Do or Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2016, 02:18 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 01:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  So if government decides to make the business gravy train a little more about sharing, for example by taxing them more heavily, the only possible concern is that businessmen will cry and take their toys somewhere else?

Since there are no *morals* I submit that it's perfectly *fair* for them to do this. In fact if government rules that all rich people are to have their property confiscated until they're on the same level as poor people, it's *fine* isn't it? Since there's no *morals*.
I have no interest in the morality of it, I am only interested in the consequences.
If you take all the wealth and assets and give it to the poor, then the poor will have money on day one. All businesses will shut down, and very few will have jobs. Not many businesses will start up, not many people will get jobs. Qualified people will go overseas looking for jobs, Local people's money will run out. The country will be in economic ruin.

(10-10-2016 01:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  You clearly seem to think your values are better than those I espouse, otherwise why argue?
I'm arguing because, I want to express my ideas on centre right and how that leads to a thriving economy and I want to learn how a centre left approach leads to a thriving economy. So far, it seems the only economic point made by those supporting centre left is that they assume if the poor have money then consumer spending will go up and the businesses will make profits from that, But in order to get the money into the hands of the poor they are first taking it from those businesses by raising their operating costs via higher taxes and higher minimum wage. (I can't see how that would work, but that could just be me, perhaps it does work, I just can't see how).


(10-10-2016 01:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  So if your morals/values can be better than mine, mine can be better than yours too.
I have no morals. I admit, yours are "better" than mine and I'll leave it up to you to define what is meant by "better".


(10-10-2016 01:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  How shall we judge who's is better? By benefit to society as a whole?
Well, I'd like to discuss how left wing policies can lead to a prospering economy, that is something that I am struggling with understanding.

I think I have already offered my right wing view that supporting and encouraging businesses to operate locally creates competition (hence quality and affordable goods and services) and jobs. But I have also moderated that by agreeing that environmental protection is required and so is free education and health and perhaps work schemes or schemes to support the poor while they take active steps to get back into the workforce. I don't think I can anything more to than, other than to keep clarifing my position when people mistakenly come up with claims that my position is that businesses should be left to their own devises, shouldn't be taxed and that will result in "good" for the citizens.



(10-10-2016 01:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  Let's reach a coherent definition of what constitutes a good measure of how well a society is doing then? Assuming that you agree to this values test, I suggest that a society that is doing well has a low crime rate and a large proportion of affluent population, respects human rights (another imaginary construct like morals) and so forth.
I'm thinking more in terms of economics and stability.

A society is doing well when business is thriving and unemployment is low, when there is opportunity for all independent of race and wealth. When racial tension is low and even when political tension is low. When a high level of people are seeking education and where there are lots of jobs for the qualified, where the country isn't steeped in debt and trade deficit. When the country has few enemies but lots of alliances.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 02:47 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 12:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 07:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  And that is precisely what you are being criticized for.

Businesses must be held accountable for doing harm.
You and the others may feel some sort of moral superiority, may feel you know what is morally right and what is morally wrong, you may dream about what you think businesses ought to do, you may feel disappointment when they don't meet your expectations.

Is that some claptrap straight out of the libertarian coloring book? Consider
It is not about morality - it is about preventing them from doing harm.

Quote:The reality of it is that businesses are out to make profit, when their competitors cut corners then they are forced to do the same just to compete and stay alive. You know this stuff already, but dream of your morality thing and feel disappointed when they don't live up to that.

This is bullshit. 'Cutting corners' is precisely the problem.
If you meant to say 'be more efficient', fine. However, putting others at risk is not fine.

Quote:But anyway, I don't have that dream. I don't think businesses are accountable for "harm" per say.
The government sets the rules, if businesses break the law then they are accountable. To be clear, it is breaking the law that they are accountable for rather than doing harm.

A distinction without a difference. Why do you suppose that law is there? Facepalm

Quote:If the govt choose to align the law with "doing harm" then that is what the law is. But "doing harm" is very vague, what is even meant by that? If there is no law against an instance of "doing harm", then businesses aren't accountable for that, except in the minds of those people that cling to their own moral beliefs and think they somehow apply to others.

It is not about morality, it is about not harming people. Yes, we embody that in law.

When a business (or anyone) circumvents the purpose of the law, they are probably doing harm.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
10-10-2016, 03:35 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 02:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:But anyway, I don't have that dream. I don't think businesses are accountable for "harm" per say.
The government sets the rules, if businesses break the law then they are accountable. To be clear, it is breaking the law that they are accountable for rather than doing harm.

A distinction without a difference. Why do you suppose that law is there? Facepalm

I mean, you know, if we have laws and they stop businesses from polluting the streams and oceans, and from chopping down all the trees and from taking all the fish then businesses must operate within those constraints (otherwise incur legal penalties). If the law isn't there and they do something that perhaps someone thinks they shouldn't do, then that is not an indication that the business is greedy or evil. It is perhaps an indication that this person thinks there should be another law.

Anyway, I'm not sure where this your post (Chas) is taking us? You certainly haven't gone to any effort to define what "harm" means. I'm not disagreeing that we need some constraints on businesses. Are we disagreeing on something here? What point is being made?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 03:46 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 03:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 02:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  A distinction without a difference. Why do you suppose that law is there? Facepalm

I mean, you know, if we have laws and they stop businesses from polluting the streams and oceans, and from chopping down all the trees and from taking all the fish then businesses must operate within those constraints (otherwise incur legal penalties). If the law isn't there and they do something that perhaps someone thinks they shouldn't do, then that is not an indication that the business is greedy or evil. It is perhaps an indication that this person thinks there should be another law.

It's not if they "do something that perhaps someone thinks they shouldn't do", it's if they cause harm. Why is this seemingly so difficult to grasp?

Quote:Anyway, I'm not sure where this your post (Chas) is taking us? You certainly haven't gone to any effort to define what "harm" means. I'm not disagreeing that we need some constraints on businesses. Are we disagreeing on something here? What point is being made?

Define harm? Seriously? How about a commonsense understanding of it?

What we are disagreeing about is a basic principle of a functioning society and a foundational principle of libertarianism: the right to live unmolested.
Or, your right to swing your fist stops short of my nose.

A corporation that takes its business off-shore so that it can employ children with no regard for safety and pay them a pittance is causing harm.
While it does not appear to be illegal, it should be.

Please don't counter that with some version of "they're bringing much needed jobs/wages to that place" because the cost of doing that, in human terms, is too high.
They are swinging their fist too far.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
10-10-2016, 03:50 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 03:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 02:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  A distinction without a difference. Why do you suppose that law is there? Facepalm

I mean, you know, if we have laws and they stop businesses from polluting the streams and oceans, and from chopping down all the trees and from taking all the fish then businesses must operate within those constraints (otherwise incur legal penalties). If the law isn't there and they do something that perhaps someone thinks they shouldn't do, then that is not an indication that the business is greedy or evil. It is perhaps an indication that this person thinks there should be another law.

Anyway, I'm not sure where this your post (Chas) is taking us? You certainly haven't gone to any effort to define what "harm" means. I'm not disagreeing that we need some constraints on businesses. Are we disagreeing on something here? What point is being made?

Chas is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, but I think the basic point is that laws are not arbitrary. Societies make laws because they believe that someone would be harmed in the absence of those laws. Whether or not you like it, societies have morals, and the laws of the society reflect those morals. We don't make laws just for the fun of making laws. They exist for a reason, and in spite of all your denials, that reason is morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 04:02 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  It's not if they "do something that perhaps someone thinks they shouldn't do", it's if they cause harm. Why is this seemingly so difficult to grasp?
Who gets to define what is harm? You?

(10-10-2016 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Define harm? Seriously? How about a commonsense understanding of it?
Nope, people have differing opinions.

(10-10-2016 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  What we are disagreeing about is a basic principle of a functioning society and a foundational principle of libertarianism: the right to live unmolested.
Well, I am an individual, with my own thoughts. I am not subscribed to any libertarianism organisation. I don't read libertarianism books. I don't think it makes any sense to put people into boxes.


(10-10-2016 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  A corporation that takes its business off-shore so that it can employ children with no regard for safety and pay them a pittance is causing harm.
While it does not appear to be illegal, it should be.

Please don't counter that with some version of "they're bringing much needed jobs/wages to that place" because the cost of doing that, in human terms, is too high.
Then we disagree on this. Seems your definition of harm is different to mine. I certainly know that your understanding of the purpose for government and law differs from mine. You have a strong moral conviction, I have none at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 04:15 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 02:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Well, I'd like to discuss how left wing policies can lead to a prospering economy, that is something that I am struggling with understanding.
I am not an economist, so... not sure if I can help you there. Ultimately it's about production of goods and services, my problem is if we go full unfettered capitalist then the benefits of those goods and services tend to be available to a few rich people, a small middle class and pretty much no one else. So the idea is to spread the love, to still *have* lots of goods and services, and business, just not to deify it. And to rather care about the prosperity of the people in general, not just the economy which is supposed to serve the people, not the other way round.

Quote:I think I have already offered my right wing view that supporting and encouraging businesses to operate locally creates competition (hence quality and affordable goods and services) and jobs. But I have also moderated that by agreeing that environmental protection is required and so is free education and health and perhaps work schemes or schemes to support the poor while they take active steps to get back into the workforce. I don't think I can anything more to than, other than to keep clarifing my position when people mistakenly come up with claims that my position is that businesses should be left to their own devises, shouldn't be taxed and that will result in "good" for the citizens.
See, this is somewhat tangential but I'm a bit ambivalent about "workforce". If our purpose in life is to work e.g. in some fucken factory, then shoot me now. I think sure, work is important and so on, but let's recognise that it's not a natural state for a human chimpanzee. Work is good, but worker happiness and comfort is also important - not something that is found in many low wage jobs.

Free education and healthcare is something that is not in existence where I am. If you're rich enough, you can go to the doctor. Ditto for school. It's a cause of extreme discontent. But yeah, if possible, free education and healthcare and indeed work schemes are all great ideas that I can fully support.

To that I would add school feeding schemes and some form of welfare. Welfare to take care of people who are unable to work for some reason e.g. sickness, old age etc, and to tide people over who can't find a job immediately.

Quote:
(10-10-2016 01:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  Let's reach a coherent definition of what constitutes a good measure of how well a society is doing then? Assuming that you agree to this values test, I suggest that a society that is doing well has a low crime rate and a large proportion of affluent population, respects human rights (another imaginary construct like morals) and so forth.
I'm thinking more in terms of economics and stability.

A society is doing well when business is thriving and unemployment is low, when there is opportunity for all independent of race and wealth. When racial tension is low and even when political tension is low. When a high level of people are seeking education and where there are lots of jobs for the qualified, where the country isn't steeped in debt and trade deficit. When the country has few enemies but lots of alliances.
Well, yeah, those are good things... I think we are not in disagreement too much. Just that for me business interests are not as important as people interests. As with the example I gave of Botswana, a straightforward capitalist take on it was just that everyone there remained poor while contributing to the already massive riches of a small elite. Now with a profit sharing agreement with the mines the wealth is spread more evenly, and yet business is still booming. The economy is in fantastic shape and all of the conditions that you list are ticked. I think even education and healthcare are sorted (very rare in Southern Africa).

The one thing I will say is that I'm rather skeptical of the government here. They're a shower of idiots, not to put too fine a point on it, and to give them more money will likely just result in more Swiss bank accounts. That's the sole reason I wouldn't advocate for doing something similar here in SA.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
10-10-2016, 05:02 PM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 05:07 PM by Chas.)
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 04:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  It's not if they "do something that perhaps someone thinks they shouldn't do", it's if they cause harm. Why is this seemingly so difficult to grasp?
Who gets to define what is harm? You?

If you don't see that dangerous working conditions are harmful, then I can't help you. You are not right in the head.

Quote:
(10-10-2016 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Define harm? Seriously? How about a commonsense understanding of it?
Nope, people have differing opinions.

Not different enough to justify you turning a blind eye.

Quote:
(10-10-2016 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  What we are disagreeing about is a basic principle of a functioning society and a foundational principle of libertarianism: the right to live unmolested.
Well, I am an individual, with my own thoughts. I am not subscribed to any libertarianism organisation. I don't read libertarianism books. I don't think it makes any sense to put people into boxes.

How about addressing the actual substance of what I said.

Quote:
(10-10-2016 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  A corporation that takes its business off-shore so that it can employ children with no regard for safety and pay them a pittance is causing harm.
While it does not appear to be illegal, it should be.

Please don't counter that with some version of "they're bringing much needed jobs/wages to that place" because the cost of doing that, in human terms, is too high.
Then we disagree on this. Seems your definition of harm is different to mine. I certainly know that your understanding of the purpose for government and law differs from mine. You have a strong moral conviction, I have none at all.

No, I am not talking about morality but about minimizing harm.

Since you seemingly have no empathy, no compassion, and no understanding of what harm is, we're done here.

You are a sociopath. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-10-2016, 07:19 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 05:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  Since you seemingly have no empathy, no compassion, and no understanding of what harm is, we're done here.
I have very little knowledge of what your own personal definition of "harm" is.
With regards to my own empathy or compassion, well I haven't even discussed that topic, but hey, you seem to think that you know me.
(10-10-2016 05:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are a sociopath
Well, thank you Dr Doolittle, I guess you are qualified to make such judgements.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 07:23 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 03:50 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Chas is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, but I think the basic point is that laws are not arbitrary. Societies make laws because they believe that someone would be harmed in the absence of those laws. Whether or not you like it, societies have morals, and the laws of the society reflect those morals. We don't make laws just for the fun of making laws. They exist for a reason, and in spite of all your denials, that reason is morality.
Laws can be created outside the context of moral beliefs, they can be created for practical reasons, for reasons of perceived consequences, sustainability and stability for example rather than what is believed to be right or wrong.
For example we harm animals all the time, we whip horses, we lock up birds and dogs, we kill sheep and cows, we imprison pigs and chickens.

With regards to humans, we compete against each other, we steal girlfriends, we win jobs that others want. There is nothing wrong with benefiting at the expense of others. We must compete.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: