15 Jul 09
Originally posted by WajomaYou know nothing, Wajoma. If your life were to be left entirely in your own hands you'd probably be dead by now.
Each one of these has probably had threads spent on them.
Minimum wage: An hour of my time belongs to me you have no right to dictate what I can sell that hour for.
ADL's: Other than a few cases that make the news this still happens and will continue to happen, if a business owner chooses an employee based on how they look rather than their ability, ...[text shortened]... know better than you or I or any of their fellow man how best we should run our own lives.
But let me address your last point - that workers have the right to go somewhere else. Let us use an analogy.
Let's say there is a continent with ten countries and that each is run by a brutal dictator. Despite this, they maintain open borders. Citizens from one country can freely move to another as they see fit. Now, the people are free to move from one brutal dictatorship to another, but they are not free to choose not to live under a brutal dictatorship. They're all brutal dictators. The freedom to choose between ten different brutal dictatorships does not equal freedom on how to live your life. It is a false freedom. Every choice you make is essentially the same, which is the same as having no choice.
Now assume that instead of countries you are dealing with companies.
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by WajomaDo you think there should be legislation to impose a minimum age at which people can work?
Each one of these has probably had threads spent on them.
Minimum wage: An hour of my time belongs to me you have no right to dictate what I can sell that hour for.
ADL's: Other than a few cases that make the news this still happens and will continue to happen, if a business owner chooses an employee based on how they look rather than their ability, ...[text shortened]... know better than you or I or any of their fellow man how best we should run our own lives.
Or would this be busybody interference in your supposedly free market - if a company wants to hire 5-year-olds and they're willing to work, why should the state or anyone else interfere?
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by WajomaTechnically, yes. And some do. But the degree of institutional support behind traditional, capitalist managed firms is overwhelming. My objective would be to raise the level of institutional support for labor managed firms. This would make its availability better known and make the mechanism more accessible.
Are companies not free to form on this basis now?
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettBrutal dictators use force and threats of force. Companies do not.
You know nothing, Wajoma. If your life were to be left entirely in your own hands you'd probably be dead by now.
But let me address your last point - that workers have the right to go somewhere else. Let us use an analogy.
Let's say there is a continent with ten countries and that each is run by a brutal dictator. Despite this, they maintain open bo ...[text shortened]... as having no choice.
Now assume that instead of countries you are dealing with companies.
Your analogy is the worst I've seen on RHP.
rwinrett say:"You know nothing, Wajoma. If your life were to be left entirely in your own hands you'd probably be dead by now"
True evil speaks. I should pass my life over to your hands? You have some higher qualification than I at running MY LIFE?
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by Wajoma😴
Brutal dictators use force and threats of force. Companies do not.
Your analogy is the worst I've seen on RHP.
rwinrett say:"You know nothing, Wajoma. If your life were to be left entirely in your own hands you'd probably be dead by now"
True evil speaks. I should pass my life over to your hands? You have some higher qualification than I at running MY LIFE?
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by RedmikeDon't see how you jump from minimum wage to minimum age.
Do you think there should be legislation to impose a minimum age at which people can work?
Or would this be busybody interference in your supposedly free market - if a company wants to hire 5-year-olds and they're willing to work, why should the state or anyone else interfere?
On the first point, I'm not sure I can make it any clearer. An hour of my time belongs to me, you have no right to dictate what I can sell it for.
The second point, yes there is a minimum age of consent, young people have not developed enough to understand the concept of rights and so they do not have the right to go to the grocery store and buy a M16.
Almost as bad as rwingetts companies/brutal dictators analogy.
Come on guys you're way off your game.
15 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettTranslation: rwingett wants successful capitalist companies to pay for his shonky ant heap collectivist ideals.
Technically, yes. And some do. But the degree of institutional support behind traditional, capitalist managed firms is overwhelming. My objective would be to raise the level of institutional support for labor managed firms. This would make its availability better known and make the mechanism more accessible.
16 Jul 09
Originally posted by WajomaSo, you accept there should be a legal limit on the age at which someone can go out to work?
Don't see how you jump from minimum wage to minimum age.
On the first point, I'm not sure I can make it any clearer. An hour of my time belongs to me, you have no right to dictate what I can sell it for.
The second point, yes there is a minimum age of consent, young people have not developed enough to understand the concept of rights and so they do no ...[text shortened]... ad as rwingetts companies/brutal dictators analogy.
Come on guys you're way off your game.
If so, who should set this limit?
16 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettAs fun as it would be to watch this discussion devolve into the inevitable train wreck it will become, a couple of points:
Technically, yes. And some do. But the degree of institutional support behind traditional, capitalist managed firms is overwhelming. My objective would be to raise the level of institutional support for labor managed firms. This would make its availability better known and make the mechanism more accessible.
Originally posted by Wajoma
Tra ...[text shortened]... ingett wants successful capitalist companies to pay for his shonky ant heap collectivist ideals.
rwingett: One reason there is "institutional support" for capital-based management of firms is that it is a well known system with a track record for making profits. If you can demonstrate that a labor managed firm will be profitable, you should be able to find investors.
Wajoma: I don't think he's talking about "successful capitalist companies" paying for anything, he's talking about investment in a different sort of company. I'm not sure how it would work, but it doesn't necessarily sound bad. (After all, some pretty "shonky" things can go on when large corporations are controlled by a small group of people with incentives to maximize short term personal profit, even at the expense of the company.)
16 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThanks to a little something I'd like to call brilliant, and some call union: giving the worker a voice. If
Brutal dictators use force and threats of force. Companies do not.
capitalist despots have the possibility to run their companies in true dictator-manners, they will (as
history has shown). After all, in reality, putting all the wealth of the world in the hands of a relative
few capitalists, is no different than having kings or dictators. Depending on their mood of the day and
their general disposition, we can have great lives or miserable ones. Laws, governments and union
agreements are what makes the lives of the workers (majority of the population) endurable if not
splendid under a capitalist rule. That is, if you happen to also live in the same country where those
benefits has been introduced. Otherwise, you're pretty much screwed from the get go.