there are two main philosophies in life

[Bomb#20]

If they do the same amount of the same type of work then they should receive the same pay

Why? ...

For the same reason we have laws against theft.
Because it is theft. It is stealing labor by not paying its true value.

So you are claiming that what we should do follows from a fact about "true value". If Lion IRC were to claim that what we should do follows from a fact about "God", you would ask him if he had evidence that "God" exists, wouldn't you? So I ask you. Do you have evidence that "true value" exists?

 

[no-one-particular]

For the same reason we have laws against theft.
Because it is theft. It is stealing labor by not paying its true value.

So you are claiming that what we should do follows from a fact about "true value". If Lion IRC were to claim that what we should do follows from a fact about "God", you would ask him if he had evidence that "God" exists, wouldn't you? So I ask you. Do you have evidence that "true value" exists?

You havent been following along

For the same reason we have laws against theft.
Because it is theft. It is stealing labor by not paying its true value.

You didn't address my question, or the other point I raised. Value is subjective. Society gets to decide what the value of something is.

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

The intrinsic law of nature is this: the universe does not revolve around your ego. You are not special. If you want others to respect your rights then you must respect their rights. If you want others to pay you what your work is worth then you must pay others what their work is worth. just because you feel like you are special and deserve more money for the same amount of work doesn't mean that you do. Logic and reason care nothing about your feelings.

 

[4321lynx]

You havent been following along

For the same reason we have laws against theft.
Because it is theft. It is stealing labor by not paying its true value.

You didn't address my question, or the other point I raised. Value is subjective. Society gets to decide what the value of something is.

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

The intrinsic law of nature is this: the universe does not revolve around your ego. You are not special. If you want others to respect your rights then you must respect their rights. If you want others to pay you what your work is worth then you must pay others what their work is worth. just because you feel like you are special and deserve more money for the same amount of work doesn't mean that you do. Logic and reason care nothing about your feelings.

The problem is that "society's" feelings care nothing about your logic and reason. That's real life. Not a good prospect for a judge what the value of anything is.
How are you going to make them care? Like Stalin did? Pol Pot? Hitler? Castro? Mussolini? Mao? Franco? Attila? The Islamists past and present? Christianity? The Hebrews past and present? Or is it all a semantic game for you, all "blah, blah, blah and look how clever I am"?

 

[no-one-particular]

You havent been following along

You didn't address my question, or the other point I raised. Value is subjective. Society gets to decide what the value of something is.

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

The intrinsic law of nature is this: the universe does not revolve around your ego. You are not special. If you want others to respect your rights then you must respect their rights. If you want others to pay you what your work is worth then you must pay others what their work is worth. just because you feel like you are special and deserve more money for the same amount of work doesn't mean that you do. Logic and reason care nothing about your feelings.

The problem is that "society's" feelings care nothing about your logic and reason. That's real life.

Well thats the problem isnt it?

Crime is "real life"? It isnt real life. Real life is perfectly capable of being civilized.

 

[4321lynx]

You havent been following along

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

The intrinsic law of nature is this: the universe does not revolve around your ego. You are not special. If you want others to respect your rights then you must respect their rights. If you want others to pay you what your work is worth then you must pay others what their work is worth. just because you feel like you are special and deserve more money for the same amount of work doesn't mean that you do. Logic and reason care nothing about your feelings.

The problem is that "society's" feelings care nothing about your logic and reason. That's real life.

Well thats the problem isnt it?

Crime is "real life"? It isnt real life. Real life is perfectly capable of being civilized.

I asked you how that is to be done. May I have an answer?

 

[no-one-particular]

Democracy

 

[4321lynx]

I agree, but whose Democracy? That of ancient Athens? Jefferson's? Churchill's? Putin's? Kim Jong-un's? Netanyahu's? The Jesuits'? The Freemasons'? Gandhi's? The Chinese Communist Party's? Maduro's? Yours? 19th century Russian People"s Will as warmed-over by AOC? Remember that over 200 years of American "democracy" gave you and the world a guy called Trump.......

 

[Bomb#20]

Do you have evidence that "true value" exists?

You havent been following along

You didn't address my question, or the other point I raised. Value is subjective. Society gets to decide what the value of something is.

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

The intrinsic law of nature is this: the universe does not revolve around your ego. ... Logic and reason care nothing about your feelings.

You seem to have misunderstood my question. To continue my earlier analogy, if you were to ask Lion IRC if he had evidence "God" exists, and if he were to reply "You haven't been following along. I'm talking about I AM, the Christian God, the Creator. Just because your arrogance won't let you accept Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Reality cares nothing for your ego.", you wouldn't find that a persuasive answer, would you?

I am asking you whether you can exhibit some empirical observation that makes the existence of "true value" more probable.

 

[Lion IRC]

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Its an abstraction. It depends on context. Market forces.

The farmer who grows tobacco might work just as hard as the farmer who grows marijuana. Who decides their income?

 

[no-one-particular]

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Its an abstraction. It depends on context. Market forces.

The farmer who grows tobacco might work just as hard as the farmer who grows marijuana. Who decides their income?

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

If a farmer can make more money growing marijuana then he will stop growing tobacco and start growing marijuana. The supply of marijuana will increase and the price of marijuana will drop and so will his income.

 

[Lion IRC]

"...once the value of a given amount of work has been determined"

Determined by who?

 

[no-one-particular]

"...once the value of a given amount of work has been determined"

Determined by who?

by market forces.

Did you read the rest?

If a farmer can make more money growing marijuana then he will stop growing tobacco and start growing marijuana. The supply of marijuana will increase and the price of marijuana will drop and so will his income.

 

[4321lynx]

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Its an abstraction. It depends on context. Market forces.

The farmer who grows tobacco might work just as hard as the farmer who grows marijuana. Who decides their income?

Which brings us to the problem of Relative values. How does "society" settle every one of the problems of these to even a minority's moderate satisfaction? At the moment it is the alleged Free Market and Competition, and we know how those turned out, but they, or their perversions, at least work in a crude heartless way, which is arguably better than things not working at all, and being even more crude cruel and heartless than hereto.

 

[fromderinside]

Geez guys. I just talked about empathy cells related to learning cells in species from rat up to humans. Can't be a more obvious basis for morality than something evolving like that. No need to worry about minorities. Whole species have basis for common understanding.

Sure some might talk about survival of the fittest but they have to take into account how one also survives by serving others. How do we keep grandparents in the tribe fercheissake.

 

[Bomb#20]

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Its an abstraction. It depends on context. Market forces.

The farmer who grows tobacco might work just as hard as the farmer who grows marijuana. Who decides their income?

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ023XyNYig&ab_channel=wootendw[/youtube]

 

[fromderinside]

For every unguarded lustful action there is a hitch causing reaction.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

only one main philosophy

1. That all men are equal and deserve equal pay for equal work and equal punishment for equal crimes
   
   
2. That some people are superior to others and deserve more money, honor, and power than the "inferior people" or "inferior races" even if they do the same work

No, those are not the "two main philosophies" people subscribe to. Basically, everyone subscribes to the first philosophy above, and no one to the second. (No one says there are "superior" people who deserve more for the "same" rather than "superior" work.)

But the first one can be worded more correctly:

corrected version: That all men deserve equal pay for equal work and superior pay for superior work and equal punishment for equal crimes.

Virtually everyone subscribes to this philosophy rather than the original two (and even this corrected version can be made more precise).

The phrase "all men are equal" has no meaning that serves any purpose here and so is discarded. The principle is the same even if someone is superior or unequal, because it's only the superior or unequal performance which is rewarded and not the worker's abstract quality of being superior.

Also, the phrase "equal work" and "superior work" has to include whatever is the employer's preference, regardless what anyone else thinks. It even has to include the "work" of having a pretty face and other qualities desired by the employer or the employer's customer. It has to include EVERY value the worker offers to those who pay the cost.

 

[steve_bank]

Democracy is a process to make choices.

Justice does not equate to democracy.

 

[fromderinside]

Democracy is a process to make choices.

Justice does not equate to democracy.

Actually

Democracy is a society where choices are regulated by institutions chosen by those in the society'

Ergo democratic justice is determined to regulate choices made by members of society

so

In a democratic society justice is determined democratically and democratic choice is regulated by democratic justice.

 

[steve_bank]

Democracy is a process to make choices.

Justice does not equate to democracy.

Actually

Democracy is a society where choices are regulated by institutions chosen by those in the society'

Ergo democratic justice is determined to regulate choices made by members of society

so

In a democratic society justice is determined democratically and democratic choice is regulated by democratic justice.

That is a representative system with leaders chosen by a democratic process, elections. In our case we are a democratic republic not a democracy.

The founders did not want democracy thinking it would lead to chaos. We got there anyway.

In a direct democracy everybody directly votes on everything.

China considers itself fair and just to its people, we do not. I agree justice is a set of cultural norms not absolutes.