Under what individual authority does government exist?

[Red1966]

What does having to draw permits have to do with my statements, when my position is you shouldn't have to draw permits? You are all over the place.

Well, you do have to get permits. Saying one shouldn't have to, then trying to justify the force government uses make you do it anyway, is nonsensicle. You advocate for the power government has over us, then say any argument against that is not valid because "they shouldn't."

 

[NewtoMJ]

"using their services" includes walking, breathing, eating. In other words, you have no choice but to "use their services". There is no choice, period. Stating "they shouldn't impede individuals from freeing themselves from their services, so you can stop making that argument." is saying them forcing you to use their "services" doesn't matter, you still consented. The argument is valid.

How is walking, breathing and eating a government service? If you can explain that properly, then your argument may be valid. Until then, no, it's not.

 

[Red1966]

Keeping pace with technology isn't an intergenerational hurdle. Our moms and pops had to deal with 8-track, VHS, DVD, CD, etc. They adapted just fine. Our struggle is completely economical. That same generation devised a way to steal our prosperity. Your mom, my pops are not to blame. The vast majority of baby boomers (even the assholes showing outright opposition to solving income inequality in this thread are not to blame) are not to blame. Those at the tippy top are to blame. The politicians who decided corporate interests are more financially beneficial are the ones to blame. I'm not even sure if I can blame the corporate interests themselves for utilizing a system that was goddamn near built directly for them to abuse.. Our government holds the overwhelming majority of the blame, not those that used a legal system to benefit themselves. Who the fuck wouldn't, right? A person's moral culpability reaches a certain point that even the most conservative person would surpass. That's the problem. Such a system shouldn't exist and none of us should be using it to justify outright theft.

Our political system preys on human nature. Some of us are perfectly willing to adopt that over a more compassionate form of business if it will increase our bottom line. IMO, that's disgusting

Aren't you the one advocating outright theft by falsely claiming other's property is actually yours?

 

[NewtoMJ]

Well, you do have to get permits. Saying one shouldn't have to, then trying to justify the force government uses make you do it anyway, is nonsensicle. You advocate for the power government has over us, then say any argument against that is not valid because "they shouldn't."

No, I don't. I've said multiple times permitting for individual use is not right. Nowhere have I justified their force in making you get them either. You need bigger hands, all these straws you're trying to grab.

 

[Red1966]

I agree, it's interesting to see the inner workings of a right wing sociopath at work

These people have been bred from birth with this shit, part of me doesn't hold it against them in the same way part of me doesn't hold the older racist members of our society against them.. I mean, it's wrong, all of us can see it, we all know it.. but they don't.. they grew up with that shit in their direct perspective.. in a way.. they can't really help it.. it's unfortunate as fuck, but none of us will change their minds.. That perspective will die with them, just like this perspective will die with Red. He's welcome to live in fantasy land till the day he dies, that's what his generation promised him. You and me (I'm assuming you're near my age, Millennial) will be the generation to pick up the pieces. Our kids generation might see some prosperity, but I doubt it. It will probably take their kids (our grandkids) generation to enjoy prosperity. That is if we get on the ball with climate change - now. We'll see an economic revolution (similar to that of the late '30s early '40s) fueled by renewable energy technology, the fossil fuel industry will begin to lose profits as renewables take hold, Elon Musk and electric is well on his way now. His business endeavours remind me of this scene from Casino:

Al Gore makes hundreds of millions proselytizing dire predictions of global warming and rising sea levels. Al Gore then buys multimillion dollar oceanfront home. Yeah, global warming.

 

[Red1966]

No, I don't. I've said multiple times permitting for individual use is not right. Nowhere have I justified their force in making you get them either. You need bigger hands, all these straws you're trying to grab.

Everywhere have you justified their force in making you get them

 

[Padawanbater2]

Aren't you the one advocating outright theft by falsely claiming other's property is actually yours?

Surplus labor in a capitalist system is the worker's property, necessary labor is what you sell to the boss for a wage

 

[Red1966]

How is walking, breathing and eating a government service? If you can explain that properly, then your argument may be valid. Until then, no, it's not.

I never said they were, but those actions bring government force upon you. Well, not breathing(yet)

 

[Red1966]

Surplus labor in a capitalist system is the worker's property, necessary labor is what you sell to the boss for a wage

So, surplus labor is basically the time you spend not working for an employer? So how do you figure that has somehow been stolen from you?>

 

[Padawanbater2]

So, surplus labor is basically the time you spend not working for an employer? So how do you figure that has somehow been stolen from you?>

"It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ("necessary labour"). The "Surplus" in this context means the additional labour a worker has to do in his/her job, beyond earning his own keep."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_labour

In order for capitalism to function, surplus labor must exist, and if surplus labor exists, the worker created it and therefore owns it

 

[Padawanbater2]

"In modern society, having work or leisure may often seem a choice, but for most of humanity, work is an absolute necessity, and consequently most people are concerned with the real benefits they get from that work. They may accept a certain rate of exploitation of their labour as an inescapable condition for their existence, if they depend on a wage or salary, but beyond that, they will increasingly resist it. Consequently, a morality or legal norm develops in civil society which imposes limits for surplus-labour, in one form or another. Forced labour, slavery, gross mistreatment of workers etc. are no longer generally acceptable, although they continue to occur; working conditions and pay levels can usually be contested in courts of law."

 

[Red1966]

"It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ("necessary labour"). The "Surplus" in this context means the additional labour a worker has to do in his/her job, beyond earning his own keep."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_labour

In order for capitalism to function, surplus labor must exist, and if surplus labor exists, the worker created it and therefore owns it

If the labor is the labour(sic) a worker has to do in his/her job, it's part of earning his keep. You're trying to claim labor he sells is being stolen. It's not.

"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_labour

In order for capitalism to function, surplus labor must exist, and if surplus labor exists, the worker created it and therefore owns it" This is nonsense.

 

[Padawanbater2]

If the labor is the labour(sic) a worker has to do in his/her job, it's part of earning his keep. You're trying to claim labor he sells is being stolen. It's not.

This is nonsense.

1. The worker sells his labor to his employer for an income

2. In order for the employer to make a profit he has to sell the workers labor for more than he paid the worker, otherwise there would be no point to operating a business

3. The amount he sells the workers labor for more than he pays the worker is the value of the worker's surplus labor

Now which step are you having trouble with?

 

[UncleBuck]

1. The worker sells his labor to his employer for an income

2. In order for the employer to make a profit he has to sell the workers labor for more than he paid the worker, otherwise there would be no point to operating a business

3. The amount he sells the workers labor for more than he pays the worker is the value of the worker's surplus labor

Now which step are you having trouble with?

i'm guessing it's reading left to right.

 

[Harrekin]

1. The worker sells his labor to his employer for an income

2. In order for the employer to make a profit he has to sell the workers labor for more than he paid the worker, otherwise there would be no point to operating a business

3. The amount he sells the workers labor for more than he pays the worker is the value of the worker's surplus labor

Now which step are you having trouble with?

This is the most fucking ridiculous thing I've ever read.

It's so plainly obvious you still work a shitty minimum wage job and haven't grown out of the college leftist phase yet.

You'd swear employers could actually sell a workers labour directly and that the "effort" of the employee is the only thing that goes into a marketable product.

 

[Padawanbater2]

This is the most fucking ridiculous thing I've ever read.

It's so plainly obvious you still work a shitty minimum wage job and haven't grown out of the college leftist phase yet.

You'd swear employers could actually sell a workers labour directly and that the "effort" of the employee is the only thing that goes into a marketable product.

Get a new talking point, that one's already been crushed in this thread multiple times. It's telling you would think it's unusual that there are rich people that exist that would fight for a living wage or worker's rights and the poor and middle class

So has your other assumption that I believe everyone's wages should be equal, from the minimum wage employee to the CEO. 25 x's the average worker's income is acceptable, 325+ x's isn't, especially when it comes from the workers unpaid labor, and that's not just me talking;

It's weird, all you guys seem to be saying the same thing but none of you are supporting it with evidence or real, hard data. Figures and things we can check and verify and find out for ourselves, like I have been.. I thought this was the "hard science" crowd.. What happened with that?

 

[schuylaar]

Government is not "society" . Please don't confuse the two.

All of the things you posted above could be provided in a world where a single coercive authority was abolished and a free market was permitted. In fact, many of them (most? all?) would be done more efficiently and in a more just fashion if the obstacles were removed..

Competition among service providers usually means more innovative products, better prices and more choice for a consumer.

A government that forcefully disallows "competition" is not acting in your best interests, it is acting in a mode to maintain its monopoly.

You should question authority.

i never said government is society if you are referring to my quote. however, government does manage infrastructure which is a good reason to be part of society. there is nowhere on earth, other than places like somalia, where what you want, exists.

why don't you talk about something that could be a reality like bernie sanders?

social capitalism is the way to go, best of both worlds..neither group (labor nor means) can get out of control (and cheat); much more equitable system.

because, right know there's been a whole lotta cheatin' goin' on..

 

[schuylaar]

Get a new talking point, that one's already been crushed in this thread multiple times. It's telling you would think it's unusual that there are rich people that exist that would fight for a living wage or worker's rights and the poor and middle class

So has your other assumption that I believe everyone's wages should be equal, from the minimum wage employee to the CEO. 25 x's the average worker's income is acceptable, 325+ x's isn't, especially when it comes from the workers unpaid labor, and that's not just me talking;

It's weird, all you guys seem to be saying the same thing but none of you are supporting it with evidence or real, hard data. Figures and things we can check and verify and find out for ourselves, like I have been.. I thought this was the "hard science" crowd.. What happened with that?

the right isn't exactly 'hard science'.

 

[Harrekin]

Get a new talking point, that one's already been crushed in this thread multiple times. It's telling you would think it's unusual that there are rich people that exist that would fight for a living wage or worker's rights and the poor and middle class

So has your other assumption that I believe everyone's wages should be equal, from the minimum wage employee to the CEO. 25 x's the average worker's income is acceptable, 325+ x's isn't, especially when it comes from the workers unpaid labor, and that's not just me talking;

It's weird, all you guys seem to be saying the same thing but none of you are supporting it with evidence or real, hard data. Figures and things we can check and verify and find out for ourselves, like I have been.. I thought this was the "hard science" crowd.. What happened with that?

Envy leads to jealousy, jealousy to anger, anger to hate.

You've apparently already been down this path.

 

[Rob Roy]

i never said government is society if you are referring to my quote. however, government does manage infrastructure which is a good reason to be part of society. there is nowhere on earth, other than places like somalia, where what you want, exists.

why don't you talk about something that could be a reality like bernie sanders?

social capitalism is the way to go, best of both worlds..neither group (labor nor means) can get out of control (and cheat); much more equitable system.

because, right know there's been a whole lotta cheatin' goin' on..

Your first line is nonsensical, so is your second. Therefore I'll take a pass on them.


Bernie Sanders gains support by promoting class war fare. He is an old fart "from Vermont" (except he's not) that wishes he could grow a real ponytail, instead he could barely get a Ben Franklin going, so he went into politics where his anxiety over his small penis could be somewhat quelled by attempting to run other peoples lives for them.

Social capitalism or whatever the fuck else you can dream up all rely on the same thing. It's another method for some people to use government to create a power structure that allows them to be parasitic. It's not the best of "both worlds", because it is just different flavors of the same thing combined and served to fools that are easily mislead.