User Tag List

Page 2 of 73 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 1444

Thread: Political Correctness

  1. #21
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    31,803
    Thanks
    3,643
    Thanked 3,612 Times in 2,640 Posts
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    Ok, now I will be glibly dismissive:

    lol

    ---

    But yea: if you consider economic justice to be your enemy, then you should be afraid: because the combination of (a) tepid, establishment (neo)liberals blithely knocking over progressive candles until they've blindly burned down the Democratic Party's house and (b) a right-wing autocratic santorum-stain ascending to the head of the executive branch has radicalized a lot of folks, young and old, to pursue a more truly-equitable economic ordering, as opposed to agitating for a few more band-aids on the suppurating gash of late-state capitalism. And the sort of redresses I seek—single-payer, UBI, better-subsidized post-secondary, more stringent worker-protections, increased access to the franchise for those marginalized by fiduciary or social status, restrictions on corporate financing of our elections, less regressive and more progressive taxation, less privatisation of public funds—well those are all actually pretty damn minor, pretty damn mainstream, and pretty damn still-working-within-the-established-economics compared to what a lot of those folks would entertain.
    Economic justice does not have a univereal meaning. It's based in the morals of the individual.

  2. #22
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    8,272
    Thanks
    22,078
    Thanked 5,032 Times in 2,901 Posts
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    Economic justice does not have a univereal meaning. It's based in the morals of the individual.
    To some extent: yes. To some extent: no. Regardless, I listed—in practical, policy terms—what it means for me.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  3. #23
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    31,803
    Thanks
    3,643
    Thanked 3,612 Times in 2,640 Posts
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    To some extent: yes. To some extent: no. Regardless, I listed—in practical, policy terms—what it means for me.
    And what it means for you and sadly way too many people is completely against what America was founded on.

  4. #24
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    8,272
    Thanks
    22,078
    Thanked 5,032 Times in 2,901 Posts
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    And what it means for you and sadly way too many people is completely against what America was founded on.
    That's simply not true. This country was founded on an ideology that is alien to either of us, and our respective ideologies would be alien to any of the men who founded this country.

    You can be sad, but formulate a better reason than that.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jpx7 For This Useful Post:

    cajunrevenge (01-30-2017),zitothebrave (01-30-2017)

  6. #25
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    31,803
    Thanks
    3,643
    Thanked 3,612 Times in 2,640 Posts
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    That's simply not true. This country was founded on an ideology that is alien to either of us, and our respective ideologies would be alien to any of the men who founded this country.

    You can be sad, but formulate a better reason than that.
    It was founded on individual liberty and freedom. The system in which you propose sacrifices the individual for the collective.
    Warm feelings guy!

  7. #26
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    8,272
    Thanks
    22,078
    Thanked 5,032 Times in 2,901 Posts
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    It was founded on individual liberty and freedom. The system in which you propose sacrifices the individual for the collective.
    You mean the country that initially only franchised land-owning males, whose economy for the first century was largely driven by chattel slavery, and whose understanding of unusual cruelty in criminal justice was being drawn by a horse and quartered?

    Again: This country was founded on an ideologies that are alien to either of us, and our respective ideologies would be alien to any of the men who founded this country.

    You can be sad; but formulate better, more historically-aware reasons than those.
    Last edited by jpx7; 01-30-2017 at 11:21 PM.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jpx7 For This Useful Post:

    goldfly (01-30-2017),Julio3000 (01-31-2017),zitothebrave (01-30-2017)

  9. #27
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    14,088
    Thanks
    6,299
    Thanked 9,404 Times in 4,913 Posts
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    It was founded on [insert some words which you consider shorthand for your political worldview].
    Now anyone can play!

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Julio3000 For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (01-30-2017)

  11. #28
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    8,272
    Thanks
    22,078
    Thanked 5,032 Times in 2,901 Posts
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    The system in which you propose sacrifices the individual for the collective.
    Also: that's not even true! Here's a good example of how we, as a nation, could fund a UBI with minimal-to-nil sacrifice of "individual for the collective."
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  12. #29
    It's OVER 5,000! cajunrevenge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    uranus
    Posts
    9,189
    Thanks
    2,616
    Thanked 2,434 Times in 1,554 Posts
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As Libertarian as I am I do feel lIke when we get to a certain point in automation and technology a communist system might work best.
    "State power feeds on crisis and enemies"

    John T. Flynn 1944

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cajunrevenge For This Useful Post:

    Individual-1 (01-31-2017),jpx7 (01-31-2017)

  14. #30
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    16,668
    Thanks
    984
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,909 Posts
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    Though I think there are areas for common ground to be found amongst libertarians and the true left—mostly where civil liberties are concerned—this is what drives me crazy about libertarians—who I otherwise tend to find, if not more sensible, at least more intellectually-consistent than most other elements of the right: they act as if workers—whose labor actually generates the bulk of whatever value a company, corporation, or industry offers—should just be supplicatingly thankful for the mere opportunity to hawk their labor, even if for a tuppence, and otherwise pipe-down about how fair or commensurable their compensation ends up being.
    I assure you... with 100% certainty, that if the drivers felt the compensation was too low to justify driving, then Uber would raise their pay.

  15. #31
    Making Atlanta Great Again!
    #MAGA!

    Promises MADE, Promises KEPT!
    Individual-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    School of Hard Cox
    Posts
    16,922
    Thanks
    6,606
    Thanked 6,551 Times in 3,742 Posts
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    I assure you... with 100% certainty, that if the drivers felt the compensation was too low to justify driving, then Uber would raise their pay.
    Which government regulation is suppressing their pay?

    I mean most people are doing it for some extra cash. It does a lot of work to your car. Everyone I know that does it is strictly side money and their compensation is better than nothing.
    Forever Fredi


  16. #32
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    16,668
    Thanks
    984
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,909 Posts
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Forever Fredi View Post
    Which government regulation is suppressing their pay?

    I mean most people are doing it for some extra cash. It does a lot of work to your car. Everyone I know that does it is strictly side money and their compensation is better than nothing.
    I'm not sure what you are or who your arguing against here... JPX is upset that Uber drivers aren't compensated enough... I'm explaining that that they have voluntarily accepted the wage offered to them... and if they didn't, then Uber would raise the wage

  17. #33
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    8,272
    Thanks
    22,078
    Thanked 5,032 Times in 2,901 Posts
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    I assure you... with 100% certainty, that if the drivers felt the compensation was too low to justify driving, then Uber would raise their pay.
    I have absolutely no such faith—especially since the labor-pool of Uber et al is not sufficiently organized to even make such a cogent demand to the corporation for which they "independently contract", even if drivers independently developed the complaint. This is why unions are so important.

    Honestly, as a libertarian, I'd think you'd be in favor of organized labor, and against so-called "right-to-work" laws. The former represents an entirely non-government regulatory check on the capital-side of industry—the market working to self-correct, as it were—while the latter is an example of governmental intrusion and imposition on the free workings of the market: in this case, burdensome regulation on the labor component, analogous to those burdens on the capital component you always pillory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forever Fredi View Post
    Which government regulation is suppressing their pay?

    I mean most people are doing it for some extra cash. It does a lot of work to your car. Everyone I know that does it is strictly side money and their compensation is better than nothing.
    The government has nothing to do with "suppressing their pay", except insofar as the misdesignation as "independent contractors" creates a lot of regulatory, benefits, and taxation loopholes for these companies employing-but-totally-not-employing those drivers.

    Now, if the driver is "doing it for some extra cash" or is working to earn "strictly side money"—as a "side hustle", as Uber has taken to advertising—the effects of these loopholes and pitfalls are less dramatic, more mitigated by the fact of the driver's primary means of employment. However, while precise numbers as hard to come by, a good many rideshare drivers do depend on driving for Uber or Lyft (and often both) as their sole or primary source of income and employment. When these companies take a large cut of fares, unilaterally set (read: drop) fares for their drivers, and (in the case of Uber) discourage gratuities, margins are thin and hours are long or unsustainable. And then there's the lack of benefits and worker protections. And then there's the added tax burden of being 1099 instead of W-2.

    But look: what Uber did in New York City—which is what began this line of discussion—is totally legal, and totally expected: capitalism, with few or no fetters, encourages maximum profits and discourages solidarity with fellow workers (or one's fellow man). And so, opportunistically advantaging their company during the NYTWA's airport strike is not only their right, under our current system, it's logically consistent. But it's also within a concerned consumer's rights to make a political statement through deleting their apps; and it's likewise logically consistent for me* or anyone else who supports organized labor to boycott strike-breakers.

    *(I actually already never used Uber, for the reasons outlined; everyone else is late to the bandwagon.)
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jpx7 For This Useful Post:

    57Brave (01-31-2017),Julio3000 (01-31-2017)

  19. #34
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    16,668
    Thanks
    984
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,909 Posts
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    I have absolutely no such faith—especially since the labor-pool of Uber et al is not sufficiently organized to even make such a cogent demand to the corporation for which they "independently contract", even if drivers independently developed the complaint. This is why unions are so important.
    If Uber paid $1 an hour... nobody would agree to drive for that.

    They have found a compensation model that drivers have voluntarily agreed on.

  20. #35
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    8,272
    Thanks
    22,078
    Thanked 5,032 Times in 2,901 Posts
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    If Uber paid $1 an hour... nobody would agree to drive for that.

    They have found a compensation model that drivers have voluntarily agreed on.
    It's not volitional if you have no other employment or income options. What's necessary is often not voluntary.

    And I guarantee you that, in the absence of any other employment options, plenty of nobodies would drive for the lowest compensation that still represented a net-positive; and if they could, Uber—or almost any other corporation, without outside impositions like governmental regulation—would pay their workers the bare minimum that still kept them staffed. Because the market doesn't demand mercy, it demands margins. Capitalism is a system of concentrating welfare, not sharing it.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to jpx7 For This Useful Post:

    Julio3000 (01-31-2017)

  22. #36
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    8,272
    Thanks
    22,078
    Thanked 5,032 Times in 2,901 Posts
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    If Uber paid $1 an hour... nobody would agree to drive for that.

    They have found a compensation model that drivers have voluntarily agreed on.
    I'm making this a separate post, because it's a separate and more general issue—but I notice you conspicuously responded to the rideshare-specific comments I made (which was only the first sentence), and not the the bulk of my post to you:

    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    This is why unions are so important.

    Honestly, as a libertarian, I'd think you'd be in favor of organized labor, and against so-called "right-to-work" laws. The former represents an entirely non-government regulatory check on the capital-side of industry—the market working to self-correct, as it were—while the latter is an example of governmental intrusion and imposition on the free workings of the market: in this case, burdensome regulation on the labor component, analogous to those burdens on the capital component you always pillory.
    I'm actually much more interested in your thoughts on that topic.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to jpx7 For This Useful Post:

    Julio3000 (01-31-2017)

  24. #37
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    16,668
    Thanks
    984
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,909 Posts
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    It's not volitional if you have no other employment or income options. What's necessary is often not voluntary.

    And I guarantee you that, in the absence of any other employment options, plenty of nobodies would drive for the lowest compensation that still represented a net-positive; and if they could, Uber—or almost any other corporation, without outside impositions like governmental regulation—would pay their workers the bare minimum that still kept them staffed. Because the market doesn't demand mercy, it demands margins. Capitalism is a system of concentrating welfare, not sharing it.
    But without Uber, those people make $0 an hour.

    How is this not a net benefit?

  25. #38
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    16,668
    Thanks
    984
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,909 Posts
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Honestly, as a libertarian, I'd think you'd be in favor of organized labor, and against so-called "right-to-work" laws. The former represents an entirely non-government regulatory check on the capital-side of industry—the market working to self-correct, as it were—while the latter is an example of governmental intrusion and imposition on the free workings of the market: in this case, burdensome regulation on the labor component, analogous to those burdens on the capital component you always pillory.
    I absolutely support people's right to organize. There is nothing wrong with unions or their formation, but they tend to do more harm than good to their members in the longer picture. At least today.

    I support a company paying the minimum amount necessary to retain an employee's service... And I support employees deploying all potential efforts to maximize their compensation while retaining employment.

  26. #39
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    16,668
    Thanks
    984
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,909 Posts
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am a daily listener to the Tony Kornheiser podcast... Everyone on there is extremely liberal (but pretty reasonable)...

    Yesterday, they had Republican senator Tom Cotton on the show. They spoke very little about politics, but more about Cotton's life in the military and how he got into service.

    Before the podcast was released, they tweeted that Cotton would be a guest on the show.

    On today's show, they discussed how there was UPROAR before the show was even dropped - with tons of people emailing and tweeting saying they will absolutely not listen to the show, etc.

    Tony - who is a huge Obama supporter - is baffled on today's show that people behave like that. Making up their minds without even listening. And essentially saying both sides are basically echo chambers.

    It's truly sad how polarized people are... but to not listen to a show you love because of a guest that is a republican? Seriously?

    Now - they have no reason to ever bring back anyone from the right

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to sturg33 For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (01-31-2017)

  28. #40
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    8,272
    Thanks
    22,078
    Thanked 5,032 Times in 2,901 Posts
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    But without Uber, those people make $0 an hour.

    How is this not a net benefit?
    So this is where we'll always diverge, because ultimately we're arguing from different frameworks and on different grounds. I believe that it's morally wrong for a company to generate maximum surplus-value from an employee, which means working them as much as possible and compensating them as little as possible. You believe that's fine, in principle, because you believe in practice the market—when truly free—will correct such that conditions will never be unlivably unfair for workers, with the additional benefit that maximum economic liberty will be achieved. I dispute that theory's practical viability, and believe history likewise tells another tale.

    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    I absolutely support people's right to organize. There is nothing wrong with unions or their formation, but they tend to do more harm than good to their members in the longer picture. At least today.
    I think that is sadly often the case with many very large unions, due to the anti-worker bureaucracy that has become an albatross of their effective organization. Naturally I argue that the reactionary pressures of vested capital in the mid-century are largely to blame, and so still believe in the basic cause of organized labor—I just think much needs to be dramatically reorganized. And, indeed, I am hopeful that the current perturbations provide a decisive opportunity for precisely that reorganization and restructuring.

    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    I support a company paying the minimum amount necessary to retain an employee's service... And I support employees deploying all potential efforts to maximize their compensation while retaining employment.
    Fair enough. That's what I was looking for you to say, since you usually are intellectually consistent.

    And there is nothing especially or essentially anti-libertarian about organized labor—in fact, unions often arise because of a deficit in governmental protections for workers. Indeed, if unfettered capitalism were to truly operate with any humane force, I'd think its advocates would, moreover, conceive labor-organization as a vital and necessary counter-balancing component within the market—which is why I scratch my head when some self-styled libertarians are staunchly anti-union.
    Last edited by jpx7; 01-31-2017 at 02:00 PM.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to jpx7 For This Useful Post:

    sturg33 (01-31-2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •