If its private, its all good!!!!

Anyone who does not own thier form of employment or have control over thier financial fate is just a slave. like the slaves their owners dismissed them whenever they though they were useless (unprofitable). A slave is not judged based on his effort, or individual ability and merit but based on his profitability just like the modern employee.

The wages rise not because the system wants them to rise; they rise to keep workers content and from revolting. And distract them and cloud thier minds from alternative worlds and societies.

 

Your under the illusion that you have some ability to determine your wages but the truth disagrees. The day workers decide thier wages is the day capitalism ceases to exist.

Ever heard of the labour markets and do you how they work? You don't determine nothing. You are in competition with other workers not just nationally but now globally, because capital is mobile it gets to decide the rules while labour confirms. If You stupid Americans aren't willing to work for 10 bucks an hour, we will just move our capital to India where workers (who have no choice) will work for 4 bucks an hour.

The consumer like the employer is controlled by the so called free-market.

It is slavery because these people do not confirm out of thier own freewill, they confirm to survive. It is exploitation and oppression because they are powerless people being taken advantage of by the powerful to fulfil thier own selfish needs.

You cannot avoid anything, there is no labour security and certainty. You can lose your employment any second just like the slave. You have no control, you are powerless like the workers of Enron over your financial fate and future.

 

You're doing it again. If me and someone else are both desirable candidates for the same job, but the employer really wants to hire me, is the employer going to land my services by offering me more or less money? Conversely, if I have to decide between two jobs that involve roughly the same duties and opportunities for advancement, and one company offers me $5,000 more per year, who gets to decide where I'm going to work? You can't acknowledge that a labor market (and competition for labor) exists and keep thinking away the supply side or the demand side just to suit your position.

Does free will have some kind of soft spot for opponents of market economies? If I can chose to work, rather than die, then it is not the case that I somehow can't choose which employer or vocation I wish to undertake. Free will either operates in both cases or in neither.

Slaves aren't "employed". They're merely a means to an end. But all right, a slave can "lose his job" just like I can. So what? The similarities (such that they are) end there.

 

Obviously less, two great candidates that he/she has to choose from, the under bidder will get the job. Byway that is why minimum wages exist. You think the employer likes you but you do not know the existence of your follow worker who also thinks the employer likes him. The employer having authority and power over you both plays your interests against each other without you or your follow worker knowing. This is why unions and collective bargaining exist. Pure capitalism is inhumane.

You, but it depends on whether the buyer (employer) wants you or not and whether someone else is willing to work for less.

That is whole point you either work or you die, work is not voluntarily it is involuntarily under capitalism.

Yes, just like the employees.

You both have no control over your lives, your lives are just tools to be bought and sold.

 

I can't follow most of this. If the employer truly wants to hire me, rather than someone else, he's not going to land my services by offering me less, rather than more money (particularly if some other employer has already offered me more money). In any case, you seem to be assuming (incorrectly) that most everyone is necessarily working a job they despise, which is not of their own choosing, and for which they're earning less money than they agreed to when they accepted the job. Even the kid working at McDonalds for minimum wage knows what his salarly will be going in and doesn't have to seek a job there at all.

Here again, free will is a metaphysical NOT a political concept. If work is (somehow) involuntary under capitalism, then work is involuntary everywhere else in the known universe.

Finally, a slave is "merely a means to an end" ('merely' being the key word). A slave, by definition, is coerced into performing his labor. His rational agency is completely disregarded and he has no say whatsoever in the kind of work he does, nor the wages he shall be paid for it. This is one of the morally despicable features of slavery. Put more simply, if I object to the work I'm doing or to my wages, I can resign and seek employment elsewhere. If you think 'employee' is just a euphemism for 'slave' then you're going to have to show me some group of slaves who had a bona fide choice in the matter of their employment.

 

Round the wheel we go.............spinning and spinning, constantly to the right.

Both parties are right in a sense, depending on the way you look at it.

I guess I find this whole discussion pointless, the human condition will never allow a utopian society, as long as we are on this earth thier will be three basic classes of people, the exploiters, the exploited.................and those that simply drop out of that society all together. The third group being the smallest. Capitalism is a joke, it's shrouded in lies and carefully crafted propaganda, it is akin to communism in that they both accomplish the same thing, however capitalism is much more user friendly, capitalism provides the illusion that you are not being exploited, capitalism offers everyone the opportunity to move from exploited to exploiter, capitalism, on the surface, offers more freedom (but not too much). I have no doubt that as a world society we are coming to a head (within my lifetime) where we will either knowingly become subservient, or the entire system will fall apart. Those that argue vehemently against capitalism, are somewhat naieve, because for the most part they rant and rave about how bad it is, but how often do you see them offering a viable alternative? I haven't seen one yet. On the other hand, those that tout the benefits of capitalistic society, are either exploiters, or just plain deluded and brainwashed. In reality, thier is no black or white, no perfect solution, as long as human biengs are calling the shots, ego and greed will never allow a solution to either problem, we as human biengs talk a good game, but when it comes down to it, most will not make sacrifice in order to benefit thier neighbor....................even if it would produce a utopia. So.....I will just sit here, in my cabin, on my land, in the woods, living in my grey world, alone, neither participating, nor denouncing, because in the long run, people will not change, thier either extremists, or puppets. Love and Light ~Rob

 

Gun

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
I don’t know if to laugh or cry.
Then maybe you should see a psychiatrist.

Sorry this is a saying were I come you might not have it and so don’t understand is meaning. I’ll try and explain – it is used when someone says something so stupid that you are unsure if it was meant as a joke and you should laugh or if the person actually meant it and so be upset by his or her level of ignorance.

The thing is that your argument up to that point seemed to be that people had a choice and in the final resort they could in reality go off and live in the woods. Of course that is just silly so your whole argument seem to fall apart for without it you were admitting that people did have limited choices.

The question then comes down to just how limited are people’s choices?

If someone is born into money then they are likely to have a great deal more opportunities that someone that is born into a poor family.

If someone is brought up with the best education and a opportunities laden environment (right schools, parties, parental work places, etc) then they are likely do better than someone without those advantages.

So choices are limited by wealth.

In many places there is discrimination by race.

So choices can be limited by race.

And so on..

**

I remember working as a labourer with someone who turned out to be rich, he just liked working as a labourer, but he could give it up whenever he wished with no loss in his standard of living or quality of life. All the other labourers were working to live, they could leave that job but that would mean a drop in their quality of life, so they would need to find another job or end up without a roof over their heads and a meal in their stomachs. Most had limited education and few or no jobs outside of labouring or similar jobs.

So they had very limited time before the wolf was at the door and limited experience to get a better job.

Again the choices are limited.

**

 

Actually, I'm still trying to decipher the meaning of this sentence.

So, you're saying that where you come from, a man living in the woods brings about some kind of a logical contradiction and is therefore impossible? You keep raising this objection to a premise in my argument that is doing very little work for me. And you're not raising the objection very well.

And your point is?
I can't score the winning touchdown in Super Bowl X, nor run a mile in under a minute. Does this mean that I suddenly don't have free will or that people living off the land brings about some kind of logical contradiction?

And as far as choices being limited by wealth and/or discrimination (real and contrived), again so what? Henry Ford wasn't born wealthy, nor was Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. People born into wealth have squandered their fortunes and some of those born into poverty have raised themselves up from it.

Don't want to work a 9-to-5 job for a living, then don't. Write a novel, build a cabin in the woods, panhandle for spare change, go to a soup kitchen for dinner.

 

I’m so sorry, I’m sure it is me who is being unclear.

I meant that the phrase “I didn’t know if to laugh or cry” was a saying, adage, aphorism, axiom, an expression. It is used here in the UK but I thought maybe you didn't so thought I should explain it’s meaning.

Did you understand that meaning? Here it is again if not - it is used when someone says something (like your did) that is so stupid that anyone hearing it is unsure if it was meant to be a joke and that they should laugh or if it is meant to be taken seriously and so be upset by the persons ignorance.

**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
The thing is that your argument up to that point seemed to be that people had a choice and in the final resort they could in reality go off and live in the woods. Of course that is just silly so your whole argument seem to fall apart for without it you were admitting that people did have limited choices.

So, you're saying that where you come from, a man living in the woods brings about some kind of a logical contradiction and is therefore impossible? You keep raising this objection to a premise in my argument that is doing very little work for me. And you're not raising the objection very well.

What? We do seem to be having a language problem don’t we but I’m sorry to say that I’m unsure what you mean, can you clarify?

**

I can't score the winning touchdown in Super Bowl X, nor run a mile in under a minute. Does this mean that I suddenly don't have free will or that people living off the land brings about some kind of logical contradiction?

What has free will got to do with American football or athletics?

**

And as far as choices being limited by wealth and/or discrimination (real and contrived), again so what? Henry Ford wasn't born wealthy, nor was Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

Not very good examples actually the Fords had a prosperous farm, Bill Gates’ father was a wealthy lawyer and his mother was Regent of the University of Washington and Warren Buffett’s father was a well to do stockbroker turned Congressman. They actually back up my argument not yours.

**

Don't want to work a 9-to-5 job for a living, then don't. Write a novel, build a cabin in the woods, panhandle for spare change, go to a soup kitchen for dinner.

So these are your choices, if people are born poor

They can write a novel, again this is more likely to be done by people with a good education and connections.

Build a cabin in the woods – so you still buy into this myth?

Panhandle for spare change – why would you want to live like that it is often cold hard and short, do you think it romantic or something?

Go to a soup kitchen for dinner – (see above)

**

Why not think about ways to improve peoples lives rather than tell them they can live like tramps or be exploited?

 

The question is how many people can live off the land because you need
money to live off the land? Do you own productive land? Can everyone own productive land or this only a privilege for a few? If not shouldn't all productive land be utilized to benefit the majority instead of just a minority at the expense of many?

 

Oh. Well, in that case when I read your posts I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

You keep trying to equate 'limited choice' with economic determinism. And you still haven't told me why it's impossible for someone to live in a cabin in the woods.

Actually they're plenty good enough examples. Ford turned away from farming and built up his company and fortune himself. As did Gates and Buffett with their fortunes. They created vast amounts of wealth for themselves and others. They took their lot in life and drastically improved it. What's to stop someone born poor from doing the same?

No. They're possible third alternatives to refute the false dilemma (working or dying) presented earlier.

Here again, as with romanticizing frontier life, who even said this? Are you having a discussion with me and the people in this forum, or are your posts the result of some discussion going on in your head?

 

now that was funny................

 

Oh. Well, in that case when I read your posts I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

LOL

There is another expression that goes – imitation is the sincerest form of flattery


You keep trying to equate 'limited choice' with economic determinism. And you still haven't told me why it's impossible for someone to live in a cabin in the woods.

The first part we will come back to the second is a reasonable question although it does make me think that you may not have thought this idea through before presenting it.

OK

Your argument seem to be that people have choices when it came to employment and that ultimately the power was with the employee since they could just walk away -

“They can draw up any contract they want, but if it's not what I determine to be a fair wage, I'll take my services elsewhere. I could even take up hunting and fishing, and learn about log cabin construction so that I could live off the land in some remote wilderness.”

- The implication seeming to be that employers couldn’t exploit people because if they did they would all just refuse to work and go off to live as hunter gathers.

As I’ve said this seemed silly.

These days virtually all land is owned privately or publicly, which means someone would basically have to buy land or squat on it.

Well in your argument buying is not an option since that requires money (and there are other considerations such as land use which means that while a person may own the land they cannot live on it) and squatting is rather short term and precarious plus being illegal.

This leads on to another problem the ability of the environment to sustain a return to a hunter gatherer life style. Even if someone paid for some land to build a cabin on and gained permission to do so they would need a lot more land to be able to sustain themselves.

There are large areas of the world that are uninhabited but they are usually uninhabited for a reason, they are deserts or very marginal land were few people if any can sustain themselves.

But even in more productive areas the ability of an individual or group to find substance is limited by the availability of foodstuffs.

This is why there are limits on hunting in many places, experience has shown that over hunting can quite rapidly cause serve depletion even extinction.

One possibility is nomadism, moving from one are to another so that stocks of wildlife can have time to replenish. The problem is that your argument implies that this option is open to everyone but let us say that it was allowed for just a very small percentage of the US population, say 10% would result in no area having the time to replenish.

The next stop as the Easter Islanders discovered was cannibalism.

**

Not very good examples actually the Fords had a prosperous farm, Bill Gates’ father was a wealthy lawyer and his mother was Regent of the University of Washington and Warren Buffett’s father was a well to do stockbroker turned Congressman. They actually back up my argument not yours.

Actually they're plenty good enough examples. Ford turned away from farming and built up his company and fortune himself. As did Gates and Buffett with their fortunes. They created vast amounts of wealth for themselves and others. They took their lot in life and drastically improved it. What's to stop someone born poor from doing the same?

My argument was that choices can be limited by birth and circumstance.

That if someone is brought up with a better education than others and in an environment more laden with opportunities, then they are likely do better than someone without those advantages. So explaining that people born into relative wealth have an advantage over those born into poorer groups. It is possible for a poor person to get ahead but it is a lot more difficult than someone that is already a few steps head.

You seem to disagree

“And as far as choices being limited by wealth and/or discrimination (real and contrived), again so what? Henry Ford wasn't born wealthy, nor was Bill Gates or Warren Buffett”

You seemed to be arguing that since Ford, Gates and Buffett hadn’t had the advantages of relative wealth then it showed that choices were not limited by birth and circumstance.

I then pointed out that Ford, Gates and Buffett, actually were born into relatively wealth group and so had the advantages I’d talked about.

So your argument is what?

That your examples had those advantages but that doesn’t mean that they had those advantages?

Sorry but that doesn’t seem to be a reasonable or rational argument.

People can rise from poverty but it can be a lot harder than rising from a higher position because the choices are less.

**

So these [panhandling, soup kitchens, living in the woods] are your choices, if people are born poor

No. They're possible third alternatives to refute the false dilemma (working or dying) presented earlier.

Why not think about ways to improve peoples lives rather than tell them they can live like tramps or be exploited?

Here again, as with romanticizing frontier life, who even said this? Are you having a discussion with me and the people in this forum, or are your posts the result of some discussion going on in your head?

So by your own admission you think the choices for disadvantaged people are work, die or live in the desperate circumstances of a tramp?

So why not think about ways to improve these people’s lives rather than tell them they can live like tramps, be exploited, or go away and die?

**

 

Someone has probably already answered with the same answer that I'm about to give, but I'm lazy and won't read the full thread.

In a "communist" society (note the quotes, I am not referring to a true communist society since it's probable that none have ever existed), a relatively small number of people control the wealth, and argue that it has to be that way for the benefit of the people. In a capitalist society, on the other hand, a relatively small number of people control the wealth, and argue that it has to be that way for the benefit of the people.

I think a mixed economy is best- a free market for most goods and services, but regulated to prevent things like the big raid on the US treasury that we're seeing by corporations today.