Does your personal NEED or WEAKNESS give you the right to demand?

by Terry 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  Of course in rand's world the "parasites" are the ordinary worker, the person who isn't engineering the future, starting corporations, has become wealthy, ect, but rather just showing up and doing their job for a paycheck.

  Nope. That's YOU talking. A parasite doesn't self-sustain. A parasite lives off the self-sustaining efforts of OTHERS (a Host).

  You haven't taken the time or trouble to understand what you are criticisng. That is intellectual dishonesty. How can you have an informed opinion

  when you have not performed due diligence?

  Here is what Ayn Rand wrote:

  The man who consumes without producing is a parasite, whether he is a welfare recipient or a rich playboy.

  “Egalitarianism and Inflation,”
  Philosophy: Who Needs It, 132
• 

  Terry

  Even in your example of starting a company you make the assumption that you can just fire everyone and get new people and the only way this won't occur is that the people create an evil "union" and threaten you with violence if you try to do it. Which is a nonsensical answer that tries to paint collective bargaining as a sinister enterprise. But it doesn't factor in how damaging it would be to the company to try and replace and retrain every employee, and what if the next wave of employees also collectively bargain to improve their lot? Is this wrong? Your company won't exist if you don't have these parasites working, and it will destroy the company. So in reality aren't they the reason for your success just as much as you are?

  You miss the point entirely. (Whooosh).

  Where you work is YOUR choice. Fair? Certainly.

  Who the business hires is THEIR choice. Fair? Certainly.

  A business must have 1.Workers and 2. Customers

  Customers decide what they buy and who they will buy it from.

  All of this is free choices and no compulsion.

  In your scenario (above) you've missed the AGREEMENT stage of free enterprise. The workers and the bosses must operate according to agreement

  of what works FOR BOTH parties. If you don't have the right to walk off the job and go elsewhere you are not a free man.

  If the employer doesn't have the right to fire you and hire somebody else there is no free enterprise.

  UNIONS destroy the CHOICE of the employer as to how the business is to be run.

  UNIONS wield the power to shut down the business and the owners are COMPELLED BY LAW to stand there and take it without the freedom

  to hire others.

  When I was growing up my father worked for General Motors. He was compelled to pay his Union dues whether he was working or on strike.

  When he was on strike there was not enough money to live on. His Union would not allow him to go back to work even if his family went hungry.

  UNIONS stand between the employer and the worker and FORCE BOTH to do their bidding. No free choice exists!

  What a business CAN DO is what you will see them doing in heavy industrialized areas of the U.S.A....THEY GO ELSEWHERE!

  Instead of taking it up the butt from Unions here in America, the businesses hire FOREIGN WORKERS in other countries.

  See what happened there? The balance of freedom and choice is what keeps a business alive. You cannot compel a business and expect it to survive.

  The higher the Union costs the higher the PRODUCT PRICE.

  Who do you want to help and who do you want to hurt?

  The more you tax a business the higher the price of the goods you buy.

  Cause=Effect.
• 

  Terry

  The question you really need to ask is, which is more important for society? Fairness or Morality? Do we want a society based on a darwinian ideal that flourishes on destruction of the weak, or do we want one based on compassion, even if that compassion creates a drag on progress and wealth?

  We don't just exist in a vacuum of our local needs. We play the game in a worldwide competition.

  Imagine a football team that had to hire weak players at the same wages as the best players.

  Imagine having to send bad players out to play in championship games against teams who only played the finest on their side.

  That is the world of competition.

  We live in a WORLDWIDE competition whether we like it or not.

  The more weakness, sloth, non-productivity, ineptness, poor education and general idleness we have on our side the greater chance we will be swallowed up by another country's BIG FISH.

  The freedom we have in America was purchased dearly by advancements in technology and success in business. We competed successfully and won

  the Darwinian struggle for survival and Top Dog.

  You don't have to like it or admire it. But, there is little doubt we CAN LOSE IT EASILY through DEBT and non-performance on the world stage.

  It isn't really a choice of Darwinian or non-Darwinian. That is how nature has rigged the game.

  What kind of team will we have? It depends on our philosophy. Altruism gives us weakness on the backs of strength.

  Taking care of the weak cannot be mandated in business. The results are disastrous.
• 

  Terry

  It's not, and shouldn't be, about results. If it's about results then you run smack into the social conflict described in your OP. If the ones doing more work can see that the "weak" are getting better than you have a solved problem.

  -Sab

  On that island the "results" comes down to SURVIVING.

  If it isn't about SURVIVING then what IS it about?

  Playing nicey-nice through social conflicts uses up emergency resources quickly.

  If a person is part of the solution (surviving) they are part of the problem (using up resources without replacing them=dying.)
• 

  Terry

  Wontleave illustrates this view, by saying that people that aren't willing to be valuable to society go work in retail and blue collar jobs. But what if some anti-ayn rand wrote a book where all the retail workers, roofers, constructions workers, janitors, and factory workers decided to show how valuable they were by not showing up. People can hold up signs saying "who is joe six pack?".

  What you are describing is a standoff between:

  A. People with little or no resources trying to survive without income

  B.People with resources who can hire in other countries and leave the A. group behind.

  Isn't this exactly what is going on in Industrialized areas of our country?

  The Unions and high taxes have driven the businesses to make Darwinian survival decisions.

  Who wins and who loses in that standoff? The little guy!
• 

  Terry

  A little while ago, when capitalism fell and the bailouts began, how much were the people consulted? It was a manufacture of consent, really. It was another transfer of wealth from the poor and what was left of the micddle class to the uber rich. How can this be fair?

  The maneuvering of the go getters to cut fairly paid workers out of the loop had a push w the implementation of free trade.

  Let's pin the tail on the right Donkey!

  Politicians forced banks (yes, FORCED) to float mortgages to people WHO OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT PAY for big, expensive houses.

  The Banks bundled those ticking time-bomb contracts and sold them to WALL STREET.

  I doubt you would want to put the blame where it should go: POLITICIANS.

  These politicians get elected because they PROMISE THE MOON to people who are poor!

  "Making owning a home affordable" consisted of letting anybody (good or bad credit) buy an expensive home.

  When the Banks started to fail and the Wall Street firms started to default the DARWINIAN PRINCIPLE of survival of the fittest was NOT ALLOWED

  to run its course--

  By who?

  Do you know?

  POLITICIANS!!

  Political lawmakers can force business to perform against their own interests and then BLAME THEM when disaster strikes.

  This is an old, old game.

  Blame the businesses.

  Soak the Rich.

  The game is there for anybody to see who goes beyond simply nodding when talking heads speak on TV.
• 

  Satanus

  Food for thought.

  S
• 

  Terry

  If I own a lemonade stand and one glass of lemonade costs me five cents to make and I sell it for twenty-five cents, my gross proft is twenty cents.

  Out of that twenty cents I pay myself and take care of any expenses.

  What if a Lemonade Tax suddenly appeared? Ten Cents Tax.

  I am faced with some choices. A. Get by with fifteen cents profit B.Close up shop C. Raise the price on Lemonade ten cents.

  When we tax business there is always an effect. The USUAL effect is a RISE IN PRICE on goods.

  Now apply this to any compulsory demand (a weakness tax) which must be set aside by those who are working and producing profit.

  The productive business or person who is compelled (social pressure or law) to take a loss (support the non-performers) will be faced

  with those same three choices. A. Get by with less B.Close up shot and move elsewhere C.Pass on the cost by raising prices

  Next time we complain about HIGH PRICES all we have to say to ourselves is "I ASKED FOR IT."

  Do you know that the Oil Companies make .33 profit on each dollar and the rest goes to the Government as TAXES?

  And you wonder why the cost of gas is so high?

  Currently, President Obama wants to TAX THE WEALTHY. Which of those 3 choices will come back to bit YOU on the ass?
• 

  SixofNine

  We play the game in a worldwide competition.

  Indeed we do. We compete with countries such as Germany. Germany takes a decidedly un-Randian view. What is the Terry prescription for America to compete with Germany?
• 

  SixofNine

  Do you know that the Oil Companies make .33 profit on each dollar and the rest goes to the Government as TAXES?

  And you wonder why the cost of gas is so high?

  High compared to what? The dollar cost of gas is artificially low in the USA compared to the real cost in "defense" spending and environmental damage/cost.

  High compared to a year ago? Yes. Are you saying there have been $1.00 of new taxes imposed in the last year that none of us heard about?