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

[Leftbehind]

I'm probably one of them...

So, Jbrase, what's your opinion of antiracist whites, feminist men, and anti-homophobic heterosexuals?

I am not saying they should have a certain ideology because of where they are in life, I just find it annoying sometimes when people talk about the poor and working class and have never lived among them. Someone's talk of socialism is a lot less convincing, to me personally, when the closest they've been to working in factory or on a farm was reading a book about the guilded age.

On a side note: I am not upper middle class, or suburban, or live in a basement, before anyone starts killing off strawmen.

Basically, this. If one wants to be taken seriously, they should all at least deliberately endeavor to give their own surplus money away to charity or to governments in times of low tax rates, and to spend a few months living alongside the mass of people on lower incomes.

Completely illogical. Throw away their money to a cause they don't believe in (charity) and make themselves poor so they can suffer the same conditions they've been actively opposing?

The absolute, absolute worst. Champagne socialists are just dirt. Especially those who want to abolish things like private schools yet send their children there. That's inexcusable.

You're confusing middle-class socialists with champagne socialists/hypocrites - the former are FF, the latter not so much.  

It's not about how they were brought up, it's about what they choose to do with what they have earned/inherited. If they still choose to live like Richie McRich or Posho McToff, they're godawful hypocrites. If they give their huge surplus of money away, to charity, or control their own consumption or openly agree with raising their own tax band. Some avoid tax, and this is again deplorably hypocritical.

Only one of those, to my mind, is hypocritical - arguing against raising their tax band/avoiding tax. Charity is a sop, whereas systematic re-distribution (the kind that high taxes can afford) is meaningful. Again, they don't have to impoverish themselves to 'prove' they want socialism - that's just disingenuous right-wing rhetoric to discredit them (and if they actually done all those things, they will just becomes as voiceless as the working-class they'll then join).

[Leftbehind]

They don't have to give it all away- 10 to 20% would be fine- they'd still be well off. I'm not saying they should be poor.

But why give anything to charity when you don't believe in it? It only serves to bolster the status quo.

I'm astonished those on the left place so little moral worth on  charity (material worth, ok)- believing the welfare state to be inherently more moral seems to be taking collectivism a little too seriously to be reasonable.

When you have a system (capitalism) actively centralising wealth in fewer hands, a small minority of them volunteering to pay a small minority of their wealth is at best just tokenism, and at worst a way for the wealthy to placate those suffering an unjust system and assage their own guilt, whilst legitimising their privilege ("oh but he does good with it"/"oh but I've donated to this and that" blah blah blah).

I certainly don't take reasonableness lectures from Libertarians.

Haha, I know right?

[Leftbehind]

Since when was 'the left' opposed to charities or charity as such? I think this is veering towards 'politics as it ought to be' rather than 'as it actually is'.

Well I wasn't arguing the left were opposed to them, but that they didn't believe in them (and that there's certainly no obligation to give to them).

[Leftbehind]

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.

Even Elizabeth Warren says rich people should be able to keep a "Big Hunk" (stupid phrase i take to mean at least 50%) of what they earn.

Oh, well, that settles the matter. Why didn't you say?

I was actually going to post something in reply on "YDBT", but I didn't want to go off topic, though you you've mentioned it.
Obama didn't say nobody builds a business on their own, he said one can't build a business without "foundation" infrastructure society provides.
You both seem to be assuming a dogmatic anacho-capitalism on the part of others. Well, I'm nothing of the sort.  Even Elizabeth Warren says rich people should be able to keep a "Big Hunk" (stupid phrase i take to mean at least 50%) of what they earn.

Indeed. For all the criticism of right wing businessmen, they usually believe the government should provide roads, education etc.

Sure they want. They just don't want to pay their fair share of taxes necessary for their building.

Yeah, they want government in as much as it facilitates their business, usually without any obligations.

[Leftbehind]

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.

[Leftbehind]

It’s a concept called "justice." Perhaps you have heard of it? Justice is getting what you put in for.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 recognise 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?

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.

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 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.

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

[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).