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

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

As TNF said upper middle class libertarians who presume to give others lectures about "hard work" are infinitely worse then latte liberals. They are some of the most sheltered people you will ever meet.

Ayn Rand is just Marx for rich kids.

Funny thing is, I am a middle class (not upper middle class, but we live comfortably) libertarian who got a job, worked hard, and collected my paycheck. All of this fits into Ayn Rand's values. I lived by a Randist principal, and it paid off for me. While Rand is embraced by spoiled parasites, her message is for anybody who wants to live by, and it sure fits me well. So unless you are going to tell me that I don't deserve my paycheck, for some reason, I am curious as to your opinion of Ayn Rand respectable circumstances.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

 

whilst legitimising their privilege

Not all wealth is privilege. A large minority of it is, certainly, but honestly earned wealth coming from productivity or inventiveness is deserved and in my view wholly legitimate.

Wealth is privilege, regardless of how 'deservingly' you obtained it - neither productivity nor inventiveness should afford you ludicrous multiples of what the average worker gains, and is usually built off the back off other's work anyway.

Ugh, no. If I earn money, it is MY money. That is basic human law. The government is entitled only to a small percentage of my earnings to cover the roads that I use to get to work each day, etc. I look at the tax argument as a business transaction. I pay taxes to use the roads, just like customers pay my company for a Pita Gyro or Super Burger.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

"Basic human law?"

ROFLMAO

It’s a concept called "justice." Perhaps you have heard of it? Justice is getting what you put in for. But then again, it's not unlike you to just respond with LOL ROFL DERP DE DERP.

whilst legitimising their privilege

Not all wealth is privilege. A large minority of it is, certainly, but honestly earned wealth coming from productivity or inventiveness is deserved and in my view wholly legitimate.

Wealth is privilege, regardless of how 'deservingly' you obtained it - neither productivity nor inventiveness should afford you ludicrous multiples of what the average worker gains, and is usually built off the back off other's work anyway.

Ugh, no. If I earn money, it is MY money. That is basic human law. The government is entitled only to a small percentage of my earnings to cover the roads that I use to get to work each day, etc. I look at the tax argument as a business transaction. I pay taxes to use the roads, just like customers pay my company for a Pita Gyro or Super Burger.

lol money is an invented construct, and what 'human law' is this? What you earn is dictated by the market - or rather the state, that's enforcing the economic system. As such, just to get to there you're already dependent on the state to give you your wealth (they also have the power to make that money you've earned utterly worthless) and so what they give, they can take away.

Of course what I am paid is dictated by the market; if I don’t like what I am paid, I don’t have to work there for starters. If the company DID NOT pay me, or better yet, just flat out denied pay for a whole week, the employees would walk out and bring the business to a standstill. In an ideal society, money would be pegged to a commodity like gold and would be free from human interference with the value (unless the Fed/some other private entity undermined it by flooding the market, etc, which would be illegal through reasonable regulations, much in the same way that reasonable regulations are applied to mines, quarries, etc.)

 

whilst legitimising their privilege

Not all wealth is privilege. A large minority of it is, certainly, but honestly earned wealth coming from productivity or inventiveness is deserved and in my view wholly legitimate.

Wealth is privilege, regardless of how 'deservingly' you obtained it - neither productivity nor inventiveness should afford you ludicrous multiples of what the average worker gains, and is usually built off the back off other's work anyway.

Ugh, no. If I earn money, it is MY money. That is basic human law. The government is entitled only to a small percentage of my earnings to cover the roads that I use to get to work each day, etc. I look at the tax argument as a business transaction. I pay taxes to use the roads, just like customers pay my company for a Pita Gyro or Super Burger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/books/you-can-t-take-it-with-you.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No sane libertarian wants anarchy/free for all. That is a strawman argument and you know it. The point of having a state is to provide for a common defense, and keep basic civil order. Libertarians don’t believe in randomly killing people for personal greed, you know. In fact, Libertarianism strongly values human life after birth (and in my case, before birth) as a right.

If I responded with the level of intelligence that Averroes, Leftbehind, and Antonio used in their arguments, I would just post “SOCIALISM IS THEFT LOL.” That is the same strawman arguments they are making.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

ChairmanSanchez, are you against having any social safety net or transfer payments whatsoever?

If the recipiants of such benefits pay taxes, I see no reason why we should not have such a system. I am not against Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If I pay payroll taxes, I should receive social security. That seems like a basic business transaction between the people and the government.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

So you think capitalism has proven itself to be meritocratic system, where the impoverished working class around the world are there because of laziness? Either you believe that, or you can see your justice is non-existent.

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.

And if wages are stagnant across the economy, and jobs are scarce? What then?

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.

They won't stop paying you because laws drafted by government have made it so. If that weren't the case, they could just not recognize unions and then choose to stop paying you alone. Are you confident all the other workers, terrified of losing their jobs, will come out to support you - or leave you to deal with it on your own?

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.

Says who? Again, we're back to the picking and choosing what the state is there for/entitled to do - which is general politics, but not befitting an ideology which claims to be morally against a state? Libertarians don't believe in redistribution, so we'll have more deaths caused by greed than we have now (but because they're not directly-linked, won't fall foul of libertarian morality).

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).

What strawman arguments had I been making up to that point?

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

So you think capitalism has proven itself to be meritocratic system, where the impoverished working class around the world are there because of laziness?

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.

Are you confident all the other workers, terrified of losing their jobs, will come out to support you - or leave you to deal with it on your own?

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.

Again, we're back to the picking and choosing what the state is there for/entitled to do - which is general politics, but not befitting an ideology which claims to be morally against a state?

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

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Treating something that is fundamentally not a 'business transaction' as if it is is fundamentally moronic, as well as dangerous. But don't be disheartened. Attitudes like that may well be criminally stupid, but they will serve you well in your future career as a loathsome middle manager-cum-petty tyrant in a company that provides useless services to the service sector in Septic Swamp, FL.

Cool, I'll remember that when I take the funds I earn through my work and the scholarships I earn by outcompeting others to go to school to work as a political campaign staffer. And I will think of pathetic parasites like you stuck in the bleak, industrial wasteland that is your country. And I really won't pity you.

And I loled at the least respected moderator calling me a petty tyrant.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The case for the prosecution is proven, alas.

A surprisingly mundane way to call me an idiot without any substance. You usually unload all of your ammo with an outrageous, over-the-top, sneering response.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'm not really calling you an idiot as such. It is more that your attitudes are stupid. And not just stupid but also callous, thuggish and generally quite dangerous. The question is whether you have the capacity to change or whether you are some form of moral reprobate. A question that I can't answer - as amusing as it would be to heavily imply the latter - because I don't know you.

You are just failing to see my logic. I am among the same people that are being called "victims" in this thread. You seem to have some preconceived notion that I am the cruel manager, or the factory owner, when in fact I was just another dispensable employee. And I was and am fine with that. I provide labor, and I get paid for it. You seem to think that I am some sort of Randian protagonist, like Francisco D’Acconia, who views poor people as lazy scum. I am not against poor people-as I have stated before, I favor Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security and would be willing to look at a universal healthcare system paid collectively through sales tax. 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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If I responded with the level of intelligence that Averroes, Leftbehind, and Antonio used in their arguments, I would just post “SOCIALISM IS THEFT LOL.” That is the same strawman arguments they are making.

This accusation is particularly amusing because that is almost literally an accurate characterization of what you posted.

No, I posted why I as a low level worker do not deserve the same salary as a manager. I never attacked socialism as an ideology as much as I was attacking the theory that wealth is privilege.

ChairmanSanchez, are you against having any social safety net or transfer payments whatsoever?

If the recipiants of such benefits pay taxes, I see no reason why we should not have such a system. I am not against Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If I pay payroll taxes, I should receive social security. That seems like a basic business transaction between the people and the government.

Well the in one pocket and out the other thing sounds inefficient, but sometimes it is administratively necessary as a practical matter. SS may be a "business transaction," to wit forced savings, but that system itself involves transfer payments, with low income folks getting far more "return" for their forced savings than higher income people.

I assume you did not mean to imply that Medicare and Medicaid are "business transactions" did you? How are they anything other than transfer payments, particularly medicaid? Anyway, if you favor transfer payments in these areas, then suddenly the grand unified theory of total self reliance kind of falls by the wayside does it not, and you then need to go through the heavy lifting of evaluating government transfer payment programs one by one, based on their individual merits do you not?

Are people on Medicaid exempt from the income tax? They may be getting much more in return then they put in, but they pay for the privilege of Medicaid (or any other type of transfer payments) in the form of their taxes. I also don't quite understand where you are bringing up total self reliance. While I worship the concept, it can only occur in an ideal world, and I don’t look down at the idea of government relief. What I fundamentally oppose is the concept that those with deeper pockets are somehow reliable for those who do not have deeper pockets, and that their wealth is undeserved.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'm not really calling you an idiot as such. It is more that your attitudes are stupid. And not just stupid but also callous, thuggish and generally quite dangerous. The question is whether you have the capacity to change or whether you are some form of moral reprobate. A question that I can't answer - as amusing as it would be to heavily imply the latter - because I don't know you.

You are just failing to see my logic. I am among the same people that are being called "victims" in this thread. You seem to have some preconceived notion that I am the cruel manager, or the factory owner, when in fact I was just another dispensable employee. And I was and am fine with that. I provide labor, and I get paid for it. You seem to think that I am some sort of Randian protagonist, like Francisco D’Acconia, who views poor people as lazy scum. I am not against poor people-as I have stated before, I favor Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security and would be willing to look at a universal healthcare system paid collectively through sales tax. 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.

ChairmanSanchez, I like you. So. Real talk:

1. You're still young--as, indeed, am I. You're clearly smart and manifestly capable of evolving your views in positive directions, as I remember you having 'white nationalist' leanings a couple of years ago.
2. That being the case, I sincerely hope you continue to do so.
3. If you don't want to be taken for less than you're worth, I'd highly recommend removing the Rand-themed signature, especially with that un-Christian and implicitly anti-Christian quote.

As for the Rand quote, that was a temporary pick inspired by a comment in another thread. As a Christian, I reject Rand's atheism and blatant hatred for Christians. I was not using it in it's original religious context as much as the political context that it can represent.

[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.

[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.