What are your thoughts on these statements?

[Palin Rider]

I just asked your thoughts on the original statements. I didn't expect you to bring the thread into the definition and recognition of property and all that.

I was expecting something more along the lines of a libertarian capitalist perspective of the Man in relation to his labour, property, his employer, and the market- but you're taking this... somewhere, I'm not sure where.

My original glibness was only meant to indicate that the first statement fails to take into account whether the "Man" in question receives capital as compensation. If he does, of course, the discussion moves in a very different direction.

Of course, the second original statement has yet to be addressed at all.

The second statement is a moral value judgment; consequently, others can agree or disagree only according to their own value systems. (Which, of course, may or may not be in keeping with yours.) So it seems to me that we can't answer the second question for anyone other than ourselves.

 

[JBeukema]

The second statement is a moral value judgment; consequently, others can agree or disagree only according to their own value systems. (Which, of course, may or may not be in keeping with yours.) So it seems to me that we can't answer the second question for anyone other than ourselves.

Does that not also apply to the first statement, since it is dealing with the nature and value of a man?

Indeed, is not asking a man to define slavery, understanding the connotation of the term, not asking a man to define a state that is already heavily laden with emotion, moral, and ethical connotations?

 

[Palin Rider]

The second statement is a moral value judgment; consequently, others can agree or disagree only according to their own value systems. (Which, of course, may or may not be in keeping with yours.) So it seems to me that we can't answer the second question for anyone other than ourselves.

Does that not also apply to the first statement, since it is dealing with the nature and value of a man?

Indeed, is not asking a man to define slavery, understanding the connotation of the term, not asking a man to define a state that is already heavily laden with emotion, moral, and ethical connotations?

The first and second questions actually don't require the same level of value judgment: one asks what "should be;" the other only asks what "is."

 

[JBeukema]

The second statement is a moral value judgment; consequently, others can agree or disagree only according to their own value systems. (Which, of course, may or may not be in keeping with yours.) So it seems to me that we can't answer the second question for anyone other than ourselves.

Does that not also apply to the first statement, since it is dealing with the nature and value of a man?

Indeed, is not asking a man to define slavery, understanding the connotation of the term, not asking a man to define a state that is already heavily laden with emotion, moral, and ethical connotations?

The first and second questions actually don't require the same level of value judgment: one asks what "should be;" the other only asks what "is."

Is not asking what the value of a man is in your eye ultimately the same as asking what you think the value of a man should be, since people, with very few exceptions would have their valuation of peoples' worth shared by others?

But we seem to have gotten quite a ways off track, here.

 

[Palin Rider]

Does that not also apply to the first statement, since it is dealing with the nature and value of a man?

Indeed, is not asking a man to define slavery, understanding the connotation of the term, not asking a man to define a state that is already heavily laden with emotion, moral, and ethical connotations?

The first and second questions actually don't require the same level of value judgment: one asks what "should be;" the other only asks what "is."

Is not asking what the value of a man is in your eye ultimately the same as asking what you think the value of a man should be, since people, with very few exceptions would have their valuation of peoples' worth shared by others?

But we seem to have gotten quite a ways off track, here.

Agreed: now we're drifting into epistemology.

Oh well. I'm happy to get back to this in a day or two - for now, I need to unplug.

 

[JBeukema]

That's not really epistemology so much as it is moral philosophy, but goodnight.

 

[MikeK]

That's called "taxes" and you're right

So taxation is slavery, as it meets the above definition?

What then of 'wage slavery'?

What do you call it when the government has a 90% tax rate on income?

You should be more specific about what category of income would be taxed at such an expediently substantial rate.

When the income in question is several thousand times greater than average, I call a 90% tax rate a necessary step toward preservation of democracy. It will serve to curtail the trend toward plutocratic fascism which is the current neo-Conservative objective.

Defend the super-rich at your own peril.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One is NOT a slave because they work for payment. And as a matter of course in this country one's pay is regulated by many laws designed for the supposed purpose of the good of society.

One is free to take many different steps to change their general worth within the confines of our capitalistic work system. And many are paid for by the Government or subsidized by it.

Most non service sector jobs are a play on the old apprentice to master system. Just not as formalized. One starts out at the bottom and is free to work to what ever level in the system they are capable and motivated to reach.

As for the no hungry man willing to work..... other then NON Government charity, who do you think should pay for that sentiment? Right now most of that is paid for BY the Government, which simply breeds more of it.

Socialism and communism do not actually work on any large scale. Why you ask? Because of Human nature. Someone, even in socialism and Communism MUST have degrees of power over money, people and property. And at that point, except on small scales where shame and local opinion can control, you lose at the game.

You see it is absolutely true, power corrupts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are you saying you disagree with the statement and that men are commodities and assets to be used as any other in the pursuit of capital?

Or do you agree with the statement?

I'm saying its a naive statement written by a Socialist with a zero sum mentality

Clarify. Does not thew capitalist, who labours little or not at all not keep the majority of the wealth created by the labourer, using the labourer's dependence upon the capitalist (which is more immediate than the capitalist's dependence upon the labourers) to ensure the man has little choice but to labour for the capitalist?

Does the ability to choose one's master change the fundamental nature of the arrangement?

The very idea that "Capitalists labor little" is sophomoric, spawned by insulation from the real world and fed Marxist manure mushroom-like in darkness and ignorance.

Get out in the real world, son. Go introduce yourself to one of these "Capitalists" you fear so much, talk to them, see what makes them tick, see how hard they work, ask them what they know about money. I guarantee you're going to be very surprised

 

[Luissa]

There was a time when men were commodities and assets to be purchased, traded, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.

That practice was called "slavery."

Define 'slavery'.

Is it slavery to be forced to work for another's gain and have the majority of what you produce taken in order to be able to sustain your existence?

Last time I checked, slavery meant being forced to work for another's gain in exchange for sustenance but no other compensation.

As to your other question, if you're "forced" (as in forbidden to quit), I'd be willing to say that the scenario you describe qualifies as slavery.

Remind of working for Kmart. I worked there for four years, and worked my ass off. I even filled in for manager, doing everything they did for six weeks. Then I moved up to be a lead of the check outs and customer service. In that position, I did more than anyone else in the store. I would work for five weeks at 40+ hrs a week, and on the sixth week I would be bumped down to 31 hrs so they didn't have to offer me health insurance. I will also add this is when Kmart filed for Chapter 13, and they hired Chuck Conway. He didn't do anything for Kmart, and was replaced after performing poorly as CEO. But he recieved a salary of $4 million dollars and received a large bonus.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Define 'slavery'.

Is it slavery to be forced to work for another's gain and have the majority of what you produce taken in order to be able to sustain your existence?

Last time I checked, slavery meant being forced to work for another's gain in exchange for sustenance but no other compensation.

As to your other question, if you're "forced" (as in forbidden to quit), I'd be willing to say that the scenario you describe qualifies as slavery.

Remind of working for Kmart. I worked there for four years, and worked my ass off. I even filled in for manager, doing everything they did for six weeks. Then I moved up to be a lead of the check outs and customer service. In that position, I did more than anyone else in the store. I would work for five weeks at 40+ hrs a week, and on the sixth week I would be bumped down to 31 hrs so they didn't have to offer me health insurance. I will also add this is when Kmart filed for Chapter 13, and they hired Chuck Conway. He didn't do anything for Kmart, and was replaced after performing poorly as CEO. But he recieved a salary of $4 million dollars and received a large bonus.

I dropped out of college and worked retail at Alexander's, I knew right away I made a major mistake

 

[Douger]

Go get your birth certificate. Look at the number up top. It's in red.
Now. Call your stock broker and get him to run that number on the NYSE.
Come back and tell me you are not a mere commodity.

Yep. I'm deadly serious.
Wake up morons !

 

[Greenbeard]

As for the no hungry man willing to work..... other then NON Government charity, who do you think should pay for that sentiment? Right now most of that is paid for BY the Government, which simply breeds more of it.

Breeds more what? Willingness to work?

 

[JBeukema]

Define 'slavery'.

Is it slavery to be forced to work for another's gain and have the majority of what you produce taken in order to be able to sustain your existence?

Last time I checked, slavery meant being forced to work for another's gain in exchange for sustenance but no other compensation.

As to your other question, if you're "forced" (as in forbidden to quit), I'd be willing to say that the scenario you describe qualifies as slavery.

Remind of working for Kmart. I worked there for four years, and worked my ass off. I even filled in for manager, doing everything they did for six weeks. Then I moved up to be a lead of the check outs and customer service. In that position, I did more than anyone else in the store. I would work for five weeks at 40+ hrs a week, and on the sixth week I would be bumped down to 31 hrs so they didn't have to offer me health insurance. I will also add this is when Kmart filed for Chapter 13, and they hired Chuck Conway. He didn't do anything for Kmart, and was replaced after performing poorly as CEO. But he recieved a salary of $4 million dollars and received a large bonus.

You were expecting a meritocracy?

 

[G.T.]

Working in today's society is no where close to slavery, in the Historical context of what slavery was here in the US. It's pseudo-intellectual poopy-fodder to compare them.

 

[Flopper]

'Men are not mere commodities and assets to be purchases, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.'


No man should go hungry who is willing to work
​

For these noble statements taken out of context the meaning is quite clear, but put them in context the meaning could be something much different.

 

[rikules]

Written by either a High School sophomore or a Socialist or both

Are you saying you disagree with the statement and that men are commodities and assets to be used as any other in the pursuit of capital?

Or do you agree with the statement?

I'm saying its a naive statement written by a Socialist with a zero sum mentality

CrusaderFrank;


"Written by either a High School sophomore or a Socialist or both "

"I'm saying its a naive statement written by a Socialist with a zero sum mentality "

Charles_Main;

"sounds like something out of Marx's book to me"


I find it rather frightening that so many "freedom loving" conservatives would believe that men are mere commodities and assets to be purchased, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.


todays modern conservative, based on beliefs like that, is a very sick, twisted and dangerous person


REAL conservatives would NEVER consider men to be nothing but commodities

modern conservatism is no different than facism

and the belief that men are mere commodities and assets to be purchased, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital is tantamount to slavery

 

[Liability]

So taxation is slavery, as it meets the above definition?

What then of 'wage slavery'?

What do you call it when the government has a 90% tax rate on income?

You should be more specific about what category of income would be taxed at such an expediently substantial rate.

When the income in question is several thousand times greater than average, I call a 90% tax rate a necessary step toward preservation of democracy. It will serve to curtail the trend toward plutocratic fascism which is the current neo-Conservative objective.

Defend the super-rich at your own peril.

The amazing arrogance of your underlying assumption is actually startling.

Moreover, tossing of those cliches (plutocrat) would have some value if they were predicated on something real.

And the argument that democracy itself is at risk unless you and your like minded ilk confiscate so much of the wealth of others is not just unsupported, but quite unsupportable.

Ten to one you have no grasp on the actual definition of neo-conservative, either.

All in all, a very useless amateur post you submitted. Impressive.

 

[The T]

That's called "taxes" and you're right

So taxation is slavery, as it meets the above definition?

What then of 'wage slavery'?

What do you call it when the government has a 90% tax rate on income?

Socialist Tyranny.

 

[Greenbeard]

So taxation is slavery, as it meets the above definition?

What then of 'wage slavery'?

What do you call it when the government has a 90% tax rate on income?

Socialist Tyranny.

Some people just prefer to call it the 1950s. They liked Ike.