or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Barack Obama is in!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Barack Obama is in! - Page 5

post #161 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

OK. So what makes a private employment arrangement special?

Can I call them or what?

How, oh illustrious snark, does a minimum wage tread upon anyone's privacy or right to make decisions...
post #162 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

How, oh illustrious snark, does a minimum wage tread upon anyone's privacy or right to make decisions...

Please explain how it is NOT.
post #163 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There is not a finite amount of work. It's fluid. You need to show a direct link. Otherwise, it's just a supposition.

Prove that it's fluid. You need to show direct proof. Otherwise it's just a supposition.

Quote:
One, I do live in the real world, so thanks for unnecessarily being an ass there. Secondly, I have done budgets for both myself and others...all varying incomes. My point was specifically to throw together a "poor man's budget." I showed that one CAN live on minum wage..even only working 40 hours a week.

No, you showed a budget that results in immediate homeless the moment

(a) someone gets sick
(b) someone gets laid off
(c) someone's house gets broken into
(d) inflation goes up

Need I go on? You showed that in a perfect world, one can live on the current minimum wage. We're talking about the real world, right?

Quote:
Uh, no. You made that up too. That's what you THINK happens. You have no evidence whatsoever.

I have no evidence whatsoever that the minimum wage reduces poverty. That's gold.

What's next? I have no evidence that eating lard makes me fat? I have no evidence that driving my car gets me to work?

Quote:
Why? Where does it say that?

No, I said that. That's what the minimum wage needs to be. Luckily, it seems 315 Congressmen and -women agree with me.

Quote:
I won't stop because you won't engage me in the point. You're arguing these minimum wage workers are "stuck" making what they are. I'm saying that is crap for almost anyone who's not mentally disabled. Any person without a High School Diploma or GED can go earn $7-8.00 an hour in today's economy.

No. There are jobs at that price. But they're taken. The fact that there are lots of people working at the minimum wage means that they can't get employed for anything more.

These are the people we're concerned with here.

Quote:
Shit, janitors at my school who work second shift make up to $17 or more. Starting is $10-12ish. Janitors, greg...janitors! They, as Michael Bolton from Office Space says...clean shit up for a living. But oh wait....since the minimum is going up, they'll want $14 to start and $19-20 years later. That means my school will have to reduce its workforce, causing piles of shit to pile up around the kids. Shit, Greg! Oh, the humanity! Think of the children!

Good luck with all that.
post #164 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

Please explain how it is NOT.

You first.
post #165 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

You first.

I make a voluntary, private arrangement to do work for someone at a mutually agreed price. How is the government stepping in to dictate the terms of that arrangement NOT a violation of both my privacy and my right to make my own choices what to with my own life, time, body and labor?

Clearly they have to know the terms (have visibility into the private arrangement) in order to dictate different terms and/or to police violations of their terms. And the act of dictating terms is clearly the government making decisions for me.

Can you not see this?
post #166 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Prove that it's fluid. You need to show direct proof. Otherwise it's just a supposition.



No, you showed a budget that results in immediate homeless the moment

(a) someone gets sick
(b) someone gets laid off
(c) someone's house gets broken into
(d) inflation goes up

Need I go on? You showed that in a perfect world, one can live on the current minimum wage. We're talking about the real world, right?



I have no evidence whatsoever that the minimum wage reduces poverty. That's gold.

What's next? I have no evidence that eating lard makes me fat? I have no evidence that driving my car gets me to work?



No, I said that. That's what the minimum wage needs to be. Luckily, it seems 315 Congressmen and -women agree with me.



No. There are jobs at that price. But they're taken. The fact that there are lots of people working at the minimum wage means that they can't get employed for anything more.

These are the people we're concerned with here.



Good luck with all that.


1. The economy adds jobs constantly. In reality, there are hundreds if not thousands of jobs available in just about every town in America. Even if you were techically correct, the reality "on the ground" shows that jobs are available.

2. Yes, I did. so what?

3. You can't be serious in comparing the two things you did.

4. I'm asking what in our Constitution guarantees anyone the right to standard of living.

5. The jobs aren't taken. Look in your local paper for Christ's sake. They're everywhere.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #167 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

I make a voluntary, private arrangement to do work for someone at a mutually agreed price. How is the government stepping in to dictate the terms of that arrangement NOT a violation of both my privacy and my right to make my own choices what to with my own life, time, body and labor?

Clearly they have to know the terms (have visibility into the private arrangement) in order to dictate different terms and/or to police violations of their terms. And the act of dictating terms is clearly the government making decisions for me.

Can you not see this?

Say that arrangement is an indentured servitude contract. Are you still okay with that?
post #168 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Say that arrangement is an indentured servitude contract. Are you still okay with that?

Well, aside from your transparent attempt to construct a straw man, let's look at what indentured servitude actually is:

Quote:
An Indentured Servant (or in the U.S. bonded labourer) is a labourer under contract to work for an employer for a specific amount of time, usually seven to eight years, to pay off a passage to a new country or home. Typically the employers provided little if any monetary pay, but was responsible for accommodation, food, other essentials, and training. Upon completion of the term of the contract the labourer sometimes received a lump sum payment such as a parcel of land and was free to farm or take up trade of his own.

This looks a lot like a VOLUNTARY arrangement to me. Perhaps not an ideal one in our day and age, but it appears VOLUNTARY nonetheless. In that respect I do not see a problem with it.

But, back to the question you avoided:

Can you see that the government dictating the terms of private arrangements is both an invasion of privacy and making decisions for the parties involved?
post #169 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

Well, aside from your transparent attempt to construct a straw man,

No, not a strawman. I asked you your opinion of it. If I said, "indentured servitude, which you believe in, is unfair," there I'm putting words into your mouth. That's a strawman.

This was a question.

Quote:
let's look at what indentured servitude actually is...


This looks a lot like a VOLUNTARY arrangement to me. Perhaps not an ideal one in our day and age, but it appears VOLUNTARY nonetheless. In that respect I do not see a problem with it.

But, back to the question you avoided:

Can you see that the government dictating the terms of private arrangements is both an invasion of privacy and making decisions for the parties involved?

So you do not see a problem with indentured servitude. Okay. You're a nutjob. But thanks for playing!
post #170 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

No, not a strawman. I asked you your opinion of it. If I said, "indentured servitude, which you believe in, is unfair," there I'm putting words into your mouth. That's a strawman.

Wrong. It was an attempt at misdirection and straw man argumentation because you are shifting the argument to something we were not even discussing in an effort to say something like "well if indentured servitude is wrong, then gov't intrusion into privacy and making decision for people must be OK." What other reason could you have. I notice you STILL haven't answered my question (are you PLANNING to?):

Can you see that the government dictating the terms of private arrangements is both an invasion of privacy and making decisions for the parties involved?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

So you do not see a problem with indentured servitude.

Did you read and understand what indentured servitude is? Do you realize you have mis-characterized my position on it? I never said I "didn't have a problem with it". I said that in the sense that is appears to be a voluntary arrangement I don't have a problem with it. I never said it was an ideal situation or that there are no problems with it. But, if you recall (hard to say since you seem to be avoiding it), we were talking about government intrusion into the voluntary, private arrangements between its citizens and the government decision-making for its citizens which you have explicitly said you oppose...except, apparently, in some cases. Why don't you accept this is something to think about and align the logic of your positions:

1. Government intrusion into the privacy of its citizens and making decisions for them is WRONG.
2. Government intrusion into the privacy of its citizens and making decisions for them is OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Okay. You're a nutjob. But thanks for playing!

So you revert to insults and "hate" speech. LOL
post #171 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

This looks a lot like a VOLUNTARY arrangement to me. Perhaps not an ideal one in our day and age, but it appears VOLUNTARY nonetheless. In that respect I do not see a problem with it.

A: Give me all your money.
B: No.
A: If you don't, I'll stab you with this knife.
B: Oh. OK.
A: Thanks for voluntarily giving me all your money.
post #172 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

A: Give me all your money.
B: No.
A: If you don't, I'll stab you with this knife.
B: Oh. OK.
A: Thanks for voluntarily giving me all your money.

And that compares to what we've been talking about HOW?

Oh, right, it doesn't.
post #173 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. The economy adds jobs constantly. In reality, there are hundreds if not thousands of jobs available in just about every town in America. Even if you were techically correct, the reality "on the ground" shows that jobs are available.

2. Yes, I did. so what?

3. You can't be serious in comparing the two things you did.

4. I'm asking what in our Constitution guarantees anyone the right to standard of living.

5. The jobs aren't taken. Look in your local paper for Christ's sake. They're everywhere.

But is it that way everywhere SDW?

You've always had a tendancy to use the view from Pennsylvania
as a world view.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #174 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

Well, aside from your transparent attempt to construct a straw man, let's look at what indentured servitude actually is:



This looks a lot like a VOLUNTARY arrangement to me. Perhaps not an ideal one in our day and age, but it appears VOLUNTARY nonetheless. In that respect I do not see a problem with it.

But, back to the question you avoided:

Can you see that the government dictating the terms of private arrangements is both an invasion of privacy and making decisions for the parties involved?


Work farms like this were never voluntary a way of life. We really don't need to return to such barbaric practices.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #175 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Work farms like this were never voluntary a way of life. We really don't need to return to such barbaric practices.

If they weren't voluntary, then they have no bearing on this discussion. We have been talking about voluntary employment arrangements. The whole indentured servitude (which DOES appear to be voluntary, as opposed to INVOLUNTARY servitude) was a smoke screen by gregmightdothat.
post #176 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

If they weren't voluntary, then they have no bearing on this discussion. We have been talking about voluntary employment arrangements. The whole indentured servitude (which DOES appear to be voluntary, as opposed to INVOLUNTARY servitude) was a smoke screen by gregmightdothat.


Yes but history has shown that it wouldn't stay voluntary.

We don't need to go down that path again.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #177 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes but history has shown that it wouldn't stay voluntary.

What are you talking about? History has shown that WHAT wouldn't stay voluntary? (And please cite some examples.)
post #178 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

What are you talking about? History has shown that WHAT wouldn't stay voluntary? (And please cite some examples.)


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/abou...anscript1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._United_States


http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/count...is/slavery.htm

http://www.aboutsociology.com/sociology/Slavery

http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-slavery

You wanted examples.

There's many more where they came from. History clearly shows that servitude while starting out as a way to wipe out debt becomes something else entirely.

Chalk it up to human nature.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #179 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/abou...anscript1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._United_States


http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/count...is/slavery.htm

http://www.aboutsociology.com/sociology/Slavery

http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-slavery

You wanted examples.

There's many more where they came from. History clearly shows that servitude while starting out as a way to wipe out debt becomes something else entirely.

Chalk it up to human nature.

Ummm...again...indentured servitude is not the same thing as involuntary servitude or slavery (which are the nature of all of your cited examples). Slavery that occurred in the U.S. is an example of involuntary servitude or slavery. Coerced work. Not voluntary at any point or in any real way.

Regardless of your confusion over what terms actually mean, we're not really talking about servitude anyway. We're talking about voluntary employment arrangements.
post #180 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

Ummm...again...indentured servitude is not the same thing as involuntary servitude or slavery (which are the nature of all of your cited examples). Slavery that occurred in the U.S. is an example of involuntary servitude or slavery. Coerced work. Not voluntary at any point or in any real way.

Regardless of your confusion over what terms actually mean, we're not really talking about servitude anyway. We're talking about voluntary employment arrangements.


One becomes the other or didn't you read any of the links?

Or are you saying we should just ignore history?

Indentured servitude becomes slavery is all I had to type into the search. There were many hits.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #181 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

One becomes the other or didn't you read any of the links?

Or are you saying we should just ignore history?

Indentured servitude becomes slavery is all I had to type into the search. There were many hits.

Voluntary employment arrangements become slavery?
post #182 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

Voluntary employment arrangements become slavery?

Yup! And what makes you think it wouldn't follow the same path?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #183 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yup!

Where? When?

All you have cited is pages that say that when blacks were FIRST brought to the U.S. they were as INDENTURED servants. Later when blacks were brought here, it was as INVOLUNTARY servants. In fact at least one of the sites indicates that many (all?) of the INDENTURED servants were eventually free under the terms of the indenture agreement. If the agreement changed involuntarily, then we have a different scenario (fraud, deception, coercion). At that point you have a very different situation. You have one person infringing upon the rights of freedom of another. This is a perfectly appropriate place for government to play a role (protecting the rights of people to make choices for themselves and to NOT be forced into a circumstance involuntarily).
post #184 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

Where? When?


Given even a small experience with human nature you know this is what it would turn into.

People with no economic out would be forced into this way of life if it were allowed.

From the first sentence from Wikipedia " The transformation from indentured servitude to racial slavery happened gradually. "

Even though conditions weren't the same as today what do you think this means?

So even if it started out as voluntary it would become something else because the two are too close in concept.

Get it?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #185 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

A: Give me all your money.
B: No.
A: If you don't, I'll stab you with this knife.
B: Oh. OK.
A: Thanks for voluntarily giving me all your money.

Leave the government and taxation out of this.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #186 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Given even a small experience with human nature you know this is what it would turn into.

I "KNOW" that voluntary arrangements WILL turn into involuntary arrangements. How do I "KNOW" this?

Even so, that is entirely beside the point. At the point where it DOES become involuntary, then you have a new situation in which the government has an appropriate role to play (protecting the rights of individuals to be free from force and coercion).
post #187 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Leave the government and taxation out of this.

Nick

LOL

Good one!
post #188 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

I "KNOW" that voluntary arrangements WILL turn into involuntary arrangements. How do I "KNOW" this?

Even so, that is entirely beside the point. At the point where it DOES become involuntary, then you have a new situation in which the government has an appropriate role to play (protecting the rights of individuals to be free from force and coercion).

So if you " know " what will happen why even start down that road? Which you also must " know " that once done it would be difficult to be undone.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #189 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So if you " know " what will happen why even start down that road? Which you also must " know " that once done it would be difficult to be undone.

You are making no sense whatsoever.

You appear to be saying that because voluntary employment arrangements MIGHT lead to involuntary servitude then "why start down that road". That's crazy talk. You stop the event when it happens. You don't speculate that it MIGHT POSSIBLY SOMEDAY happen and then stop any event that MIGHT POSSIBLY SOMEDAY lead to it.

It is quite simple. You allow voluntary arrangements with government intrusions and disallow involuntary arrangements where the government has the power of force to stop involuntary situations. Not that complex. Unless of course the GOVERNMENT becomes the perpetrator of involuntary compulsions. But no...THAT would NEVER happen.
post #190 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

You are making no sense whatsoever.

You appear to be saying that because voluntary employment arrangements MIGHT lead to involuntary servitude then "why start down that road". That's crazy talk. You stop the event when it happens. You don't speculate that it MIGHT POSSIBLY SOMEDAY happen and then stop any event that MIGHT POSSIBLY SOMEDAY lead to it.

It is quite simple. You allow voluntary arrangements with government intrusions and disallow involuntary arrangements where the government has the power of force to stop involuntary situations. Not that complex. Unless of course the GOVERNMENT becomes the perpetrator of involuntary compulsions. But no...THAT would NEVER happen.

Maybe in an ideal society. I don't know of any time in history when human nature has operated that way without years of legislation. Please show me some examples.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #191 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Maybe in an ideal society. I don't know of any time in history when human nature has operated that way without years of legislation. Please show me some examples.

What the hell are you even talking about?

This started with two simple questions:

Do you believe government has the right to invade the privacy of its citizens?

Do you believe government has the right to make decisions for its citizens?

It then went on to the discussion of voluntary employment arrangements. The whole involuntary thing is a smoke screen. A straw man. No one is saying that the government doesn't have an appropriate role in correcting involuntary situations.

Are you even paying attention?
post #192 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarky

At the point where it DOES become involuntary, then you have a new situation in which the government has an appropriate role to play (protecting the rights of individuals to be free from force and coercion).

Wouldn't that point be right below the poverty line?
post #193 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Wouldn't that point be right below the poverty line?

Nope.
post #194 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

Do you believe government has the right to make decisions for its citizens?

Of course! Every government makes decisions for its citizens all the time. Hell, it's a basic premise.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #195 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Of course! Even the most basic of governments make decisions for its citizens all the time. Hell, it's a basic premise.

Such as?
post #196 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

Such as?

Where to appropriate tax money.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #197 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

Where to appropriate tax money.

Well, fair enough. The government has taken money...but really claims it to be its own at that point. Not exactly a very good example.

But I guess you are on the side of its okay for government to make decisions for you and your life. Am I correct? If so what are the limits? Where should it stop making decisions for you and your life? Why? What things should it make decisions for you? What should it not?
post #198 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkmeister View Post

Well, fair enough. The government has taken money...but really claims it to be its own at that point. Not exactly a very good example.

But I guess you are on the side of its okay for government to make decisions for you and your life. Am I correct? If so what are the limits? Where should it stop making decisions for you and your life? Why? What things should it make decisions for you? What should it not?

You are 100% correct. When I say you are wrong and the government does in fact take it upon itself to make some decisions on its own, what I'm actually saying is that it's the job of the government to dictate every facet of your life and mine, and none of us should be held responsible for anything pertaining to our own lives.

There is no limit. No lines. There is nothing my government should not have unchallenged authority over in my life.



I submit to its will.


Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #199 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

You are 100% correct. When I say you are wrong and the government does in fact take it upon itself to make some decisions on its own, what I'm actually saying is that it's the job of the government to dictate every facet of your life and mine, and none of us should be held responsible for anything pertaining to our own lives.

There is no limit. No lines. There is nothing my government should not have unchallenged authority over in my life.

Well, where is the line then? What is the criteria for knowing it has been crossed? At what point do we know that they have gone too far?

If I draw the line at a place something like...stopping one person from infringing on the rights of freedom of another. Then I know pretty well when that line has been crossed and they are now making decisions and choices for me that go beyond that line. Where is your line?
post #200 of 214
There is no limit. No lines. There is nothing my government should not have unchallenged authority over in my life.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Barack Obama is in!