[eDebate] Re: Lib, etc...

[Matt Schiros]

Byron,
Please Cc me in emails.  I don't subscribe, and have to check the
archives for posts.  Thanks.

Continued...
><snip> 
>> Not surprisingly, there are no positive 
>> rights in the Constitution, no statements of entitlement, only 
>> statements of what the government is and is not allowed to do. 
>
>
>I will concede your not surprising conclusion that the Constitution
does 
>not directly mandate the equitable redistribution of wealth. 

And thank god for that, I say.  Can you imagine the fucking collapse of
industry that would happen if owners couldn't afford to buy materials,
etc... b/c their yearly redistributed wealth was only $36,000?  The
world would come to a screeching halt (besides the fact that $36,000 is
barely enough to raise a family on).

>> Additionally, individual volunteer organizations are the exception
not 
>> the rule, and NONE of them would be able to volunteer if it weren't
for 
>> the fact that somewhere, they were getting paid. 

>They are the exception because our society is built around the 40
(thank 
>you labor movement not 70 or 90) hour work week. Who has time to 
>volunteer when you're feeding kids on minimum wage, so you have to work

>overtime then come home and cook/clean in all your free hours? 

Even if it weren't for the labor movement, work weeks would have likely
declined because owners would've seen the dropoff in productivity in the
work week.  Also, if you're making minimum wage, you shouldn't have kids
anyway, and it's your own fucking fault.

>More importantly though, you're missing the point. I'm not pushing some

>fantasy where people live without money- that's your strawperson. I'm 
>saying that people have non-monetary motivations for doing things even
in 
>our money-obsessed society. If people had 30 more hours a week to do
whatever 
>they like, don't you think at least a few of them would find some 
>societally beneficial thing to do with that time? 

They'd have 30 more hours a week, and they'd be making 75% less money.
That's certianlly an equation for success.  And no, I think that if
people only worked 10 hours a week, they'd be too damn busy scavenging
for food to find any time to volunteer.  Also, you're talking about
things like working at a soup kitchen, or a homeless shelter, or other
altruistic things.  That's much different than volunteering your time to
work at a factory, or anything like that.  There'd be no motivation to
do so.
Also, you forget that if people only worked a 10 hour work week, the
available money supply would drop drastically, fucking EVERYBODY.

> But, who the fuck 
> would want to be a secretary, or a janitor, or a fucking sales manager

> if they weren't getting paid? 

>Would the world be a better place with less secretaries and sales 
>managers? 

I dunno, they serve valuable positions, or their positions wouldn't
exist.  That's the nice thing about the free market... It decides what
is valuable, and what isn't.

>Janitors are a tough one, it's true. Who will keep the bank floors
shiny? 
>Who will empty the waste receptacles in your office towers? Heaven
forbid 
>people create less waste and clean up after themselves. 

Right, who's gonna clean shit.  The more time people spend cleaning
shit, the less time they can spend doing their fucking jobs.  Who would
be a volunteer plumber?  Or electrician?  Or air conditioning tech?
Paying someone else to do these jobs is much more economical than paying
the people you hired as specialists to do those jobs.  It's a simple
matter of opportunity costs.  But I keep forgetting that those on the
left threw their fucking knowledge of elementary economics to the
goddamn wind the first time they smelled the Manifesto.	

>Incidentally, in a world with a ten hour work week, you could still be 
>a Janitor for 10 hours. It's nice of you to imply that the losers of
the economic lottery ought to 
>be the janitors full-time though. "We can't make living conditions
better 
>or else people who do crappy jobs will expect something better for
themselves". I 
>know you don't feel a need to treat other people with respect, but I
think 
>most of the people reading this post will disagree with you. 

First, that's because most of the people reading this post are fucking
communists.  As long as you toe the party line, you're money.  You
getting debaters to agree with what you say is no more difficult than me
getting them to freak out and jump around when I get bored.
If janitors had 10 hour work weeks, nothing would ever get cleaned.
And, since the demand for the janitorial services isn't 3 times the
present work force, tehre'd be no one to fill in.  The same thing is
true for every position. 
"Losers of the economic lottery"?? How wonderfully predictably marxist
of you.  No, I don't just think that people on the bottom should be
janitors full time, I think that everyone should work their positions
full time.  IT's better for the econony (and therefore, everyone) that
way.  
Additionally, you don't really think that distribution of wealth makes
peoples lives better do you?  Look at welfare!  And, like I said before,
the more you did that, the less money would exist in the supply.  IN the
end people would end up eating pond scum, which I know would make the
elitist Left really happy, but still does not seem like a good outcime. 

>> Who wants to be operated on by a doctor 
>> that wasn't motivated by self-interest? 

>Good lord man, I want a doctor who's motivated by keeping people
healthy, 
>not by selling enough pharmaceuticals to buy a different porsche for
every 
>day of the year. I want a professional, not a profiteer. 

Those aren't exclusive positions.  I'd rather have someone who was
motivated by his own self-interest, because then my well-being and his
are linked together, and he has a much bigger motivation to do his job
well.  

>> There's a distinct difference 
>> between individual acts of volunteerism, and an entire life of 
>> unmotivated living. 
>
>I have a feeling that people would continue to find things to be
motivated 
>about. Actually, come to think of it, your argument justifies heavily 
>taxing the rich to "motivate" them- make it harder to keep money, and 
>people will work even harder for it than before. Especially those folks

>living off their inheritances. 

My argument only justifies that if you ignore the original argument that
I made, that property rights are good.  And, the situations aren't the
same.  Additionally, the rich often provide more value to the economy
than some random factory worker by owning businesses, or providing
investment capitol.  Also, I'm simply pointing out that in the world
that you want to create, NO ONE WOULD BE MOTIVATED TO DO ANYTHING , AND
no one would have any money.  If you already have money, you're allowed
to be unmotivated, because you don't rely on the public for your
wellbeing.  In your situation, everyone relies on the public for their
wellbeing.  The reason that people work their jobs now is to get MONEY.
If they want MORE money, they'll use their skills better, work harder,
etc... That's people's motivation for everything bro.

>> To quote Gordon Gecko "Greed is Good. Greed is 
>> Right. Greed works." IT's not just me, the evil King Roid, whose 
>> primary motivation for having any output to society is greed. 
>
>Well, perhaps you usually feel a certain empathy with the villain in
the 
>movies you watch. 

That's not responsive to my argument.  Living organisms are
self-serving, and humans are no different.

>Fortunately or unfortunately, the world is not composed of people like 
>you. People generally resent it when they must do things they don't
like 
>doing because they need the money. 

Oh shit. You mean to tell me that everyone isn't happy every fucking day
of their lives?  You mean to tell me that people actually have to do
things that THEY DON'T LIKE?  Perish the thought.  And, if they don't
like their job, they can quit and get a new one.  If they don't have the
skills to do so, it's their own damn fault.

>> It's for 
>> most people. And that's a good thing, because that makes every action

>> we take one in terms of our own betterment, instead of the fucking 
>> horseshit idea of bettering the homeless schmuck down the street that

>> harasses me for a quarter every day. 
>
>If betterment means working for someone else and accepting the wages 
>you're offered, I guess you're right. Not that the desire for money is 
>even an inherently bad thing, it's just that it's a poor way to
structure 
>a just society. 

Dude, no one makes you agree to a wage.  You're paid what the market
decides you're worth.  And re: working for someone else, what the fuck?
You want everyone to be self-employed?  Once again, you realize that's
fucking impossible right?  Industry alone requires that there be owners
and workers.  You can't accomplish what needs to be done working by
yourself.  We couldn't even get started to do it.   And why is it a poor
way to structure a society?  Everyone is working for their own
betterment!!!!  For their own self-interest!!! What othe way is there to
maximize output?

>> Yay selfishness!!! 
>
>You go with your bad self there, Matt. 

Watch out for my Hammer Pants.

Roider