Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    :thumbsup: Rarely do the economic liberals amongst us realise the totalitarianism of their stances.


    I think the phrase 'economic eugenics' sums it up nicely. Though I forget where I came across it. Advocates of an explicitly Darwinian society cannot be anything but totalitarian, even if it is not immediately apparent. The general mindset alone required for it to work would establish a top-down heirachy and majority underclass with wealth and therefore freedom dramatically unbalanced.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Liberty cannot be brought about without both co-operation and self-management.
    I agree. I just disagree with obligating people to do so.


    There is positive liberty as defined as the power to maximise one's own potential through the access of external resources.
    Why is this desirable? Again,your explanation of what I asked initially is simply restating the premise.


    Resources would include material qualities such as free education as well as co-operation with other individuals which acts to help the growth of the individual by the exchange of ideas, mutual aid and so forth. Anarchists do not subscribe to authoritatian notions of positive liberty, though it should be said.
    Do you expect people to prescribe to public ownership theory? What of people who would prefer not to offer their services without monetary compensation?


    Negative liberty would be important to as this is the ability to think and act without external restraints: one should have self-management of one's own life.
    Of course.

    Both are important concepts to the anarchist. Solidarity (co-operation between members of society) enhances the individual liberty of an individual.
    See my initial bit.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willink)
    I agree. I just disagree with obligating people to do so.

    Why is this desirable? Again,your explanation of what I asked initially is simply restating the premise.

    Do you expect people to prescribe to public ownership theory? What of people who would prefer not to offer their services without monetary compensation?

    Of course.

    See my initial bit.
    Errg...this is tricky to explain to someone who is not an anarchist.

    I don't have an exact definition of "liberty" as such, as it is a vague concept and its definition is highly contentious. What I am really talking about is growth of the individual and I do not believe this is possible without solidarity, equality and self-management. The hierarchy of capitalism is such that labourers cannot manage their own labour as they must sell it in the labour market (thus they do not have self-management). Further more, there is no strong principle of free association in society so we do not have co-operation between individuals on the level I am talking about - this co-operation is part of the material circumstances which should be available to the individual via positive liberty but without the authority of an external body upon their life. Co-operation would not be forced as individuals do not need to co-operate with free associations but the opportunity would be available. Man is a social being and would desire to be part of an energetic, bustling community where labour and distribution of resources is managed efficiently without bureacratic institutions.

    The Bakunin quote means that there is no freedom really without socialism: it would just be freedom for the privileged and wealthy few.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In terms of bankers it comes down to how much they earn for the firm. The reason the top bankers earn 50x that of the new guys is because they earn 50x the amount of profit. Its the same in the legal world as well. The top partners get paid the most because they are the guys who rake in the millions in billing hours.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Errg...this is tricky to explain to someone who is not an anarchist.
    I support the abolition of the state. I think it presents itself as an immoral monopoly on force that uses coercion to maintain its rule over the population. Although, despite Aeolus' random pretentious musings over the last two pages I disagree with the concept that market exchange or labor exchange (either or, doesn't really matter given labor exchange occurs in a market anyhow) is inherently coercive. The anarchism without adjective concept was brought about to stop such tripe bickering between different schools of though to what "true" anarchy was "e.g you are not really anarchist because you support hierarchy and "you are not really anarchist because you support socialism".

    I figure myself a proponent of Voluntaryism; if one wishes to organize themselves into a commune or a workers society, and to interact with whoever the choose, they ought to be free to do so, in the same manner by which persons who wish to exchange their labor for a wage ought to be afforded the same freedom, were they to find the arrangement desirable, and movement between the two should not be impinged. If people wish to exist in a hierarchical society, they should be free to do so in the same way they are free to reject doing so.

    I don't have an exact definition of "liberty" as such, as it is a vague concept and its definition is highly contentious.
    But isn't that the question, though? Meaning is central to any philosophy. I think "freedom from coercion" ought to suffice. The question is what constitutes coercion?

    What I am really talking about is growth of the individual and I do not believe this is possible without solidarity, equality and self-management. The hierarchy of capitalism is such that labourers cannot manage their own labour as they must sell it in the labour market (thus they do not have self-management).
    Can they not save their own capital and subsequently manage their own labor or say, farm of their own volition? In both these instances one both maintains control over their own labor and provides for the existence of property rights.


    The Bakunin quote means that there is no freedom really without socialism: it would just be freedom for the privileged and wealthy few.
    I'm a college student, and I don't have very much money. Why would I propose a self-injurious system if I do not perceive some benefit in it? I've read Kropotkin and Sorel in the same way I've read Spooner and Rothbard, so it's not as if I am ignorant of the beliefs of either side of the spectrum.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willink)
    I support the abolition of the state. I think it presents itself as an immoral monopoly on force that uses coercion to maintain its rule over the population. Although, despite Aeolus' random pretentious musings over the last two pages I disagree with the concept that market exchange or labor exchange (either or, doesn't really matter given labor exchange occurs in a market anyhow) is inherently coercive. The anarchism without adjective concept was brought about to stop such tripe bickering between different schools of though to what "true" anarchy was "e.g you are not really anarchist because you support hierarchy and "you are not really anarchist because you support socialism".
    Errmm...actually anarchism without adjectives evolved to prevent bickering between the socialist schools of thought to help the various social anarchist groups (mutualists, anarcho-collectivists, anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists) to organise for a revolution in Spain and were inspired by the comments of Fernando Tarrida del Marmol. The goals of social anarchists and individualist anarchists are extremely different of the self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist school so while it is efficient and desirable to unite some anarchist schools (since different forms of anarchy can co-exist), the case is not so with others. Technically speaking, capitalism is a hierarchy of property owners over non-property owners, of monopoly holders over consumers, of landlords over tenants, of employers over wagelabourers and so on.

    I figure myself a proponent of Voluntaryism; if one wishes to organize themselves into a commune or a workers society, and to interact with whoever the choose, they ought to be free to do so, in the same manner by which persons who wish to exchange their labor for a wage ought to be afforded the same freedom, were they to find the arrangement desirable, and movement between the two should not be impinged. If people wish to exist in a hierarchical society, they should be free to do so in the same way they are free to reject doing so.

    But isn't that the question, though? Meaning is central to any philosophy. I think "freedom from coercion" ought to suffice. The question is what constitutes coercion?

    Can they not save their own capital and subsequently manage their own labor or say, farm of their own volition? In both these instances one both maintains control over their own labor and provides for the existence of property rights.

    I'm a college student, and I don't have very much money. Why would I propose a self-injurious system if I do not perceive some benefit in it? I've read Kropotkin and Sorel in the same way I've read Spooner and Rothbard, so it's not as if I am ignorant of the beliefs of either side of the spectrum.
    We are voluntaryists as well but for the full fruits of voluntaryism to be realised it is necessary to have social equality. When two forces make a contract there is no freedom involved when one has market dominance over the other but when both people have equal market reckoning the arrangement of the voluntary contract can only be beneficial. To propose voluntary communistic communes under the capitalistic economic infrastructure would be naive to say the least, given the power that privately owned capital possesses to crush any hostile forces which threaten the bourgeois legacy. Large scale organisations must receive international support while small scale organisations will die out due to their isolation from the wider world: in short, a revolution is necessary to overthrow the capitalist infrastructure.

    Again, as far as "liberty" goes I think it will be surpressed by financial difficulties, lack of worker's solidarity to complement the concept, etc. As for the Bakunin quote, well increased liberty for the rich was his opinion (I share that opinion) but think about it this way: under a system of privatised protection agencies and privatised law courts, there would still be a "state" - it would just be a state for the wealthy. If you "vote with your money" under capitalism and the business transactions are important when making this informed decision (though it assumes that one has an encyclopoediac knowledge of the markets to say the least - an ordinary man tends to know very little about his hospital's business dealings) then to say the very least, it would be the most wealthy of consumers that market forces would alter their business dealings in order to please the most, surely? This could be quite dangerous if this theory were to carry over private protection agencies and private law courts accepting the largest proportion of their income from "generous donations" by various firms and so forth. What is your argument against the possibility of cartels (imposing their own regulations, etc.) in the free market?

    As stated on the other page by myself, for the (capitalistic) free market to work in practice, you would have to assume a multitude of identical small firms without the ability to have a significant effect upon the market.

    Have you, by any chance stumbled across the "Ask An Anarchist Thread" in the Political Theory and Philosophy Forum?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Errmm...actually anarchism without adjectives evolved to prevent bickering between the socialist schools of thought to help the various social anarchist groups (mutualists, anarcho-collectivists, anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists) to organise for a revolution in Spain and were inspired by the comments of Fernando Tarrida del Marmol.
    Bickering is still bickering, no? Does anarchist theory not lambaste concentrated power, be it state, corporate, or elitism (intellectually)? What is rejecting theory out of hand, then, for being "others", and unworthy of cooperation?

    Technically speaking, capitalism is a hierarchy of property owners over non-property owners, of monopoly holders over consumers, of landlords over tenants, of employers over wagelabourers and so on.
    I already agreed with you. I have already stated about four times that I still have yet to find as to why this arrangement is unjust, beyond "egalitarianism is good" and "it is unproductive toward equality", both of which beg the question.


    We are voluntaryists as well but for the full fruits of voluntaryism to be realised it is necessary to have social equality.
    Again, but what of those, in such a society whereby there existed elements of freedom in perusing those ends, as you further elucidated to below, who did not care for the arrangement and sought other tenants? How would such a society respond?

    When two forces make a contract there is no freedom involved when one has market dominance over the other
    Again, I think you are applying your meaning of liberty with which I already disagreed. The inequality in this case would result from the fact that the two exist in dissimilar bargaining conditions; one has the tangible good, ownership over the means of production, and so forth. I think this is incorrect, I find the idea that persons in society have the means and ability by which to improve their circumstance over others is a fine arrangement, the same way short, nonathletic people are generally not the best of basketball players; it simply is a condition of man, attempting to make all persons equal athletes or equal owners over property is an exercise in futility. Society is wrought within inequality; look at this forum alone, there are a great number of intelligent posters and a great number of worthless ones. Is inequality of this sort any less important or worthy of conditioning than that of economic means?

    To propose voluntary communistic communes under the capitalistic economic infrastructure would be naive to say the least, given the power that privately owned capital possesses to crush any hostile forces which threaten the bourgeois legacy. Large scale organisations must receive international support while small scale organisations will die out due to their isolation from the wider world: in short, a revolution is necessary to overthrow the capitalist infrastructure.
    But isn't it the same in the opposite spectrum too? Would communes not react to attempts to establish capitalist infrastructure by non-communists were the circumstances flipped or perhaps on even footing?


    think about it this way: under a system of privatised protection agencies and privatised law courts, there would still be a "state" - it would just be a state for the wealthy.
    I've already noted I fail to believe in market transactions as being inherently coercive. The difference here is that the state throws you in prison for tax evasion, the private protection agencies and law courts simply fail to extend you protection.

    If you "vote with your money" under capitalism and the business transactions are important when making this informed decision (though it assumes that one has an encyclopoediac knowledge of the markets to say the least - an ordinary man tends to know very little about his hospital's business dealings) then to say the very least, it would be the most wealthy of consumers that market forces would alter their business dealings in order to please the most, surely? This could be quite dangerous if this theory were to carry over private protection agencies and private law courts accepting the largest proportion of their income from "generous donations" by various firms and so forth. What is your argument against the possibility of cartels (imposing their own regulations, etc.) in the free market?
    Both of these are extremely common objections by Objectivists. Roderick T. Long on the subject:

    Another worry is that the rich would rule. After all, won't justice just go to the highest bidder in that case, if you turn legal services into an economic good? That's a common objection. Interestingly, it's a particularly common objection among Randians, who suddenly become very concerned about the poor impoverished masses. But under which system are the rich more powerful? Under the current system or under anarchy? Certainly, you've always got some sort of advantage if you're rich. It's good to be rich. You're always in a better position to bribe people if you're rich than if you're not; that's true. But, under the current system, the power of the rich is magnified. Suppose that I'm an evil rich person, and I want to get the government to do something-or-other that costs a million dollars. Do I have to bribe some bureaucrat a million dollars to get it done? No, because I'm not asking him to do it with his own money. Obviously, if I were asking him to do it with his own money, I couldn't get him to spend a million dollars by bribing him any less than a million. It would have to be at least a million dollars and one cent. But people who control tax money that they don't themselves personally own, and therefore can't do whatever they want with, the bureaucrat can't just pocket the million and go home (although it can get surprisingly close to that). All I have to do is bribe him a few thousand, and he can direct this million dollars in tax money to my favorite project or whatever, and thus the power of my bribe money is multiplied.

    Whereas, if you were the head of some private protection agency and I'm trying to get you to do something that costs a million dollars, I'd have to bribe you more than a million. So, the power of the rich is actually less under this system. And, of course, any court that got the reputation of discriminating in favor of millionaires against poor people would also presumably have the reputation of discriminating for billionaires against millionaires. So, the millionaires would not want to deal with it all of the time. They'd only want to deal with it when they're dealing with people poorer, not people richer. The reputation effects — I don't think this would be too popular an outfit.

    Worries about poor victims who can't afford legal services, or victims who die without heirs (again, the Randians are very worried about victims dying without heirs) — in the case of poor victims, you can do what they did in Medieval Iceland. You're too poor to purchase legal services, but still, if someone has harmed you, you have a claim to compensation from that person. You can sell that claim, part of the claim or all of the claim, to someone else. Actually, it's kind of like hiring a lawyer on a contingency fee basis. You can sell to someone who is in a position to enforce your claim. Or, if you die without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to compensation, and that can be homesteaded.
    (10) Robert Nozick and Tyler Cowen: Private Protection Agencies Will Become a de facto Government

    Okay, one last consideration I want to talk about. This is a question that originally was raised by Robert Nozick and has since been pushed farther by Tyler Cowen. Nozick said: Suppose you have anarchy. One of three things will happen. Either the agencies will fight — and he gives two different scenarios of what will happen if they fight. But I've already talked about what happens if they fight, so I'll talk about the third option. What if they don't fight? Then he says, if instead they agree to these mutual arbitration contracts and so forth, then basically this whole thing just turns into a government. And then Tyler Cowen has pushed this argument farther. He said what happens is that basically this forms into a cartel, and it's going to be in the interest of this cartel to sort of turn itself into a government. And any new agency that comes along, they can just boycott it.

    Just as it's in your interest if you come along with a new ATM card that it be compatible with everyone else's machines, so if you come along with a brand new protection agency, it is in your interest that you get to be part of this system of contracts and arbitration and so forth that the existing ones have. Consumers aren't going to come to you if they find out that you don't have any agreements as to what happens if you're in a conflict with these other agencies. And so, this cartel will be able to freeze everyone out.

    Well, could that happen? Sure. All kinds of things could happen. Half the country could commit suicide tomorrow. But, is it likely? Is this cartel likely to be able to abuse its power in this way? The problem is cartels are unstable for all the usual reasons. That doesn't mean that it's impossible that a cartel succeed. After all, people have free will. But it's unlikely because the very incentives that lead you to form the cartel also lead you to cheat on it — because it's always in the interest of anyone to make agreements outside the cartel once they are in it.

    Bryan Caplan makes a distinction between self-enforcing boycotts and non-self-enforcing boycotts. Self-enforcing boycotts are ones where the boycott is pretty stable because it's a boycott against, for example, doing business with people who cheat their business partners. Now, you don't have to have some iron resolve of moral commitment in order to avoid doing business with people who cheat their business partners. You have a perfectly self-interested reason not to do business with those people.

    But think instead of a commitment not to do business with someone because you don't like their religion or something like that, or they're a member of the wrong protection agency, one that your fellow protection agencies told you not to deal with — well, the boycott might work. Maybe enough people (and maybe everyone) in the cartel are so committed to upholding the cartel that they just won't deal with the person. Is that possible? Yes. But, if we assume that they formed the cartel out of their own economic self-interest, then the economic self-interest is precisely what leads to the undermining because it's in their interest to deal with the person, just as it's always in your interest to engage in mutually beneficial trade.
    Have you, by any chance stumbled across the "Ask An Anarchist Thread" in the Political Theory and Philosophy Forum?
    I've browsed it, yes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willink)
    ...
    Ok. To start with, yeah a counter-revolution would be required under anarchism to create a system of capitalism just as a revolution would be required under capitalism to create a system of anarchism. That's my whole point: the two ideologies are totally incompatible with one another. You may describe your prefered system as anarcho-capitalism (as I cannot think of a description that fits the particulars of a system much better) but also understand that it is fundamentally different to anarcho-communism and that the two cannot co-exist. However, I do not think communes would intervene with people peaceful organising capitalist hierarchies because of the principles of free association and delegative democracy that would underline such a system and because I don't think people will be flocking over to become wage labours. The history of the state and capitalism is intertwined: 80% of Americans in pre-industrialised America were self-employed farmers, merchants, traders, jewellers, etc. Only 20% were slaves and wage labourers. The system of wage labour (on white Americans) was enforced brutally. So under an anarcho-communist society, I am convinced that (after all illegitmate gains and all instances of wage labourer had been overthrown and the population had a revolutionary mindset [it would require a revolutionary mindset to overthrow capitalism]), it would require some sort of state intervention to reinforce the system of private property and wage labour. In other words, people wouldn't be flocking over to work for privatised means of production. Even if they would, it would require the help from workers (who would be freely associated with communes) and therefore voluntary contracts with communes to build private property in the first place: part of the voluntary contract would probably inevitably be communal ownership of the means of production. I believe this answers your question about voluntarism as well: "what of those [who would refuse to pursue] those ends". In short, they are free to try and re-establish capitalism and hierarchy but without voluntary slaves and wage labourers, they will find it tricky. There may be a few capitalist/statist communities but not enough, I would hope to overthrow the entire system of libertarian communism. I can't be bothered to bicker about anarcho-capitalism not being a form of anarchism (as the only reason I care to be honest is that the use of the word "anarchism" by the right muddies terminology but then political terminology has historically become muddied: the word "liberal" for instance probably has about a billion different meanings.) So really and truly, it just makes matters confusing when different ideologies start using the same words but I don't claim that I can think of a better one...the important thing is that anarcho-capitalism cannot co-exist with social or individualist forms of anarchism. (The fact anarcho-capitalists also sometimes refer to themselves as mutualists and individualist anarchists also muddies the terminology since the latter two were both originally anarchist and market socialist ideologies but oh well...).

    The problem with "anarcho-capitalism" is that it uses the dictionary definition of anarchism "without government" however this ignores the history of and also the under pinning assumptions of the words exact meaning for the sake of sticking with the Ancient Greek eytmology. In any case, the exact literal definition, I think, would be more along the lines of "without rulers". But again, I have heard no better description than anarcho-capitalism so I cannot argue with the word, I just wish it wouldn't muddy the waters so.

    As for me using a definition of liberty that you disagree with, is it safe to say we both agree with a definition that includes "the power to act without external restraints"? When I discuss a lack of "freedom" when a labourer sells his labour to the capitalist in the free market, I mean that there is of course freedom to make a contract but no freedom in actual employment - the boss does not provide him with self-management of labour - hence my argument that for there to be liberty, all forces in the market must have equal market power (i.e. social equality). It is important to understand what I mean by "social equality" of course - I don't mean equality of income (as all individuals are different and have different needs and abilities) but rather equal economic and political power (the right to have a say in the distribution of labour and the right to have a say in local politics). Thus voluntary arrangements can only be fully satisfied by self-management of labour and social equality to maximise individual "liberty".

    Now, I will attack your stance on objectivism. Your argument does not apply to me because I am no objectivist and do not support government bureacracy anyway (nor do I support laissez-faire capitalism as do the likes of Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick)! But you know this. The concept of the wealthy bribing politicians is of no concern to me, therefore, however for the sake of undermining ancap (anarcho-capitalism), I will defend the objectivist stance (whilst simultaneously attacking it):

    * Governments are more directly accountable for via elective democracy (and more accountable for via more extreme forms of democracy), businesses are only accountable for via business transactions (this assumes that the consumer has an encyclopoediac knowledge the business he makes transactions with (he knows exact nutritional value of food being sold to him in a supermarket and that it is affecting his health through his encyclopoediac knowledge of all products) and that any poor decisions the business make directly affect him - if the decisions affect someone else, the consumer is less likely to be bothered).
    * A large amount of defense of the free market is that individuals would be able to sue business who violated private property rights but the truth is that wealthy firms may hire an army of lawyers and, again, bribe the law courts. Of course, it would be the wealthy in charge of these firms hence my argument of "tyranny of the wealthy". The bribe may have to be a lot more money in the free market than under a system of governance but it will be more than the individual suing the firm has to offer, hence the individual is more likely to lose the case and, over time, firms would gain increasing power.
    * Again, the history of capitalism is that the state has needed to enforce the private property laws and systems of wage labour (it has been illegal, for instance for a group of workers to occupy their factory, even by peaceful means such as lock-ins) for it to be possible.
    *If cartels were to form, no doubt the individual firms in the cartel would use similar services (e.g. change their machines so that they are compatible with the same ATM cards) so they do not lose business.
    * The majority of people would not stop doing business with a firm because they did not like their business dealings unless they knew how these business dealings affected them personally (again, encyclopediac knowledge) or they genuinely cared about the other people these dealings were affecting (provided that they, themselves were not some how affected).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Can you perhaps substantiate this? On what basis are you making this claim?
    Ok, go ask 100 people what success in the workplace means. I garuntee that the majority of answes will include increased salary. :rolleyes:




    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well that is not really the question here is it? The question concerns the levels of what one can earn and the inequality that exists.

    Lets say that these rather foggy and vauge statements of yours are true. Why then must the gap between salaries be so ridiculously wide?
    The true question is, why should it not be? Why should wages be kept down arbritrarily? Just to make those lower down the pecking order feel better? To make them feel it is fairer? No, there is no reason to keep these wages down, other than jelousy.





    (Original post by Aeolus)
    This is also very interesting, and extremely authoritarian. As a mantra, it wouldn't be out of place in some Stalinist nightmare.
    Oh my, you are quite the Dramatist.
    I'm talking about jelousy in the work place. Of entitlement complexs.

    'He makes more than me, but I work hard to, I should get the same wage!'
    That's not sufficent. That's not reaoning, that's jelousy and greed. If you want to earn more it's up to you to do something about it, not expect everyone else to give up their money for your feeling of self worth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Ok, go ask 100 people what success in the workplace means. I garuntee that the majority of answes will include increased salary. :rolleyes:
    So you can't substantiate it. That's what I thought.


    The true question is, why should it not be?
    No it isn't. That is a rather cheap and obvious way of dodging my point. You say that the current inequity of private sector salaries is down to natural competition or somthing else foggy.

    I am asking how you infer from this such drastic pay inequality. Saying 'Why isn't it' is begging the question. You made the statement, you justify it on logical grounds.

    Given that the current status quo and wealth distribution was not established by the private sector, your flaccid and fatuous talk about the 'pecking order' is rather droll and lacking in intellectual substance.


    Oh my, you are quite the Dramatist.
    I'm talking about jelousy in the work place. Of entitlement complexs.

    'He makes more than me, but I work hard to, I should get the same wage!'
    That's not sufficent. That's not reaoning, that's jelousy and greed.
    I am not sure what your definition of reaoning (sic) is. But logically, if we are to be fair (And morality is what this thread is about) logically if your labour is worth as much as somebody elses. There should not be a drastic difference in salary? Why should there be? (After all you were the one who bought up reason.)

    If you want to earn more it's up to you to do something about it, not expect everyone else to give up their money for your feeling of self worth.
    Your entire argument is based on frivolous and sensationalist generalisations like these.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So you can't substantiate it. That's what I thought.




    No it isn't. That is a rather cheap and obvious way of dodging my point. You say that the current inequity of private sector salaries is down to natural competition or somthing else foggy.

    I am asking how you infer from this such drastic pay inequality. Saying 'Why isn't it' is begging the question. You made the statement, you justify it on logical grounds.

    Given that the current status quo and wealth distribution was not established by the private sector, your flaccid and fatuous talk about the 'pecking order' is rather droll and lacking in intellectual substance.




    I am not sure what your definition of reaoning (sic) is. But logically, if we are to be fair (And morality is what this thread is about) logically if your labour is worth as much as somebody elses. There should not be a drastic difference in salary? Why should there be? (After all you were the one who bought up reason.)



    Your entire argument is based on frivolous and sensationalist generalisations like these.
    So is the entire notion of Communism :rolleyes:

    I'm sorry, yes you're correct, I don't have a study backing my claim, but it is rather obvious. Please do as I've invited you to and post your results, I think you'll find them concordant with my hypothesis.

    Pay diferences typically stem from job. You understand this I suppose?
    Now, tell me, how is it fair that a job that can only be done by 1 man is paid the same as a job that can be done 100 men? That first man is clearly more valuable, and as such is paid more, simple logic. But of course, that's Capatalistic logic so you wont agree. But we don't live in a fairy-land Marxist Utopia so I'm afrid you'll have to live with it.
    Salary is down to the value of the person. If I have to do a 3 year degree, why should I not be paid more? Clearly I'm cleverer than the manual labourer. I've invested study time that could have been spent working and I've commited myself to a course of employment.
    The same can be said for someone that has worked a job for 20 years. That man knows the job inside and out. He may have moved up mny tiers to a position that noone can be in, without the benifit of his knowledge. He is a valuable person. Therefor another company may ffer him more money, and he'll go.

    The base of it is an employe is just another product, an item to be bought, sold and used. So unless you propose to artificially interfere with business in a way that would not be tolerated, I fail to see what you can do.

    And from what I can see, moral's don't come into it. Any man can work his way up. Just as any man can stay a slovenly bottom teir labourer. In the end, pay differences pose as an incentive to achieve, a reward for hard work and effort. There is no lack of morals here, at worst it is amoral, which isn't always a bad thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    So is the entire notion of Communism :rolleyes:

    Excellent and complex analysis right there. I'm starting to see a pattern in your arguments. :rofl:

    I'm sorry, yes you're correct, I don't have a study backing my claim, but it is rather obvious. Please do as I've invited you to and post your results, I think you'll find them concordant with my hypothesis.
    Pay diferences typically stem from job. You understand this I suppose?
    Now, tell me, how is it fair that a job that can only be done by 1 man is paid the same as a job that can be done 100 men? That first man is clearly more valuable, and as such is paid more, simple logic.

    No it is not simple logic. I am starting to think you have no idea what logic is judging from your utterly fallacious posts across this forum. Your arguments are utterly circular.

    You are implying that this inequality is somehow natural and innate. I am challenging you as to how you infer this from your premise. I will simplify our argument for you.

    You state that inequality is somehow natural and innate. I have not denied this. What I am contending is the dramatic gulf in inequality that exists. A gulf, and a descrepency that utterly overshadows any kind of natural inequality.

    That is what you must explain because your original argument fails completely. You are trying to derive a normative from a positive and in this case it simply will not work.

    Saying something completely frivolous like " ItZ CaPitaliZt LogiC Duh!" is to employ a circular argument that is just a complete waste of my time.

    If you don't understand what these things I am talking about are then just don't reply it will save us both a frustrating exchange. Just don't repeat what you said before. It's ridiculous.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Excellent and complex analysis right there. I'm starting to see a pattern in your arguments. :rofl:




    No it is not simple logic. I am starting to think you have no idea what logic is judging from your utterly fallacious posts across this forum. Your arguments are utterly circular.

    You are implying that this inequality is somehow natural and innate. I am challenging you as to how you infer this from your premise. I will simplify our argument for you.

    You state that inequality is somehow natural and innate. I have not denied this. What I am contending is the dramatic gulf in inequality that exists. A gulf, and a descrepency that utterly overshadows any kind of natural inequality.

    That is what you must explain because your original argument fails completely. You are trying to derive a normative from a positive and in this case it simply will not work.

    Saying something completely frivolous like " ItZ CaPitaliZt LogiC Duh!" is to employ a circular argument that is just a complete waste of my time.

    If you don't understand what these things I am talking about are then just don't reply it will save us both a frustrating exchange. Just don't repeat what you said before. It's ridiculous.
    Take a look around you. Take a look at the natural world. Tell me now, how is inequality expressed there?

    Death, violence and starvation. Take a loom through society. Inequlity is inate and natural. The gulf in equality is the smallest it has ever been, it is simpley pay here. And even then, it's not inequality, there's a reason some people earn more than others, as I've stated before.

    Perhaps if you would see sense, then we could move forwards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Take a look around you. Take a look at the natural world. Tell me now, how is inequality expressed there?

    Death, violence and starvation. Take a loom through society. Inequlity is inate and natural. The gulf in equality is the smallest it has ever been, it is simpley pay here. And even then, it's not inequality, there's a reason some people earn more than others, as I've stated before.

    Perhaps if you would see sense, then we could move forwards.

    Stop this ridiculous fallacy! Rape is innate and natural!

    Now if it is ok with you I am off to violently challenge my next door neighbour for his territory, beat him and rape his wife into submission.

    Good evening :hat2:

    (Natural = Good rite?)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Stop this ridiculous fallacy! Rape is innate and natural!

    Now if it is ok with you I am off to violently challenge my next door neighbour for his territory, beat him and rape his wife into submission.

    Good evening :hat2:

    (Natural = Good rite?)
    Take his example and argument to a ridiculous extreme!! That'll show him!!!

    Nice.


    I said it was natural, I didn't say everything that is natural is good and proper. Grey things and Elephants and all that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Take his example and argument to a ridiculous extreme!! That'll show him!!!

    Nice.


    I said it was natural, I didn't say everything that is natural is good and proper. Grey things and Elephants and all that.


    No I am showing you that this is naturalistic fallacy. In this regard you cannot logically derive a normative from a positive. Your argument doesn't work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think there is nothing wrong in pay gaps. People who complain only do so out of envy.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.