GOP: Libertarians not wanted

[Canard DuJour]

I don't know anyone who espouses the idea that humans should live as completely self-sufficient individuals. It's a strawman.

Bullshit. Read the philosophy of the time. They all assume a self sufficient man living without societal constraints. Locke or Rousseau. They don't say that man should live like that NOW, but they take it as their philosophical basis. They postulate that our society developed from such roots, when in fact it didn't, then they take and further develop the idea. Libertarianism is an intellectual successor to this movement. The fact that they don't advocate that people should be self sufficient, that doesn't mean that their ideas don't derive from that idea. (And frankly, I am constantly hearing them boast about how self sufficient they are, and am extremely skeptical of your claim never to have heard anything of the like.)


Libertarians are their philosophical successors.

I have confusion...

I don't know what you're trying to say.

If you read the Libertarian literature

Well that's where you went wrong right there! I don't read political literature of any flavor; it either makes me angry or puts me to sleep... or both and then I have angry dreams!

(as opposed to self-defining Libertarians on da interwebz), man in his default state is presumed to be a lone homesteader rather than a social animal that evolved from other social animals. Hence social conventions of property, resource pooling etc, up to and including democratic states are presumed to be interventions requiring justification. Hence all the positive vs negative freedoms guff. In fact, Libertarianism would be an intervention requiring justification, which it spectacularly fails to provide. Pre-Darwinian political philosophies, eg Locke's, can be excused. 21st century Libertarianism can't.

(I think Sarpedon said it better..)

I'm going to good-naturedly poke fun at you for a second, however, and point out that I said "I don't know anyone" in the present tense. To which you said "Bullshit" implying that some of them do in the present tense... then you said "They don't say that man should live like that NOW" agreeing that none exist in the present tense, in contradiction to your bullshit comment... then went on about the historic legacy of something or other...

I find humor in there. I will add the caveat that my sense of humor is a bit off center.

First, that was Sarpedon, not me.

Second, total nonsense

 

[untermensche]

If you can't convince the person who needs payday loans of the correctness of your position especially since nobody will be making positions against yours then maybe it isn't the person needing the payday loan that is the problem.

It's kind of irrelevant.

Since you, as a big believer in my economic freedom to make my own choices, would most certainly respect my freedom to choose to work in a place where these people would not have a vote.

I believe if people had the choice they would choose to work in a place with democratic control. A place where the bosses at the top don't have the power to decide to move jobs overseas or do some other thing that harms workers, like pay them the least possible.

Your position is that if people had the choice they would choose to have less control over their lives.

Your position is to limit choice. To stick with top down dictatorship as the model because.....well frankly you give no good reason to stick with this primitive model beyond you do alright already. You have a model of national economics that revolves around yourself.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I believe if people had the choice they would choose to work in a place with democratic control. A place where the bosses at the top don't have the power to decide to move jobs overseas or do some other thing that harms workers, like pay them the least possible. Your position is that if people had the choice they would choose to have less control over their lives. Your position is to limit choice. To stick with top down dictatorship as the model because.....well frankly you give no good reason to stick with this primitive model beyond you do alright already. You have a model of national economics that revolves around yourself.

Very cool that you believe that. But you have heard from three people on this tiny forum that we don't want to work in a democratic control place. Does our opinion matter?

 

[untermensche]

I believe if people had the choice they would choose to work in a place with democratic control. A place where the bosses at the top don't have the power to decide to move jobs overseas or do some other thing that harms workers, like pay them the least possible. Your position is that if people had the choice they would choose to have less control over their lives. Your position is to limit choice. To stick with top down dictatorship as the model because.....well frankly you give no good reason to stick with this primitive model beyond you do alright already. You have a model of national economics that revolves around yourself.

Very cool that you believe that. But you have heard from three people on this tiny forum that we don't want to work in a democratic control place. Does our opinion matter?

You don't have a real choice to work in one.

To work in one now would require more work than to not.

I don't take these opinions made in the complete absence of a real choice seriously.

 

[untermensche]

Imagine if you were born in a society where the vast majority of workplaces operated on democratic principles. And from an early age you were taught how to function in democratic situations.

Then imagine somebody hung a sign that read; I will pay you less so I can take more and I will be a dictator over you in the workplace and you will have no say what-so-ever in the direction of this company.

Do you think that person would find many workers?

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily you seem like a nice person, so I'm saying this to you in the spirit of goodwill.

Keep your resume up to date.

Companies will take a temporary cut in efficiency to make a bigger cut in labor costs. Just like you learned your skill set, so have others who will work for less or bring other benefits to the table.

And who they can't find, companies will train.

I have heard those same words you typed too many times just before pink slips went out. I would hate to see that happen to you.

Thank you AthenAwakened; my resume is always up to date I am not naive. Although I know that I'm in a minority with respect to the marketability of my skill set, I also know that my employers aren't benevolent uncles looking out for me. There is always a chance that things might go catastrophically wrong... but I think my chances of maintaining gainful employment either here or with another employer are very high.

 

[Bomb#20]

Imagine if you were born in a society where the vast majority of workplaces operated on democratic principles. And from an early age you were taught how to function in democratic situations.

Then imagine somebody hung a sign that read; I will pay you less so I can take more and I will be a dictator over you in the workplace and you will have no say what-so-ever in the direction of this company.

Do you think that person would find many workers?

You keep taking for granted that a democratic workplace would pay better than a top-down control workplace. I think I know why you believe this and it's a pile of metaphysical hogwash and hunter-gatherer economic intuition; but if you have a good reason to believe it, feel free to explain.

It seems painfully obvious to me that in typical business situations top-down control will lead in the long run to higher pay than democratic control, because democratic control will give decision makers an incentive to deprioritize efficiency. So let's turn your question around. Imagine if you were born in a society where the vast majority of workplaces operated on democratic principles. And from an early age you were taught how to function in democratic situations. Then imagine somebody hung a sign that read; I will pay you more so I can be a boss over you in the workplace and you will have no say what-so-ever in the direction of this company so I can make more. Do you think that person would find many workers? I think he'd find an awful lot of workers who'd say to themselves "I have no say-so now -- my boss ignores my input and my vote is swamped by the majority who keep reelecting him. And I get a raise! So long, suckers!".

IMHO the primary reason there are so many top-down workplaces and so few democratic ones is that outfits with top-down control do a better job of delivering the goods to the customers. This causes them to have more money, which means they are in a position to offer higher wages. Being in a position to offer higher wages, combined with being in competition with other workplaces that are also in a position to offer higher wages, causes them to actually offer higher wages.

(Incidentally, you keep abusing the word "dictator". A dictator is a guy whose word is law. Bosses of top-down control companies are not dictators. They have to follow the law, not make it, just like the rest of the legislators' subjects. What they are is customers for the services employees sell. The circumstance that they get to choose what services to buy without a vote no more makes them dictators than the circumstance that there's no vote to determine which car you'll buy makes you the car dealers' dictator.)

 

[dismal]

It's kind of irrelevant.

Since you, as a big believer in my economic freedom to make my own choices, would most certainly respect my freedom to choose to work in a place where these people would not have a vote.

I believe if people had the choice they would choose to work in a place with democratic control. A place where the bosses at the top don't have the power to decide to move jobs overseas or do some other thing that harms workers, like pay them the least possible.

Your position is that if people had the choice they would choose to have less control over their lives.

Your position is to limit choice. To stick with top down dictatorship as the model because.....well frankly you give no good reason to stick with this primitive model beyond you do alright already. You have a model of national economics that revolves around yourself.

Well, I just told you what my choice would be.

And I know you support my right to make my own choice.

 

[Emily Lake]

Imagine if you were born in a society where the vast majority of workplaces operated on democratic principles. And from an early age you were taught how to function in democratic situations.

Then imagine somebody hung a sign that read; I will pay you less so I can take more and I will be a dictator over you in the workplace and you will have no say what-so-ever in the direction of this company.

Do you think that person would find many workers?

If they were stupid enough to hang up that sign, probably not. But you're looking at this through the filter of your beliefs, and ignoring the concerns and viewpoints being presented to you by those of us who disagree.

If someone hung out a sign that read as follows:

I will pay you slightly less on average, but I guarantee that it will be the same amount every week, no matter what the revenue of the company is, and in return all you have to give up is those tedious once-a-week meetings where your vote doesn't really count because you're just one among many anyway...

Then I bet there'd be at least a handful that would take that offer.

 

[untermensche]

Imagine if you were born in a society where the vast majority of workplaces operated on democratic principles. And from an early age you were taught how to function in democratic situations.

Then imagine somebody hung a sign that read; I will pay you less so I can take more and I will be a dictator over you in the workplace and you will have no say what-so-ever in the direction of this company.

Do you think that person would find many workers?

If they were stupid enough to hang up that sign, probably not. But you're looking at this through the filter of your beliefs, and ignoring the concerns and viewpoints being presented to you by those of us who disagree.

If someone hung out a sign that read as follows:

I will pay you slightly less on average, but I guarantee that it will be the same amount every week, no matter what the revenue of the company is, and in return all you have to give up is those tedious once-a-week meetings where your vote doesn't really count because you're just one among many anyway...

Then I bet there'd be at least a handful that would take that offer.

Where are you getting this information that paychecks will vary week to week?

This happens to capitalist owners when companies are starting out.

But your assumption that every company will be a start-up and have such volatile revenues that pay will also be erratic is unfounded.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You keep taking for granted that a democratic workplace would pay better than a top-down control workplace. I think I know why you believe this and it's a pile of metaphysical hogwash and hunter-gatherer economic intuition; but if you have a good reason to believe it, feel free to explain. It seems painfully obvious to me that in typical business situations top-down control will lead in the long run to higher pay than democratic control, because democratic control will give decision makers an incentive to deprioritize efficiency. So let's turn your question around. Imagine if you were born in a society where the vast majority of workplaces operated on democratic principles. And from an early age you were taught how to function in democratic situations. Then imagine somebody hung a sign that read; I will pay you more so I can be a boss over you in the workplace and you will have no say what-so-ever in the direction of this company so I can make more. Do you think that person would find many workers? I think he'd find an awful lot of workers who'd say to themselves "I have no say-so now -- my boss ignores my input and my vote is swamped by the majority who keep reelecting him. And I get a raise! So long, suckers!". IMHO the primary reason there are so many top-down workplaces and so few democratic ones is that outfits with top-down control do a better job of delivering the goods to the customers. This causes them to have more money, which means they are in a position to offer higher wages. Being in a position to offer higher wages, combined with being in competition with other workplaces that are also in a position to offer higher wages, causes them to actually offer higher wages. (Incidentally, you keep abusing the word "dictator". A dictator is a guy whose word is law. Bosses of top-down control companies are not dictators. They have to follow the law, not make it, just like the rest of the legislators' subjects. What they are is customers for the services employees sell. The circumstance that they get to choose what services to buy without a vote no more makes them dictators than the circumstance that there's no vote to determine which car you'll buy makes you the car dealers' dictator.)

Socialists and anarchists believe that all companies clear massive profit, and that if this profit were diverted to the employees, that the profit would actually increase! IOW, management and ownership and equity provide no value.

 

[Emily Lake]

If they were stupid enough to hang up that sign, probably not. But you're looking at this through the filter of your beliefs, and ignoring the concerns and viewpoints being presented to you by those of us who disagree.

If someone hung out a sign that read as follows:

I will pay you slightly less on average, but I guarantee that it will be the same amount every week, no matter what the revenue of the company is, and in return all you have to give up is those tedious once-a-week meetings where your vote doesn't really count because you're just one among many anyway...

Then I bet there'd be at least a handful that would take that offer.

Where are you getting this information that paychecks will vary week to week?

This happens to capitalist owners when companies are starting out.

But your assumption that every company will be a start-up and have such volatile revenues that pay will also be erratic is unfounded.

How will it not? How exactly do you envision the pay schema for worker-owned companies functioning?

 

[Sarpedon]

There are plenty of worker owned companies.

 

[untermensche]

Where are you getting this information that paychecks will vary week to week?

This happens to capitalist owners when companies are starting out.

But your assumption that every company will be a start-up and have such volatile revenues that pay will also be erratic is unfounded.

How will it not? How exactly do you envision the pay schema for worker-owned companies functioning?

It would be decided democratically.

But that doesn't mean it won't be consistent.

A group of workers will not necessarily give themselves every cent the company makes. They will keep a reserve for potential downturns just as companies do now.

Worker ownership does not mean every single thing learned under capitalism will be discarded. What will be discarded is the power structures. Workplace dictatorships will be replaced with democracies.

And this is not done willy nilly. It is done because democracy is a greater expression of freedom than dictatorship.

 

[untermensche]

Imagine if you were born in a society where the vast majority of workplaces operated on democratic principles. And from an early age you were taught how to function in democratic situations.

Then imagine somebody hung a sign that read; I will pay you less so I can take more and I will be a dictator over you in the workplace and you will have no say what-so-ever in the direction of this company.

Do you think that person would find many workers?

You keep taking for granted that a democratic workplace would pay better than a top-down control workplace. I think I know why you believe this and it's a pile of metaphysical hogwash and hunter-gatherer economic intuition; but if you have a good reason to believe it, feel free to explain.

It's a complete shift in philosophy.

Presently the majority view is to pay workers as little as possible.

This philosophy will be replaced with efforts to pay workers as much as possible.

I say this incredible shift in philosophy will result in higher pay for workers because nothing else will change except power structures will be changed from dictatorial to democratic. Companies will do the exact same things, except they will be working to pay all workers as much as possible, not just an elite few at the top as occurs in the current system.

 

[ZiprHead]

Just WOW!

Doing a little research, I came across this site: http://www.predatorylendingassociation.com/myth-vs-reality.shtml

What got me is they unashamedly call themselves predatory lenders.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There are plenty of worker owned companies.

Correct, I've worked in two. But in the current system, people have the choice of working for a worker owned company vs working for a top down company. This is undemocratic because people having a choice, could result in making the wrong choice, so being democratic means you must limit choice, increasing the amount of options that are available. Errr, wait a sec....... Crap I'm confused! Untermensch: please explain again how this works!

 

[untermensche]

There are plenty of worker owned companies.

Correct, I've worked in two. But in the current system, people have the choice of working for a worker owned company vs working for a top down company. This is undemocratic because people having a choice, could result in making the wrong choice, so being democratic means you must limit choice, increasing the amount of options that are available. Errr, wait a sec....... Crap I'm confused! Untermensch: please explain again how this works!

What kind of choice do people have now?

Where are the democratic workplaces?

Most people are forced to work in one dictatorship or another.

And is the Constitution of the US also something that limits freedom since it replaces dictatorship with democratic government?

When we replace a dictatorship and put in it's place a democracy have we infringed upon people's freedom?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Correct, I've worked in two. But in the current system, people have the choice of working for a worker owned company vs working for a top down company. This is undemocratic because people having a choice, could result in making the wrong choice, so being democratic means you must limit choice, increasing the amount of options that are available. Errr, wait a sec....... Crap I'm confused! Untermensch: please explain again how this works!

What kind of choice do people have now?

Where are the democratic workplaces?

Most people are forced to work in one dictatorship or another.

And is the Constitution of the US also something that limits freedom since it replaces dictatorship with democratic government?

When we replace a dictatorship and put in it's place a democracy have we infringed upon people's freedom?

What is stopping you from starting a "democratic company". I've done it twice. There are hundreds that start up per day. You can start any kind of company that you want to. I think that you should start one of your own, try it out, then get back to us! Real life often doesn't translate well from the chalk board.

To answer your question: I define a democratic company as one where the workers own the company. The ability to make decisions is done by vote, with decision making distributed to experts. The workers decide how and where to distribute profits. There are thousands of partnerships just in Washington that would fit this definition.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Correct, I've worked in two. But in the current system, people have the choice of working for a worker owned company vs working for a top down company. This is undemocratic because people having a choice, could result in making the wrong choice, so being democratic means you must limit choice, increasing the amount of options that are available. Errr, wait a sec....... Crap I'm confused! Untermensch: please explain again how this works!

What kind of choice do people have now?

Where are the democratic workplaces?

Most people are forced to work in one dictatorship or another.

And is the Constitution of the US also something that limits freedom since it replaces dictatorship with democratic government?

When we replace a dictatorship and put in it's place a democracy have we infringed upon people's freedom?

So in this democratic workplace will I be able to watch porn all day if I wanted?