Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 567 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 133
  1. #76
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutana View Post
    The book is based on him going undercover working in the meatpacking plants and learning what actually was going on there.....
    Again the book is fiction. It is not an investigative report. He could have said anything in that book.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    I already showed you what would happen if the roads were all private. But that has nothing to do with what you cited.....40k deaths on national hwys.....and my contingency is that without government mandated safety features, that toll would be higher.
    No you haven't. Where have you showed anything about national highways. You blame ford for failing even thought they went through their own rigorous process that goes beyond what government mandates. Yet I can't blame government for failing their governorship of roads even thought they are solely responsible for taking care of them.

    You are biased.
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  2. #77
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    I disagree, with no societal morality imposed....we are little more than pack animals. History shows this to be true.

    Every single company that goes to china for production is doing so because of the slave labor. No morals, just profit. Lack of morality = evil
    Sorry, history is replete w/ examples of humane societies.

    Business is amoral and being amoral is not evil. Gov't should be amoral btw.

    Lowering your labor costs is not a question of morality. Not to mention, in a free market, there is no such thing as slave labor.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  3. #78
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    You are biased.


    Hi Kettle, my name is pot.

  4. #79
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    Sorry, history is replete w/ examples of humane societies.

    Business is amoral and being amoral is not evil. Gov't should be amoral btw.

    Lowering your labor costs is not a question of morality. Not to mention, in a free market, there is no such thing as slave labor.
    Yes...humane societies because they had some moralistic religion/teachings.

    Government should not be amoral. Not to say it should be religious, but it should have some morals in the power it exerts over the governed. Dictatorships are good examples of amoral governments, they do what they damn well please and people be damned.

    In a free market, slavery is the ideal....nearly free labor. Especially if you have no morals.

  5. #80
    5000+
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    1984
    Posts
    5,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    Sorry, history is replete w/ examples of humane societies.

    Business is amoral and being amoral is not evil. Gov't should be amoral btw.

    Lowering your labor costs is not a question of morality. Not to mention, in a free market, there is no such thing as slave labor.
    In a free market there's no laws restricting the movement of goods, people and people across borders. Which would mean massive immigration to the US and parts of Europe and that would/should keep labor costs low, especially for factory jobs. Then there'd be no reason to move manufacturing abroad. Then the immigrants would send money back to their families f ex which would remove the point in giving foreign aid to those countries.

    Companies being/acting evil/immoral would be when the company attempts to accomplish something evil/immoral instead of or to the detriment of making money legally. Which would be f ex lots of news companies for their propaganda agenda, fraudulent companies and money laundering fronts.

    Amoral governments would be minimalist, yet strongly favoring national defense and opportunistic expansion of territory, population, economy, wealth. The goal of government would be to foster the development of the country as opposed to the welfare of it's people.
    Last edited by Weeking; 05-30-2012 at 19:41.
    (color=#333333)(/color)

  6. #81
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    Yes...humane societies because they had some moralistic religion/teachings.

    Government should not be amoral. Not to say it should be religious, but it should have some morals in the power it exerts over the governed. Dictatorships are good examples of amoral governments, they do what they damn well please and people be damned.

    In a free market, slavery is the ideal....nearly free labor. Especially if you have no morals.
    The fact that humane societies were based on moral beliefs changes nothing. I never said people should be amoral.

    No, gov't should not exert power over citizens based on morality. The entire premise of our Constitution and the brilliance of it when applied correctly, is that gov't does not exert any power, it protects individual/personal power over oneself.

    The form of government has no bearing on its morality. You could have a perfectly 'moral' dictatorship. Morality is relative which is why gov't should be amoral. Gov't decisions should be based on individual rights and freedoms; fixed/static benchmarks. It can't be relative.

    In a free market, slavery is not the ideal, that's pure nonsense. Why would a laborer choose to be a slave? The worker gets to choose to work (or not) in a free market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Weeking View Post
    In a free market there's no laws restricting the movement of goods, people and people across borders. Which would mean massive immigration to the US and parts of Europe and that would/should keep labor costs low, especially for factory jobs. Then there'd be no reason to move manufacturing abroad. Then the immigrants would send money back to their families f ex which would remove the point in giving foreign aid to those countries.
    A free market is a market where prices are determined by supply and demand, with little or no government control

    I don't see how you incorporate (de facto) open border policies w/ free market policies. Seems like a false argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Weeking View Post
    Companies being/acting evil/immoral would be when the company attempts to accomplish something evil/immoral instead of or to the detriment of making money legally. Which would be f ex lots of news companies for their propaganda agenda, fraudulent companies and money laundering fronts.
    And?

    Quote Originally Posted by Weeking View Post
    Amoral governments would be minimalist, yet strongly favoring national defense and opportunistic expansion of territory, population, economy, wealth. The goal of government would be to foster the development of the country as opposed to the welfare of it's people.
    Again, you inject a false argument in there regarding 'opportunistic expansion of territory'. You have no basis for making that claim or if you do, you need to make it explicit. (So I can properly refute it )

    With that exception, yes, an amoral gov't would be as you indicate for the most part. And guess what? That sounds a lot like our Constitution reads. The people are responsible for the own welfare, gov't takes care of the welfare of the country.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  7. #82
    5000+
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    1984
    Posts
    5,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    ....
    A free market is a market where prices are determined by supply and demand, with little or no government control

    I don't see how you incorporate (de facto) open border policies w/ free market policies. Seems like a false argument.
    --
    Again, you inject a false argument in there regarding 'opportunistic expansion of territory'. You have no basis for making that claim or if you do, you need to make it explicit. (So I can properly refute it )

    With that exception, yes, an amoral gov't would be as you indicate for the most part. And guess what? That sounds a lot like our Constitution reads. The people are responsible for the own welfare, gov't takes care of the welfare of the country.
    The labor market isn't free unless laborers get to chose to work where demand is highest. Borders turn the laborers into slaves of a sort. It would be like a plantation owner to start paying his black workers a salary of his choosing, allowing them to pick whatever job(s) he had available but not allowing them to go work/live outside his plantation. He's still able to exploit them for cheap labor just like they'd been proper slaves, and even coerce them to work (more) by them having to pay rent to him and needing food to eat. This is in essence what countries are doing to their population. If there was a free (international) labor market, the abilities of governments to exploit people for (cheap) labor would eventually vanish as so many people would emigrate and earn so much more money they would send back that lots of people in their home-country would work less and/or strike for higher salaries. Eventually the money influx would lead to drastically increased salaries.
    --
    Most times expanding the territory isn't worth it, short term at least. By opportunist, I meant whenever a cheap and successful military campaign, state intrigue/diplomacy or trade can be done to expand it. They're pretty much all impossible nowadays, but there have been times where they've been used a lot. F ex buying USA buying Alaska, Conquering the USA from the Indians, Mexico etc and the American Civil War. They weren't all or necessarily done amorally at the time though.

    The amoral state would want to ensure it's own survival and the way to do that is to weaken or eliminate competitor states while also keeping the population culturally/ethnically cohesive enough to solidify it as a sovereign state. Even if there is a coup, they're not likely to change the borders or split it up, just change government type and/or leaders.

    To keep the country ethnically pure, it would need to have only limited immigration (or immigrants having kids) while out-breeding the competing populations.

    More territory would sabotage other countries' military capabilities, economic and population growth potential while increasing your own. It also allows for confiscation of wealth in the form of state property f ex.
    (color=#333333)(/color)

  8. #83
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Real quick-your border issue is based on the premise that the only free market is a single worldwide free market.

    There should and always will be many markets. The very idea of a single market would necessitate interference and make it a regulated market
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  9. #84
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    Again the book is fiction. It is not an investigative report. He could have said anything in that book.

    .
    The original 1906 Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect and condemn any meat product found unfit for human consumption. Unlike previous laws ordering meat inspections, which were enforced to assure European nations from banning pork trade, this law was strongly motivated to protect the American diet. All labels on any type of food had to be accurate (although not all ingredients were provided on the label). Even though all harmful food was banned, there were still few warnings provided on the container. The law was partly a response to the publication of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, an exposé of the Chicago meat packing industry, as well as to other Progressive Era muckraking publications of the day.
    The book's assertions were confirmed in the Neill-Reynolds report, commissioned by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. Roosevelt was suspicious of Sinclair's socialist attitude and conclusions in The Jungle and so sent labor commissioner Charles P. Neill, and social worker James Bronson Reynolds, men whose honesty and reliability he trusted, to Chicago to make surprise visits to meat packing facilities.
    Despite betrayal of the secret to the meat packers, who worked three shifts a day for three weeks to thwart the inspection, Neill and Reynolds were still revolted by the conditions at the factories and at the lack of concern by plant managers. Following their report, Roosevelt became a supporter of regulation of the meat packing industry.


    yep...all fiction none of it was ever confirmed
    "Cancer is a side effect of evolution"

  10. #85
    7000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Locash
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutana View Post
    The book is based on him going undercover working in the meatpacking plants and learning what actually was going on there.....
    I'm pretty sure the book was primarily based on the Neill-Reynolds Report, which was later refuted by non other than the US Dept of Ag. The guy was a prototype Michael Moore, and he had a prior agenda when setting out to write the book.


    "Everytime you PK a newb, a breakdancer shitkicks a baby."-Goty

  11. #86
    7000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Locash
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    BTW, the FDA can absolutely be scrapped, as they don't actually really do any grunt work as some here are apparently under the impression that they do. The USDA and other state bodies are primarily responsible for actual regulation.

    The FDA is a miniscule office within a department; the USDA is a giant department unto itself. The crap the FDA does could easily be rolled into the purview of the USDA, but that is a completely different issue altogether.


    "Everytime you PK a newb, a breakdancer shitkicks a baby."-Goty

  12. #87
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    In a free market, slavery is not the ideal, that's pure nonsense. Why would a laborer choose to be a slave? The worker gets to choose to work (or not) in a free market.
    With that exception, yes, an amoral gov't would be as you indicate for the most part. And guess what? That sounds a lot like our Constitution reads. The people are responsible for the own welfare, gov't takes care of the welfare of the country.


    If the company can force them into slavery...and the government isnt responsible for the welfare of the people, and that gives the company almost free labor....how is that not a free market with an amoral government?

    So again, with no government, and a totally free market and getting rid of those pesky morals....slavery is the ideal labor pool.

  13. #88
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    If the company can force them into slavery...and the government isnt responsible for the welfare of the people, and that gives the company almost free labor....how is that not a free market with an amoral government?

    So again, with no government, and a totally free market and getting rid of those pesky morals....slavery is the ideal labor pool.
    How is a company forcing people into slavery? Your entire premise is fabrication and all that follows fantasy.

    Make a case for how business forces people into slavery in a free market else discontinue the discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  14. #89
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    How is a company forcing people into slavery? Your entire premise is fabrication and all that follows fantasy.

    Make a case for how business forces people into slavery in a free market else discontinue the discussion.
    I cant give you a current exampe SSR....why...because government intervention has made slavery illegal. Exactly what you are opposed to...government interfering with the free market.
    History, again, is replete with examples of forced servitude, or indentured service. Hell, 16 tons the song is basically about that.....want a job digging coal...shure thing fella....but you have to rent the shovel, the pick, the hard hat, the lantern from the company store.....you make 10.00 a day....yea i know....the equipment costs you 9 dollars a day to rent...lest you break it...then you gotta pay for it....

    again, you stalwart no government at all, totally free markets are as bad the die hard commies.


    EDIT: I will say it is nice that we have come far enough that young people cant even conceive of businesses having those kinds of practices any more.
    Last edited by Ziegler; 05-31-2012 at 16:11.

  15. #90
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    I cant give you a current exampe SSR....why...because government intervention has made slavery illegal. Exactly what you are opposed to...government interfering with the free market.
    History, again, is replete with examples of forced servitude, or indentured service. Hell, 16 tons the song is basically about that.....want a job digging coal...shure thing fella....but you have to rent the shovel, the pick, the hard hat, the lantern from the company store.....you make 10.00 a day....yea i know....the equipment costs you 9 dollars a day to rent...lest you break it...then you gotta pay for it....
    I thought you wanted to have a serious conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    again, you stalwart no government at all, totally free markets are as bad the die hard commies.
    Who said no gov't?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    EDIT: I will say it is nice that we have come far enough that young people cant even conceive of businesses having those kinds of practices any more.
    I will say it's unfortunate to see some people are still under the illusion that the business practices you are afraid of were actually in place b/c of gov't and gov't regulation, not b/c of free markets.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •