wealth inequality

[Endus]

So, if you want equitable treatment, and you want to demand concessions from the other side, what concessions are you going to make?

I see we can add "equitable" to the list of words you don't understand.

It isn't a synonym for "equal".

You want to demand that they sacrifice, and are willing to use a gun to do it.

That hyperbole isn't getting less silly the more you use it.

All you're really arguing is that everyone else's guns get taken off the table, so the corporations are the only ones coming "armed".

[Machismo]

I see we can add "equitable" to the list of words you don't understand.

It isn't a synonym for "equal".



That hyperbole isn't getting less silly the more you use it.

"Equitable" is something that is based largely on opinion. I think the basic rules of economics allow for an equitable solution.

You claim it's hyperbole, but that's what government is, a guy with a gun. Without the gun, they don't have the power to enforce anything, do they?

[Endus]

You claim it's hyperbole, but that's what government is, a guy with a gun. Without the gun, they don't have the power to enforce anything, do they?

Go on, when's the last time actual guns were used in settling a trade dispute in a first world nation.

You're using it as hyperbole to complain that the government has any authority whatsoever. It's an anarchist's argument, which is why I keep pointing that out. Particularly since you keep steadfastly ignoring that the government sits on its own independent side of the table, not on the side of either worker or employee. It's there as a referee. Complaining that it's only the corporate side that keeps getting red-carded in these disputes doesn't mean that the government's only on the side of the employees, it means that the employer's the ones who have power they can abuse in those negotiations, while the potential workers are largely powerless, and thus can't try and break the rules to begin with.

Plus, if you're stealing from your employer, which IS breaking those rules, then hey, here comes a guy with a gun to make you stop. Because your entire position here is devoid of factual basis.

[Machismo]

Go on, when's the last time actual guns were used in settling a trade dispute in a first world nation.

You're using it as hyperbole to complain that the government has any authority whatsoever. It's an anarchist's argument, which is why I keep pointing that out. Particularly since you keep steadfastly ignoring that the government sits on its own independent side of the table, not on the side of either worker or employee. It's there as a referee. Complaining that it's only the corporate side that keeps getting red-carded in these disputes doesn't mean that the government's only on the side of the employees, it means that the employer's the ones who have power they can abuse in those negotiations, while the potential workers are largely powerless, and thus can't try and break the rules to begin with.

Plus, if you're stealing from your employer, which IS breaking those rules, then hey, here comes a guy with a gun to make you stop. Because your entire position here is devoid of factual basis.

It's the threat of force that is the issue. The eventuality of that threat of force is a man with a gun. Like it or not, that's what government is. If you can't even recognize that, then what the fuck do you think government is? Even a referee only has power if the authority above him enforces it. Otherwise, the players would simply ignore it, and keep playing. That means that the government must have the power to enforce its decisions, which is how we eventually get to a man with a gun.

If a business is causing the victim when they negotiate with someone with a weak hand, then are all pawn shops creating victims when they buy things from people who are broke? Are you creating a victim when you buy something from a liquidation sale at a business who is trying to keep their doors open? I would think not, which means you are punishing a victimless action.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's the threat of force that is the issue. The eventuality of that threat of force is a man with a gun. Like it or not, that's what government is. If you can't even recognize that, then what the fuck do you think government is? Even a referee only has power if the authority above him enforces it. Otherwise, the players would simply ignore it, and keep playing. That means that the government must have the power to enforce its decisions, which is how we eventually get to a man with a gun.

If a business is causing the victim when they negotiate with someone with a weak hand, then are all pawn shops creating victims when they buy things from people who are broke? Are you creating a victim when you buy something from a liquidation sale at a business who is trying to keep their doors open? I would think not, which means you are punishing a victimless action.

And if you steal from a company, a man with a gun comes after you. The government isn't necessarily on either side, although balance of favor tips occassionally, but so does balance of power in union company negotiations as well. There's a lot of anarchists who claim to be libertarians, but when it comes down to it they're anarchists. You and many others like that advocate for forms of governance that simply will not work. They rely upon people being good natured always. It relies on people being honest, and have equitable negotiations in mind, rather than selfish motivations.

Tell me then, what is wrong with that world? Could it be the fact that human nature makes everyone want to bring the best outcome for themselves, and are not always honest?

[Machismo]

And if you steal from a company, a man with a gun comes after you. The government isn't necessarily on either side, although balance of favor tips occassionally, but so does balance of power in union company negotiations as well. There's a lot of anarchists who claim to be libertarians, but when it comes down to it they're anarchists. You and many others like that advocate for forms of governance that simply will not work. They rely upon people being good natured always. It relies on people being honest, and have equitable negotiations in mind, rather than selfish motivations.

Tell me then, what is wrong with that world? Could it be the fact that human nature makes everyone want to bring the best outcome for themselves, and are not always honest?

That is precisely why I'm not an anarchist, because anarchy has no means by which to deal with outliers.

However, that does not mean government needs to be involved in everything. I personally think it should only get involved and restrict an action which creates an actual victim.

[Endus]

It's the threat of force that is the issue. The eventuality of that threat of force is a man with a gun. Like it or not, that's what government is. If you can't even recognize that, then what the fuck do you think government is?

Which is why it's a nonsensical argument only used by anarchists. The difference between you and I is that I recognize that, but I'm not an anarchist, so the fact that government has authority doesn't bother me at an ideological level, just like it doesn't bother pretty much anyone else who isn't an outright anarchist.

It isn't that I "don't recognize it", it's that it isn't an issue, and it's true on all sides in this particular case, not for one or the other.

It's a completely dishonest angle of argument. I really don't see how you expect to convince anyone who isn't an anarchist with it.

- - - Updated - - -

That is precisely why I'm not an anarchist, because anarchy has no means by which to deal with outliers.

However, that does not mean government needs to be involved in everything. I personally think it should only get involved and restrict an action which creates an actual victim.

We've been over this more than once; your complete lack of empathy for social and economic harms does not, in fact, constitute any kind of argument that they are not "harm", so you not wanting to admit that people are victimized in that way does not, in fact, mean they're not victims.

In pretty much the same way that a misogynist not thinking women are really hurt by rape is just a misogynist and doesn't have an argument that will convince anyone. He's just completely wrong on base principles. As you are.

[Machismo]

Which is why it's a nonsensical argument only used by anarchists. The difference between you and I is that I recognize that, but I'm not an anarchist, so the fact that government has authority doesn't bother me at an ideological level, just like it doesn't bother pretty much anyone else who isn't an outright anarchist.

It isn't that I "don't recognize it", it's that it isn't an issue, and it's true on all sides in this particular case, not for one or the other.

It's a completely dishonest angle of argument. I really don't see how you expect to convince anyone who isn't an anarchist with it.

- - - Updated - - -



We've been over this more than once; your complete lack of empathy for social and economic harms does not, in fact, constitute any kind of argument that they are not "harm", so you not wanting to admit that people are victimized in that way does not, in fact, mean they're not victims.

In pretty much the same way that a misogynist not thinking women are really hurt by rape is just a misogynist and doesn't have an argument that will convince anyone. He's just completely wrong on base principles. As you are.

Authority does not bother me, abusive and intrusive authority does.

If you want to show how the business is causing harm, feel free to demonstrate it. Until then, you've got nothing.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Authority does not bother me, abusive and intrusive authority does.

If you want to show how the business is causing harm, feel free to demonstrate it. Until then, you've got nothing.

Societal harm has been explained to you, the lack of choice has been explained to you, you just refuse to accept it.

Paying too little when people have no choice but to work there causes harm to those people and the society. This isn't some theoretical thing, this has happened in our own history. Crack a text book at some point, it's right there. This wasn't even cronyism, this was when there was no government intervention. The places around these exploitative companies were shit holes.

Companies that cannot pay their employees a living wage only fail to work because of their own bad decisions. Plenty work perfectly fine paying a living wage. Those that must pay less should go under, but without enforcement, they do not.

You have yet to demonstrate how minimum wage is abusive, since modern businesses manage to survive with it.

[Machismo]

Societal harm has been explained to you, the lack of choice has been explained to you, you just refuse to accept it.

Paying too little when people have no choice but to work there causes harm to those people and the society. This isn't some theoretical thing, this has happened in our own history. Crack a text book at some point, it's right there. This wasn't even cronyism, this was when there was no government intervention. The places around these exploitative companies were shit holes.

Companies that cannot pay their employees a living wage only fail to work because of their own bad decisions. Plenty work perfectly fine paying a living wage. Those that must pay less should go under, but without enforcement, they do not.

You have yet to demonstrate how minimum wage is abusive, since modern businesses manage to survive with it.

Then clearly every pawn shop is causing harm when they buy products from desperate people, right? Surely you are harming a car dealership, when you tell them to lower the price, or you will go to a different dealer. Clearly you are harming a business that is having a liquidation sale in order to keep its doors open. After all, those are the same things businesses do when they hire, right?

Slavery was clearly abusive, yet slaves managed to survive. Hell, torture is abusive, yet people seem to survive that. If you are going to say that something is not abusive unless it utterly destroys its target, then we have a real problem with the definition of words.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Then clearly every pawn shop is causing harm when they buy products from desperate people, right? Surely you are harming a car dealership, when you tell them to lower the price, or you will go to a different dealer. Clearly you are harming a business that is having a liquidation sale in order to keep its doors open. After all, those are the same things businesses do when they hire, right?

Businesses that fail do so because of their own bad decisions. Don't blame people for what businesses do to themselves.

[Machismo]

Businesses that fail do so because of their own bad decisions. Don't blame people for what businesses do to themselves.

Business that fail can also fail due to the decisions of others, specifically in regards to legislation. Just look at abortion clinics in conservative states.

In all those other examples I brought up, are those examples of harm?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Business that fail can also fail due to the decisions of others, specifically in regards to legislation. Just look at abortion clinics in conservative states.

In all those other examples I brought up, are those examples of harm?

Businesses only go under because of their own bad decisions. Isn't that what you were saying earlier? People's bad positions that they get into are only a result of their own actions. You can't say that then say that businesses fail because of other factors, but people can't, you're just showing how dishonest and bias you are towards one side.

[Machismo]

Businesses only go under because of their own bad decisions. Isn't that what you were saying earlier? People's bad positions that they get into are only a result of their own actions. You can't say that then say that businesses fail because of other factors, but people can't, you're just showing how dishonest and bias you are towards one side.

When you force a decision onto someone else, that's you making the decision. When you involve government, that's what happens. Regulations and restrictions can kill a business, and they can also kill people. That is exactly why I don't want government to get involved, I would rather people and businesses succeed or fail based on their own decisions, not the decisions the government makes for them.

You continue to dodge. Are those other issues I brought up examples of harm?

[zenkai]

Businesses that fail do so because of their own bad decisions. Don't blame people for what businesses do to themselves.

Some businesses fail because of government regulation and interference. You must never did contract work for the government to make such a statement.

[Cthulhu 2020]

When you force a decision onto someone else, that's you making the decision. When you involve government, that's what happens. Regulations and restrictions can kill a business, and they can also kill people. That is exactly why I don't want government to get involved, I would rather people and businesses succeed or fail based on their own decisions, not the decisions the government makes for them.

You continue to dodge. Are those other issues I brought up examples of harm?

Plenty of businesses do just fine with the minimum wage laws. Look at our stock market. Do you see harm there? You have yet to prove there's any harm going on. Businesses that go under do so by their own bad decisions. Businesses paying people far too little led to mass poverty, starvation, mal nutrition and often death. Far more lives are saved by the minimum wage laws than businesses hindered.

Again, you have yet to demonstrate any kind of real harm.

- - - Updated - - -

Some businesses fail because of government regulation and interference. You must never did contract work for the government to make such a statement.

He was the one saying earlier that if a person finds themself in a position where they are poor and hungry that they only have themselves to blame, despite the early 1900's mass exploitation by unregulated business that had nothing to do with worker choice. Their choice was to die or live in poverty working 16 hours a day, and he claims that them living in poverty and working was their fault. Just using that line of thinking.

[Captain N]

He was the one saying earlier that if a person finds themself in a position where they are poor and hungry that they only have themselves to blame, despite the early 1900's mass exploitation by unregulated business that had nothing to do with worker choice. Their choice was to die or live in poverty working 16 hours a day, and he claims that them living in poverty and working was their fault. Just using that line of thinking.

Don't even have to go back to the 1900s. We could go back to 2008....

[Machismo]

Plenty of businesses do just fine with the minimum wage laws. Look at our stock market. Do you see harm there? You have yet to prove there's any harm going on. Businesses that go under do so by their own bad decisions. Businesses paying people far too little led to mass poverty, starvation, mal nutrition and often death. Far more lives are saved by the minimum wage laws than businesses hindered.

Again, you have yet to demonstrate any kind of real harm.

Just because someone does just fine with a regulation, does not mean that is a justification for it. The existence of a law is never a justification for it. That's like saying gay people did just fine when gay marriage was illegal. That didn't mean the ban on gay marriage was a good thing. More lives would be saved if we banned fast cars, unhealthy foods, and motorcycles. I guess we should do that then, as well. Heck, we could totally save even more people, if we simply made businesses pay them $1000 an hour. After all, you don't see any harm in it, right?

If there's no harm to begin with, then there's no reason to regulate it.

You also never addressed the issues I brought up. In any of those instances, was harm caused? According to your logic, harm must have been caused, since that is why you want to force a minimum wage on business.

- - - Updated - - -

Plenty of businesses do just fine with the minimum wage laws. Look at our stock market. Do you see harm there? You have yet to prove there's any harm going on. Businesses that go under do so by their own bad decisions. Businesses paying people far too little led to mass poverty, starvation, mal nutrition and often death. Far more lives are saved by the minimum wage laws than businesses hindered.

Again, you have yet to demonstrate any kind of real harm.

- - - Updated - - -



He was the one saying earlier that if a person finds themself in a position where they are poor and hungry that they only have themselves to blame, despite the early 1900's mass exploitation by unregulated business that had nothing to do with worker choice. Their choice was to die or live in poverty working 16 hours a day, and he claims that them living in poverty and working was their fault. Just using that line of thinking.

No choice was actually forced upon that individual. That's what the government does, forces choices onto people. That's the part that you cannot grasp.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Just because someone does just fine with a regulation, does not mean that is a justification for it. The existence of a law is never a justification for it. That's like saying gay people did just fine when gay marriage was illegal. That didn't mean the ban on gay marriage was a good thing. More lives would be saved if we banned fast cars, unhealthy foods, and motorcycles. I guess we should do that then, as well.

If there's no harm to begin with, then there's no reason to regulate it.

You also never addressed the issues I brought up. In any of those instances, was harm caused? According to your logic, harm must have been caused, since that is why you want to force a minimum wage on business.

But I did justify it, the minimum wage eliminated the majority of poverty at the time and created a robust middle class. That's the justification for it. Your justification for taking it away is pathetic when compared to that. It's selfish, Randian anarchy crap.

[Cthulhu 2020]

No choice was actually forced upon that individual. That's what the government does, forces choices onto people. That's the part that you cannot grasp.

When your choice is starvation or death, that's no real different than choosing to follow the law or a man with a gun. That's something you continue to fail to grasp, when you claim they have a choice and that choice is between shitty pay and shitty work or death, that is no different of a "choice" than a man with a gun forcing you to follow a law.