Global capitalism has written off the human race
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
We require coercion only insofar as we believe we need to enforce our morals on others.
Finally, something we can agree on. This is EXACTLY where your problem is. What you don't understand is that you cannot have a durable society/civilization without a common moral framework.
I have no problem with people who share a common moral framework forming social groups. The difference between us is that you want to enforce your moral framework on others with the threat of violence. I can't agree with that because it's not compatible with my moral belief in non-aggression.
And you'll threaten them with violence to get your way.
And now we are officially talking in circles... (see my post on page 4).
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
Even with the law in place, I can tell you for a fact that if you have to sue someone to get a job, you're not going to like that job. You will spend every day looking over your shoulder and trying not to make a mistake which could be a building block for your future termination. It's a double-edged sword.
If you live in a small town, you *can't* find another baker/plumber/pharmacist/whatever, and it may cost you quite a lot of money to go out of town to get one.
I am being discrimanated against, at most auto parts stores. They keep trying to sell me the wrong part.
My defense is bringing the old one, and seeing if it will bolt up.
So making people serve you does not assure a quality product.
Having worked behind plumbers, mechanics, I found some shoddy work when I knew they were trying.
They are supposed to be experts, and I upset them. Some are better, my best auto parts says come here, and shows me what they have, and let me figure it out. Sometimes it takes two or three places to get the parts for one job.
On the other hand I have been a mechanic and contractor, and the customers do not know what they want.
Fix it, can mean make it run for a few days, to a total rebuild.
I have turned down a lot of potential customers who did not know what they wanted, except to get even with some prior mechanic. Everyone has them, and they want to destroy you, they are paying, so they think they bought you.
The bad customer is well know in business. Suddenly I am booked for months when they show up. Some do not pay, some sue people, and some are worse. No law would make me deal with them.
Public services, transport, food, lodging, are different. Something offered to the public, as long as they are clean, sober, quiet, and have a credit card for insurance.
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
You do not have a right to make a lawyer represent you, or a doctor treat you.
I do not discriminate, I hate them all equally, dumb hairless ground apes, but some are trying to overcome it.
New Orleans being half black has discrimination, most murder is black on black, black comes in eight shades, they all distance themselves from the others, and they have a public space persona, which they use to get something done.
We have unequal relationships. Finding our common space with one other person keeps the world running.
Our employment law comes from English Master/Servant Law, and employees behavior is restricted, where the Master is not.
Finding working space between the unequal is what makes it work.
Being human cannot be regulated by law because they are all different.
Where we can find common ground, everything works across all cultures.
As I see it, the biggest problem with modern capitalism is that it is unsustainable, being based on endless growth on a planet of finite resources. We do not consider that the human economy is one part of a yet far wider, and yet far more necessary, thing, which is the biosphere itself, and that humans draw our resources from and output our wastes into it.
I am in total agreement that a 'free' market would damage other aspects of society which are important to people. In essence, the idea of a free market is sacrificing actual human well-being for the abstraction of the well-being of the 'market' or 'economy', or for abstractions like 'freedom'.
In response to adb, who was of the opinion that economics is value-free: yes, economics itself should aspire to be value-free as a science, but decision-making should not be. Economics should merely be one factor in what is actually done, which should be done to maximise happiness for the greatest number of people. What is economically expedient is but one factor within many complex and interrelated ones.
A theme running through this thread has been freedom and coercion. It is my opinion that a minimum of coercion is needed to keep humans from being particularly nasty to each other and making stupid decisions (that is, more so than those doing the coercing), although changing social conditions and attitudes is a much better way to achieve this. Any more than a minimum of coercion is morally unjustifiable, and an authority making bad decisions and being nasty itself (which is pretty much always the case) is unjustifiable. Rules are necessary, but rulers should be avoided whenever possible.
_________________
"?I love not man the less, but Nature more.? - Byron
"Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you" - Nirvana
I am an animal. Not normal is not bad. Question all. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all!
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
I am in total agreement that a 'free' market would damage other aspects of society which are important to people. In essence, the idea of a free market is sacrificing actual human well-being for the abstraction of the well-being of the 'market' or 'economy', or for abstractions like 'freedom'.
In response to adb, who was of the opinion that economics is value-free: yes, economics itself should aspire to be value-free as a science, but decision-making should not be. Economics should merely be one factor in what is actually done, which should be done to maximise happiness for the greatest number of people. What is economically expedient is but one factor within many complex and interrelated ones.
A theme running through this thread has been freedom and coercion. It is my opinion that a minimum of coercion is needed to keep humans from being particularly nasty to each other and making stupid decisions (that is, more so than those doing the coercing), although changing social conditions and attitudes is a much better way to achieve this. Any more than a minimum of coercion is morally unjustifiable, and an authority making bad decisions and being nasty itself (which is pretty much always the case) is unjustifiable. Rules are necessary, but rulers should be avoided whenever possible.
I fear the human race is unsustainable.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
One piece of anecdotal evidence does not make an argument. Where is the empirical data to support that paying higher wages increases profitability?
Depends on how you define profitability. If profitability is enough for owners and management to live a comfortable life and still expand business, rational thought will tell you that you can pay employees considerably more than they are being paid now.
If profitability means owning multiple 300 million dollar homes on multiple continents, owning dozens of vehicles, yachts, jets, helicopters and other monuments to personal ego that are not necessities of life but symbols of status used to impress and dazzle other people who live their lives memorializing their own bloated egos, then no, you cannot pay the people who actually make your wealth possible a decent level of income.
