Ask me about Communism.

[taks]

The only reason they don't do it (as much) in the United States is because it is against the law.

it was against the law then, too. assault is illegal, and always has been in the US.

 

Labor law violations still exist, however.

labor laws did nothing but make what was already illegal, well, illegal. there simply did not exist any means to deal with the problems of 30% per annum population increases, mostly of unskilled laborers.

 

the reason LoF only posts pictures from the 1800s (or other extreme cases) is because that is when everything was clearly broken. the US had a HUGE influx of people that left europe in search of a better life, i.e., the supply skyrocketed in a few centuries. there was no way to accomodate this, not with capitalism, socialism, fascism, or any other economic system you can imagine.

 

LoF's assertions, as well as lare's, rest on these extreme cases. without them, i.e., a study of what happens during a quasi-equilibrium (there is rarely a true "equilibrium" in economic cycles), he has no case.

 

taks

[Gromnir]

to be fair, there were widespread mistreatment o' U.S. workers during the depression era.

of course. we're talking about an extreme circumstance in which the demand for goods dropped to almost nothing, and the supply of workers shot through the roof. when 20%+ of your workforce is suddenly on the streets, there will be problems with any system.

 

is not that big business were consciously trying to mistreat employees, but if there is a surplus o' labor the motivation for employers to treat their employees well decreases.

exactly. this, of course, has nothing to do with capitalism.

 

taks

 

it is precisely those horrible and catastrophic scenarios that inspire folks to embrace an alternative system. heck, lof will argue that it were unrestrained capitalism that led to the great depression in the first place... and more than a couple experts would agree with him. is now 80 years after the start o' the Great Depression and we still sees new theories emerging 'bout causes. even so, ignoring the Great Depression, history shows us that the normal economic cycles does have some pretty extreme peaks and valleys, and a system that not account for such is flawed. today, given the current economic climate, the average office stiff is gonna need to be foolish or brave to says "no" to working on weekends, and Gromnir has seen many new faces at the local soup kitchen where we volunteers. heck, am betting that many of us experienced a much more reserved company/business/firm christmas party this year than in years past. every business is looking for ways to cut fat, and the single largest Cost o' virtual any business is employees. cut employees. cut benefits. cut safety? why not cut safety or workman's comp? is not sound business to indulge in such stuff if it will put you out of business, right?

 

am not seeing a reemergence of Triangle Shirt Company mentality, but without government interventions the motivation for companies to treat employees decent understandably takes a back seat to survival instinct. terrible economic conditions is inevitable. a system that not work in bad conditions is flawed... 'course communism is just as bad/worse, 'cause the only times sane and rational folks would seriously consider communism is when economic conditions is catastrophic.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[taks]

Although I don't enjoy the language of economic rationalism, I suppose I'll have to resort to it here.

sigh...

 

Companies which treat their workers poorly, through low wages, no benefits, et cetera, have an advantage over those that do: they have less overhead costs. Workers who are thrust into these situations do not always have the ability or willingness to strike or appeal.

really, care to prove that? seriously, proof, not just your beliefs.

 

no they do not have lower overhead, it is higher, simply because worker productivity is lower. in other words, they have to hire more people to get the same work done. wages are set by demand from the market, period. companies have no choice but to pay what the market demands else they will have empty buildings producing nothing and, guess what? they won't be able to earn any of that money that drives them.

 

Wal-Mart goes to great lengths to ensure its workers do not unionize,

yet walmart willingly pays its people more than its competition, including benefits... interesting that you bring that up.

 

and illegal immigrants (a popular choice of workforce in a country with a dwindling manufacturing sector) can't exactly do so either.

not sure how this is a problem of capitalism...

 

You have never offered an actual reason why companies would not want to pay their workers less, give them less benefits, etc, just blandly attempted to keep to your nonsense position where, of course they'll be nice to their workers! Higher wages and shorter hours are in their self-interest!

yes i have, something that is easy to show if you've ever worked anywhere: higher productivity. pretty simple. besides that, supply and demand sets workforce wages. offer less money than the market demands, and you won't get any applicants. they'll go elsewhere. anybody that has ever been involved with the hiring process knows this, even if they don't understand it.

 

taks

[lord of flies]

really, care to prove that? seriously, proof, not just your beliefs.

 

no they do not have lower overhead, it is higher, simply because worker productivity is lower. in other words, they have to hire more people to get the same work done. wages are set by demand from the market, period. companies have no choice but to pay what the market demands else they will have empty buildings producing nothing and, guess what? they won't be able to earn any of that money that drives them.

The market is not, as you seem to think, perfect. A worker in Bangladesh can be paid much less than a worker in New York, for obvious reasons. But wait... the free market!!! No, the free market is an idealized way to think about economics that only kind-of sort-of exists in the stock market (not completely even then). Companies can, will, and have paid people different wages for the same job. Oops!

not sure how this is a problem of capitalism...

Hmm, yes, how is this example of unrestrained greed a problem of capitalism? Nope, can't be, just because I say that anything illegal must not be part of capitalism.

yes i have, something that is easy to show if you've ever worked anywhere: higher productivity. pretty simple.

Oh, so you can link me studies showing that if someone is paid twice as much, they work twice as hard? No, you can't, because even you know that isn't true.

besides that, supply and demand sets workforce wages. offer less money than the market demands, and you won't get any applicants. they'll go elsewhere. anybody that has ever been involved with the hiring process knows this, even if they don't understand it.

And who says that the market-set "workforce wages" are fair or right? Certainly not me.

[taks]

history shows us that the normal economic cycles does have some pretty extreme peaks and valleys, and a system that not account for such is flawed.

i disagree with this point, but it is also connected to your comment that capitalism does not take into account human nature. actually, it does, which is why it works the way it works. it relies on human nature to correct itself.

 

cut employees. cut benefits.

of course, neither of these two are actually mistreatment. i'm not saying that was your implication, just pointing out that lare and LoF and other supporters of collectivist systems think low wages amount to mistreatment. they don't. they are the result of high supply and low demand.

 

cut safety? why not cut safety or workman's comp? is not sound business to indulge in such stuff if it will put you out of business, right?

if someone gets hurt, and you get sued, yes. of course, the system in many countries is broken to the point there is no recourse, as lare has conveniently pointed out (which proves MY point, einstein) for us. even in the US the red tape involved (a result of government interference) severely limits workers' ability to effectively respond to such situations.

 

but without government interventions the motivation for companies to treat employees decent understandably takes a back seat to survival instinct.

i don't think this is true except in the most severe of circumstances. we aren't there yet, and i'm not sure we have ever been there other than the late 1800s (the depression was made worse by government intervention - at the very least, it did not help).

 

a system that not work in bad conditions is flawed...

i don't think this is true, either. at least, define "flawed" as you use it? there is no such thing as "ideal," since ideal systems cannot work. ideal systems require ideal conditions, which makes them flawed since they can't work in bad conditions. it's a circular argument sort of like sayin you have to have credit to get credit. all we are left with are what would be termed a "flawed" system: capitalism, which does work in bad conditions, just not as well as during good conditions. it recovers on its own, albeit with some pain in the process.

 

taks

[taks]

The market is not, as you seem to think, perfect.

show me where i said it was perfect? strawman alert.

 

A worker in Bangladesh can be paid much less than a worker in New York, for obvious reasons. But wait... the free market!!!

a) you are comparing apples and oranges. besides the fact that the US has laws about wages (there is a minimum here, not so in bangladesh), there are also unions. both of these interfere with the free market. companies move into bangladesh because there is a greater supply of workers, which again, supports my point.

 

you aren't very good with this, either.

 

No, the free market is an idealized way to think about economics that only kind-of sort-of exists in the stock market (not completely even then).

no, it is not only theoretically true, but empirically true, too. where do you people get these silly notions?

 

Companies can, will, and have paid people different wages for the same job.

so what? your example above is two completely different economic systems, so applyiing "free market" to them equally is disingenuous.

 

Hmm, yes, how is this example of unrestrained greed a problem of capitalism?

um, read the point. illegal immigration is not a problem of capitalism, it is a problem of bad immigration laws.

 

Nope, can't be, just because I say that anything illegal must not be part of capitalism.

this doesn't even make sense.

 

Oh, so you can link me studies showing that if someone is paid twice as much, they work twice as hard? No, you can't, because even you know that isn't true.

nor did i say it was true, another strawman. either way, it is not a linear function - for you to assume so is indication of your lack of understanding of basic economic theory.

 

And who says that the market-set "workforce wages" are fair or right?

define "fair." who decides "fair?" you? me? the government? how exactly will they determine "fair?" lottery, coin flip, maybe draw straws? the market-set wages are the most fair possible. they are set based on demand. the more people that want a certain job relative to the positions available determines how much it is worth. generally speaking, this means positions requiring skills or education pay more. the more difficult the skill, or degree, the higher the pay.

 

Certainly not me.

ahhh, now we get to your motivation. YOU aren't happy with what you make, so YOU get to decide what is fair for the rest of us? figures. lare seems to be a person that would benefit from collectivist policies, too, so his defense of them is equally understandable. pretty hypocritical.

 

taks

[I want teh kotor 3]

What he said.

[taks]

i should note, btw, that LoF said this:

 

"Companies which treat their workers poorly, through low wages, no benefits, et cetera, have an advantage over those that do: they have less overhead costs."

 

and i likewise asked him to prove it.

 

still waiting for proof that this results in lower overhead - simply saying that paying someone twice is much won't result in twice as much production is hardly proof. he can't prove this statement because it is not true.

 

taks

[lord of flies]

a) you are comparing apples and oranges. besides the fact that the US has laws about wages (there is a minimum here, not so in bangladesh), there are also unions. both of these interfere with the free market. companies move into bangladesh because there is a greater supply of workers, which again, supports my point.

 

you aren't very good with this, either.

Cool story bro. What's your point then? The "free market" does what the "free market" does?

no, it is not only theoretically true, but empirically true, too. where do you people get these silly notions?

My economics class, maybe? In order to have a proper "free market," you need equality of information (everybody knows the same things), equality of access (everyone with money can buy), equality of price (everyone pays the same for the same service, period), etc. This doesn't exist, obviously, so you get all sorts of cool deformations like rich corporations driving smaller ones out of business by purposefully reducing their prices.

so what? your example above is two completely different economic systems, so applyiing "free market" to them equally is disingenuous.

You're the disingenuous one.

um, read the point. illegal immigration is not a problem of capitalism, it is a problem of bad immigration laws.

You mean, it's a problem of what you think are bad immigration laws. In reality, those laws exist for a wide variety of reasons, many of which are economically-based (e.g. the advantage corporations get from the labor). Oops!

this doesn't even make sense.

Nope! You seem to believe that any natural consequence of the capitalist system cannot be its fault if it's illegal.

nor did i say it was true, another strawman. either way, it is not a linear function - for you to assume so is indication of your lack of understanding of basic economic theory.

Oh, so it's not a linear function, thus rendering your point about it being in their best interest to pay more so they don't have to higher more irrelevant nonsense? I would never have guessed.

ahhh, now we get to your motivation. YOU aren't happy with what you make, so YOU get to decide what is fair for the rest of us? figures. lare seems to be a person that would benefit from collectivist policies, too, so his defense of them is equally understandable. pretty hypocritical.

Actually, in a collectivist system I would not be a beneficiary, nor am I motivated by the same wild, irrational greed that you seem to be. If there was an economic system which made the world a worse place but gave me a billion dollars, I wouldn't accept it either. Oops!

still waiting for proof that this results in lower overhead - simply saying that paying someone twice is much won't result in twice as much production is hardly proof. he can't prove this statement because it is not true.

I'm not going to go to some effort to prove to you that yes, Virginia, if you pay someone less you spend less. It's a basic truth, that's how economics works. Money doesn't appear from nowhere, and it doesn't disappear to nowhere.

[Gromnir]

"if someone gets hurt, and you get sued, yes. of course, the system in many countries is broken to the point there is no recourse, as lare has conveniently pointed out (which proves MY point, einstein) for us. even in the US the red tape involved (a result of government interference) severely limits workers' ability to effectively respond to such situations."

 

...

 

if capitalism is necessarily tied to an idealized legal system to function, then that is another flaw. legal systems is, by their very nature, govt. intervention. as opposed to letting two parties negotiate their own resolutions on an ad hoc basis (with the predictable and unacceptable likelihood of resulting violence), we gots State imposed rules, regulations, and penalties. also, Gromnir has never seen/witnessed an ideal civil legal system, so am not sure what one might look like. in theory, law protects the powerless from the powerful, and without any legal system the folks who would suffer most are indeed the powerless. however, am not sure what kinda resources you is willing to provide to fix the legal system... and how you intend to fix. regardless, is a State intervention fix.

 

GE and Microsoft can hire teams o' lawyers. am guessing you could "kill all the lawyers" but that would even further skew the odds in favor o' the corporate haves. with no lawyers, the lone worker/employee probable has less resources with which to mount an effective case 'gainst an employer.

 

is insurance the problem? many corporations are able to effectively indemnify themselves from serious financial loss resulting from non-punitive legal losses. 'course, that is another aspect that should be self-correcting in a capitalist system. obviously the insurance rates should rise enough to discourage corporations from doing wrong by employees. we would be interested to see this work right in practice.

 

no punitive damages? punitive damages is the reason why we gots a multi-million dollar reward 'cause some old lady burns herself with coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru. is punitives necessary for a good legal system? no... hell no. 'course without punitives we gots company bean counters who is able to put a relative low price on the price o' a single lost eye or limb... or life.

 

democracy fixes everything perhaps? after all, there is more workers than ceos, so it should mean that the workers can get laws enacted to protect themselves from business exploitation, no? let us know when that happens. the triangle shirtwaist factory fire occurred in 1911... before the depression. two years after the fire, the initial civil trial, and considerable public outcry, Max Blanck (owner of Triangle) was arrested for some o' the same safety violations that led to the initial fire. am recalling that he were fined approx. $50. it were only when conditions got horrendous bad during the depression that laws were enacted and changed.

 

honest. if you is depending on legal system to adequately correct the predictable power gulf between the corporation and the worker, then you is being more than a little optimistic.

 

the Harrison Bergeron approach o' communism is naive in the extreme, but am honestly not seeing any absolute faith in undiluted capitalism either. people is greedy and short-sited whether they is corporate or worker. expecting corporate entities to conform to some minimum level o' decency because it is ultimately in their own self-interest ignores the history of corporate stoopidity AND success. regardless, is not practical to depend on the courts to fix. even the best legal system... sucks.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

lof,

 

one o' the reasons you ain't taken serious is statements such as the following:

 

"Oh, so it's not a linear function, thus rendering your point about it being in their best interest to pay more so they don't have to higher more irrelevant nonsense? I would never have guessed. rolleyes.gif"

 

am not sure what posts you is reading, but your logic is horrible. as much as we disagree with taks on some stuff, you is engaging in straw man and circular arguments ad a host o' other wacky fallacies and foibles without restraint. pay people more to work harder? sure. what does that have to do with effort = productivity.

 

...

 

a few years ago, Gromnir were asked to help "fix" a Japanese law firm. if effort had equaled productivity, they woulda' been world beaters. with the exception o' a few individuals, these folks had gambatte tattooed on their soul, but they were crippled by social, personal and corporate politics and their "organization" were self-defeating. we found out during our brief stay in Japan that most Japanese offices is similarly Charlie Fox'd. has minions doing a single prescribed task flawlessly ad nausem? yeah, the Japanese are great at such stuff, but it is scary how crippled they is by the possibility o' failure. bah. whatever fear we mighta' had o' the Japanese corporate juggernaut were dispelled by a brief dose o' reality. cars and steel? sure. information age innovation and adaptability? *chuckle* you wanna know what was the kicker? we were informed both before and after our little consulting adventure that nothing at the Japanese firm would change... everybody would work super hard to implement suggested changes, and as soon as the consultants were gone, things would go back to the way they was before we arrived. Gromnir asked, "so why did you bring me in as a a consultant if you knew from the start that nothing at the firm would change?" our friend smiled enigmatically and replied, "You do not understand the Japanese." Gromnir were tempted to punch her... really.

 

if Gromnir were a boss we would rather have +50 employees who would gargle with broken glass if we asked 'em to do so... as 'posed to +50 typical American office workers who thinks fridays is always a half day. nevertheless, anybody that thinks effort = productivity is nuts. also, Gromnir ultimately don't give a damn 'bout effort, less it impacts morale or end product. if bob can be a slacker and get more accomplished in 1 day than bill does in 3, then if Gromnir can squeeze two days worth o' effort from bob during a 5 day work week, what is our motivation to keeps bill around? effort? who cares 'bout effort? we want results.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Gromnir

[taks]

if capitalism is necessarily tied to an idealized legal system to function, then that is another flaw.

strawman, gromnir. i didn't say idealized, i said functioning. the only way to have an idealized legal system is to have an idealized system in general, but then we'd also have ideal people, which means they'd never break laws, so we wouldn't need the legal system in the first place... etc. utopia!

 

however, am not sure what kinda resources you is willing to provide to fix the legal system... and how you intend to fix. regardless, is a State intervention fix.

i wasn't really going down that path since capitalism does require a government to protect the rights of its people. i was perhaps misreading your government intervention comment as something greater than it is.

 

i'll forgoe the line by line commentary since it does get difficult after a while...

 

first, regarding the legal problems with big business: in a system with a much less intermingling between government and business, this situation would not be nearly as bad as it is now. i think, too, that something meshugger said once a while back may actually be likely (or probable): we wouldn't necessarily have all these monster conglomerates due to competition.

 

indeed, insurance is another area that is hopelessly compromised by waaay too much government interference. i mean, really, insurance companies can't sell insurace across state lines because of the commerce clause? insanity.

 

certainly the number of silly lawsuits thrown out far outweighs those that make it to trial, let alone those that result in such ridiculous awards. i've read, btw, that the reason she and her lawyers went for the throat was they originally stonewalled even requests for insurance payments, but i don't buy that as a legitimate excuse.

 

i also think it is doubtful that democracy by itself holds any solutions. democracy tends to lead to what we have now, not the other way around. i'm not sure what the true government solution is. the republic slows the process, i think, but ultimately you end up with what we have in the US: two factions of the same ideology filling in all the leadership positions. it doesn't matter which candidates we get to vote for, they ultimately drive the bureaucratic bandwagon into despair for us.

 

in a system that was not as intermingled as ours is the shirt factory guy would have been charged with negligent homicide for creating the conditions that resulted in the fire (uh, i'm assuming people died - i don't otherwise know the details). either way, this is not a result of capitalism. it is, if anything, a result of the corruption of capitalism by allowing government into business affairs. if government does not create the rules for business, business has no reason to influence government policies. in our current system, the legal system is not fully capable of resolving these tragic cases. get government out of business and yes, it will as well as it can.

 

keep in mind, nobody, not me in particular, is claiming some perfect system that always results in a good outcome from pursuit of self-interest. all systems are flawed, the point is to find the one that works best on average. that would be capitalism, both historically and theoretically.

 

taks

[taks]

Cool story bro. What's your point then? The "free market" does what the "free market" does?

uh, you tried to compare conditions in the US with conditions in bangladesh - an apples to oranges comparision which i clearly stated, as if that is some sort of refutation of the validity of the free market. it is not, it is proof of supply and demand, nothing more, counter to your flawed opinion.

 

In order to have a proper "free market," you need equality of information (everybody knows the same things), equality of access (everyone with money can buy), equality of price (everyone pays the same for the same service, period), etc. This doesn't exist, obviously, so you get all sorts of cool deformations like rich corporations driving smaller ones out of business by purposefully reducing their prices.

sigh... none of this has anything to do with how supply and demand work in a free market. anyway...

 

equality of information: the consumer does not have to buy something if a company does not disclose its practices. if the seller lies, or otherwise provides incorrect information, he has committed fraud for which laws exist (government's job is to protect individual rights - fraud is theft).

equality of access: last time i checked, if you can afford something, you can buy it.

equality of price: this one is fundamentally untrue. price is determined by supply and demand, which is not required to be homegenous across the globe.

 

You're the disingenuous one.

really, how? i at least gave an example of how you were being disingenuous - sounds sort of like "i'm rubber and..." hehe. disingenuous: i do not think it means what you think it means.

 

You mean, it's a problem of what you think are bad immigration laws. In reality, those laws exist for a wide variety of reasons, many of which are economically-based (e.g. the advantage corporations get from the labor).

if the laws were good, we wouldn't have illegal immigrants, or at least, not the problem we have now.

 

but either way, it is a red herring. what do illegal immigrants have to do with capitalism? nothing. how are they a result of capitalism? they aren't. so why bring them up in reference to comments about capitalism unless you intend to misdirect? ah, a red herring, as i've noted.

 

You seem to believe that any natural consequence of the capitalist system cannot be its fault if it's illegal.

i've said no such thing. prove it if you can.

 

Oh, so it's not a linear function, thus rendering your point about it being in their best interest to pay more so they don't have to higher more irrelevant nonsense?

what? i think you should look up linear, and in your particular example, homegeneity. you clearly did not understand what i said.

 

Actually, in a collectivist system I would not be a beneficiary

you're the one that said you did not think wages were fair, which directly implies that you would benefit when wages were fair.

 

prove i'm motivated by greed, btw.

 

If there was an economic system which made the world a worse place but gave me a billion dollars, I wouldn't accept it either.

another strawman. i didn't say you wanted it all, or even a lot, just that you would benefit.

 

I'm not going to go to some effort to prove to you that yes, Virginia, if you pay someone less you spend less.

you can't prove it because it is not true. you don't understand the concept of production. there's actually a balance point that maximizes profits (not unlike the laffer curve, but many more dimensions) for the amount of overhead spent. you can't simply say "paying them less reduces overhead." it does not, at least not unless you were already severely overpaying your people.

 

if your premise were true, why not simply take their pay down to zero? then you'd have NO overhead? why not? this is what is known as a thought experiment (i know, tough for you). this also highlights the non-linearity (again, look it up) of the behavior.

 

It's a basic truth, that's how economics works. Money doesn't appear from nowhere, and it doesn't disappear to nowhere.

your understanding of economics is one-dimensional and lacking. in order for your ideas to work money will have to appear from nowhere, btw.

 

taks

Edited December 28, 2009 by taks

[Gromnir]

not idealized? hmmm. sadly, you have backwards regarding law. as already noted, law is, by its very nature, govt. intervention. how you fix law by getting govt. out of the picture? insurance might indeed be "fixed" by a withdrawal o' govt. intervention. of course at that point it would go back to being a luxury that only the extreme wealthy could afford. small business ventures, which is already risky, would become even far more likely to fail.

 

 

"in a system that was not as intermingled as ours is the shirt factory guy would have been charged with negligent homicide for creating the conditions that resulted in the fire (uh, i'm assuming people died - i don't otherwise know the details). either way, this is not a result of capitalism. it is, if anything, a result of the corruption of capitalism by allowing government into business affairs. "

 

lots of assumptions, and more than a few flaws. there were no negligent manslaughter in 1911. you assume that we would have negligent manslaughter w/o govt. intervention? why? you ain't seen how laws develop organically, has you? also, regardless o' the criminal charges, in 1911, when there were far less govt. intervention than there is now in the areas o' corporate insurance and worker safety claims... the families o' the individuals who died (+140 or so) won their civil case and were awarded approx. $100... and no matter how much you wanna talk 'bout inflation, that is still a pittance. am pretty sure that the insurance company actually paid more than they were obligated to as a result o' public outcry.

 

"i've read, btw, that the reason she and her lawyers went for the throat was they originally stonewalled even requests for insurance payments, but i don't buy that as a legitimate excuse."

 

is not a matter of "going for the throat." punitive is not based on how much the person suffered. punitive damages is, as the name implies, a way o' punishing the defendant. how much o' a fine would it take to get taks to keep his dog from crapping in our yard? a couple hundred bucks... maybe a couple thousand? what is McDonalds is our neighbor instead o' taks? what sorta a fine is necessary to alter McDonald's behavior? (Gromnir has actually used the poop-on-the-lawn shctick in the past... show tak's yearly income on a blackboard/whiteboard... then show McDonald's yearly revenues below. same amount o' zeroes it takes to make tak's income = McDonald's is what we adds to the poop-on-the-lawn hypothetical fine. juries like the simplicity). 'course, without those govt. interference punitive, then the little old lady, is pretty much limited to actual damages. how much you think the little old lady can show in actual damages related to a burned lap from coffee? what lawyer is gonna take such a case? you think is different for employee and employer? what lawyer is gonna take the average employee case if is over a matter of a few hundred or thousand bucks? get rid of those govt. intervention class action suits...

 

since we is all in the show-me stage, how do you intend to fix the legal system so it protects workers and is less dependent on govt. intervention and then mayhap we will not call your notions idealized... 'cause while am certain that you beleive that what you is asking for is simple or reasonable, from our perspective it does sound utopian.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 28, 2009 by Gromnir

[taks]

hmmm. sadly, you have backwards regarding law.

no i don't.

 

as already noted, law is, by its very nature, govt. intervention.

and i agreed and noted that i originally took your statement about "government intervention" to be more than just protection of rights.

 

as for the middle bit, i didn't say that there shouldn't be laws, but i've already noted that i misread your original "government intervention" comment so the rest of what you say in that regard is not on point. IMO, i'm sure we can dig up a legitimate legal case: if someone negligently creates a work environment in which people die, that's negligent homicide, correct?

 

is not a matter of "going for the throat." punitive is not based on how much the person suffered.

i think you missed my point. there was actually two. first, the little old lady and mcdonald's is actually rare compared to the total number of suits filed. most get tossed. second, her lawyer has actually said that they originally only wanted them to pay medical damages. they "went for the throat," which they were certainly allowed to do, only because the mcdonald's lawyers refused to pay for her medical bills. i think that's a cop-out "reason," but it really has no bearing on the validity of the case in the first place.

 

re-reading what you originally posted regarding the little old lady, and my response, i think it is clear that my response wasn't really on point anyway. i.e., i agree that punitive damages are there for a reason. they are the punishment that needs to be there, though there are some ridiculous cases that make it through.

 

since we is all in the show-me stage, how do you intend to fix the legal system so it protects workers and is less dependent on govt. intervention and then mayhap we will not call your notions idealized... 'cause while am certain that you beleive that what you is asking for is simple or reasonable, from our perspective it does sound utopian.

i don't have a complete solution, though i do have a first step. get government out of business. many of these problems come up because government officials are in the pocket of big business. the likewise pass laws that benefit big business, even if such benefits are not apparently obvious. yes, our system is corrupt, but only because we allow it to be. it is not utopian to think we can eliminate the connection between business and government. take away the need for business to pay government (metaphorically, it is actually rarely a direct bribe) and a lot of these problems go away.

 

i never said, however, that all the problems would go away, just many. i think it could easily be better than what we have now (certainly communism isn't better).

 

taks

Edited December 28, 2009 by taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

Now this sucks, and may fan the flames in LoF's favor...

 

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyi...238&catid=2

[taks]

Now this sucks, and may fan the flames in LoF's favor...

how does this support any of lof's failed logic? companies fail. people lose their jobs. that's life. nobody ever said it was supposed to be easy.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

That isn't just a company failing, Taks. That is abusing one's workers big time.

[Gromnir]

hmmm. sadly, you have backwards regarding law.

no i don't.

 

 

taks

 

sure you do, but we will have to agree to disagree... and while we agree with the " i think it could easily be better than what we have now (certainly communism isn't better)." you still ain't provided even the smallest fraction o' a solution. get govt. out causes at least as many problems as it solves and is really no different than lof advocating a solution by calling to get rid of the capitalists.

 

let market conditions determine minimum safety and health guidelines? really? again, back when triangle shirtcoat factory fired happened there were far less government entanglement in business... and virtual 0 fed entanglement.

 

*shrug*

 

distinguish 'cause of depression or immigration and suggest that such times is aberrational? okie dokie, but is looking like most of USA history is looking aberrational, which would be silly, no? gentleman farmers is a nice prosaic picture (if inaccurate) but even if we ignore slave labor (which is offensive but fair) that were pre-capatalism. weren't no capital, just land. you got 100 years between mid 1800s and the mid 1900s during which workers fared... well, how does you think they fared before the socialists started mucking things up? we already has your admission regarding how bad things were during the depression, and upton sinclair writes The Jungle in 1906-- is a good read and is supported by considerable documentation to be showing how the Chicago meatpacking plants operated. Triangle shirt were 1911 and subsequent investigations revealed that Triangle were norm more than the exception. The Pullman strike were 1890-ish and the Haymaker strike/massacre were in the 1880s (?). am not gonna guess how many railroad workers died during late 1800s and early 1900s. the famous lochner case informed us that a max 60 hour work week were unconstitutional (which were good law but hardly a boon for all those teen and pre-teens working in textile factories at the time.)

 

sorry tak, but largely unrestrained capitalists were given near 100 years to show how protective and wise they could be regarding their most valuable resource: workers. unrestrained capitalism is what made the communist bogey-man something other than a bad joke. working conditions got bad enough and the democratic process were impotent in bringing 'bout change til it appeared that an eventual worker's revolution were not only possible, but inevitable.

 

Gromnir is a big fan o' capitalism, but am not gonna delude self into believing that the the capitalist gear-works ain't using the blood of workers to keep moving. without government intervention, the average worker is at the mercy o' capitalists and market forces. but heck, am personally ok with a system that is unsympathetic towards the unlucky or the unmotivated. our humble beginnings, and our refusal to accept govt. aid at any level, is personal proof that peoples can succeed. am a dyed-in-wool and unapologetic will to power proponent... but am not dishonest 'bout it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Killian Kalthorne]

Here is another fraking reason to hate the Communist Chinese government:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/2...gler/index.html

 

I just like to know when will the Western Europe and the US realize that China is the enemy. You do not make treaties with the enemy. You do not try to reason with the enemy. You treat them as enemies and have no dealings with them whatsoever. You do not trade with them. You do not talk to them. You have nothing to do with them, and if they get in your face about it you bring arms against them.

 

As long as the communist regime is in power, China is the enemy.

 

You do not execute a mentally ill individual for simple drug trafficking. That is wrong.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[lord of flies]

You do not execute a mentally ill individual for simple drug trafficking. That is wrong.

Pick your response:

My God, it's the Opium War all over again.

 

Tell that to the United States.

 

What the **** does that have to do with the government being Communist?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Name one person who was executed in the US that was solely charged as a drug smuggler in the last 20 years, LoF. Name just one.

 

It has everything to do with the government being communist. Communism does not recognize individual human rights. never have and never will. Communism is the enemy and those who practice that form of government should be treated as enemies.

[lord of flies]

Name one person who was executed in the US that was solely charged as a drug smuggler in the last 20 years, LoF. Name just one.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. He knew what the consequences were, what did he expect? To just walk free?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Name one person who was executed in the US that was solely charged as a drug smuggler in the last 20 years, LoF. Name just one.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. He knew what the consequences were, what did he expect? To just walk free?

 

What part of him being MENTALLY ILL do you not understand? Being MENTALLY ILL means that he did not know what the consequences were. that he was incompetent to stand trial. He was unable to aid in his own defense. HE WAS MENTALLY ILL!

[Trenitay]

Like China's government is even Communist. Not that I'm agreeing with what they did, but saying it's because of Communism is silly.

[Killian Kalthorne]

In a Communistic government there is no individual rights, no consideration of the individual at all. There was no consideration for the man's illness nor his incompetency to stand trial.