and the Moslem societies of North Africa and the Middle East.  A common complaint among the colonial officials of West Africa during the imperialist era was that there was excessive petty trading going on among the Africans, who would be more productive if transferred into either industry or agriculture.  Yet a noted economist who studied the economy of the region found that these African petty traders performed essential and valuable services, which he analyzed in detail and concluded: "If the traders were superfluous, and their services unnecessary, the customers would bypass them and save the price of their services, that is, the profit margin of the intermediaries."  Many of these supposedly redundant African petty traders camped outside European-owned stores, so the alternative of eliminating the middleman was readily at hand, had the African consumers chosen to buy in the standard quantities sold by European merchants, rather than purchase in the smaller quantities offered by African traders who would sell "a single drop of perfume, half a cigarette or a small bundle of ten matches."

The problem is that people resent the idea of people getting rich doing "business", making money by moving goods and money around rather than actually making, mining, or growing something directly.  It doesn't seem fair and triggers a sense of moral outrage that make people hate the middleman minority or, more generally, businesspeople and the rich.

Quote from: droog;222255This has a lot to do with the way in which those same minorities are exploited by ruling classes, as well as the fact that the middle classes are always squeezed between capital and labour.

In my experience, when the people in the middle class chose to invest capital and take entrepreneurial risks, they can become rich.  Many middle class people, myself included, are simply averse to the risks involved in investments and entrepreneurial business.

Quote from: droog;222255Never mind 'resentment'. How about the way in which small business is choked off by larger and more efficient business?

I agree that's a problem but the small businesses are not simply choked off by the efficiencies of larger businesses.  In the United States, anyway, it is the large businesses that support increases in the minimum wage, increased worker protections, increased reporting, and so on because the large businesses are better able to use absorb the costs related to all of those mandates than small businesses.  So government can also be used as an instrument by big business to bludgeon small businesses under the guise of helping workers, the poor, and the disadvantaged.

ADDED: I should add that the whole "middleman minority" issue is great fodder for role-playing settings and adventures.

Quote from: Jackalope;222266That made my day.

And, predictably, you make a pointless comment about a minor comment rather than addressing the main points of my reply.  Yeah, that's a real testament to the soundness of your arguments.

Quote from: HinterWelt;222260Just to be sure, there are business owners who do not "live like pigs while the people who work for them are fucking dying" then? I mean, is this a case that if you have any wealth you are evil? It sure sounds like it but I almost think it is a joke, seriously, no snark intended. I am having trouble believing either you or droog are interested in honest discussion...

I can't have honest discussions about politics and economics with most people, because people REALLY get caught up in little boxes and can't even comprehend really radical ideas.  I won't even try to discuss what I really think when there are morons like John around.  He's the kind of guy that you can't say "worker ownership' around without him accusing you of being a goose-stepping communazi.  Probably has no idea who Ben Tucker is.

Anyways, no, I don't mean anyone who owns a business.  My ire is reserved primarily for the ultra-wealthy top 1% who own the majority of the world (and the governments) and let people starve and die, when there are so many ways that the free market could better serve people.

Quote from: John Morrow;222268The problem is that people resent the idea of people getting rich doing "business", making money by moving goods and money around rather than actually making, mining, or growing something directly.  It doesn't seem fair and triggers a sense of moral outrage that make people hate the middleman minority or, more generally, businesspeople and the rich.

This is so fucking laughable.  I feel sad for you that you really believe this nonsense.

Quote from: Jackalope;222271This is so fucking laughable.  I feel sad for you that you really believe this nonsense.

What's nonsense about it?  That people have considered usury and making money by trading morally questionable throughout moral history?  That disgust over perceived unfairness is a part of normal human morality?

Quote from: John Morrow;222268Sowell writes, "However, in a worldwide perspective, the most hated kinds of minorities are often not defined by race, color, religion, or national origin. Often they are generically "middleman minorities," who can be of any racial or ethnic background, and in fact are of many."The problem is that people resent the idea of people getting rich doing "business", making money by moving goods and money around rather than actually making, mining, or growing something directly.  It doesn't seem fair and triggers a sense of moral outrage that make people hate the middleman minority or, more generally, businesspeople and the rich.
...............................................................
The problem is that people resent the idea of people getting rich doing "business", making money by moving goods and money around rather than actually making, mining, or growing something directly. It doesn't seem fair and triggers a sense of moral outrage that make people hate the middleman minority or, more generally, businesspeople and the rich.

So good you said it twice? Gee, feudal-agricultural societies mistrust mercantile activity--what a surprise. I can't see much evidence of that in our society, where owning your own business is a dream of millions. Our last government was in fact elected on a mantra of supporting small business. However, three out of five small businesses still go under in the first year.

Of course government is used by capital for its own political ends. It's often the same people. It certainly serves the same class ends. And naturally, those ends involve damping down social unrest and class warfare, which is how social welfare and wage policy got started.

Quote from: Jackalope;222270I won't even try to discuss what I really think when there are morons like John around.  He's the kind of guy that you can't say "worker ownership' around without him accusing you of being a goose-stepping communazi.

Should I also add that I've also worked for a small employee-owned company with a 35-hour work week?  I've seen it in practice.  While it has it's benefits, it also had its liabilities.  For example, the company I worked for wound up selling themselves to a group of investors to keep the company going.

Quote from: Jackalope;222270Probably has no idea who Ben Tucker is.

So, exactly how did Benjamin Tucker support himself for all of those years?  

Quote from: Jackalope;222270Anyways, no, I don't mean anyone who owns a business.  My ire is reserved primarily for the ultra-wealthy top 1% who own the majority of the world (and the governments) and let people starve and die, when there are so many ways that the free market could better serve people.

How many people starve and die in free market countries compared to people who starve and die in workers' paradises like North Korea?  And how many people die attempting the sort of major social upheaval that you claim to support?  I'm still not getting the impression that the plight of the poor is your main concern here.

Quote from: droog;222273So good you said it twice?

Yes.

Quote from: droog;222273Gee, feudal-agricultural societies mistrust mercantile activity--what a surprise. I can't see much evidence of that in our society, where owning your own business is a dream of millions.

Is it really?  Do people really want to own a business in any real sense (doing the things that they need to do to make a business succeed) or are they simply attracted to the idea in the abstract?

Quote from: droog;222273However, three out of five small businesses still go under in the first year.

And why do 60% of small businesses fail in the first year?

Quote from: John Morrow;222276And why do 60% of small businesses fail in the first year?

I'll let you explain that. By the way, you're getting your arguments confused. Jackalope appears to be a free-market anarchist, not a commie.

Quote from: droog;222277I'll let you explain that.

When I worked for my states taxation department doing tax inspections, at least part of the main problems that I heard about were (A) that the small business was undercapitalized and (B) that the person started the business because it was something that they loved, without researching whether it was a viable business or not.  Restaurants seemed to be a particularly common business for people to start and fail at.

Quote from: droog;222273By the way, you're getting your arguments confused. Jackalope appears to be a free-market anarchist, not a commie.

I'm not sure exactly what Jackalope believes and to be honest, anarchists make even less sense to me than libertarians.

Quote from: John Morrow;222278When I worked for my states taxation department doing tax inspections, at least part of the main problems that I heard about were (A) that the small business was undercapitalized and (B) that the person started the business because it was something that they loved, without researching whether it was a viable business or not.  Restaurants seemed to be a particularly common business for people to start and fail at.

How does that support your notion that the predominant ideological trend is against middlemen?

Quote from: droog;222279How does that support your notion that the predominant ideological trend is against middlemen?

I think the reasons why businesses fail suggests there are many people who either aren't really interested in the business part of running their own business or often aren't very good at it.

And the reason why I think they aren't interested in it or aren't good at it is that it makes them feel dirty or dishonest making a profit.

Quote from: John Morrow;222275Should I also add that I've also worked for a small employee-owned company with a 35-hour work week?  I've seen it in practice.  While it has it's benefits, it also had its liabilities.  For example, the company I worked for wound up selling themselves to a group of investors to keep the company going.

Yeah, the deck is stacked against worker-ownership.  Investor-ownership allows for a lot power to force employees to take a hit for the company.  Of course, modern investor-ownership is a government created market.  Welfare for rich people.

Have you ever heard of Mondragon Corporate Collective?  It has over 23,000 employees, is worker owned (moslty, about 1/4th of the total employees are non-members), operates in 16 countries, and was worth more than 3 billion dollars in 1998.  Hard to keep track of them unfortunately, they operate in the Spanish speaking world.  They do everything from make medicine to bus to appliances to software to financial planning (ok, I guess they don't "make" financial planning, but they offer it as a service).  They own their own schools, from kindergartens to colleges, as well as hospitals, clinics, and retirement communities for former workers.  The only government support they get is a lower tax rate than investor-owned corporations.

My favorite feature of their organization is the way they pay their employee/members.  The company pays a set weekly wage which is multiplied by a wage multiplier (its very gamist), and the multiplier is determined from a  combination of education, on job experience, seniority, and co-worker feedback.  That means that management can't give themselves a raise without giving everyone a raise.

In addition, each member owns an account that the company pays quarterly dividends into.  But you can't touch this money until you leave the corporation.  So the company uses that liquidity for investments, and when you leave the company you get to keep the equity you helped create.  That's awesome.

QuoteSo, exactly how did Benjamin Tucker support himself for all of those years?

He was a publisher, primarily, and also an author.  Published a lot of English translations of continental political works.

QuoteHow many people starve and die in free market countries compared to people who starve and die in workers' paradises like North Korea?

Bunches, though I think you'd have to be a real idiot to actually think North Korea is a worker's paradise.

QuoteAnd how many people die attempting the sort of major social upheaval that you claim to support?  I'm still not getting the impression that the plight of the poor is your main concern here.

It'd be nice if it could be none, but those rich people, they always insist on siccing their government dogs on the poor when they try to mobilize and participate in their own lives.

I guess poor people could just wait, and hope that maybe one day all of the rich powerful fuckers who have scrambled and clawed their way to the top of the hill decided to play nice and share fairly.

Quote from: droogI'll let you explain that. By the way, you're getting your arguments confused. Jackalope appears to be a free-market anarchist, not a commie.

Aww.  It was fun watching him fumble around trying to get me to defend commies, despite the fact that I've made it pretty clear I think commies can go rot in hell.

Quote from: John Morrow;222280And the reason why I think they aren't interested in it or aren't good at it is that it makes them feel dirty or dishonest making a profit.

Oh, well, I think it's because of Martian mind-control.

Quote from: Jackalope;222281Yeah, the deck is stacked against worker-ownership.  Investor-ownership allows for a lot power to force employees to take a hit for the company.  Of course, modern investor-ownership is a government created market.  Welfare for rich people.

I think the problem is less investor ownership than the system through which investor-owned companies are governed and the insulation that corporations provide to protect the management from the consequences of bad decisions.

Quote from: Jackalope;222281Have you ever heard of Mondragon Corporate Collective?

No, I hadn't and it sounds interesting.  I wouldn't have a problem with a lower tax rate as an incentive for that sort of organization.

Quote from: Jackalope;222281He was a publisher, primarily, and also an author.  Published a lot of English translations of continental political works.

Did his family have money?  All I could find out is that he was born to a Quaker family and attended MIT.

Quote from: Jackalope;222281Bunches, though I think you'd have to be a real idiot to actually think North Korea is a worker's paradise.

Of course it's not.  None of the attempts to create one on purpose ever seem to work out that way.

Quote from: Jackalope;222281It'd be nice if it could be none, but those rich people, they always insist on siccing their government dogs on the poor when they try to mobilize and participate in their own lives.

It sounds like the worker ownership model of that Basque company could be replicated without a revolution.

Quote from: Jackalope;222281I guess poor people could just wait, and hope that maybe one day all of the rich powerful fuckers who have scrambled and clawed their way to the top of the hill decided to play nice and share fairly.

Why don't they just try to scramble to the top of the hill themselves instead of waiting for a handout?

Quote from: Jackalope;222281Aww.  It was fun watching him fumble around trying to get me to defend commies, despite the fact that I've made it pretty clear I think commies can go rot in hell.

I'm not trying to get you to defend commies.  I'm trying to get you to understand that revolutions supposedly designed to help the poor by lynching the rich rarely help the poor and often leave them worse off.

Employee ownership is possible without a major restructuring of society and without killing rich people and taking their stuff.  That doesn't end well for anyone.

Quote from: droog;222283Oh, well, I think it's because of Martian mind-control.

Regardless of why it is, it clearly isn't something everyone can do or do well.

Quote from: John Morrow;222285Regardless of why it is, it clearly isn't something everyone can do or do well.

And so? Neither is flying aeroplanes. Or sucking dick. That says nothing about the economics of the situation.

Quote from: droog;222286And so? Neither is flying aeroplanes. Or sucking dick. That says nothing about the economics of the situation.

Sure it does.  It points how to earn more than a commodity wage.

Quote from: John Morrow;222287Sure it does.  It points how to earn more than a commodity wage.

Right. So, let's get this straight:

1. The way to get ahead is to go into business.
2. The majority of small businesses fail.
3. Small businesses fail because their owners don't really want to make a profit.

I see an ideological point somewhere there. And the only piece of evidence supporting that point appears to be in the mind of John Morrow.

Quote from: John Morrow;222284I think the problem is less investor ownership than the system through which investor-owned companies are governed and the insulation that corporations provide to protect the management from the consequences of bad decisions.

No, I hadn't and it sounds interesting.  I wouldn't have a problem with a lower tax rate as an incentive for that sort of organization.

Well damn John, I underestimated you.  

QuoteDid his family have money?  All I could find out is that he was born to a Quaker family and attended MIT.

I dunno.  Does it really matter?  Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.  Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, doesn't mean he wasn't one of the greatest philosophers of human freedom that ever lived.  Just means he was a normal tragically flawed human.

Ben Tucker isn't important because of how he made a living, or his family history, but because he correctly identified the four factors that prevent a free market from flourishing: money monopolies, land monoplies, tariffs and patents.

Patents in particular have proven to be a disastrous and onerous burden on the free market, and continue to prevent billions of people from enjoying the benefits of the collective accomplishments of science and technology.

QuoteOf course it's not.  None of the attempts to create one on purpose ever seem to work out that way.

Hah, you know what's funny?  When capitalist crony governments like the US try to set up "free markets" in other countries and actually install dictators who will sell out their people to American interests.

QuoteIt sounds like the worker ownership model of that Basque company could be replicated without a revolution.

Sure.  If, you know, the rich people stopped being assholes.  I'm not counting on that happening.

QuoteWhy don't they just try to scramble to the top of the hill themselves instead of waiting for a handout?

Oh John, you are your false dilemmas.  A lot of people don't have the stomach for clawing their way to the top.  A good thing to, or I'd probably be like walkerp and feel the Earth would be better off without humans.  

QuoteI'm not trying to get you to defend commies.  I'm trying to get you to understand that revolutions supposedly designed to help the poor by lynching the rich rarely help the poor and often leave them worse off.

But sometimes they leave people much better off.  Tree of freedom, blood of patriots, yadda yadda.

QuoteEmployee ownership is possible without a major restructuring of society and without killing rich people and taking their stuff.  That doesn't end well for anyone.

Possible?  Sure.  Probable?  No.  Well, okay, it's not likely without major restructuring -- I mean it'd be best to repeal the laws that allow corporations in their current form to exist -- but it could be done without killing anyone.

But I seriously wouldn't count on the aristocrats going down without a fight.  They never do.

Quote from: droog;222288Right. So, let's get this straight:

1. The way to get ahead is to go into business.
2. The majority of small businesses fail.
3. Small businesses fail because their owners don't really want to make a profit.

I see an ideological point somewhere there. And the only piece of evidence supporting that point appears to be in the mind of John Morrow.

Oh my god, John discovered the missing element from the Underpants Gnome scheme:

1. COLLECT UNDERWEAR
2. DESIRE TO SUCCEED
3. PROFIT!!!

Quote from: John Morrow;222250So you feel it has nothing to do with hard work because the rich don't actually work hard or do anything that anyone else couldn't do, right?

I highly recommend reading Thomas Sowell's writing on Middleman Minorities.  A pretty comprehensive example from one of his books can be found here (http://entitledtoanopinion.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/sowellgeneric.pdf).  People resent those who make profits distributing materials and goods because people predictably don't think of effort involved in making a business operate properly as "work" even though they'd be unable to run a business properly themselves if placed in that role.  Given your point about companies paying crap money in order to make money and stay wealthy, why is it that management positions, including middle-management positions that the "little guy" can work into, pay well?  If it's so easy to manage a business, couldn't they just hire random schmucks off the streets at minimum wage to do it for a lot less?  Or maybe if managing business is a useless parasitic activity, they could do without?

I don't know how it went from paying shit money to the 'wealthy not working hard' or it being easy to run a business. Perhaps you produced that leap all by yourself?

Edit: Deleted silliness - it's early and i haven't had my coffee.

Perhaps i wasn't very clear. I'm not saying that big companies pay shit money to stay rich - only that it contributes, and that anything that contributes is 'good business' if it increases profit.

As for the nice little patronising line about middle-managment positions for the 'little-man', that pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

I'm paraphrasing here, but from my end, your position can be crudely (and briefly) summed up in something like the following -

Poor people are lazy, grasping sods who will take something for nothing in favour of working really hard like good little rich people. But, if you work really hard (which obviously people in poorly paid jobs don't), rich folk hold a few middle-management roles open for the peons. So get off your backsides and do as you are told - oh, we'll start you off on 5.50 an hour.

National Geographic are coming to take a picture of that paragraph - it's so full of shit, they think it's an elephant.

Quote from: Jackalope;222270I can't have honest discussions about politics and economics with most people, because people REALLY get caught up in little boxes and can't even comprehend really radical ideas.  I won't even try to discuss what I really think when there are morons like John around.  He's the kind of guy that you can't say "worker ownership' around without him accusing you of being a goose-stepping communazi.  Probably has no idea who Ben Tucker is.

Anyways, no, I don't mean anyone who owns a business.  My ire is reserved primarily for the ultra-wealthy top 1% who own the majority of the world (and the governments) and let people starve and die, when there are so many ways that the free market could better serve people.

O.k. I can at least see that. Abuse by the ultra-rich is debatable but I can acknowledge your view of it. So, the pursuit of bettering yourself is acceptible yes? It is not wrong to work to better my position in life, gather wealth to make my position secure. Let's also take a stab at wealth so we don't get confused. I mean money so that a down turn does not bankrupt you, land to live on, a house on that land and a steady income or means of acquiring food and luxuries. Or are luxuries evil indulgences? Again, not trying to harry you, just clarify your position.

As to worker owned endeavors, like John I have had experience with them right here in the US. In fact, in the rather rural and remote UP of Michigan. Two were under 50 employees but the last was close to 300. Two are still working and the other has gone private but under one of the workers who had money and believed in the idea. I don't think it is as rare as you would like to believe but a big part of it is where we are talking about also. I mean, the US, believe it or not, encourages your own endeavors, entrepreneurship and the like.  You want to open your own worker owned business, you can. More important to me, our society encourages owning your own business. Now, China, Korea or India, I can't say.

I also have had small businesses that did not make it. Because I planned well, they did not destroy me. I also have had five successful business ventures, three that I sold off. One, I sold to a guy that it was his "life dream" and he made a mess of it. He had no interest in runnign a business. A failed business, like any plan, if researched and approached properly, is something you can recover from. Walk into it with no more planning than "I am passionate" and you will have difficulties, even if you are successful.

Bill

Quote from: One Horse Town;222291Perhaps i wasn't very clear. I'm not saying that big companies pay shit money to stay rich - only that it contributes, and that anything that contributes is 'good business' if it increases profit.

And my point is that there are plenty of jobs in big companies that pay very good salaries, including jobs accessible to people who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth and don't have an Ivy League education.  Companies often don't pay managers, technical workers, salespeople, and so on crap wages.  In fact, when the economy was humming along here about a decade ago, it wasn't uncommon to see employee wanted signs on fast food restaurants offering wages a few dollars above the minimum wage.  So why is it that companies only pay crap wages to certain employees under certain circumstances?

Quote from: One Horse Town;222291As for the nice little patronising line about middle-managment positions for the 'little-man', that pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

Given that it describes me pretty well, it wasn't intended to be patronizing at  all.  It's meant to point out that opportunities are available to people willing to take them.  

Quote from: One Horse Town;222291Poor people are lazy, grasping sods who will take something for nothing in favour of working really hard like good little rich people. But, if you work really hard (which obviously people in poorly paid jobs don't), rich folk hold a few middle-management roles open for the peons. So get off your backsides and do as you are told - oh, we'll start you off on 5.50 an hour.

It has nothing to do with with laziness or how hard people work in any physical sense and that's the key conceptual point that most people don't get.  Working reasonably hard is part of it but it's also about taking advantage of opportunities, taking risks, and looking ahead with goals and a plan to achieve them.  I can go to the gym and "work really hard" all day but nobody is going to pay me for it because all of that effort is not worth anything.  And I could get up early every day and work really hard waiting tables, stocking shelves, or digging ditches for 25 years but if I'm not doing anything more than any other unskilled entry-level worker could do, why should I make more money than an unskilled entry-level worker for doing exactly the same work that they are doing?

And, yes, people start out at $5.50 an hour (though not all do), which isn't so bad when you are a college student, share an apartment with 3 friends, or live at home with their parents.  If you are 40 and are still taking jobs where you "start out" at minimum wage, maybe part of the problem is that you still have an entry-level skill set despite spending nearly two decades working?  Entry level positions are for entry level workers.  How can someone work for 20 years and still only be looking at entry level jobs?

As for the middle-management positions, they aren't that rare or hard to get (well, provided you don't take the personality that most people display on this forum to work with you).  I mentioned them because they are easy to work into and within the reach of almost anyone with a modicum of ability and ambition.  But I also know people who have worked into upper management despite modest (and even inappropriate) backgrounds including people who have become CTOs and VPs.  I also know entrepreneurs who have made money, for example, shipping a few cars into countries like Egypt and then selling them at a profit.  

That chapter I posted a link to about middleman minorities is also important because the characteristics found in those middleman minorities that often allow them to succeed in places where they show up with little but the clothing on their backs are the same characteristics that allow poor people to rise out of poverty.  As Sowell writes, the "real distinction" is "between unenterprising, indolent, unambitious and perhaps thriftless individuals, and others more venturesome, energetic, resourceful and frugal."  In some cases, the problem is laziness but a person can certainly "work really hard" yet still lack ambition and thrift, not planning for what comes next.  And sometimes they don't get ahead for other reasons such as a poor attitude, and unpleasant personality, or a refusal to look and act appropriately for where they want to go.  But in most cases, those are things that a person can change or compensate for if they really care to.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222291National Geographic are coming to take a picture of that paragraph - it's so full of shit, they think it's an elephant.

Yeah, that's the whole point of a straw man argument, isn't it?

Quote from: John Morrow;222308Given that it describes me pretty well, it wasn't intended to be patronizing at  all.  It's meant to point out that opportunities are available to people willing to take them.  

For the record, it probably describes me pretty well too. I should point out that you're missing 1 key point here, though. It's not just 'willing', it's 'able' too.

QuoteWorking reasonably hard is part of it but it's also about taking advantage of opportunities, taking risks, and looking ahead with goals and a plan to achieve them.  

See above.

QuoteAs for the middle-management positions, they aren't that rare or hard to get (well, provided you don't take the personality that most people display on this forum to work with you).

Nice one!

QuoteYeah, that's the whole point of a straw man argument, isn't it?

Come on! That was a good line! :D

Quote from: droog;222288I see an ideological point somewhere there. And the only piece of evidence supporting that point appears to be in the mind of John Morrow.

It's not an ideological point.  It's an attempt to explain why so many people try to start businesses without sufficiently understanding or planning for the financial element of running a business when that's fairly fundamental to success and isn't all that difficult to find out about, especially these days.  If you've got a better explanation, I'd be happy to hear it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222309For the record, it probably describes me pretty well too. I should point out that you're missing 1 key point here, though. It's not just 'willing', it's 'able' too.

I have encountered far more people whose problem was that they were not willing to than people who were not able to.  And by "not able to", I don't mean that they currently lack the skill because the skill is something they can learn either on the job or on their own time if they really want.

Quote from: John Morrow;222311I have encountered far more people whose problem was that they were not willing to than people who were not able to.  And by "not able to", I don't mean that they currently lack the skill because the skill is something they can learn either on the job or on their own time if they really want.

Considering the vast majority of new businesses fail due to undercapitalization -- i.e. not starting with enough money -- I would say the number one cause of people not being able to start their own businesses is a lack of money.

Which is pretty funny, if you think about it, since starting your own business is being suggested as a means out of poverty.

"Sorry, you're too poor to get out of poverty."

Quote from: Jackalope;222313Considering the vast majority of new businesses fail due to undercapitalization -- i.e. not starting with enough money -- I would say the number one cause of people not being able to start their own businesses is a lack of money.

Which is pretty funny, if you think about it, since starting your own business is being suggested as a means out of poverty.

"Sorry, you're too poor to get out of poverty."

No, no, no. You don't get it. You should be willing to take the risk to get rich patrons to invest in your business. Who then take the opportunity to take a huge chunk of any profits that you make. ;)

Quote from: Jackalope;222313Considering the vast majority of new businesses fail due to undercapitalization -- i.e. not starting with enough money -- I would say the number one cause of people not being able to start their own businesses is a lack of money.

Yet plenty of poor immigrants in the United States manage to pull it off.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222314No, no, no. You don't get it. You should be willing to take the risk to get rich patrons to invest in your business. Who then take the opportunity to take a huge chunk of any profits that you make. ;)

That's one way to do it, yes.

(Why do they deserve a huge chunk of your profits?  Because if your business fails, then they lose their money so they are taking risks, too.)

Quote from: John Morrow;222315Yet plenty of poor immigrants in the United States manage to pull it off.

Plenty?

No doubt, John. No doubt. Except of course, it's a risk of everything vs a risk of something. That's the difference isn't it? It always will be. So many of your arguments ring sort of hollow.

Anyhoo. Right-wing away, buddy. I'm not one to keep endlessly posting 'till i get the last word.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222319No doubt, John. No doubt. Except of course, it's a risk of everything vs a risk of something. That's the difference isn't it? It always will be. So many of your arguments ring sort of hollow.

As Bill has pointed out, done properly, you don't have to risk everything.

Quote from: Jackalope;222318Plenty?

Yes.  Plenty.

Quote from: Jackalope;222318Plenty?

Mr. Gupta, my Economics Professor at Tacoma Community College 6 years ago (so, you know, you can do the research to prove I'm not making him up...) came to America in the 1970's with nothing but a degree in Economics from some Indian University and 17 dollars by his own account.  When I met him in 2002, he had sold a construction company in Nebraska for millions of dollars he had built from the ground up, had gotten his Master's in Economics and had retired to the west coast and taken a teaching job to keep busy.

Plenty.  

A fellow of my aquaintence sells houses now for 300 and 400 thousand dollars on a weekly basis, earning his commission. His oldest son is going to a nice school. This fellow was not an immigrant at all, but a poor boy from the rough side of Detroit who joined the Navy to avoid the mean streets, he started as a lowly seaman and 'retired' as an officer.

Its not immigrant or non-immigrant, but a simple, verifiable fact that the US is one of a very tiny handful of nations that exist... or ever existed, where the dream of attaining wealth is not only available, but viable for anyone willing to work for it.  

Blaming the wealthy for being rich smacks more of resentment than an honest concern for, or even realization of, how civilizations work.

Radical ideas are often radical because they don't actually work.

Quote from: Spike;222346Mr. Gupta, my Economics Professor at Tacoma Community College 6 years ago (so, you know, you can do the research to prove I'm not making him up...) came to America in the 1970's with nothing but a degree in Economics from some Indian University and 17 dollars by his own account.  When I met him in 2002, he had sold a construction company in Nebraska for millions of dollars he had built from the ground up, had gotten his Master's in Economics and had retired to the west coast and taken a teaching job to keep busy.

Plenty.

Hey, I used to work for a guy named Ali who was a professor of philosophy in Iran in 1978, and seeking political asylum in the US in 1979.  Seems Kohmeinists don't have much use for experts on Enlightenment rationalism, or for atheistic professors.  So he had to leave.  Quickly.  With nothing.

Anyways, he earned enough money to buy some cars in Washington, drove them down to California and sold them for more than he paid for, and eventually flipped enough cars this way to purchase a store.  When i worked for him, he had sold his chain of convienance store and was working as manager -- he'd paid for his four daughters to go to college, had a bunch set aside for retirement, and decided he liked running a store, but didn't enjoy the stress of running several.

So that's two anecdotes.  How many anecdotes make a proof?  Oh damn, I just remembered.  No amount of anecdotes makes a proof.

QuoteIts not immigrant or non-immigrant, but a simple, verifiable fact that the US is one of a very tiny handful of nations that exist... or ever existed, where the dream of attaining wealth is not only available, but viable for anyone willing to work for it.

lol.

Quote from: Spike;222346Its not immigrant or non-immigrant, but a simple, verifiable fact that the US is one of a very tiny handful of nations that exist... or ever existed, where the dream of attaining wealth is not only available, but viable for anyone willing to work for it.

Well, certainly in comparison to all of history and the world, the modern U.S. does pretty well.  On the other hand, my reading has been that intergenerational mobility is no better in the U.S. than in Western Europe or Canada.  This paper (http://www.scribd.com/doc/334774/Intergenerational-Mobility-in-Europe-and-North-America) was cited in the Wikipedia article on Social Mobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility), which suggested that social mobility was actually less in the U.S. and England.  Obviously, I take big grain of salt with that, but offhand I haven't seen a study that refutes it.

Quote from: John Morrow;222172That's a big problem with the whole concept of a "decent living wage"?  Who gets to decide what that means exactly?

I've not been following the dispute closely, but I believe they have suffered a worsening of terms of service and have had their wages reduced in real terms.

Whether sufficiently so to justify the dispute I genuinely don't know, but it's not as simple as a one line quote overheard somewhere would suggest, industrial disputes rarely are.

If folk want to discuss that dispute I can read up on it, but the decent living wage is just one guy's remark, it's not an accurate summary of the grounds for the dispute as I understand them.

Quote from: Spike;222346Its not immigrant or non-immigrant, but a simple, verifiable fact that the US is one of a very tiny handful of nations that exist... or ever existed, where the dream of attaining wealth is not only available, but viable for anyone willing to work for it.  

Leaving aside your other points, that's not actually right, social mobility in the US is not that exceptional compared to other nations and has been declining over recent years.

I appreciate it's an important concept in your nation, but the idea that rags to riches through hard work is a US phenomenon is simply wrong, it reflects a lack of knowledge of social mobility statistics in Europe more than it does an understanding of them in the US.

Looking throughout history, social mobility rates are actually surprisingly stable, essentially the past allowed much more social mobility than people nowadays tend to assume.  Our ideas of the irrevocability of birth in pre-modern societies are largely wrong.

Quote from: John Morrow;222276And why do 60% of small businesses fail in the first year?

Bad financial management, I saw a while back an American commentator arguing for compulsory teaching of basic finance techniques in school, an argument I had some sympathy with under a life skills heading.

Anyway, I know you already covered this, but the answer is a poor grasp of basic financial techniques on the part of most would be entrepeneurs.  Simple as that really.

Quote from: Jackalope;222313Considering the vast majority of new businesses fail due to undercapitalization -- i.e. not starting with enough money -- I would say the number one cause of people not being able to start their own businesses is a lack of money.

Which is pretty funny, if you think about it, since starting your own business is being suggested as a means out of poverty.

"Sorry, you're too poor to get out of poverty."

The majority of businesses started by people with capital fail too though.

I mean, John massively underestimates the advantages that being born into money provide, but new businesses tend to fail due to a lack of financial education more than anything else.  That may be class based, or may not be (I'm not personally persuaded that particular one is, though much else is IMO) but that could be fixed with some fairly simple financial education programs or by the individuals involved looking up some of the excellent free or very cheap advice available to them before they sink their life savings into an ill considered project.

Quote from: Balbinus;222399but that could be fixed with some fairly simple financial education programs or by the individuals involved looking up some of the excellent free or very cheap advice available to them before they sink their life savings into an ill considered project.

You don't understand, B. People feel guilty about succeeding and therefore they sabotage themselves unconsciously.

Quote from: droog;222400You don't understand, B. People feel guilty about succeeding and therefore they sabotage themselves unconsciously.

In my experience, those who succeed on the back of family money tend to persuade themselves quite quickly it's all talent, those who succeed despite a lack thereof or regardless of the fact thereof are too busy working to have time to have guilt issues.

Guilt issues are a luxury of the undeserving affluent.  Everyone else is too busy working for a living, or enjoying their wealth in other ways.

I step away for a few days, and the thread veers off into crazyville.

I'll just make a few points:

The whole free-market anarchy thing is loony and makes no sense.  Such a society would never come about naturally, and couldn't be maintained even artificially through exterior controls - it would always gravitate back towards the problems of capitalism or communism because everyone is not on the same level.  The only way it could possibly work is if we did some heavy-duty genetic engineering to make everyone physically and mentally equal, and added some psychological conditioning on top of it (even then, someone would still have to be in control of it all, wouldn't they).

Almost all businesses that fail do so because of bad management.  People start businesses with no clue of what they are doing.  They fail to do the market research ahead of time and instead sell whatever the owner likes.  They fail to come up with an exit strategy (the first thing anyone starting up a business should do).  They don't plan for cash reserves or expect any downturns in demand.  They don't understand the laws, regulations, and taxes ahead of time.  They pick a lousy location and rent way too much space for what they need.  They invest way too much in inventory and don't understand the concept of proper inventory turnover.  They don't price their products correctly and frequently don't understand elasticity.  They don't hire good staff, and never bother to train the staff they do hire.  They never do any financial forecasting.  They don't understand the difference between profit and cash flow, and frequently ignore cash flow until it becomes a problem.  And a big one for non-new businesses that fail - they fail to understand that you have to keep investing money back into the business, you can't just put a lot of work into it and expect a cash cow once you start making money.

Every moron with a few thousand bucks thinks he can open his own business and get rich quick.  A lot of the time, people try to run businesses they have no work experience in at all (I knew a guy who opened up a retail store despite never having worked in a retail environment - no surprise that didn't last over a year).

As for restaurants, I think every jackass who decides out of the blue he can own a restaurant and sit back and count the money should be forced to watch at least 8 hours worth of "Kitchen Nightmares" (US or UK version).  That should disabuse them of the notion real quick that restaurants are a quick, easy way to rake in money.  They require a ton of talent, hard work, and constant re-investment.

Quote from: jgants;222417As for restaurants, I think every jackass who decides out of the blue he can own a restaurant and sit back and count the money should be forced to watch at least 8 hours worth of "Kitchen Nightmares" (US or UK version).  That should disabuse them of the notion real quick that restaurants are a quick, easy way to rake in money.  They require a ton of talent, hard work, and constant re-investment.

Once I did the research, I have to say, I wondered why anyone gets into the restaurant business. I mean, I understand the "I have 3 million. I will open a high-end restaurant" but the mom-and-pop style? Heck, I might be able to go as far as saying a franchise could be a good investment (depending on the franchise) but that becomes much more a business than what the folks I talked to mentioned as their reasons for getting into restaurants. It is a brutal and incredibly detail oriented business (meaning mostly the health codes in the US).

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;222421Once I did the research, I have to say, I wondered why anyone gets into the restaurant business. I mean, I understand the "I have 3 million. I will open a high-end restaurant" but the mom-and-pop style? Heck, I might be able to go as far as saying a franchise could be a good investment (depending on the franchise) but that becomes much more a business than what the folks I talked to mentioned as their reasons for getting into restaurants. It is a brutal and incredibly detail oriented business (meaning mostly the health codes in the US).

Bill

High-end restaurants are just as likely to fail as more mainstream ones.  

The restaurant business is something you get into because you love the work, it's always been like that, even if you're not actually running or owning a restaurant.  The problem is that you get a lot of amateurs getting into the business who maybe have the love part down, but not the work, or even any realization how much work is involved.  You also get a lot of vapid yuppie idiots who see a couple of shows on Food Network and think "oh hay I start restaurant 4 free food yay!", and next thing you know they've burned through daddy's retirement fund.  

The average person thinks cooking for a living is easy, because they've got a head full of TV shows and they figure if they can make a tuna casserole they can hack it in a professional kitchen.  As a result you get a greater than average number of clueless idiots getting into the business, and then failing hard.

Quote from: HinterWelt;222421Once I did the research, I have to say, I wondered why anyone gets into the restaurant business. I mean, I understand the "I have 3 million. I will open a high-end restaurant" but the mom-and-pop style? Heck, I might be able to go as far as saying a franchise could be a good investment (depending on the franchise) but that becomes much more a business than what the folks I talked to mentioned as their reasons for getting into restaurants. It is a brutal and incredibly detail oriented business (meaning mostly the health codes in the US).

Bill

High-end restaurants are just as likely to fail as more mainstream ones.  

The restaurant business is something you get into because you love the work, it's always been like that, even if you're not actually running or owning a restaurant.  The problem is that you get a lot of amateurs getting into the business who maybe have the love part down, but not the work, or even any realization how much work is involved.  You also get a lot of vapid yuppie idiots who see a couple of shows on Food Network and think "oh hay I start restaurant 4 free food yay!", and next thing you know they've burned through daddy's retirement fund.  

The average person thinks cooking for a living is easy, because they've got a head full of TV shows and they figure if they can make a tuna casserole they can hack it in a professional kitchen.  As a result you get a greater than average number of clueless idiots getting into the business, and then failing hard.

Quote from: jgants;222417The whole free-market anarchy thing is loony and makes no sense.

Yes, but that's true of all possible positions on politics.  At least market anarchism is a consistent school of though, something that can't be said of capitalist and communist doctrines.

QuoteSuch a society would never come about naturally, and couldn't be maintained even artificially through exterior controls - it would always gravitate back towards the problems of capitalism or communism because everyone is not on the same level.

Well, actually, such a society is the natural default state of things, and requires suppression by exterior controls (i.e. states) to allow communism or capitalism to flourish.  Nothing gravitates towards capitalism or communism.  Those are incredibly complicated system that require massive governments to support.  They don't occur by accident.

QuoteThe only way it could possibly work is if we did some heavy-duty genetic engineering to make everyone physically and mentally equal, and added some psychological conditioning on top of it (even then, someone would still have to be in control of it all, wouldn't they).

You seem to have decided that market anarchism only works in everyone is equal.  This is not the case, and most market anarchists freely admit that many people would fail, and fail miserably in a free market.

The primary difference between market anarchism and capitalism is this:  when you fail in a free market, that's your fault.  When you fail in a capitalist market, it's hard to say if its your fault, the fault of state-supported owners gaming the system, the fault of market regulations, etc.

Quote from: HinterWelt;222421Once I did the research, I have to say, I wondered why anyone gets into the restaurant business. I mean, I understand the "I have 3 million. I will open a high-end restaurant" but the mom-and-pop style? Heck, I might be able to go as far as saying a franchise could be a good investment (depending on the franchise) but that becomes much more a business than what the folks I talked to mentioned as their reasons for getting into restaurants. It is a brutal and incredibly detail oriented business (meaning mostly the health codes in the US).

Bill

Catering as a career is brutal in the UK too, it's not just your health codes, which I suspect have their equivalents in most developed nations.

Brutally hard work, anti-social hours, average income rates not that great.  Catering and similar fields are hard work.

I definitely agree with J Arcane's post.

Quote from: J Arcane;222426High-end restaurants are just as likely to fail as more mainstream ones.  

Oh, I did not mean to imply that at all. Just, the higher end restaurants, from my research, tend to have a better return on investment. Of course, this is assuming you are not funding a 6 million dollar restaurant with 3 million.;)

Quote from: J Arcane;222426The restaurant business is something you get into because you love the work, it's always been like that, even if you're not actually running or owning a restaurant.  The problem is that you get a lot of amateurs getting into the business who maybe have the love part down, but not the work, or even any realization how much work is involved.  You also get a lot of vapid yuppie idiots who see a couple of shows on Food Network and think "oh hay I start restaurant 4 free food yay!", and next thing you know they've burned through daddy's retirement fund.  

The average person thinks cooking for a living is easy, because they've got a head full of TV shows and they figure if they can make a tuna casserole they can hack it in a professional kitchen.  As a result you get a greater than average number of clueless idiots getting into the business, and then failing hard.

I love cooking. I raise my own herbs, love shopping the farmers market for fresh produce and meat, have a huge book of recipes. Loving something and making a business of it are two different things. I love writing, gaming and I did the research and that is why HinterWelt has been around for six years and has over 20 products. Passion and your profession should overlap but the business part is every bit as important as the passion part, more so in my opinion.

Bill

Quote from: Jackalope;222429Well, actually, such a society is the natural default state of things, and requires suppression by exterior controls (i.e. states) to allow communism or capitalism to flourish.

If it's the natural state of things, why has it never existed?

Quote from: droog;222436If it's the natural state of things, why has it never existed?

It has existed, and continues to exist.  It actually takes a lot of effort on the part of the government to criminalize free market activity.

Quote from: HinterWelt;222433Oh, I did not mean to imply that at all. Just, the higher end restaurants, from my research, tend to have a better return on investment. Of course, this is assuming you are not funding a 6 million dollar restaurant with 3 million.;)

I love cooking. I raise my own herbs, love shopping the farmers market for fresh produce and meat, have a huge book of recipes. Loving something and making a business of it are two different things. I love writing, gaming and I did the research and that is why HinterWelt has been around for six years and has over 20 products. Passion and your profession should overlap but the business part is every bit as important as the passion part, more so in my opinion.

Bill

Absolutely.  I entertain notions of running my own restaurant one day, but frankly I know damn well I don't have the business side of it down, so if I did go into it it would take either a hell of a lot more training, a more knowledgeable partner to handle the business side, or both.  

It's interesting you bring up gaming, because I don't think I recall a single market on the planet with a higher percentage of individuals with the passion, and non of the ability or business sense.

Quote from: Jackalope;222449It has existed, and continues to exist.  It actually takes a lot of effort on the part of the government to criminalize free market activity.

Let's have some examples.

Quote from: J Arcane;222426You also get a lot of vapid yuppie idiots who see a couple of shows on Food Network and think "oh hay I start restaurant 4 free food yay!", and next thing you know they've burned through daddy's retirement fund.  

One of the UK Kitchen Nightmares episodes showed a situation exactly like that.  Some chick (spoiled 30-something brat) used her father's retirement money to start a vegetarian restaurant in France.  She hires someone who's like her, and the two think that you can just show up a half hour before opening and manage to make money.

So Ramsey comes in, gets her a new, motivated chef, and basically sets it up so all she has to do is put in the work and she'll make money.  A few weeks later, the place is closed down.  Why?  She didn't want to have to do the work or put in the hours.  She'd rather spend her time gallivanting around, chatting on her cell with her friends, etc.  Her poor father (even if he is an enabler) was mortified having to explain the whole thing to Ramsey.

Quote from: J Arcane;222452Absolutely.  I entertain notions of running my own restaurant one day, but frankly I know damn well I don't have the business side of it down, so if I did go into it it would take either a hell of a lot more training, a more knowledgeable partner to handle the business side, or both.  

It's interesting you bring up gaming, because I don't think I recall a single market on the planet with a higher percentage of individuals with the passion, and non of the ability or business sense.

Yeah, and really think about it. How many companies do you see that have been around for 5-10 years? And it is not a case of scale. Sure, if all you wanted to do was put out your home brew then you are in then out. Still, you have closures of what should be pretty successful setups and with appalling frequency. I remember back int he 90s meeting the very nice ladies from Noir RPG. They were the hottest product at GTS that year. Selling boxes to companies in Australia, Europe and US. Then poof! nothing.

People are very fond of the "You can;t make money in RPGs" line but it is more "It is easy to lose everything" just like in other businesses.

But I digress...

Bill

Edit to put something on topic in this post: So, like I said, education is the key to helping the poor and creating opportunity thus showing them they have choices. The US has programs for the poor and the unemployed that do just this. I happen to have been the recipient in the past of those programs. They are becoming more difficult to get which is a bit dangerous if you ask me.

Quote from: Jackalope;222351So that's two anecdotes.  How many anecdotes make a proof?  Oh damn, I just remembered.  No amount of anecdotes makes a proof.

Hey, once you start PROVING your crackpot ideas, I'll start coming up with more than anecdotes.  

Quotelol.

And the winner of the most informative and/or relevant reply?

If you wish, like Balbinus and others to tear apart my statement (note for the record: I never said only, and yes history must be considered) by all means, do so. If all you want to do is quote and 'lol', I assure you that I am well versed in dealing with small children.  Your mocking laughter does not threaten me, for it is hollow and without weight.

Quote from: droog;222454Let's have some examples.

Will you accept examples of free markets operating within areas that are, technically, within the "area of control" of state-run monopolies?  Because there aren't very good records of pre-industrial markets, and by the industrial era most areas were thoroughly under some government's thumb.

There are plenty of examples of villages that have organized communally.  Many areas of Spain operated as entirely voluntary mutual support societies during the civil war when the central government collapsed.  The Mondragon Corporate Collective grew out of one such village co-op (a lamp factory in the town of Mondragon, in the Basque region).

In America there were several attempts to create alternative economies (most of them occurring on the West coast, California in particular) with alternative currencies, for those who were being disadvantaged by the prejudices in the mainstream market.  These efforts were very successful, but were eventually suppressed by the state under its money monopoly policy.  Everyone knows of Byrons battle for bi-metalism, and his famous "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns! You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!" speech, but fewer people know of the many

I'm also a fan of the Emperor Joshua Norton, America's only Emperor, who ruled from San Francisco and printed his own money -- which was accepted by many local businesses despite having no backing at all.  But that's more a lesson in how the illusion of authority works, and the quasi-magical nature of state-issued money.  

There are countless examples of successful collectives and co-operatives that function in the capitalist economy, despite the best efforts of the capitalist aristocracy to rig the system.  The mere possibility of such collectives drives much of the progressive change in capitalist firms, just as the threat of revolutionary action drives progressive change in government.

SPIKE: Your first mistake was thinking I'm out to convince anyone of any of my ideas.  If someone is interested, I like talking about them.  But I'm not trying to win converts, or change the world.  If I was stuck on an elevator with the POTUS, I'd try to make a persuasive argument.  But there's really no reason for me to take internet political chat remotely seriously.  So mostly I just try to bait guys like you into saying insane shit that illustrates how truly unreasonable you are.  

Like when Morrow said it was awfully convenient that I could come up with a different example of capitalist exploitation every day.  That made me laugh my ass off.  That was hysterically funny.  I mean, that statement can only make sense if John is actually so paranoid he thinks that people are staging examples of exploitation in order to discredit capitalist.  Like maybe there's this secret cabal of liberals who set up entire fake corporations just to exploit people so that they can get caught and give other liberals fodder for discrediting capitalism.

Wait, why am I explaining this to you?  You can't possibly comprehend the humor inherent in your position.  I mean, if you got what a joke people like you are, then you'd...stop being you.

Quote from: jgants;222455So Ramsey comes in, gets her a new, motivated chef, and basically sets it up so all she has to do is put in the work and she'll make money.  A few weeks later, the place is closed down.  Why?  She didn't want to have to do the work or put in the hours.  She'd rather spend her time gallivanting around, chatting on her cell with her friends, etc.  Her poor father (even if he is an enabler) was mortified having to explain the whole thing to Ramsey.

So despite the advantages of money provided to her by her father, she failed.  And whose fault was it that she failed?

Quote from: Balbinus;222399I mean, John massively underestimates the advantages that being born into money provide, but new businesses tend to fail due to a lack of financial education more than anything else.

I'm well aware that being born into money provides (sometimes quite significant) advantages but the advantage comes more from the culture of the class, in my opinion, than from the money itself, and that culture can be learned from and copied or adapted by those not born to it.  The problem with resenting the rich and successful is that it discourages people from learning from them.

Quote from: John Morrow;222548I'm well aware that being born into money provides (sometimes quite significant) advantages but the advantage comes more from the culture of the class, in my opinion, than from the money itself, and that culture can be learned from and copied or adapted by those not born to it.  The problem with resenting the rich and successful is that it discourages people from learning from them.

Item #11 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell#Summary_of_some_of_Sowell.27s_thought_and_philosophy



11. Human capital is the most durable, most precious of all, trumping both physical and financial capital, and overcoming the most adverse circumstances. Over and over again in Sowell's works the theme of "human capital" appears. Human capital is the sum total of values, attitudes, skills, work effort and cultural inheritance and patterns, often extending back for centuries. Human capital can be individual- education, self-discipline, savings or hard work - but more important to Sowell's work, it is also mass capital, the combined product of millions, not the selected preserve of a few.

Human capital and oppressed minorities. Human capital has permitted ethnic minorities to bounce back and triumph over the harshest, most brutal treatment by majorities. Sowell's works (Economics and Politics of Race (1993), Ethnic America(1981), Affirmative Action around the World (2004), and Race and Culture (1994). etc) are laced with such illustrations, across several nations of the world, and across several centuries. Jews in Europe or the Middle East for example, often harshly persecuted for centuries and denied a basis in agriculture, used their skills in urban economies to not only survive, but to ultimately end-run their enemies. Overseas Chinese are another such group- enduring harsh treatment from the colonial and modern era of Southeast Asia to the mining towns of 19th Century California, where rampaging white mobs did not give them "a Chinaman's chance."[27] Today their native born descendants as a group surpass the US white average on a number of counts, from income and education, to IQ and academic tests. Japanese-Americans show a similar pattern despite such obstacles as racist land laws designed to freeze them out of farming occupations, or the internment camps of WWII.

Human capital in patterns reaching back centuries. In several works- Sowell demonstrates this triumph of human capital, and the human spirit. These are repeated across several different countries. Industrious German farmers for example who took over "wasteland" scorned by others and made them productive farms did so not only in the United States, but in places as far afield as Russia and Argentina. Japanese farming skill and discipline repeated itself from the produce fields of California to Brazil. Italian stone and vineyard workers dominated certain related trades from the streets of New York, to the fields of distant Argentina. None of this is by accident- but reflects human capital earned the hard way across the span of centuries, in multiple nations, across multiple generations. The importance of human capital- mass capital attained by ordinary men and women through generations of experience and sacrifice, is for Sowell, much more important to human well-being than the theories of racial supremacists or utopian activists. Such capital is the foundation of human liberty and civilization. Some critics claim that the sharp, sometimes scarcastic tone found in some of Sowell's works such as Inside American Education reflects his exasperation and frustration at the waste of human capital occurring in many minority, particularly black communities.[28]

Quote from: jgants;222417The whole free-market anarchy thing is loony and makes no sense.  Such a society would never come about naturally...

I think there are some differing ideas of what constitutes a "free market" here. If perhaps someone would offer a definition of the term as they're using it, it might aid those using the term in different ways.

Quote from: droog;222400You don't understand, B. People feel guilty about succeeding and therefore they sabotage themselves unconsciously.

More accurately, my argument was that many people find some of the elements of running a successful business distasteful so they wind up not charging enough for their goods or services to make decent profits.  After all, isn't the argument that oil companies should feel guilty over their record profits?

Quote from: John Morrow;222557After all, isn't the argument that oil companies should feel guilty over their record profits?

You must be confusing me with somebody who uses the word 'should' in arguments. Either way, your own argument is obviously balls. Try another tack.

Quote from: Jackalope;222518Will you accept examples of free markets operating within areas that are, technically, within the "area of control" of state-run monopolies?  Because there aren't very good records of pre-industrial markets, and by the industrial era most areas were thoroughly under some government's thumb.

There are plenty of examples of villages that have organized communally.  Many areas of Spain operated as entirely voluntary mutual support societies during the civil war when the central government collapsed.  The Mondragon Corporate Collective grew out of one such village co-op (a lamp factory in the town of Mondragon, in the Basque region).

No, I can't accept those as examples. You said 'societies'. Within a broader society it's possible to have smaller examples of almost any form of organisation.

Quote from: droog;222566No, I can't accept those as examples. You said 'societies'. Within a broader society it's possible to have smaller examples of almost any form of organisation.

Then no, I can't provide any examples I guess.

Quote from: Engine;222555I think there are some differing ideas of what constitutes a "free market" here. If perhaps someone would offer a definition of the term as they're using it, it might aid those using the term in different ways.

I took it to mean the most basic concept - an exchange of goods and services free from regulation.  Everyone is free to produce whatever they want, sell to whomever they want, and for whatever price they want.

Which is why I think Jackalope's idea is a paradox, as the only way to prevent any accumulation of wealth and power would be massive oversight and regulations (which would become overtaken by corruption and therefore lead to wealth and power by the few anyway).  As long as some people are better off than others (either physically able to do more work, or mentally able to do smarter work), some people would always be able to take advantage of others and thus ultimately gain wealth and power (hence my argument that we would all need to be genetically equal for it to even be hypothetically possible).

Look at it this way - let's say Jackalope manages to pull off some Fight Club-esque plot tomorrow and we all start over at square one.  Anyone smart will save up their money.  Anyone hard-working will be able to produce more and make more money.  Lazy people will make less money and stupid people will spend too much of their money.  Pretty soon, the people with less money start to not have enough money to get everything they need, and the people with money are more than ready to lend them money, with usury fees, to help them out.  The people with money then notice they are making enough money to hire out their work so they don't have to do it themselves.  Again, the newly-emerging worker class will take low-paying jobs out of necessity or because they are unable to do something productive themselves. We would very quickly be back where we started.

But let's say the Neo-Anarchy movement sets up just enough government to prohibit usury and employment.  Of course, all the people with money will have an easier time getting elected to government, so pretty soon they will just change the laws or insert little loopholes.  And if they aren't elected, they are probably smart enough to figure out ways to get around the laws, or hire better lawyers, or use their money for bribes, etc.  It just wouldn't be sustainable.

Quote from: Spike;222346Its not immigrant or non-immigrant, but a simple, verifiable fact that the US is one of a very tiny handful of nations that exist... or ever existed, where the dream of attaining wealth is not only available, but viable for anyone willing to work for it.

For anyone, but not everyone.

The US has one million legal migrants a year. I do not imagine you seriously propose that all 1,000,000 can become wealthy. How many, then? 100,000? 10,000? 1,000? Shall we be generous beyond the realms of economic reason, and say it's 0.1%, and thus 1,000?

So, 1 in 1,000 people beginning with nothing can become wealthy. But 999 can't.

Surely those other 999 aren't all lazy and undeserving? So is it not true that for most people, hard work, ingenuity and effort are rewarded but poorly?

As others have observed, this is true of most Western countries. Anyone can be rich, but not everyone can be rich. And many people who work hard and honestly, far from becoming rich, receive little or no reward for it. Whereas a number of people who are lazy and dishonest exploit others and find great rewards for it - for example, the people whose actions began this thread. Most people enslaving or exploiting others receive no punishment at all.

Working hard and honestly and being creative give you a tiny chance of great prosperity. Being lazy and dishonest and exploiting others greatly enhances that chance of prosperity. If you don't have to pay people proper wages it's a lot easier for your company to win contracts and be very profitable.

Which is the problem with the system we have: it rewards laziness, dishonesty and exploitation more reliably than it rewards hard work, honesty and creativity. Of course no system is immune from exploitation, but our current system seems to be particularly prone to it.

Quote from: jgants;222455One of the UK Kitchen Nightmares episodes showed a situation exactly like that.  Some chick (spoiled 30-something brat) used her father's retirement money to start a vegetarian restaurant in France.

I saw that episode. A tragic waste of potential. I was glad that at least Ramsay took on the competent, hard-working chef in his own restaurant.

That's the tragic thing about idiots in business, often they don't only take themselves down, but others with them. It's harder to get a job when the last place you worked for went bust.

If you want to fuck up your own life, go for it, but don't drag everyone else with you. Have some integrity.

Quote from: HinterWelt;222462education is the key to helping the poor and creating opportunity thus showing them they have choices. The US has programs for the poor and the unemployed that do just this. I happen to have been the recipient in the past of those programs.

Okay, so your success wasn't entirely due to your own efforts. Your community, your country, other people's taxes helped you.

Something to bear in mind next time you want to go on a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, I did!" rant.

Quote from: jgants;222693I took it to mean the most basic concept - an exchange of goods and services free from regulation.  Everyone is free to produce whatever they want, sell to whomever they want, and for whatever price they want.

Yep, that's a free market.

QuoteAs long as some people are better off than others (either physically able to do more work, or mentally able to do smarter work), some people would always be able to take advantage of others and thus ultimately gain wealth and power (hence my argument that we would all need to be genetically equal for it to even be hypothetically possible).

You have confused the system I advocate with a system that attempts to achieve some sort of perfect equality, which is a straw man.

QuoteLook at it this way - let's say Jackalope manages to pull off some Fight Club-esque plot tomorrow and we all start over at square one.  Anyone smart will save up their money.  Anyone hard-working will be able to produce more and make more money.  Lazy people will make less money and stupid people will spend too much of their money.  Pretty soon, the people with less money start to not have enough money to get everything they need, and the people with money are more than ready to lend them money, with usury fees, to help them out.  The people with money then notice they are making enough money to hire out their work so they don't have to do it themselves.  Again, the newly-emerging worker class will take low-paying jobs out of necessity or because they are unable to do something productive themselves. We would very quickly be back where we started.

You have a very dismal view of humanity.  I counter by asserting the smart people will form collectives so they can make money faster..

QuoteBut let's say the Neo-Anarchy movement sets up just enough government to prohibit usury and employment.  Of course, all the people with money will have an easier time getting elected to government, so pretty soon they will just change the laws or insert little loopholes.  And if they aren't elected, they are probably smart enough to figure out ways to get around the laws, or hire better lawyers, or use their money for bribes, etc.  It just wouldn't be sustainable.

The goal isn't to prevent employment.  The goal is to have so many people working in non-hierarchical democratic workplaces that those who would engage in an authoritarian top-down exploitation model will be forced to provide a living wage to compete with the collectives for employees.

Quote from: jgants;222693I took it to mean the most basic concept - an exchange of goods and services free from regulation.  Everyone is free to produce whatever they want, sell to whomever they want, and for whatever price they want.

Well, that's a really, really free market, sort of the ideal, I suppose, of the concept. I don't know that this has been achieved since government was invented, except in those places in which governments have had no jurisdiction. Some aspect of legislation always touches trade a little bit; I think probably the important factor is "how much."

Ultimately, you have to decide what you want, and what you're willing to do in order to get it. For many people, the goal of economic reform is to more equally distribute wealth throughout the society; one way of doing so is to legislate this distribution, either directly, or through proxies [such as maximum differences between highest- and lowest-paid employees, or by graduated taxation]. Redistribution of wealth is not my goal in economics; rather, I seek to establish a system which maximizes individual liberty, which may come at the expense of wealth redistribution. I'm not willing to legislate economics beyond that which is necessary to establish a civilization, preferring instead to leave the greatest level of responsibilities and rights in the hands of the individual.

Quote from: jgants;222693Look at it this way - let's say Jackalope manages to pull off some Fight Club-esque plot tomorrow and we all start over at square one.  Anyone smart will save up their money.  Anyone hard-working will be able to produce more and make more money.  Lazy people will make less money and stupid people will spend too much of their money.

The natural result of freedom is that some people will not choose to succeed. Others may succeed despite themselves, and some will fail despite their efforts, but mostly, those who are most capable of thriving will do so, and those less capable will not. The new natural selection, which we call artificial because we don't think of ourselves as products of nature.

I should have known that a deconstructionist moral relativist would turn out to have a Social Darwinist heart.

Quote from: Jackalope;222576Then no, I can't provide any examples I guess.

Let's posit then that there is no natural order in human culture, and that man makes himself. What do you think?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222776I should have known that a deconstructionist moral relativist would turn out to have a Social Darwinist heart.

Looks like common-or-garden libertarianism to me.

QuoteWorking hard and honestly and being creative give you a tiny chance of great prosperity. Being lazy and dishonest and exploiting others greatly enhances that chance of prosperity. If you don't have to pay people proper wages it's a lot easier for your company to win contracts and be very profitable.

Something like this happened in my home town a few years ago. The owners of a  chain of restaurants had hired illegal immigrants, housed them in quarters above the restaurant, paid them substandard wages in the "company store" fashion, and even went so far as to steal their tips! Meanwhile, the owners were living in Clarksville, the wealthiest section of the wealthiest county in Maryland, with several late model cars, Mercedes, etc. in the garage.

Here's a link (http://http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.restaurant03mar03,0,5558175.story?page=1).

In this case, thankfully, the culprits were arrested and punished (http://http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/worksite_case_example.htm).

edit: Bugger. The links don't work. The restaurant was Kawasaki. Google can take you the rest of the way.

Quote from: Spike;222502If you wish, like Balbinus and others to tear apart my statement (note for the record: I never said only, and yes history must be considered) by all means, do so. If all you want to do is quote and 'lol', I assure you that I am well versed in dealing with small children.  Your mocking laughter does not threaten me, for it is hollow and without weight.

I intended to challenge, even seek to rebut, but not to tear apart.

Just to be clear.

Quote from: John Morrow;222548I'm well aware that being born into money provides (sometimes quite significant) advantages but the advantage comes more from the culture of the class, in my opinion, than from the money itself, and that culture can be learned from and copied or adapted by those not born to it.  The problem with resenting the rich and successful is that it discourages people from learning from them.

Nothing there I particularly disagree with, although I think the money itself also provides some very real advantages, just less so than the cultural attitudes themselves bring.

That said, I don't think it's an adequate response to say, as the right often does, a change of outlook could change your situation and leave it at that - clearly people are struggling to achieve that change and it may be that we should help them and it may be that we should look to see why they are struggling.  IMO it's too easy to sit in a position of comfort and judge others.

Equally, I don't think it's adequate to ignore the fact that some do succeed despite societal disadvantages, and therefore to blame every individual's failure on a societal failing.

As is often the case, I don't actually think ideology  helps us much.  I think rather one has to look at particular programs, does this GI bill help people out of poverty?  Does this type of primary school spending help give children skills they can use to work themselves out of poverty?  Do these business grants help those who are trying to achieve but struggling for starting capital?  Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes no, sometimes it's not clear.

Overall, I don't think ideology does much except give grounds for argument.  I tend to be less interested in say whether positive discrimination is in theory a good thing or not than whether positive discrimination program X has led to a measurable benefit for its targetted recipients and if so has it led to a measurable detriment for another group or groups and if so how do those balance out.

Ideology is fine, but solutions are rarely pure.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222776I should have known that a deconstructionist moral relativist would turn out to have a Social Darwinist heart.

I'm also a determinist, a strict materialist, and a weak atheist, tendencies of mine which are moderated by my nihilism. I am also a rationalist, which means that if you are able to show via reason or evidence that my views are incorrect, I will change them. [This is, in fact, how I came to have these views in the first place, through the reasoning of other persons with whom I have had conversations regarding these issues in the past.]

Are there any other pigeonholes you'd like to place me in so that you conveniently don't have to discuss anything I've said, but simply dismiss it as not worth discussing?

Quote from: Jackalope;222709You have confused the system I advocate with a system that attempts to achieve some sort of perfect equality, which is a straw man.

No, I get what you are saying.  I'm saying that human nature being what it is, a system of perfect equality is the only hope of your proposed system slipping back into our current system.  My argument is that inequality will inevitably breed exploitation, regardless of the system in place.

Quote from: Jackalope;222709You have a very dismal view of humanity.  I counter by asserting the smart people will form collectives so they can make money faster..

And you have a rather naive view of humanity.  History is on my side - how do you think we got where we are today?  Money-lending was the foundation of the merchant class and economic exploitation - the evils of which were talked about as far back as the time of Christ.

Quote from: Jackalope;222709The goal isn't to prevent employment.  The goal is to have so many people working in non-hierarchical democratic workplaces that those who would engage in an authoritarian top-down exploitation model will be forced to provide a living wage to compete with the collectives for employees.

The problem you have there is that the democratic workplaces will be less economically efficient than the authoritarian workplaces (paying employees less = lower prices = more purchases from consumers = Wal*Mart).  They will have a difficult time competing with the authoritarian workplaces, except for tiny niche markets (see grocery co-ops).

Again, human nature being what it is, the authoritarian model businesses will drive the democratic ones out of business, by capturing the majority of the market share and/or simply using their profits to buy out the democratic competition (see grocery co-ops, organic farms, independent film studios, etc).

Thus, my argument that the only way your ideal would actually have a chance is if employment was outlawed.

Quote from: droog;222779Let's posit then that there is no natural order in human culture, and that man makes himself. What do you think?

Eh...that gets into some pretty heavy philosophy there.

I tend to subscribe to the theories promoted by Tim Leary and Robert Anton Wilson, namely that people are essentially domesticated primates -- well trained monkeys who don't really think about what they are doing, they just sort of do it because they were trained to do it -- and that occasionally people "wake up" or "snap out" of the trance and actually become fully conscious and intentional human beings.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222701Okay, so your success wasn't entirely due to your own efforts. Your community, your country, other people's taxes helped you.

Something to bear in mind next time you want to go on a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, I did!" rant.

Sigh. No, it was me. I needed to qualify for those programs. Heck, I needed to apply which you would be amazed the number of people that just I knew who could not be bothered. I then had to maintain a GPA or they would take those benefits away. Also, to be clear, I have absolutely no doubt, considering the amount I earned (and don't fool yourself, I earned it) I could have found an alternate way. In the end, yes, it is your choice. I could easily have followed in my father's illiterate, 9th grade educated footsteps and worked at the factory he did. He wanted more for me but did not know anything more than "Go to College". He gave the same advice to my sister, she ignored it. I went and I found the curriculum that worked for me. Note: A whole crapload of me and I there.

Now, despite your attempts to characterize me otherwise, I have said I am in favor of social programs. Still, you can have all the social programs in the world and it wont do any good if the person does not take responsibility, make choices for themselves and take action. What do you want, to take all choice from a person? I am sure the logic would be "for their own good". You may want to live in that world but I would rather have the ability to choose my own future.

Bill

Quote from: jgants;222900No, I get what you are saying.  I'm saying that human nature being what it is, a system of perfect equality is the only hope of your proposed system slipping back into our current system.  My argument is that inequality will inevitably breed exploitation, regardless of the system in place.

This is why I hate arguing this with people.  I kind of doubt you really understand the system I'm proposing, since I haven't really proposed much.  And then there's your argument, which really seems to be little more than bland assertion.

QuoteAnd you have a rather naive view of humanity.  History is on my side - how do you think we got where we are today?  Money-lending was the foundation of the merchant class and economic exploitation - the evils of which were talked about as far back as the time of Christ.

I don't see history as being on your side. I can actually think of very few examples of major backsliding occurring -- the Dark Ages were one, and they weren't quite as bad as many people seem to think.  Maybe I am naive, but I do believe in progress.  In two-thousand years since Christ, we've managed to go from less than .01% of the population being politically enfranchised to well over 25%.  Democracy is still the most powerful and desired form of government around the world.  Few countries that have achieved democracy have shown any significant desire to repeal democracy and return to world of authoritarian rule by elites (aristocracy).

I honestly can't imagine how that would occur if/when democracy is introduced to the workplace.  Once a tipping point is achieved, and most people work in or are aware of democratic workplaces, and democratic workplaces become seen as normal, I really think it's going to be hard to go back.  Much like once the hourly wage was introduced and became the norm, the daily wage and piecemeal wage were never able to stage a comeback, despite being far more effective tools for the exploitation of workers.

QuoteThe problem you have there is that the democratic workplaces will be less economically efficient than the authoritarian workplaces (paying employees less = lower prices = more purchases from consumers = Wal*Mart).  They will have a difficult time competing with the authoritarian workplaces, except for tiny niche markets (see grocery co-ops).

Yes, but those authoritarian megacorporations rely heavily on government subsidization.  Wal-Mart, for example, is only able to sell as low as it does because it has a strong relationships with China and takes serious advantage of slave labor in China.  Wal-Mart is not operating in a free market.

QuoteAgain, human nature being what it is, the authoritarian model businesses will drive the democratic ones out of business, by capturing the majority of the market share and/or simply using their profits to buy out the democratic competition (see grocery co-ops, organic farms, independent film studios, etc).

Human nature has nothing to do with it.

QuoteThus, my argument that the only way your ideal would actually have a chance is if employment was outlawed.

Your argument relies on "human nature", which is a very, very weak argument indeed.  It's essentially a nonargument, you're really only asserting that you have a very dim view of humanity.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697For anyone, but not everyone.

That's the typical zero-sum view that for there to be winners there have to be losers but it doesn't really work out that way.  Take a good look at what kind of housing and goods a person below poverty has in the United States.  Did you ever wonder how we could have nasty heat waves like those in Europe in 2003 but don't lose 15,000 or more poor and elderly people in the process?  It's because 2/3rds of the people living in poverty have air conditioners.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697The US has one million legal migrants a year. I do not imagine you seriously propose that all 1,000,000 can become wealthy. How many, then? 100,000? 10,000? 1,000? Shall we be generous beyond the realms of economic reason, and say it's 0.1%, and thus 1,000?

So, 1 in 1,000 people beginning with nothing can become wealthy. But 999 can't.

So you are proving your point with made up statistics?  So how does your 1,000 wealthy immigrants a year square with the picture painted by this article (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/national%20news/2008/06/23/162273/Chinese-immigrants.htm%5B/url) which talks about only one group of immigrants and only one part of the United States?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697Surely those other 999 aren't all lazy and undeserving? So is it not true that for most people, hard work, ingenuity and effort are rewarded but poorly?

As I've already said, hard work is not sufficent and talk of people being "deserving" or not is cosmic justice foolishness.  But, yes, plenty of people do sabotage themselves and purposely avoid doing what they need to get ahead.

My cousin manages the property for a shopping mall in Southern California and he manages many very had working Hispanic immigrants.  He's offered to send some of his long-time and promising employees to training to learn English and other skills with an offer to pay them more if they do and he's had employees refuse because they were happy the way they were.  Not conincidentally, he told me those same employees that refused are the guys who blow a significant part of their paycheck on lottery tickets.  So, yes, I do think that poor people and immigrants can put themselves into a position where their own behavior keeps them back, regardless how how hard they work at menial tasks (he said that the guys who refused were good workers) and no matter how deserving even their employer might think they are.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697Surely those other 999 aren't all lazy and undeserving? So is it not true that for most people, hard work, ingenuity and effort are rewarded but poorly?

I like the way you build this detailed conclusion on figures that you pulled out of thin air.  If you ever visit the New York City area, I'll be happy to take you on a tour of some of the immigrant neighborhoods around me.  Even among the Hispanic immigrants, exactly where they come makes a large difference because, well, culture matters.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697As others have observed, this is true of most Western countries. Anyone can be rich, but not everyone can be rich. And many people who work hard and honestly, far from becoming rich, receive little or no reward for it. Whereas a number of people who are lazy and dishonest exploit others and find great rewards for it - for example, the people whose actions began this thread. Most people enslaving or exploiting others receive no punishment at all.

And that's because many of the pepole enslaving or exploiting others in the West are (A) enslaving or exploiting illegal aliens who don't want to go to the authorities and/or (B) are part of a subculture of people that is relatively closed and difficult for the authorities to penetrate (and who may not speak the local langauge).  For the police to infiltrate a group, they need reliable police officers who can "pass" in the group they are trying to infiltrate, which is neither quick nor safe.  And it's not just businesses that take advantage of these situations to exploit and abuse people.  Take a look at the prevalence of coercive arranged marriages in certain communities in the West that has nothing to do with greedy businessmen or government-approved exploitation but the cultures of those immigrants groups, themselves.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697Working hard and honestly and being creative give you a tiny chance of great prosperity. Being lazy and dishonest and exploiting others greatly enhances that chance of prosperity. If you don't have to pay people proper wages it's a lot easier for your company to win contracts and be very profitable.

Yet, many of the examples that have been mentioned so far involve people who have been caught and, when caught, sent to jail.  

And I suppose I should point out that one of the ways in which immigrant small business owners cheat and one of the biggest reasons why they pay employees under the table is not to cheat their employees but to avoid taxes.  Payroll taxes and social security contributions take a big bite out of businesses and I've heard plenty of cases of legal businesses paying legal employees under the table at rates well over the minimum wage simply to avoid the taxes and paperwork involved with legal employment.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697Which is the problem with the system we have: it rewards laziness, dishonesty and exploitation more reliably than it rewards hard work, honesty and creativity. Of course no system is immune from exploitation, but our current system seems to be particularly prone to it.

Now we're back to the laziness and I'll again point out that lazy business woners, legal or illegal, don't succeed.  One can be hard working and greedy at the same time.  Our system isn't prone to laziness, dishonesty, and exploitation but it happens.  So what do you think things are like in other parts of the world?  Have you ever taken a look at how immigrants treat and abuse each other?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697For anyone, but not everyone.

That's the typical zero-sum view that for there to be winners there have to be losers but it doesn't really work out that way.  Take a good look at what kind of housing and goods a person below poverty has in the United States.  Did you ever wonder how we could have nasty heat waves like those in Europe in 2003 but don't lose 15,000 or more poor and elderly people in the process?  It's because 2/3rds of the people living in poverty have air conditioners.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697The US has one million legal migrants a year. I do not imagine you seriously propose that all 1,000,000 can become wealthy. How many, then? 100,000? 10,000? 1,000? Shall we be generous beyond the realms of economic reason, and say it's 0.1%, and thus 1,000?

So, 1 in 1,000 people beginning with nothing can become wealthy. But 999 can't.

So you are proving your point with made up statistics?  So how does your 1,000 wealthy immigrants a year square with the picture painted by this article (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/national%20news/2008/06/23/162273/Chinese-immigrants.htm%5B/url) which talks about only one group of immigrants and only one part of the United States?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697Surely those other 999 aren't all lazy and undeserving? So is it not true that for most people, hard work, ingenuity and effort are rewarded but poorly?

As I've already said, hard work is not sufficent and talk of people being "deserving" or not is cosmic justice foolishness.  But, yes, plenty of people do sabotage themselves and purposely avoid doing what they need to get ahead.

My cousin manages the property for a shopping mall in Southern California and he manages many very had working Hispanic immigrants.  He's offered to send some of his long-time and promising employees to training to learn English and other skills with an offer to pay them more if they do and he's had employees refuse because they were happy the way they were.  Not conincidentally, he told me those same employees that refused are the guys who blow a significant part of their paycheck on lottery tickets.  So, yes, I do think that poor people and immigrants can put themselves into a position where their own behavior keeps them back, regardless how how hard they work at menial tasks (he said that the guys who refused were good workers) and no matter how deserving even their employer might think they are.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697Surely those other 999 aren't all lazy and undeserving? So is it not true that for most people, hard work, ingenuity and effort are rewarded but poorly?

I like the way you build this detailed conclusion on figures that you pulled out of thin air.  If you ever visit the New York City area, I'll be happy to take you on a tour of some of the immigrant neighborhoods around me.  Even among the Hispanic immigrants, exactly where they come makes a large difference because, well, culture matters.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697As others have observed, this is true of most Western countries. Anyone can be rich, but not everyone can be rich. And many people who work hard and honestly, far from becoming rich, receive little or no reward for it. Whereas a number of people who are lazy and dishonest exploit others and find great rewards for it - for example, the people whose actions began this thread. Most people enslaving or exploiting others receive no punishment at all.

And that's because many of the pepole enslaving or exploiting others in the West are (A) enslaving or exploiting illegal aliens who don't want to go to the authorities and/or (B) are part of a subculture of people that is relatively closed and difficult for the authorities to penetrate (and who may not speak the local langauge).  For the police to infiltrate a group, they need reliable police officers who can "pass" in the group they are trying to infiltrate, which is neither quick nor safe.  And it's not just businesses that take advantage of these situations to exploit and abuse people.  Take a look at the prevalence of coercive arranged marriages in certain communities in the West that has nothing to do with greedy businessmen or government-approved exploitation but the cultures of those immigrants groups, themselves.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697Working hard and honestly and being creative give you a tiny chance of great prosperity. Being lazy and dishonest and exploiting others greatly enhances that chance of prosperity. If you don't have to pay people proper wages it's a lot easier for your company to win contracts and be very profitable.

Yet, many of the examples that have been mentioned so far involve people who have been caught and, when caught, sent to jail.  

And I suppose I should point out that one of the ways in which immigrant small business owners cheat and one of the biggest reasons why they pay employees under the table is not to cheat their employees but to avoid taxes.  Payroll taxes and social security contributions take a big bite out of businesses and I've heard plenty of cases of legal businesses paying legal employees under the table at rates well over the minimum wage simply to avoid the taxes and paperwork involved with legal employment.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;222697Which is the problem with the system we have: it rewards laziness, dishonesty and exploitation more reliably than it rewards hard work, honesty and creativity. Of course no system is immune from exploitation, but our current system seems to be particularly prone to it.

Now we're back to the laziness and I'll again point out that lazy business woners, legal or illegal, don't succeed.  One can be hard working and greedy at the same time.  Our system isn't prone to laziness, dishonesty, and exploitation but it happens.  So what do you think things are like in other parts of the world?  Have you ever taken a look at how immigrants treat and abuse each other?