OWS: Justification - Page 5 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-24-2011, 01:47 PM   #41 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
MunkySpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berkshires
Posts: 3,212
Default

Someone with more money than you spent more time than you thinking about it already: C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America (2004) - IMDb
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

10/11 - 24, Smote on Feb 13
MunkySpunk is offline  
Old 10-24-2011, 02:21 PM   #42 (permalink)
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,749
Default

I seriously doubt the Confederacy would have survived. If they would have won and seceded, it's likely they would have collapsed in the attempt to revert from a militaristic structure back into a civilian one, splintering into many different independent union-states and eventually being reunited into The Union proper. But the idea of the states' rights over The Federal Governemnt would have already been cemented. Contrary to popular belief, slavery was really an ancillary issue in regards to the Civil War, and it is my strong opinion that abolition and emancipation of slaves was an inevitability because it was ultimately a product of the change of culture, not the war. The war just catalyzed this cultural change and slavery was hardly the sole factor precipitating The Civil War.

They might have had more money but I would hazard a guess that the basis of their movie is informed by a ulterior and nefarious personal political agenda.
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
Old 10-24-2011, 02:31 PM   #43 (permalink)
Drunk with power...er beer.
 
Donutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,560
Blog Entries: 214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david_z View Post
Now, I am not a capitalist, but even I think you may need a refresher course in what constitutes "free market capitalism". This definition is 100% straw man.
It's not a straw man. It's reductio ad absurdum, which is a legitimate debating tactic. The implication by some of the ppl in this thread is: Less rules, good. More rules, bad. So let's take it to the ultimate, and look at a place where there are no rules. Someone cheats you, you shoot them. Someone competes with you, you shoot them. You want to make baby formula with cadmium in it, no problem. Just make sure no-one knows where you live. Etc. No recycling policy, no sustainability issues, drill baby drill wherever you want, no taxes on success, no limits on monopolies, hell I could keep riffing off the republican cliches all day.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't want to do business there.
__________________

I hate the parts between winter
Donutz is offline  
Old 10-24-2011, 02:42 PM   #44 (permalink)
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,749
Default

Except reducing the idea of market controls does not mean implicating a lack of property or personal rights. It is a strawman because it's equivocating market controls to mean "all law". Quite the opposite, is being suggested, actually: the right to property should be valued alongside the right to life which stands to reason since your physical person is ultimately your property.
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
Old 10-24-2011, 02:49 PM   #45 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 1,922
Default

So if someone puts mercury in their baby formula and kills your child they would be held responsible as an assault on personal property?
snowjeeper is offline  
Old 10-24-2011, 02:53 PM   #46 (permalink)
Official SBF Blogger
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,391
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donutz View Post
It's not a straw man. It's reductio ad absurdum, which is a legitimate debating tactic. The implication by some of the ppl in this thread is: Less rules, good. More rules, bad. So let's take it to the ultimate, and look at a place where there are no rules. Someone cheats you, you shoot them. Someone competes with you, you shoot them. You want to make baby formula with cadmium in it, no problem. Just make sure no-one knows where you live. Etc. No recycling policy, no sustainability issues, drill baby drill wherever you want, no taxes on success, no limits on monopolies, hell I could keep riffing off the republican cliches all day.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't want to do business there.
OK. Then you're poisoning the well with some bullshit argument that nobody presented, and which does not necessarily follow from those positions which have been presented here.

Like I said, there isn't a free market advocate (even of the most vulgar carpet-bagging-capitalist variety) anywhere, who advocates "no rules". Not even the anarchists advocate "no rules".

So while reductio can be a legitimate device, you're doing it wrong.
__________________

Repping the world's smallest mountains... 2013-2014 snow days: 48

Mt. Brighton - 13
Hawk Island - 6
Mt. Holly - 5
Mt. Bohemia - 3
Mt. Tolle - 3
Boyne Mountain - 2
Pine Knob - 2
Crystal Mountain - 2
Treetops - 2
Alpine Valley - 2
Caberfae Peaks - 2
Cannonsburg - 1
Urban - 1
Slackcountry - 1
Nub's Nob - 1
Sugar Mountain, NC - 1
Beech Mountain, NC - 1
david_z is offline  
Old 10-24-2011, 02:55 PM   #47 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 1,922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Strawman, but yes. But opportunity is not the same thing as ability. They have the ability to increase their standard of living, which is what is really the issue. Becoming a billionaire isn't required to increase your standard of living.

Ask yourself this: do the poor in this country have the ability to provide themselves a better quality of life than the most wealthy Sumerian people of thousands of years ago? What about the working but not poor class of 150 years ago? They obviously have means to substantially better technologies, medicines and luxuries than even moderately wealthy people of years past and yet they are proportionately poorer as compared to the richest people in society.

I'll ask you this, too. If the poorest people in this country 100 years from now were able to provide themselves with the same means of living as those who make $50,000 today living in a small, midwestern community but were proportionally poorer by a factor of 50% than the poorest people, would poverty be an "issue".
So there's enough wealth for everyone to become a billionaire? Where would all this wealth come from? Billionaires don't arrive at that state from a vacuum (besides being born into a rich family) - they gain that wealth through the pyramid of society that supports them.
snowjeeper is offline  
Old 10-24-2011, 02:56 PM   #48 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 1,922
Default

There are definitely some libertarians who believe in no rules.
snowjeeper is offline  
Old 10-24-2011, 03:02 PM   #49 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 1,922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david_z View Post
I'm familiar with these (and others) I just wanted to know which ones you want me to respond to.

The sensationalism of Sinclair's novel (i.e., not a documentary) is contradicted by the lack of any substantial complaints registered to any of the various inspection agencies responsible for overseeing meatpacking at the turn of the 20th century, as well as testimony offered for several congressional hearings.


Regarding child labor and the 8-hour workday, the orthodox justification goes something like this: Long working hours & child labor, although objectively bad compared to today's conditions, represented an improvement over prevailing working conditions in that era (echo similar arguments today, to the sustenance farmer who is barely feeding his family in rural China who takes an offer to work for $1/day making Nike shoes).

I'm going to meet you halfway and say that this is probably as much pipe-dream/rationalization as it is based on factual history.

However, it is not accurate to suggest, as you have, that either of these arose under anything even remotely resembling a "free market". For example, when corporations hired Pinkerton guards, agents provocateurs, and strike-busters to abuse laborers exercising their right to assemble in petition for better working conditions, when these same corporations encouraged their cities (Chicago, a prime example) to build federal armories to safeguard against future Labor organizing/protests (in Chi-town I believe this was a direct response to the Haymarket Riots), is all evidence of a decidedly unfree market, one where Capital rigs the game in its favor, enlists the government to help where it cannot win on its own, etc.
And so the end to that thought is that... removing the collusion between government and business would prevent these problems. Yes, that's what OWS is about.

However, all the rest of the abuses that have happened here in the past, and currently in 3rd world countries come from no regulations and/or a weak and complicit government.
snowjeeper is offline  
Old 10-24-2011, 03:12 PM   #50 (permalink)
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowjeeper View Post
So there's enough wealth for everyone to become a billionaire? Where would all this wealth come from? Billionaires don't arrive at that state from a vacuum (besides being born into a rich family) - they gain that wealth through the pyramid of society that supports them.
The fact that you think wealth is static is grounds enough to dismiss discussing this subject anymore with you. How much do you think the technology that poor people have access to would be worth in the year 1400 AD? Probably billions of dollars adjusted to their currency. Your idea of measuring wealth and standard of living in currency (and a fiat one at that) is itself faulted and speaks to an uninformed and naive idea of the best way to improve life for the impoverished. You have not established any reason why relative wealth needs to normalized nor that the quality of life the impoverished are able to provide themselves with would deteriorate in the abscence of such normalization.
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums