Political/Government General Discussion : Libertarian Socialism

The Infidel Guy Show
The Debate Hour Show
Faith and Freethought
3 Podcasts, One Feed

or visit this page.

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Live Video and Chat Room

Freethought Videos

Blogs

Weblogs News

Embed Our Player

~ TIP JAR ~

Libertarian Socialism
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 27, 28, 29 Next

AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Political/Government General Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!

Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2428
Local time: 7:43 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:05 am Post subject:

gnosis wrote:

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

Gnosis, for part of my lunch I am having an apple. Once I eat that apple, nobody else in the world can ever eat that particular apple. Anyone who has to either eat that particular apple and no other apple or starve will starve.

I have no concern for that person, given that there are billions of other apples in the world.

If all the jobs for that person's skill set pay that wage, then he is going to get his area's basic standard of living.

And why is he entitled to your standard of what he should get? What makes you aribter of what jobs he can or cannot accept? If he does accept a job that you feel pays too little, would you advocate violence of the threat of violence to force him to not work at that job?

You would be depriving him of his income if you did that. Perhaps he thinks a small income is better than no income. In that case you are depriving him of his liberty in the name of guaranteeing his liberty, just like Bush and Iraq.

I would shift this analogy. For your lunch you are having an apple. An apple which grows on a tree that you planted, but you ask someone else to pick for you, telling him you will share the apple with him, as you are both hungry. You cut a very small sliver of the apple for the worker, not enough to nourish him fully, and save the rest for yourself. Your argument is "hey, it' s MY tree"!

The analogy was perfect, which is why you insist on shifting it. Ok, I'll shift it further.

For lunch I am having an apple. An apples which grows on a tree that I planted, a tree full of apples, but I ask someone else to pick for me, telling him I will share the harvest with him as we are both hungry. I tell him that the first 10 apples he plucks are mine, but he can have the next ten. He plucks eleven apples instead of the allowed twenty, and you declare I cheated him because I got ten apples and he only got one. You claim I am greedy for setting terms for my tree. Then you want to liberate him like Bush liberated me by chopping down my tree and dragging it onto his property so that he can eat all the remaining apples until they are gone AND there is no hope for a new replacement crop of apples, and will shoot me if I try to stop you from chopping down my tree.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.

LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.

Visit my wife's art gallery

gnosis
Forum Master

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2396
Local time: 10:43 PM
Location: California

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:32 am Post subject:

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

I tell him that the first 10 apples he plucks are mine, but he can have the next ten.

This analogy indicates a 50/50 distribution of wealth between employer and a single worker which is highly inaccurate, at least if we are representing the U.S. with the analogy.

"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."

-A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S., 1989-2001 (2003)" by Arthur B. Kennickell at Levy Economics Institute

It is true that the upper percentage of the population contribute a larger percentage of taxation, but consider that if they paid a higher wage to the workers they wouldn't have to pay as much in taxation. If workers are paid a higher wage they are better able to take care of themselves, eliminating the need for as many government programs.

Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 10:43 PM

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:48 am Post subject:

hillbillyatheist wrote:

but in todays world, even unions are not always necessary. and many times they get corrupt and actually make things worse for the workers, the company and its customers.

Well, will not deny many unions can be corrupt, but as a worker, I almost always preferred working in a job with a shitty, bureaucratic corrupt union than no union at all. Even if the wages suck and my dues are high, it's nice to know I have some contractual protections, such as I can't be fired if I'm doing a good job just because a supervisor doesn't like me (although I did get fucked on one union job when I had already paid my $400 initiation fee to the Teamsters then got canned before my probation after seasonal work slowed down-- that's why now when I negotiate contracts I try to match the payment of dues with the end of the probationary period). But, in general, unionized workplaces do tend to have higher wages and better benefits, as do industries/regions with high union density (even in the non-union shops).

Could you please clarify your statement that "in today's world, even unions are not always necessary"? Do you mean generally they are not necessary or in certain industries/jobs they are not necessary? I'd disagree with the former, but probably agree with the latter, but then again there is a difference between "necessary" and "desirable". If you meant certain industries or jobs, could you give some examples of industries or jobs (besides finance, professional or management jobs) where you think unions are either not necessary or not desirable?

Quote:

take the writers union. apparently you can't even be a writter unless you join it, and they can shut down all our shows over stuff that imo isn't worth fightiog for. its not like they are fighting for their very existence like coal miners were and somtimes still are.

Well, the main issue of the strike I do think was worth fighting for (if you're an entertainment writer). It was over royalties for internet media. That's the future of the industry and if I were in that union I certainly would've considered that a strike issue.

Quote:

and why can't hollywood producers higher nonunion writers if they wish?

I'm simplifying this a bit, but there are basically two types of unions-- industrial unions and craft unions. Craft unions would be like those you find in the construction industry, the writers' guild, actors' guild, musician's union, etc. They are based around a particular trade or skill. Industrial unions (like in factories or the service sector for example) represent more unskilled and semiskilled workers and get their strength primarily by controlling production, whereas craft unions represent skilled workers and (traditionally at least) have based their power partly or mostly upon their ability to control the labor market in a particular trade-- this is done in the construction industry, for example, with the hiring hall and apprenticeship training programs. So the WGA is able to demand higher wages and benefits occassionally through shutting down production, as they did recently, but mostly by controlling the pool of labor available to employers.

Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!

Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2428
Local time: 7:43 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:53 am Post subject:

gnosis wrote:

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

I tell him that the first 10 apples he plucks are mine, but he can have the next ten.

This analogy indicates a 50/50 distribution of wealth between employer and a single worker which is highly inaccurate, at least if we are representing the U.S. with the analogy.

But you agree with all of the rest of the analogy? Up to and including threatening to shoot me if I resist your attempt to increase fairness by chopping down my tree?
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.

LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.

Visit my wife's art gallery

Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator

Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 5:43 AM
Location: Poland

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject:

gnosis wrote:

Labor regulations = legal protection of labor rights.

Nope.
There are no labor rights other then what's agreed on in the contract. For either side.
And you don't need any regulations to enforce contracts.
And didn't you argue that today's laws are more to the benefit of employers? Will you make up your mind?
_________________

It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea.

josephpalazzo
Illusion Master

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 10:43 PM
Location: D-brane

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject:

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

josephpalazzo wrote:

Large red letters make my argument more convincing.

You don't go far enough. You forgot the all-caps.

WHAT???

WHAT???

WHAT???

hillbillyatheist
Administrator

Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 15986
Local time: 10:43 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject:

Godless Red Scum wrote:

Could you please clarify your statement that "in today's world, even unions are not always necessary"? Do you mean generally they are not necessary or in certain industries/jobs they are not necessary? I'd disagree with the former, but probably agree with the latter, but then again there is a difference between "necessary" and "desirable". If you meant certain industries or jobs, could you give some examples of industries or jobs (besides finance, professional or management jobs) where you think unions are either not necessary or not desirable?

in places where you can't quit a shitty job and go find a better one, unions are vital. in places where you can go find a better job, unions are unnecessary. if you're trapped in a coal mining town where they own your house, the store, pay you in scripts, and basically you are for all intents and purposes their slaves, and the company even owns the local courts, cops and government, a union is vital and revolution must be wrought and all means employed to obtain liberty.

in places with opportunity and where the economy is not depressed and you are free to change jobs without getting booted from your home and banned from getting groceries, you don't need a union. don't like your job? go find another one. save up and go to a vo-tech school and make better money.

Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 10:43 PM

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject:

hillbillyatheist wrote:

Godless Red Scum wrote:

Well, I'd dispute they are "unnecessary" in such a circumstance, but do you also think they are also undesirable outside of a "company town"?

hillbillyatheist
Administrator

Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 15986
Local time: 10:43 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject:

Godless Red Scum wrote:

hillbillyatheist wrote:

Godless Red Scum wrote:

Well, I'd dispute they are "unnecessary" in such a circumstance, but do you also think they are also undesirable outside of a "company town"?

I'd say it depends on the situation.

factory workers could sure use unions, I have worked in factories and they treat you like shit, demand quotas that are next to impossible to fill, and cut corners on things such as air conditioning, even though you are in a metal building surrounded by heat making machines.

but then consider this.

I am now going to college so I don't have to work in factories anymore. it sucked so I am now trying to get a better paying better quality job.

we're moving away from factories to service jobs.

I have a dream. I have a dream that one day, robots of all kinds will do all the shitty work and we can all have jobs in air conditioned office. I have a dream today!

Philosophos
Do it

Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 11:43 PM
Location: Where Scum Are

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject:

hillbillyatheist wrote:

I have a dream. I have a dream that one day, robots of all kinds will do all the shitty work and we can all have jobs in air conditioned office. I have a dream today!

Until they rise up and kill us all...

I'm ready...
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...

...and I'll whisper 'no'.

cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.

Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7247
Local time: 7:43 PM
Location: Next door.

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject:

josephpalazzo wrote:

I clearly demonstrated that your source on wikipedia is a mixture of good stuff and bad stuff.

No you didn't. Your just confusing the use of the word false.

Quote:

The example given on that wikipedia page is a logical construction with an invalid conclusion. Look at the Venn's diagram. Anyone with a rudiment knowledge of Logic would--

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the English language would never be so dumb/obstinate as to confuse the use of the word "false" in this case. Only a desperate cry baby would try this.

Quote:

see that the statement, Therefore, the universe may have been designed by some kind of locksmith is an INVALID conclusion. The author of your source doesn't seem to be aware of the difference between true/false and valid/invalid.

The irony.

Quote:

These are different concepts, that even you should be aware of. So in that confusion, the author makes a serious mistake in judgment. The example given is a case of a logical construction with an invalid conclusion, and not an analogy which the author has labelled false. True/false values are only assigned to factive statements,

Hold that thought.

Quote:

and analogies don't qualify as such.

So what? They don't have to.

Quote:

The very fact that you asked me, Are you attacking an analogy or a single proposition? Can you figure out the difference? only shows you are more confused about the subject than the author of your webpage source. Read the Venn`s diagram again. If you haven`t figured out that the conclusion is invalid then I`m talking to an ignoramus, an amateur who is trying to pose as an expert.

You should submit your concept of why an analogy can't be "false" to this peer reviewed web site. Apparently a bunch of philosophers don't know about your amazing discovery.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#False%20Analogy

Quote:

Until you've figured out this simple concept, there is very little for me to tell you. HOPE YOU GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER...

Joe, your the one who brought up logic in the first place. WHY an analogy is false doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with it's structure, or even any logic beyond rationally explaining why an apple is not like an orange. I realise now that I might not have been correct when I accused you of equivocation. Your not interchanging meaning, your just omitting it. Your bullshit isn't sophisticated enough to be fallacious, it's just plain wrong.

Now OBSERVE the nature of your fuckup:

http://www.kendall-bioresearch.co.uk/fscorp.htm

I'll have that apology now, or I'm going to go to the moderated debate forum and greatly increase the visibility of your retardation.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli

josephpalazzo
Illusion Master

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 10:43 PM
Location: D-brane

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:15 am Post subject:

cheapsuprise wrote:

josephpalazzo wrote:

I clearly demonstrated that your source on wikipedia is a mixture of good stuff and bad stuff.

No you didn't. Your just confusing the use of the word false.

Quote:

The example given on that wikipedia page is a logical construction with an invalid conclusion. Look at the Venn's diagram. Anyone with a rudiment knowledge of Logic would--

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the English language would never be so dumb/obstinate as to confuse the use of the word "false" in this case. Only a desperate cry baby would try this.

Quote:

The irony.

Quote:

Hold that thought.

Quote:

and analogies don't qualify as such.

So what? They don't have to.

Quote:

Until you've figured out this simple concept, there is very little for me to tell you. HOPE YOU GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER...

Again, you provided a second source, which clearly demonstrated that you haven't read it. If you did, you would have discovered that it says nothing about my claim, but indirectly reinforce it.

Here's what it says:

Quote:

Because examples of false dilemma, inconsistent premises, and begging the question are valid arguments in this sense, this definition misses some standard fallacies. Other researchers say a fallacy is a mistake in an argument that arises from something other than merely false premises. But the false dilemma fallacy is due to false premises. Still other researchers define a fallacy as an argument that is not good. Good arguments are then defined as those that are deductively valid or inductively strong, and that contain only true, well-established premises, but are not question-begging. A complaint with this definition is that its requirement of truth would improperly lead to calling too much scientific reasoning fallacious; every time a new scientific discovery caused scientists to label a previously well-established claim as false, all the scientists who used that claim as a premise would become fallacious reasoners. This consequence of the definition is acceptable to some researchers but not to others.

As you can read, there are many opinions as regard to what constitute a fallacy. But nowhere on your SECOND source does it contradict what I have claimed in regard to True/False and Valid/Invalid.

Sorry dude, but if you think that cut-and-paste on the web, as you seem to be an expert, is the equivalent of taking several university courses, hand in assignements and write exams, then go ahead, believe that. But this I can tell you, with your hate, bitterness and anger -- the attitude of a sore loser -- you will be in exactly the same position in 10 years from now, as you will have learned nothing. So if you want to stagnate, hey, it's your life, feel free to waste it...

Secondly, why would I want to debate with someone who has a kindergarten knowledge of Logic? You don't even know the difference between True/False and Valid/Invalid. If you do know then it should be easy for you to give me a few illustrations. So I dare you on this. Show me that I am wrong: that you do know the difference between True/False and Valid/Invalid...

I await your reply with great anticipation... and oh, no more cut-and-paste this time, no cheating on this assignment...

Homework for cheapsurprise:

In a logical construction:

1. a)Give an illustration of what constitute a true statement.
b) Give an illustration of what constitute a valid statement.

2. a)Show that a true statement can be an invalid conclusion.
b) Show that a false statement can be a valid conclusion.

Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator

Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 5:43 AM
Location: Poland

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:42 am Post subject:

Yaay! This time he used some blue! _________________ It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING! This is not a complex idea.

gnosis
Forum Master

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2396
Local time: 10:43 PM
Location: California

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:47 am Post subject:

Libertarian Socialism = Anarchism. Libertarians are against the state, Socialists are against business. Libertarian Socialists are against both. Probably just a different way of saying it due to the chaotic connotations of anarchism.

Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator

Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 5:43 AM
Location: Poland

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:52 am Post subject:

gnosis wrote:

Libertarian Socialism = Anarchism.

Libertarians are against the state, Socialists are against business.

Libertarian Socialists are against both.

So how are you going to fight against business without a state?
_________________

It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea.

Display posts from previous:

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Political/Government General Discussion	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 27, 28, 29 Next
Page 17 of 29

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum