Is using government force to take from one to give to another the moral high ground?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

That's not my point. You said

Why should non-members get a free ride on the wages and benefit negotiated by members?

and I said

Why should poor people get a free ride on the backs of those who were successful?

Same argument, different people. And a different position from you. Pick a side, willya?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

That's not my point. You said

Why should non-members get a free ride on the wages and benefit negotiated by members?

and I said

Why should poor people get a free ride on the backs of those who were successful?

Same argument, different people. And a different position from you. Pick a side, willya?

TheRedneck

My side compares apples with apples. Union dues are not the same as taxation. You can choose to go for a union gig...or not. I notice that a lot of these anti-taxers are vocalising on a platform that was paid for by taxes. Not to mention the rest of their lives balancing on tax-funded infrastructure. I agree with prior posters...don't wanna pay your share? Go live somewhere that you won't be sucking up the benefits of other people's money. Write and tell us how that works for you. No internet? No postal service? Oh well.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: toysforadults

What about using unions and collectively bargaining? Is this moral?

Not when you have governments pandering to the union vote by instituting laws that effectively force the employer to deal with the union rather than simply hiring people willing to actually work under the compensation and condition they agree to work under.

What about corporations comparing their pay with each other with in a specific area/region and all of them setting the pay rate accordingly? Is that moral?

It's moral, but it's not the smartest way to do business.

Moral:

"Dear Citizens, these are schools that need to be built, those are Bridges and Dams that need building. If each of you put some of your money in the pot, we can get it done. In fact, those of you that contribute, will not have to pay toll fees once the bridge is done or school fees once the school is done"

Profoundly Immoral and Illiberal Mafia-Thug-Mentality:

"You have no choice or say. We'll take your money and invest it in whatever we want, including War. Pay Tax or else".

Funny how people try to rationalize behavior that...in ANY other context...they'd see as being criminal.

originally posted by: Skyfloating
Funny how people try to rationalize behavior that...in ANY other context...they'd see as being criminal.

I guess that excludes those who don't have a problem with criminals.

What about the rest of you? Why aren't you watering that tree of liberty?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Actually, no. In many places, the entire industry is unionized. Thus one cannot simply decide to go work someplace else.

Forgive me for thinking you supported social entitlement programs. At least you're consistent: if someone can't afford to be here, go away. I hope you are never too poor to be here.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Why should poor people get a free ride on the backs of those who were successful?

Amazing how you can argue both sides depending on how it affects you.

TheRedneck

Free ride?

People are merely talking getting a living wage.

Who're the ones that merely for winning the social game are getting countless privileges and often free rides, who else but the elite?

You know the earth is no one's property. Every one human has a right to their fair share. If some humans get together and name a king, or make a man into an elite, that doesn't mean many should be left to starve merely cause of this silly social game. Money has no intrinsic value, it is just part of the social game played by human creatures.

originally posted by: Xenogears

As for minimum wage it was $21 once inflation adjusted. People deserve a living wage. Your employee cant be required to have 2 to 3 jobs and welfare to make ends meet.

The problem is 21 would put a vast amount of small business out of business and we would see a linear amount of inflation as companies raise prices to offset the expense.

I guess we have two points here one is how much is a job worth and how much is one hour of a human worth. You don't pay someone 500 bucks to mow your lawn because the job is not worth 500 bucks, as example.

The question is why is someone working 3 jobs...how old are they and what are the skill sets they have that all they can get is minimum wage jobs?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Xenogears

As for minimum wage it was $21 once inflation adjusted. People deserve a living wage. Your employee cant be required to have 2 to 3 jobs and welfare to make ends meet.

The problem is 21 would put a vast amount of small business out of business and we would see a linear amount of inflation as companies raise prices to offset the expense.

I guess we have two points here one is how much is a job worth and how much is one hour of a human worth. You don't pay someone 500 bucks to mow your lawn because the job is not worth 500 bucks, as example.

The question is why is someone working 3 jobs...how old are they and what are the skill sets they have that all they can get is minimum wage jobs?

Minimum wage was supposed to be living wage, and it should've remained inflation adjusted. They didn't go bankrupt when it was $21 equivalent, had it remained inflation adjusted don't see how they would mysteriously fail from one year to the next. The problem is they've siphoned of the value of the salary into the enterprise and now it has become dependent on those stolen assets. It may be necessary to gradually transition.

All other jobs will be improved as they will obviously pay noticeably higher thanks to the new higher minimum wage. It will also foster innovation into automation leading to Unconditional Basic Income, as most jobs are automated out of existence faster, and the needs created forces the electorate to favor it.

a reply to: toysforadults

here we go one more time. Wefare for individuls is wrong but welfare for coorporations is ....well who cares??

Funny how people get all hot under the collar about wefare for individuals . They dont seem to realise the meda has taught tem to get all hot under the collar by subgrouping people on the dole and then demonising them.

Even funnier that the same people dont even know they are equally being played for a idiot by the media. They do this by not saying anyting about coporate welfare so thefore the people dont even think about about.

By focusing the attention of the masses on welfare for individuals and training them up to get very angry about it is really treating people like fools.

Be very very sure of this one thing people.

All political parties are very very deeply committed to paying welfare. The only question is simply; who to?.

As Goerge Calin said. Its a big big world out there and you aint in it. so who does that leave to pay welfare to?

When on earth will people wake up?????????????????????????????????

originally posted by: Xenogears


Minimum wage was supposed to be living wage.

Well no it is not...I think that is were you are confused. It is a baseline that many other hourly wages are set against. It is basically zero skill/low education type work. The kind of work it takes a day or so to learn the job. Out of the 80 million hourly workers in America less than 2 million are actually minimum wage jobs.


It is suppose to be a starting wage for the zero skill worker. We need to put some responsibility on the person too to actually progress in life with better skills etc and that leads to better paying jobs.

Also what do you mean by living wage? The vast majority of the world that means a group of people living together sharing expenses. In America it means a single living earnings and I hate to tell you but single living is a luxury not a right. Even when I was young back in the 80s I had roommates until my 30s and then I could afford to live on my own because I had better skills that paid better. Today I'm doing well and can afford a family on a single wage, but it took me a long time to get there. Your 21 per hour is 43k per year...nice...

One day I'll do my own thread about my answer but here it is:

The rich are absolutely FINE with some forced government control.

For example, forcing people to drive on one side of the street. Say it's a huge traffic jam, why can't people drive on the other side? Why should the government control your physical movements? Why isn't that depriving you of liberty? It's because as a society, we are better off by creating some rules as long as there are mechanisms to prevent abuse (i.e. laws have to be voted on - due process).

They are also fine using tax dollars for things like military and police. Why are these ok for them? It's because it's too much money for them! Even the 1% would have a tough time funding their own private military.

Is using government force to take from one to give to another the moral high ground?

Simple answer: YES, if the behaviour of the government/state architecture which is being taken from is morally reprehensible, and if the fact of their losing power would be beneficial to the populace.

If the state being denuded is a positive & peaceful state which cares for & protects its people, then the answer would be NO.

a reply to: Xenogears

Ummm... you might want to keep up. I was equating two positions, neither of which I take, to show the hypocrisy of taking one but not the other.

As it turns out, I believe your complaint is with Johnny Canuck.

TheRedneck

So another one of these idiotic tax is theft I don't wanna pay tax type threads?

I believe the US constitution covers matters of representation and taxation and such.

Under US constitutional law yes you must pay tax and yes that goes to politicians wages and running the country and such. Is it morally correct well that's depends on one's own view I suppose.

You can't have all the benefits of not living in anarchy for free...

There are countries with no income tax google it and you are free to try to move there if it's such a big deal.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

en.wikipedia.org...

My 2c is the taxation representation type government has evolved to what it is today and is an imperfect system created by humans which has a level of corruption. There will always be people unhappy with it because you can never please everyone.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: seasonal

What about using unions and collectively bargaining? Is this moral?

Nope not moral.

Because that PRIVILEGE comes at a price.

Monthly dues.

Collective interest versus personal interest.

I'll gladly pay my dues because my union provides healthcare, retirement, and a brotherhood that will provide support when the company flexes it's corporate muscle in intimidation of the working man.

Union proud, Union Strong

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense...

And the company I used to work for had their union negotiate the company right out of business. Fought for all these special benefits, more paid time off, higher wages, better retirement, etc..... With zero regard for what the "corporate muscle" could actually afford.

So they closed the doors and all the union workers went home with nothing.

originally posted by: Skyfloating
Moral:

"Dear Citizens, these are schools that need to be built, those are Bridges and Dams that need building. If each of you put some of your money in the pot, we can get it done. In fact, those of you that contribute, will not have to pay toll fees once the bridge is done or school fees once the school is done"

Profoundly Immoral and Illiberal Mafia-Thug-Mentality:

"You have no choice or say. We'll take your money and invest it in whatever we want, including War. Pay Tax or else".

Funny how people try to rationalize behavior that...in ANY other context...they'd see as being criminal.

Well, I am not sure asking for funds to maintain society would work any better than using a tax system. So society needs a road - you ask. Some give and others don't. The ones that don't pay for it's use... where does the revenue go? Back to the people who paid? What then? Free for everyone? What about maintenance and services? What if you don't get enough money to build the road in the first place? Delays?

The problem is not really the choice in my view, it's the waste. I think there are common facilities and services that society really needs that should be a shared cost.

The fight is usually over what constitutes these services. On the one hand you get people who think, for example, abortions or birth control are a common service for all and everyone should pay... pure lunacy... but on the other side you get people who think everything should be privatised and handed over to businesses, leaving a lot of people out in the cold who can't afford to pay. That is also lunacy in a civilised society.

Balance - as always - provides the best route map.

originally posted by: Jusvistn


And the company I used to work for had their union negotiate the company right out of business. Fought for all these special benefits, more paid time off, higher wages, better retirement, etc..... With zero regard for what the "corporate muscle" could actually afford.

So they closed the doors and all the union workers went home with nothing.

Actually when unions were most powerful, the economy was great.

What happened is the unequal trade policies. Of course you can not compete if a company can go to another country and not be subject to things like child labor and overtime laws.

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: Jusvistn


And the company I used to work for had their union negotiate the company right out of business. Fought for all these special benefits, more paid time off, higher wages, better retirement, etc..... With zero regard for what the "corporate muscle" could actually afford.

So they closed the doors and all the union workers went home with nothing.

Actually when unions were most powerful, the economy was great.

What happened is the unequal trade policies. Of course you can not compete if a company can go to another country and not be subject to things like child labor and overtime laws.

I didn't say my old company went to another country. They closed their doors. Not sure if that is what you were implying or not......

Unions, back in the day, were great for fighting for the rights and wages of the workers. Today's unions seem to be as greedy and unbalanced as those they claim to be fighting against.

Personally speaking, in my own experience, the best wages and fairest treatment I have had in the work force has always been in with non-union companies. But that is MY experience. I'm sure it's not true for everyone.

originally posted by: Jusvistn

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: Jusvistn


And the company I used to work for had their union negotiate the company right out of business. Fought for all these special benefits, more paid time off, higher wages, better retirement, etc..... With zero regard for what the "corporate muscle" could actually afford.

So they closed the doors and all the union workers went home with nothing.

Actually when unions were most powerful, the economy was great.

What happened is the unequal trade policies. Of course you can not compete if a company can go to another country and not be subject to things like child labor and overtime laws.

I didn't say my old company went to another country. They closed their doors. Not sure if that is what you were implying or not......

Unions, back in the day, were great for fighting for the rights and wages of the workers. Today's unions seem to be as greedy and unbalanced as those they claim to be fighting against.

Personally speaking, in my own experience, the best wages and fairest treatment I have had in the work force has always been in with non-union companies. But that is MY experience. I'm sure it's not true for everyone.

Bingo! Give the man a ceegar! The reason that said companies did not have a union is that they had happy workers who did not feel the need to organise. And, in turn, I'm betting that the companies had great productivity levels. Make no mistake, a lot of companies today are just as eager to exploit their labour force as they were back in the day when they'd call out Pinkerton's to shoot the strikers. Cept these days, it's a little harder to get away with it.