"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But your system isn't morally superior, but is actually profoundly immoral. Your system cannot tell the difference between removing a positive incentive and applying a negative incentive.

Eliminating immoral structures is only called immoral by charlatans.

Advocating gross immorality like pretending there is no difference between removal of a reward and application of a punishment is only called moral by the profoundly immoral.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with this approach is that leadership ability doesn't translate into ability to lead to the right place. Your world follow Trumps.

Trump is currently the US president.

That is not my world. That is the world of everybody.

In my world there is no single executive with the power Trump has.

His power would be spread thin in a democratic body.

The US president is a remnant of the King. A monstrosity.

It should be abolished and replaced with a democratic body.

Maybe 50 people. One from each State.

You mean ... a government?

 

[untermensche]

Eliminating immoral structures is only called immoral by charlatans.

Advocating gross immorality like pretending there is no difference between removal of a reward and application of a punishment is only called moral by the profoundly immoral.

Good thing I have never done such a thing.

A dictatorship is neither a reward or a punishment.

It is an immoral structure of power.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Advocating gross immorality like pretending there is no difference between removal of a reward and application of a punishment is only called moral by the profoundly immoral.

Good thing I have never done such a thing.

You stated that when an employer removes the reward of pay by ceasing the employment agreement, it is the same thing as applying a punishment. Only government and criminals apply punishment. Peaceful people have two options available to them, to either give reward or withhold reward. You pretend there is no difference between removal of a reward and application of a punishment. You pretend that there is no difference, and that is profoundly immoral.

A dictatorship is neither a reward or a punishment.

It is an immoral structure of power.

Dictators have the ability to apply punishment. You can't tell the difference between withholding a reward and applying a punishment.

 

[untermensche]

Good thing I have never done such a thing.

You stated that when an employer removes the reward of pay by ceasing the employment agreement, it is the same thing as applying a punishment. Only government and criminals apply punishment. Peaceful people have two options available to them, to either give reward or withhold reward. You pretend there is no difference between removal of a reward and application of a punishment. You pretend that there is no difference, and that is profoundly immoral.

A dictatorship is neither a reward or a punishment.

It is an immoral structure of power.

Dictators have the ability to apply punishment. You can't tell the difference between withholding a reward and applying a punishment.

You are a broken record.

Losing your job is a huge punishment, in the real world. The world that exists.

To claim it isn't is just childish nonsense and a flight into some fantasy world.

That is what is driving many in US capitalism. Fear because social services are so pitiful.

 

[dismal]

Losing your job is a huge punishment, in the real world.

A lot of people must be masochists since a lot of people quit jobs every day. In the real world.

 

[untermensche]

Losing your job is a huge punishment, in the real world.

A lot of people must be masochists since a lot of people quit jobs every day. In the real world.

So leaving a job at will is the same as losing it due to the caprice of some dictator?

I have a suggestion.

Let's limit the discussion to reality.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You stated that when an employer removes the reward of pay by ceasing the employment agreement, it is the same thing as applying a punishment. Only government and criminals apply punishment. Peaceful people have two options available to them, to either give reward or withhold reward. You pretend there is no difference between removal of a reward and application of a punishment. You pretend that there is no difference, and that is profoundly immoral.

A dictatorship is neither a reward or a punishment.

It is an immoral structure of power.

Dictators have the ability to apply punishment. You can't tell the difference between withholding a reward and applying a punishment.

You are a broken record.

Losing your job is a huge punishment, in the real world. The world that exists.

Just because it is unpleasant doesn't mean it is a punishment. If you tell a child that they will get dessert if they clean their room, and then don't give them dessert because they didn't clean their room, you are withholding a reward. Not everything that is unpleasant is a punishment. Sometimes it is withholding a reward.

To claim it isn't is just childish nonsense and a flight into some fantasy world.

It is reality. I suggest you visit it one day.

That is what is driving many in US capitalism. Fear because social services are so pitiful.

Still can't get a high paying job with your Oppression Studies degree?

A lot of people must be masochists since a lot of people quit jobs every day. In the real world.

So leaving a job at will is the same as losing it due to the caprice of some dictator?

So you believe it is acceptable for the employee to sever the agreement, but unacceptable for the employer to sever the agreement. That is a double standard.

It is also a recipe for economic ruin because the harder it is to fire someone then the harder it is to hire them.

Can you think of any circumstances when it is acceptable for an employer to sever the employment agreement or is this somehow an absolute?

 

[untermensche]

Just because it is unpleasant doesn't mean it is a punishment.

If it is done at the caprice of some dictator it is.

A job is not a reward.

It is the way people survive.

And pay is not some "reward". It is what one is owed.

Your position only requires turning all of reality on it's head.

So you believe it is acceptable for the employee to sever the agreement, but unacceptable for the employer to sever the agreement.

It is immoral for some dictator to have that power over others. The dictator is not doing something to themselves. They are doing something to somebody else.

 

[dismal]

A lot of people must be masochists since a lot of people quit jobs every day. In the real world.

So leaving a job at will is the same as losing it due to the caprice of some dictator?

I have a suggestion.

Let's limit the discussion to reality.

I'm against dictators. In reality.

You're actually the most fascist person I think I have ever met. In reality. I can think of no government strong arm policy or market meddle you did not support. I can think of no case where you did support an individual citizen's freedom of any kind.

 

[untermensche]

So leaving a job at will is the same as losing it due to the caprice of some dictator?

I have a suggestion.

Let's limit the discussion to reality.

I'm against dictators. In reality.

You're actually the most fascist person I think I have ever met. In reality. I can think of no government strong arm policy or market meddle you did not support. I can think of no case where you did support an individual citizen's freedom of any kind.

You've never met me.

All you know is I oppose human dictatorship in all forms.

"Government strong arm policy"?

You mean like sending people to Iraq because the oil dictators are worried?

Getting people killed, they're still dying, for corporate dictators is about as strong arm a policy as possible.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If it is done at the caprice of some dictator it is.

That you consider termination of an employment agreement to be "caprice" is rather telling.

A job is not a reward.

I never claimed it was. It is half of the employment agreement.

And pay is not some "reward". It is what one is owed.

Pay is the other half of the employment agreement. That you consider people to be owed pay is rather telling.

Still can't get a high paying job with your Oppression Studies degree?

So you believe it is acceptable for the employee to sever the agreement, but unacceptable for the employer to sever the agreement.

It is immoral for some dictator to have that power over others. The dictator is not doing something to themselves. They are doing something to somebody else.

That has little to do with the employment agreement, and even less to do with what I wrote. If it is impossible to fire, it is impossible to hire. Every mutual agreement involves two parties, and if someone quits they are doing something to somebody else. Your current stand says that people may not fire, people may not quit, and may not divorce, because all three are one party dissolving a mutual agreement.

 

[untermensche]

That you consider termination of an employment agreement to be "caprice" is rather telling.

That you think it can't be caprice since we are talking about dictators with absolute power to do it is telling.

You are the Tory crying that we need the King.

A job is not a reward.

I never claimed it was. It is half of the employment agreement.

It is the modern means of human survival. A necessity for most, not a luxury. Not any kind of reward.

And pay is not some "reward". It is what one is owed.

Pay is the other half of the employment agreement. That you consider people to be owed pay is telling.

That I understand people in a working relationship are owed for their labor is telling?

That is just insanity. I don't know what to say.

That has little to do with the employment agreement, and even less to do with what I wrote.

If the dictator is the only one with the power to fire it is no agreement.

It is something people are forced to submit to to survive.

 

[LordKiran]

Nope for several reasons.

-Giving states representation rather than people is a bad idea. Why should a state with a population smaller than some US cities be allowed to dictate policy to much larger states? Especially when said larger states carry the majority of the nation's economic burdens? I mean if you're going to drastically restructure the American political apparatus, then at least have the vision to dissolve the states entirely in favor of districts. States are an unnecessary and superfluous middle man between citizen and government the way I see it.

-If you abolish the presidency then who is in charge?? This isn't like you trying to set up a fun little baking company with your mother. Militaries and governments do not work when ruled exclusively by committee. At the end of the day, in a time of crisis it REALLY helps to have an established hierarchy so that decisions can be rendered immediately as needed.

In a 50 person body no single person can dominate or dictate anything.

And their democratic decisions are what is "in charge", not the caprice of one individual. We see what happened after the last "crisis", after 911. The executive lied to start a war in Iraq, disaster.

Humans do not need dictators in any form.

Just so we're clear, you're advocating for some individuals to be given more representation than others. Seems rather arbitrary and unjust of you. If you had any interest in everyone having equal representation, you wouldn't go by lines on a map, you'd just put people into random groups of saaaay 100-thousand with only small deviations allowed for cases where there's a few hundred people without a group, then allow each group to pick its own representative. Groups would be assigned to make them as geographically cohesive as possible but not with that being an absolute must if push comes to shove.

Also you're ignoring the point I made about needing someone in charge. Not every decision allows for days/weeks of deliberation. Sometimes you need a decision to be made on the spot and you need someone to make that decision. Not having someone who is able to do that is dangerously inflexible in times of crisis.

 

[untermensche]

In a 50 person body no single person can dominate or dictate anything.

And their democratic decisions are what is "in charge", not the caprice of one individual. We see what happened after the last "crisis", after 911. The executive lied to start a war in Iraq, disaster.

Humans do not need dictators in any form.

Just so we're clear, you're advocating for some individuals to be given more representation than others. Seems rather arbitrary and unjust of you. If you had any interest in everyone having equal representation, you wouldn't go by lines on a map, you'd just put people into random groups of saaaay 100-thousand with only small deviations allowed for cases where there's a few hundred people without a group, then allow each group to pick its own representative. Groups would be assigned to make them as geographically cohesive as possible but not with that being an absolute must if push comes to shove.

Also you're ignoring the point I made about needing someone in charge. Not every decision allows for days/weeks of deliberation. Sometimes you need a decision to be made on the spot and you need someone to make that decision. Not having someone who is able to do that is dangerously inflexible in times of crisis.

No. Every single person gets one representative from their state.

Everybody has the same amount of representation.

Some representatives have more voices than others to consider, that is true.

I don't buy this "time of crisis" crap. If it is a real time of crisis and there is definitely something that needs to be done then 50 people can do it as easily as 1.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That you think it can't be caprice since we are talking about dictators with absolute power to do it is telling.

You think the ability to fire someone is absolute power. So I guess his method of firing his employee is by execution?

A job is not a reward.

I never claimed it was. It is half of the employment agreement.

It is the modern means of human survival. A necessity for most, not a luxury. Not any kind of reward.

Then we agree.

And pay is not some "reward". It is what one is owed.

Pay is the other half of the employment agreement. That you consider people to be owed pay is telling.

That I understand people in a working relationship are owed for their labor is telling?

The way you use the word "owed" indicates a fair lack of understanding of the word. Pay is "owed" the same way labor is "owed", as they are the terms of the agreement.

That has little to do with the employment agreement, and even less to do with what I wrote.

If the dictator is the only one with the power to fire it is no agreement.

It is something people are forced to submit to to survive.

If the employee is the only one with the power to quit, is it also no agreement?

 

[LordKiran]

Just so we're clear, you're advocating for some individuals to be given more representation than others. Seems rather arbitrary and unjust of you. If you had any interest in everyone having equal representation, you wouldn't go by lines on a map, you'd just put people into random groups of saaaay 100-thousand with only small deviations allowed for cases where there's a few hundred people without a group, then allow each group to pick its own representative. Groups would be assigned to make them as geographically cohesive as possible but not with that being an absolute must if push comes to shove.

Also you're ignoring the point I made about needing someone in charge. Not every decision allows for days/weeks of deliberation. Sometimes you need a decision to be made on the spot and you need someone to make that decision. Not having someone who is able to do that is dangerously inflexible in times of crisis.

No. Every single person gets one representative from their state.

Everybody has the same amount of representation.

Some representatives have more voices than others to consider, that is true.

I don't buy this "time of crisis" crap. If it is a real time of crisis and there is definitely something that needs to be done then 50 people can do it as easily as 1.

So you're okay with scenarios where the representation of the national minority are able to override the will of the majority. Which is exactly what I said.

Can you imagine if every decision made by soldiers on a battlefield came down to a vote from the squad level up? If every decision from the overall strategy to moment-to-moment tactical movements all had to be agreed upon by a majority vote before anyone does anything? You can dismiss this if you want, but to my ignorant armchair general mind, this sounds absolutely disastrous.

I know you think you know it all Unter, but not every decision in 'the whole wide world ever' allows for time to deliberate. Sometimes calls need to be made, and there needs to be people to make them.

 

[untermensche]

You think the ability to fire someone is absolute power. So I guess his method of firing his employee is by execution?

The dictator has the absolute power to fire people at will. What stops them?

What stops them from firing just about everybody and sending the company overseas using the capital the fired workers created?

Then we agree.

We agree on what? A job is a necessity and in capitalist hell holes many times very difficult to secure, and nobody should have to work within a dictatorship anymore than anybody should have to live within a political dictatorship?

The way you use the word "owed" indicates a fair lack of understanding of the word.

It's not that hard a word.

The pay a person gets is what the dictator owes them for their labor.

People don't work for dictators willingly. They do it because it is the way to turn labor into money.

You give some entity your labor and they owe you something for it.

Your pay.

If the employee is the only one with the power to quit, is it also no agreement?

The dictator has far more freedom and ability to quit than the employee.

The only difference is one has the power to fire and the other does not.

Not a mutual agreement and not an agreement anybody with a brain would submit to willingly.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If the employee is the only one with the power to quit, is it also no agreement?

The dictator has far more freedom and ability to quit than the employee.

The only difference is one has the power to fire and the other does not.

Not a mutual agreement and not an agreement anybody with a brain would submit to willingly.

That doesn't address the point. You say that the power to unilaterally sever a mutual agreement is dictatorship if done by the employer. Consistency dictates that it is also dictatorship if done by the employee. Just as only the employer has the power to fire, only the employee has the power to quit. One has the power to quit and the other does not. If it is dictatorship for one side of a mutual agreement to dissolve the relationship, then employees are also dictators when they quit.

You think the ability to fire someone is dictatorship, which means they are firing them by execution. You are living in a fantasy world.

 

[untermensche]

No. Every single person gets one representative from their state.

Everybody has the same amount of representation.

Some representatives have more voices than others to consider, that is true.

I don't buy this "time of crisis" crap. If it is a real time of crisis and there is definitely something that needs to be done then 50 people can do it as easily as 1.

So you're okay with scenarios where the representation of the national minority are able to override the will of the majority. Which is exactly what I said.

Can you imagine if every decision made by soldiers on a battlefield came down to a vote from the squad level up? If every decision from the overall strategy to moment-to-moment tactical movements all had to be agreed upon by a majority vote before anyone does anything? You can dismiss this if you want, but to my ignorant armchair general mind, this sounds absolutely disastrous.

I know you think you know it all Unter, but not every decision in 'the whole wide world ever' allows for time to deliberate. Sometimes calls need to be made, and there needs to be people to make them.

I don't know it all. But I wait till I know things before I talk about them.

A single person is much more likely to be swayed by some minority than 50.

Making something better does not mean it is perfect.

 

[dismal]

I'm against dictators. In reality.

You're actually the most fascist person I think I have ever met. In reality. I can think of no government strong arm policy or market meddle you did not support. I can think of no case where you did support an individual citizen's freedom of any kind.

You've never met me.

All you know is I oppose human dictatorship in all forms.

"Government strong arm policy"?

You mean like sending people to Iraq because the oil dictators are worried?

Getting people killed, they're still dying, for corporate dictators is about as strong arm a policy as possible.

I only know what I see on this forum. On this forum you have defended every tyrannical act of government that flies in the face of basic human freedoms imaginable.

You do not support free speech, a free press, free association, private property, free markets, etc. The list goes on. There is no aspect of my life which you would not see subject to government authority.