Individuals with aggressive, rule-breaking and anti-social tendencies are over-represented among executive leadership

[ksen]

hahaha . . . "voluntary"

good one!

 

[untermensche]

It's done everyday. All over the world.

But even if it wasn't done this is a matter of morality.

There is no moral justification for dictatorship in the workplace.

There's also no moral justification for preventing people from creating voluntary economic relationships.

People submit to the realities they face.

Nothing but one dictatorship after another.

Many have NO choice but to submit. Some can escape.

But submission because you have no choice is not a voluntary choice. It is a coerced choice.

 

[laughing dog]

There's also no moral justification for preventing people from creating voluntary economic relationships.

There is at least as much moral justification for preventing people from creating voluntary economic relationships as there is to your claim.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No diversion. You know it can't be done.

It's done everyday. All over the world.

But even if it wasn't done this is a matter of morality.

There is no moral justification for dictatorship in the workplace.

Then you don't consider freedom moral justification. So you can't slavery is morally unjustified.

- - - Updated - - -

hahaha . . . "voluntary"

good one!

So I can't tell my bosses I quit? I can't start my own business?

 

[ksen]

So I can't tell my bosses I quit? I can't start my own business?

Sure you can.

But don't pretend that the extreme power imbalance between employers and employees is anything but coercive in nature.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So I can't tell my bosses I quit? I can't start my own business?

Sure you can.

But don't pretend that the extreme power imbalance between employers and employees is anything but coercive in nature.

It's funny because businesses fail all the time, people move on.

 

[ksen]

Sure you can.

But don't pretend that the extreme power imbalance between employers and employees is anything but coercive in nature.

It's funny because businesses fail all the time, people move on.

That's nice.

 

[Trausti]

There's also no moral justification for preventing people from creating voluntary economic relationships.

There is at least as much moral justification for preventing people from creating voluntary economic relationships as there is to your claim.

If Bob agrees to work for Bill for $/hr, what is it your concern? Do you prefer coercion to choice?

 

[untermensche]

It's done everyday. All over the world.

But even if it wasn't done this is a matter of morality.

There is no moral justification for dictatorship in the workplace.

Then you don't consider freedom moral justification. So you can't slavery is morally unjustified.

The ability to buy yourself a dictatorship within the current system is not a moral justification.

There is NO moral justification for allowing some to dictate over others in the workplace.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Then you don't consider freedom moral justification. So you can't slavery is morally unjustified.

The ability to buy yourself a dictatorship within the current system is not a moral justification.

There is NO moral justification for allowing some to dictate over others in the workplace.

The justification is that you as an individual get to make the decision. There will alsways be coercion to somebody or something since humans need to trade to survive. You either have multiple parties you can trade with or you will have a central government who decides where you fit.

 

[laughing dog]

There is at least as much moral justification for preventing people from creating voluntary economic relationships as there is to your claim.

If Bob agrees to work for Bill for $/hr, what is it your concern? Do you prefer coercion to choice?

Interesting, you have not given any moral justification for allowing Bob to agree to work for Bill, so you have actually made my point.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If Bob agrees to work for Bill for $/hr, what is it your concern? Do you prefer coercion to choice?

Interesting, you have not given any moral justification for allowing Bob to agree to work for Bill, so you have actually made my point.

If freedom is not a morally justified reason, can you then make the argument that slavery is not morally wrong?

 

[untermensche]

The ability to buy yourself a dictatorship within the current system is not a moral justification.

There is NO moral justification for allowing some to dictate over others in the workplace.

The justification is that you as an individual get to make the decision. There will alsways be coercion to somebody or something since humans need to trade to survive. You either have multiple parties you can trade with or you will have a central government who decides where you fit.

The individual is FORCED due to man-made circumstance to make a particular kind of choice.

For many they are FORCED to submit to a dictatorship.

You can pretend this is freedom all day, but it isn't.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The justification is that you as an individual get to make the decision. There will alsways be coercion to somebody or something since humans need to trade to survive. You either have multiple parties you can trade with or you will have a central government who decides where you fit.

The individual is FORCED due to man-made circumstance to make a particular kind of choice.

For many they are FORCED to submit to a dictatorship.

You can pretend this is freedom all day, but it isn't.

ever system will force that. The question is does the individual get to free decide the choice or does the state do it for you.

 

[laughing dog]

Interesting, you have not given any moral justification for allowing Bob to agree to work for Bill, so you have actually made my point.

If freedom is not a morally justified reason, can you then make the argument that slavery is not morally wrong?

To my knowledge, no one has made an argument that freedom is morally justified. One can wave one's hand and say "Freedom is a morally justified reason" but then one can just as easily say "Coerciion is a morally justified reason" or "Restriction is a morally justified reason" with a wave of the hand.

Even libertarians agree that freedom has its limitations. Most disagreements arise over the nature or scope of the limitations. For example, does freedom mean that children can voluntarily engage in porn for others to voluntarily watch?

 

[coloradoatheist]

If freedom is not a morally justified reason, can you then make the argument that slavery is not morally wrong?

To my knowledge, no one has made an argument that freedom is morally justified. One can wave one's hand and say "Freedom is a morally justified reason" but then one can just as easily say "Coerciion is a morally justified reason" or "Restriction is a morally justified reason" with a wave of the hand.

Even libertarians agree that freedom has its limitations. Most disagreements arise over the nature or scope of the limitations. For example, does freedom mean that children can voluntarily engage in porn for others to voluntarily watch?

They disagree on who is capable of making their choice. The argument there is whether or not a child has the mental capability to understand their choices.

 

[untermensche]

The individual is FORCED due to man-made circumstance to make a particular kind of choice.

For many they are FORCED to submit to a dictatorship.

You can pretend this is freedom all day, but it isn't.

ever system will force that. The question is does the individual get to free decide the choice or does the state do it for you.

You ignore the Anarchists and their democratic system.

Just as the immorality of dictatorship in government is replaced by democracy the same thing must happen in the workplace before people can really be called free.

 

[coloradoatheist]

ever system will force that. The question is does the individual get to free decide the choice or does the state do it for you.

You ignore the Anarchists and their democratic system.

Just as the immorality of dictatorship in government is replaced by democracy the same thing must happen in the workplace before people can really be called free.

It didn't survive and it stayed together because of bond of fighting. How would it handle people who didn't want to work? How did it handle the people who wanted to strt their own business and give better benefits than people who were in the "union"?

 

[ksen]

You ignore the Anarchists and their democratic system.

Just as the immorality of dictatorship in government is replaced by democracy the same thing must happen in the workplace before people can really be called free.

It didn't survive and it stayed together because of bond of fighting. How would it handle people who didn't want to work? How did it handle the people who wanted to strt their own business and give better benefits than people who were in the "union"?

Yes, because there's a bevy of capitalists out there just yearning to give their employees better pay and benefits.

 

[laughing dog]

To my knowledge, no one has made an argument that freedom is morally justified. One can wave one's hand and say "Freedom is a morally justified reason" but then one can just as easily say "Coerciion is a morally justified reason" or "Restriction is a morally justified reason" with a wave of the hand.

Even libertarians agree that freedom has its limitations. Most disagreements arise over the nature or scope of the limitations. For example, does freedom mean that children can voluntarily engage in porn for others to voluntarily watch?

They disagree on who is capable of making their choice. The argument there is whether or not a child has the mental capability to understand their choices.

Ah, so freedom does have limitations.