Opinion of the hard lefty laborites who are upper middle class or better

[TNF]

HP.  Especially those who think the war on coal is good for miners.

Thank you for your input, HPJ.

[Leftbehind]

When I worked at Miami Subs, I was told what my pay was going to be before I was hired. I could take it or leave it. If it is a ridiculously unfair amount, I would not have taken the job to begin with. If I felt I was entitled to more pay from the manager or the owner, I would ask for it. They own the business, and they decide how much I am worth. If I don’t agree to the decision, I can leave. Nobody is forcing me or anyone else to work there.

What then? First of all, anyone should be thankful to have a job right now. I was lucky to have mine for three weeks before I was laid off due to the fact that the business could not support an additional employee as they originally thought. I got the job because I was the best man for it as long as it was going to exist, and I was and still am the only seventeen year old I know who had a job. Jobs are scarce among youth around the world, and I still got a job.  Jobs are scare for everybody right now. So everyone, whether it be the CEO of Miami Subs, or the line cook at store #8 in Boynton should be thankful to be working right now.

Your second paragraph simply serves to undermine your first. On the one hand we're all able to negotiate our employment conditions and just waltz off if we're not happy with them (and then be forced back into same poorly-paid positions by economic necessity) and then on the other hand openly admit the conditions are terrible for employment (mass unemployment and redundancies the norm) where any job is to be seen as a 'blessing'. Can't have it both ways.

For a business to just flat out not pay its workers when it promised them it would is a violation of the contract between employer and employee, and a violation of justice. So state intervention would be required, and would be deserved, in this situation. This function is one of the most important and crucial functions of justice.

In which case you accept that your rights, and wealth, are given to you by the state.

If anyone is picking and choosing what the state can and cannot do, it is you. The American Constitution lays a pretty basic argument about the intentions and purpose of government.  “Provide for the Common Defense”, “Secure the blessings of liberty”, etc. These are not buzzwords. These are the government’s functions. I don’t see anything that remotely suggests that government should guarantee that every man is paid a living wage for working as a cashier six hours a day three days a week (my average weekly schedule).

You speak as if a) the constitution is infallible, although you've given me no reasons why, and b) that it applies to more than the <5% of the world population it currently does. The state does what the population decides, and it seems you're quite happy for the state to provide x & y for things that benefit capitalism, but return with moral outrage at anything that doesn't. It's not credible.

What strawman arguments have you made? Well, let’s see…..

"had I been making up to that point", I said. I notice all the ones you listed where after you decided I was making strawmen.

No, most people work hard, and are just unfortunate enough to be in a position that only produces enough to generate small amounts of return profit. If the position was more productive, it could cover a higher wage.

Do you think football players who don't even play, but sit on a bench all game, for a sport - a form of entertainment - are more productive than the workers manufacturing, farming, delivering public services etc? I'd like to see your reasons why, or you accept the market works on neither productivity nor hard work.

If every single worker in the restaurant I work had been told they were no longer being paid, do you think some of them would continue to work? Or would all of them just walk out? My hypothetical situation did not just mean myself, but the entire collective staff.

You're moving the goalposts, my original scenario - to prove how much you depend on the state for your wealth - was the company in question would target you alone (in a bid to show how you the individual are powerless), and ensure others were fearful enough of their job they didn't dare to help out.

There is a HUGE difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism, and you know it.

Well I thought the main difference I see is that anarchism tends to acknowledge the power and coercion inherent in capitalism, whilst Libertarians conveniently choose not to. They both claim to be against the state (although it increasingly seems the former likes to pick and choose).

[opebo]

What I find fundamentally wrong is the belief that "wealth is privilege" and that the very concept of private property is under attack. What I find disgusting is that some here in this thread seem to think that a businessman is responsible for the quality of his employee’s lives outside of the workplace.

Look at it in the converse, Sanchez.  In fact it is the employees who are responsible for the quality of the employer's life - they produce to provide him his plantation house, the house servants, his fine clothes and carriage - and yes obviously 'wealth' is a privilege or more precisely a power over those slaves who produce the owner's surplus. 

Don't be taken in by the fact that you can move from one plantation to another.  What difference does that make?  You must all still toil for them, or face a terrible death.

[memphis]

1. What's up with the idea that patrons of Starbucks are well to do? They're mostly a bunch of liberal arts folks who wait tables.
2. Well to do people need demand for whatever good or service they provide. It's not just them and their money on a deserted island.

[LastVoter]

If anyone is picking and choosing what the state can and cannot do, it is you. The American Constitution lays a pretty basic argument about the intentions and purpose of government.  “Provide for the Common Defense”, “Secure the blessings of liberty”, etc. These are not buzzwords. These are the government’s functions. I don’t see anything that remotely suggests that government should guarantee that every man is paid a living wage for working as a cashier six hours a day three days a week (my average weekly schedule).

LOL. I am not sure how would the constitution be at all relevant if were discussing US's ability to legislate a living wage, and certainly not in a discussion of "hard lefty laborites"(implying that those people are outside of US for obvious reasons). Fortunately for the working classes of those countries they are not ruled by US laws or abide to us constitution.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Your second paragraph simply serves to undermine your first. On the one hand we're all able to negotiate our employment conditions and just waltz off if we're not happy with them (and then be forced back into same poorly-paid positions by economic necessity) and then on the other hand openly admit the conditions are terrible for employment (mass unemployment and redundancies the norm) where any job is to be seen as a 'blessing'. Can't have it both ways.

I can see how my second paragraph could be misread to negate the first one. My apologies for the confusing wording. To summarize what I failed miserably at stating: work  is hard to come by right now, and just about any sane unemployed person will take the first job they can get. But just because jobs are scare does not mean that the employee should have the right to control his own salary. The employee, having the right to free speech, has the right to ask for higher pay if he feels his current salary is not enough. They can walk out if they don’t like it, but economic conditions would make such a decision extremely unwise. The conditions that set these circumstances are out of the hands of the workers and the employers, and cannot be pinned on either. People must learn to deal with the cards they are dealt by a tough world. We all play with these cards, and sometimes we hit the jackpot, sometimes we do not.

In which case you accept that your rights, and wealth, are given to you by the state.

I accept that the states fundamental duty is to protect my rights. The state should protect property rights at all cost. Humanity could not survive without property rights! Individuals produce, through their intelligence and talent, the means to survival. If these could be taken from one individual for the benefit of the collective, no matter how noble the cause, is effectively slavery, for only a person held in slavery could work and have no rights or limited rights to the fruits of his labor.

You speak as if a) the constitution is infallible, although you've given me no reasons why, and b) that it applies to more than the <5% of the world population it currently does. The state does what the population decides, and it seems you're quite happy for the state to provide x & y for things that benefit capitalism, but return with moral outrage at anything that doesn't. It's not credible.

The state should protect all institutions and organizations, whether they be for profit or not, to have the rights to their property. [/quote]
I don’t believe in bailouts, or the government in any way “benefiting” capitalism, unless you call the government standing back and letting the free market take its course a “benefit” to capitalism that it did not have before.

Do you think football players who don't even play, but sit on a bench all game, for a sport - a form of entertainment - are more productive than the workers manufacturing, farming, delivering public services etc? I'd like to see your reasons why, or you accept the market works on neither productivity nor hard work.

Not really. I hate sports. I see no reason why people should worship somebody for doing something that any human really could do. But as long as the farmers and manufacturing workers watch football on TV, and keep the industry going, I see no reason why they should not be considered any less productive. They provide a form of entertainment that the average people you are comparing them to keep afloat.

You're moving the goalposts, my original scenario - to prove how much you depend on the state for your wealth - was the company in question would target you alone (in a bid to show how you the individual are powerless), and ensure others were fearful enough of their job they didn't dare to help out.

The state exists to protect the wealth of all of its citizens, whether the wealth be millions in a bank account or penny’s in a homeless mans pocket. You seem to think I am so sort of anarchist who wants complete chaos. That is not true; I believe in a state and I believe in society collectively paying taxes to keep the basic functions of a state running. What I don’t believe in is the notion that people are not 100% entitled to their wealth outside what they legitimately owe to the state for using the bare services the state provides.

Well I thought the main difference I see is that anarchism tends to acknowledge the power and coercion inherent in capitalism, whilst Libertarians conveniently choose not to. They both claim to be against the state (although it increasingly seems the former likes to pick and choose).

Some brands of Libertarianism seek to abolish the concept of a state. Some strands of socialism wanted the Jewish people eliminated. Some strands of the Christian faith want to restore sodomy laws. Every ideology, philosophy, religion, or political organization has radical sects. But the fundamental basis in Libertarianism lies in individual liberty, regardless if a state exists or not. I chose to believe that a state is necessary to protect the individual rights of citizens from other individuals, who would rule by brute terror.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sanchez confirmed for joke poster.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I've always found the notion of "class-traitors" as they're called in Sweden by both left and right to be ridiculous. For all his faults, Palme was not betraying the upper-class because he happened to be from one of the wealthiest families in Sweden but became a staunch left-winger, just like a guy working in a factory does not betray the working-class by voting for the right.

That being said some hard left upper middle class people, and then I'm mostly talking of cultural elites, irks me with their hypochrasy when they think that those socialist policies should not apply to them since they're blessing the world with their art and acting, and who quickly forget all about sharing the goods, and get very defensive about what's their property whenever copy-right is brought up. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

That being said some hard left upper middle class people, and then I'm mostly talking of cultural elites, irks me with their hypochrasy when they think that those socialist policies should not apply to them since they're blessing the world with their art and acting, and who quickly forget all about sharing the goods, and get very defensive about what's their property whenever copy-right is brought up. 

Well, those are just like the "small government" Republicans who want to abolish every government program except those who benefit them

[dead0man]

My favorite part was when the thread went from "we're not stereotypes" to stereotyping libertarians.  Good job boys!  Then Sanchez showed up and changed the direction of the anger.


Anyway, yes they are hypocrites, just like Christians that drive around in $40k cars and live in $200k houses.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sanchez confirmed for joke poster.

I was thinking of Arab Socialism/Nationalism embraced during the Six Day War era, but again, I was an idiot and too lazy to clarify each example. The use of the Netanyahuesqe "Jewish People" when I was speaking of Israel was an error as well.

[traininthedistance]

My favorite part was when the thread went from "we're not stereotypes" to stereotyping libertarians.  Good job boys!  Then Sanchez showed up and changed the direction of the anger.


Anyway, yes they are hypocrites, just like Christians that drive around in $40k cars and live in $200k houses.

Where I live, $200k isn't enough to buy you most one-bedroom apartments.

[Ban my account ffs!]

My favorite part was when the thread went from "we're not stereotypes" to stereotyping libertarians.  Good job boys!  Then Sanchez showed up and changed the direction of the anger.


Anyway, yes they are hypocrites, just like Christians that drive around in $40k cars and live in $200k houses.

Where I live, $200k isn't enough to buy you most one-bedroom apartments.

That's what happens when you treat cities like exclusive clubs rather than growing, evolving, organic conglomerations of human habitation.

Your $200k closet is because of NIMBYism, pure and simple.  You got in, now it's your religious duty to prevent the next guy from getting in.  And so it goes in progressive cities all across America (NYC, Seattle, SFO being the worst).

[traininthedistance]

My favorite part was when the thread went from "we're not stereotypes" to stereotyping libertarians.  Good job boys!  Then Sanchez showed up and changed the direction of the anger.


Anyway, yes they are hypocrites, just like Christians that drive around in $40k cars and live in $200k houses.

Where I live, $200k isn't enough to buy you most one-bedroom apartments.

That's what happens when you treat cities like exclusive clubs rather than growing, evolving, organic conglomerations of human habitation.

Your $200k closet is because of NIMBYism, pure and simple.  You got in, now it's your religious duty to prevent the next guy from getting in.  And so it goes in progressive cities all across America (NYC, Seattle, SFO being the worst).

I loathe NIMBYism and think we need to radically increase the housing supply (over the objections of NIMBYs), but this is overly simplistic tripe and you know it.  One would have to tear down wide swaths of existing buildings (it's not like we have lots of open land here, or have had open land in many decades), and even so, one should expect a certain price premium in areas with higher wages and more amenities.

I mean, I don't entirely disagree- it's certainly a factor.  But your seeming eagerness to paint urban progressives as all sorts of horrible hypocrite is pointing you down some very tendentious paths.

[Hifly]

My friend's (upper middle class) dad is a very significant Labour politician in the House of Lords. He is by far the richest person I know. But he's not a "hard lefty".
I think it's a bit silly to be "hard left" and rich, as you are supporting what ought to go against your own self-interests and financial and social stability.
I'm normal middle class, but I'm very soft left, and socially conservative. I tend to describe myself as a "Christian Social Democrat", if you get what I mean.

[barfbag]

My friend's (upper middle class) dad is a very significant Labour politician in the House of Lords. He is by far the richest person I know. But he's not a "hard lefty".
I think it's a bit silly to be "hard left" and rich, as you are supporting what ought to go against your own self-interests and financial and social stability.
I'm normal middle class, but I'm very soft left, and socially conservative. I tend to describe myself as a "Christian Social Democrat", if you get what I mean.

Christian Social Democrat used to be the common man over here. Then the far left hijacked everything.