Author
|
Topic: Stealing
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 11 May 2004 01:11 PM
I've been thinking about this ever since the whole Svend fiasco. But really it's a much broader issue than that. Theft. And the concepts of property or ownership that are necessary to define when "theft" occurs.Have you ever stolen anything? Would you ever? Is it ever OK? Does it matter how much the item was worth? Who you are stealing it from? Whether you could afford to buy the item? How much you wanted/needed it? [ 11 May 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 11 May 2004 04:07 PM
quote: via direct theft or through coerced labour?
What is "coerced labour"? Coerced by a gun, or coerced by the fact that rent is due? quote: is it ok to steal the surplus value of peoples labour from them?
Against their will, no. You have to give them the opportunity to quit if the conditions of employment aren't amenable to them. quote: i don't think its wrong to steal from those exploiting others, in fact i think its quite moral to do so.
Sure, if your morals are such that you then give what you took right back to the "exploited others" . If you simply use their exploitation to rationalize your free stolen goods then I'm afraid you're just an opportunistic thief and nothing more. "Gee, I'll bet this Widescreen Television Store mistreats... hell, even exploits their workers, so... "
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 11 May 2004 05:39 PM
I think our society in North America treats theft unequally. White collar crime is valued at something like 15 to 20 times what it is for blue collar theft, and yet crime and punishment is much harsher for the blue collar variety. Grant Devine's conservative ministers have finished their prison sentences for their parts in graft and corruption. The perpetrators of Enrong, Global Crossup, Adolphia, Tyko and WorldCon in the States will get slaps on the wrists. Martha will do a light term as well. The common citizen would get more time for knocking over a liquor store.I think we'll see an expansion of the private prison system into Canada from the United STates as the cold war economy continues to dry up. The American's convict more people for petty crimes than we do, but I can see that changing if we ever elect the ultra right wing politicians like Stephen Harper and his new conservatives with their typical ultra-right obsession with crime and punishment instead of social democracy. Meanwhile, in the United States, private gulag economy booms as California builds 22 super prisons to one new university over the last decade or so. The proliferation of private gulags were an American theme stock of the 1990's. If the conservatives in the U.S. accept their net job loss economy, then surely the prison industrial complex in America is booming currently. And the American's are proving to the rest of the world that economic Darwinism and the corporate welfare model is much more expensive than social democracy. An alarming statistic says that the American's have the largest gulag population in the world at this time with over six million American's in gulags, on parole or on probation. That's more than half the population of Castro's Cuba labelled as criminals, and many of them are in imprisoned for petty drug offenses and violations of their fascist laws in the States. cheers! [ 11 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ] [ 11 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 12 May 2004 06:10 PM
Well, I dunno. On one hand, sure, I find society unjust. But I more or less accept the idea that it is a society and it's held together by certain conventions and laws applying equally to everyone. If I'm going to steal, that's not an isolated decision to me; I should only steal if I'm willing to make the more general decision that I am no longer subscribing to this society, that I am willing to become an outlaw and follow solely my own sense of what's right and wrong. At that point whether stealing is wrong depends on whether I'm stealing from other ordinary people or whether I'm stealing from a bank or Wal-Mart. I might decide that, as a revolutionary outlaw, banks and Wal-Mart are fair game. But the fact is, I do still feel like being part of this society, working with its fabric and laws and, as a result, formally acknowledging as legitimate within that fabric even institutions I find personally repugnant. So stealing is out, even from them. If I lived in Bolivia or Argentina I might think differently; if I lived in Colombia or Iraq I certainly would. In those places, I would be an outlaw revolutionary, and stealing from the opposition would be fair game.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 13 May 2004 03:00 AM
Perhaps the incentive-rewards just aren't there for us to steal from WalMart or even a bank. But if we were priveleged enough to have access to hundreds of millions of dollars from an inside perspective of a CEO, CFO, or say, a government ministry office, then I think the temptation would be a lot greater. I think the evidence shows that white collar theft is worth a lot more each year than for the petty thefts at Walmart etc. Armed robbery of a bank or Brinks involves a little more risk and savoy faire than a relatively simple transfer of funds by way of a computer transaction. And if I had to choose, I'd prefer prison in Canada to Argentina or Bolivia or the U.S. system of private-for-profit gulags where I may end up sewing made in USA labels on clothing that was stitched together by women and children in Honduras under oppressive circumstances. I think that with an economic system based on self-interest as the guiding human behaviour-reward mechanism, human behaviour will necessarily be distorted. The American way of economic Darwinism I think shows us that extreme inequality of wealth distribution, homelessness, want and ignorance leads to higher crime rates. Poverty has been linked to crime, and the U.S. has more than its equal share. Some six million American's in prisons, on probation and on parole makes for the largest incarcerated population in the world. Most of what we do throughout the week is to meet the same goal for economic security on up to fomenting greed and ultimately, theft. There is not limit to how far a person can fall through the inadequate American social safety net. I think that the majority of people believe the system, corporate oligarchs and politicians are corrupted and dishonest and increasingly so in Canada. And I think they're probably right. A European businessman once told John F. Kennedy that fascism would appear in America and have to be dealt with at some point. [ 13 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4695
|
posted 13 May 2004 12:53 PM
rule of law is a joke. laws are not equally enforced, that is a fact. they never have been either. magoo you are a legalist, we all know that."What is "coerced labour"? Coerced by a gun, or coerced by the fact that rent is due?" what is the difference? either one dies quickly, or one dies a little bit slower (via starvation, exposure, etc...). "Against their will, no. You have to give them the opportunity to quit if the conditions of employment aren't amenable to them." yeah i forgot, we all AGREED to work in a wage labour system. as for quitting.... so what, we can get another job where we are under the thumb of yet another employer? why can't i just enjoy the benefits of my own labour? "Sure, if your morals are such that you then give what you took right back to the "exploited others" . If you simply use their exploitation to rationalize your free stolen goods then I'm afraid you're just an opportunistic thief and nothing more. "Gee, I'll bet this Widescreen Television Store mistreats... hell, even exploits their workers, so... "" thats a pretty strawman(person) you've built. the "expolited others" is most of us. i think you are aware of how impossible it would be to break down every produced good and analyze specifically WHO produced it under what forced labour situation. the fact of the matter is, we (that is, those of us who work for a wage) are the ones getting exploited, and WE have every moral right to expropriate that which was wrung from us in the name of profit. oh, and forget a TV (why get a digital pacifier anyway ) i was thinking things like food, clothes, tools to free oneself from wage-labour, you know, USEFUL stuff that we shouldn't have to slave ourselves to have access to.
From: www.resist.ca | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 13 May 2004 01:41 PM
OK, OK, not applying equally to everyone, granted. But the general point remains: The question of stealing is part of a broader question. Are you committed to bringing down the society you're in, or are you committed to working to change it? If things are bad enough that you've decided the whole framework must go, then stealing is fine within that decision. Person seems to have made that decision vis-a-vis Canada, at least in theory.But if you haven't made that decision, then stealing isn't OK, even from the unjust; neither is lawbreaking in general, although there are certain exceptions. You can break laws that are legally on the books but socially ignored, because that's within the effective rules of society. And you can break the law committing civil disobedience because you're accepting the consequences that society imposes; the essence of civil disobedience is that you're willing to take that penalty to make the point--so while you're breaking the law, you're still operating within the society. Now on Fidel's points--sure, the more income disparity there is, and the more unjust it is, the more theft I expect to see, and the less I blame the poor for doing it. And even if I'm going to say stealing is wrong, that doesn't mean there are no circumstances that could ever make me do it--if it was steal or my kid goes hungry, well, sorry, grocery store but my kid's need is greater. Sometimes there are no right choices, only different levels of wrong ones, and letting my kid go hungry is a wronger one than stealing some bulk oatmeal. Happily I've never been put in that situation. For that matter, the more income disparity there is, the more upper-class theft and corruption I expect to see, although I don't similarly condone it--massive difference between rich and poor goes intertwined with a sick culture among the rich, which is becoming more and more obvious.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 13 May 2004 01:46 PM
quote: what is the difference? either one dies quickly, or one dies a little bit slower (via starvation, exposure, etc...).
So you actually have to do something to survive, and that gives you the right to steal? Can you name any animal anywhere in nature that does not have to do anything whatsoever to secure its survival? I can name the class of animal called "parasites", but other than that, having to find shelter, gain food, etc., is hardly the oppressive burden you make it out to be. It's just nature. quote: yeah i forgot, we all AGREED to work in a wage labour system. as for quitting.... so what, we can get another job where we are under the thumb of yet another employer?
How is it that the most vocal critics of "wage slavery" invariably lack the courage or intelligence to work for themselves? Millions of consultants, independent contractors, entrepreneurs, small business owners and other professionals have already thrown off the yoke of their capitalist masters and work for themselves. What's stopping you? quote: why can't i just enjoy the benefits of my own labour?
Yes. Why indeed? quote: we (that is, those of us who work for a wage) are the ones getting exploited, and WE have every moral right to expropriate that which was wrung from us in the name of profit.
No you don't. If you don't agree to the terms of working for someone else, work for yourself. Someone else has no obligation to structure your work to your liking. C'mon... grow a set and work for yourself instead of bleating about your horrible exploitation. quote: USEFUL stuff that we shouldn't have to slave ourselves to have access to.
Blahblahblah. I wish there were some surviving slaves still alive. I bet they'd love to meet you so you could compare notes about your respective slavery. My apologies if this interferes in any way with the nice rationalization for theft that you've been building up. Please, feel free to resume pretending that the system is holding you down, and not you. [ 13 May 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4695
|
posted 13 May 2004 02:14 PM
oh come on..."So you actually have to do something to survive" no denying that, but something isn't handing over the surplus value of my labour to someone else. "How is it that the most vocal critics of "wage slavery" invariably lack the courage or intelligence to work for themselves?" another baseless accusation, who said i and others don't try. further, not being able to work for oneself has nothing to do with courage and/or intellignece. i guess white capitalist men dominate almost all sectors of our society do to their great intelligence and courage... no thats a fucking shit arguement just like yours. "C'mon... grow a set and work for yourself instead of bleating about your horrible exploitation"
i guess the same is true for all people facing various forms of oppression? do you disagree with affirmative action magoo? "I wish there were some surviving slaves still alive." you certainly are ignorant eh? "Please, feel free to resume pretending that the system is holding you down, and not you" no that would be a total cop out, certainly people do have ther own responsibilities but the fact of the matter is we are not individuals in the sense of your own perverted liberal logic. we rely on others and others rely on us and due to that we are not autonomous "rationally choosing" agents of our own desire. to deny structural forms of oppression is equal in merit to the actions of the worst bigots.
From: www.resist.ca | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 13 May 2004 02:28 PM
So tell us, Oh Miserable Oppressed One, exactly which of society's structures is currently responsible for you being trapped in wage slavery, with no possible way out?Plenty of women work for themselves. Plenty of visible minorities work for themselves. Heck, even people with disabilities work for themselves. But you're convinced that society will only allow white males to work for themselves. Just out of curiousity, are you white? quote: guess the same is true for all people facing various forms of oppression?
Of course not. An abused woman may not have an option to simply not be abused. But you do have the option to work for yourself. Assuming of course that you have some skill that's in demand, and assuming you're willing to assume the risk. If you'd rather be trained, or you don't care to assume any risk, then working for someone else is maybe not such a bad idea, and of course you'll pay your boss to assume the risk for you and train you to do your own job by giving him or her the surplus value of your labour! Your choice. Keep all of the value of your labour and make all of the necessary investment and take the risk, or go to work at 9, come home at 5, and accept that you're working partly for your own interests and partly someone else's. If that doesn't work for you, or you want some help, form a collective. Get a bunch of buddies together and draw up a plan. Share the risks and share the rewards. Again, no boss-man. And again, nobody's stopping you. quote: you certainly are ignorant eh?
No, just lazy. Clearly I needed to add "in North America", and possibly even "left over from when real slavery was legal". quote: to deny structural forms of oppression is equal in merit to the actions of the worst bigots.
Really? I like to save 'worst bigots' for guys who drag black men to death behind their pickup trucks. Clearly any suggestion that you're not a slave really pisses you off, eh?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 13 May 2004 03:48 PM
quote: Yes, that is "wage slavery".
Then that's nothing more than a word, which incidentally borrows the word "slavery" to add a little gravitas. If we agree you can pick all of my raspberries, and borrow my mason jars, in exchange for half of the jam I'd call that a mutually beneficial bargain, not slavery on your part. If I could make the same deal with lots and lots of neighbours, and assuming I had the raspberries growing on my property, I could amass considerable jam. But I wouldn't say I'm stealing it, nor that any of them have any "right" to steal it back. If they don't like the deal, they don't have to play. quote: I like the work I do, but not the precarious nature of my work situation.
You're taking all the risks. A "boss" might be able to provide you with some stability, and assume some of these risks for you, but why would he or she do that for nothing? quote: Many of us have very little choice whatsoever in that respect.
It's why I chose not to be an independent photographer after I completed my degree. I'll happily trade some of the surplus value of my labour to know that I'll always have a reliable, if somewhat lesser, paycheque. But I do have that choice, and still do. Surely you're not holding out for a "choice" wherein someone else assumes all the risks for you, but you still get to keep all the value of your work?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
dnuttall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5258
|
posted 13 May 2004 08:43 PM
If the game is flawed, play a different game.I know lots of people who do not play the same game as everyone else. I have friends in Temagami who are living on the land. I have other friends who took their meagre savings and are travelling the world for 3 years (third world countries are cheap to travel in). My great uncle had 2 homesteads. Employment is not the only game, it just happens to be the one that we are trained to play. Our education system is designed to turn children into employees. If you don't like it, find another way. Stealling from the rich because you feel they stole from someone else to get that way is dumb. The rich capitalist pig says they don't care about other people, and that anyone who is too weak to protect their wealth is fair game. You are saying the same - that's stupid. Learn from your enemy to outmanouver him, not to become him.
From: Kanata | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 13 May 2004 09:03 PM
rule of law is a joke. laws are not equally enforced, that is a fact. they never have been either. magoo you are a legalist, we all know that. "What is "coerced labour"? Coerced by a gun, or coerced by the fact that rent is due?"what is the difference? either one dies quickly, or one dies a little bit slower (via starvation, exposure, etc...). ==================== I agree. I think that the very economic model that is supposed to deliver the one thing that it was allegedly designed to do, create wealth for the majority of people, is failing to do that. A billion workers around the democratized world(ie not threatened by communism since the end of the cold war) are currently unemployed according to the ILO. I think that you are right about unfair negotiation of wages, but that's only part of the reason why the North American economies are hemorhaging so many jobs to lower wage zones in China, India etc. I think that one of the reasons that the west is at war with Islam is the free market right to oppressive mechanisms to allow the transfer vast wealth from working poor people to a handful of wealthy. The economic mechanisms are usury and rent. Muhammed preached against such usury. As India and China's economies surge at 8% and 9% growth rates, our own economies are changing from baby boom years of "fuller" employment at living wage jobs and citizens savings to one of lowe wage service sector employment and reliance on credit. Credit card companies and banks are into us for a fortune in compound interest these days. "When money arrives, all is green, bustle and abundance. And when it leaves, alli strampled down, barren and bare." - ~3000 year old Chinese proverb "Wherever the military is, prices are high." - even older [ 13 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 13 May 2004 09:42 PM
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Fidel: rule of law is a joke. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Not me, it was "person" who wrote that. But I tend to agree with that phrase in that the law treats white collar and blue collar crime differently. Get caught knocking over a liqour store and you'll get hard time. Get caught say in a conflict of interest scandal in Grant Devine's conservative government involving more money than you could hope for at a liquor store and you're out in a few years on good behaviour. White collar crime is worth 15 to 20 times what it is for blue collar theft in N.A. annually is what I'm saying. Not only is the punishment more severe for the bluer variety but there tends to be greater risk involved when gun play and brute force bring a health hazard component to that blue collar job description. [ 13 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 13 May 2004 09:50 PM
Concerning what Rufus said about inequality and level of worker desperation, I agree. It was Emma Goldman at turn of the century America who said, If they refuse you work, then demand bread. If they refuse you bread, then take it. Of course, Emma's words caused a panick among the establishment. They brought in the army who then shot New Yawka's in those days for demanding work and better living conditions. The American "Pinkertons" were hired to put down labour revolts demanding living wages. Henry Ford would hire mafia thugs to come down hard on labour. Adolf Hitler would be inspired by Henry's "The International Jew", and would write Mein Kampf, a book of lies, while in prison. We had similar rebellions in Canada. Later, millions would ride the rails accross North America in search of work. John Steinbeck would be accused of being a commie for taking photos of the abject poverty in 1930's California. The army on both sides of the border were alarmed to find so many emaciated young men who were declared unfit to combat fascism in Europe. Laissez faire capitalism was in trouble around the world as western factories were silenced in the 1930's. cheers! [ 13 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ] [ 13 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569
|
posted 13 May 2004 10:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: Not me, it was "person" who wrote that.
Oh, my mistake -- so it was. Well, I think that both of you are mistaking "rule of law" for "unequal application of law". The alternative of rule of law is the rule of (wo)men, a.k.a feudalism, despotism, etc. The rule of law is not a joke, in fact it is a prerequisite for any sort of democratic polity. The difficulties arise in the character of particular legal systems.As for "white" and "blue" collar crimes go, that's the class aspect of it, I've heard just as many lefties rant on about how property is more valued than people are, and that (anecdotally) you get greater punishment for stealing than you do for violence. The explanation I was given at law school for the difference between these crimes is that they involve different levels of personal harm to the victims. A crime that directly endangers a person's life is more deserving of sanction, and indicates a higher level of anti-social behaviour, than one that merely defrauds people of money. As for the sentencing being the same for people who steal millions as opposed to thousands, well, the alternative would be to have a sentencing scheme that was pro-rated by the criminal's "take". So, 1 year for every $5,000 or something. That would end up with some strange sentences. [ 13 May 2004: Message edited by: verbatim ]
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4695
|
posted 13 May 2004 10:33 PM
by saying that the rule of law is a joke i meant this:if a preppy young white man is caught doing something 'illegal' (say, i dunno, loitering where one is not supposed to) they will get told not to at the very most, more likely nothing would happen. if on the otherhand a not-preppy young man of colour is caught doing the same, they will likely be harassed until they leave at the very least or beat by cops and maybe arrested at the most. or if a young white male is caught selling an illicit substance of some sort, they can expect to face far different treatment at the hands of the police than would a person of colour or someone who was visably poor. its not about white vs blue coller crimes its about the fact that our laws are not equally enforced and that that those differences are based upon race, class, gender, and other lines. so magoo, since we (you delusionally believe) live in a meritocracy, how come white men from bourgeouis backgrounds are so much smarter, harder working, skillful, etc... than the fucking rest of us? editted to add: is because we don't know how to (quoting you): "grow a set and work for [ourselves]" [ 13 May 2004: Message edited by: person ]
From: www.resist.ca | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 14 May 2004 02:28 PM
quote: so magoo, since we (you delusionally believe) live in a meritocracy, how come white men from bourgeouis backgrounds are so much smarter, harder working, skillful, etc... than the fucking rest of us?
They aren't, of course. If they've succeeded in part because of their sex, skin tone or social class then that's unfair, but it certainly doesn't mean that you cannot. The Brad Pitts and Antonio Banderases of the world will certainly have an easier time of life than I will, thanks to their looks, but that doesn't mean that I can't hold down a job, find a wife, and have a life... just like they do! I'm not going to sit around whining about how they got all the breaks and expect someone to come along and redress the injustice of it all. Their easy successes (and those of all the beautiful people) don't please me, but they don't prevent me from finding my own successes the old fashioned way. So ya. Grow a pair. Sorry if Ben Mulroney got the breaks you and I will never get. Grow a pair anyway. Sorry if the rich make it look easy when it's not. Grow a pair anyway. Or wallow, if you wish, but don't use it as your sad little justification for theft.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511
|
posted 14 May 2004 03:12 PM
Yeah, person, do it the "old fashioned way":Plan A. You could start you own little sweatshop, pay your workers a pittance, force them to work unpaid overtime, bully them if they show any inclination to assert their rights under international or local laws; then sell the products at vastly inflated prices. That's not theft. Plan B. Start a factory that produces something of value. Of course, to compete with other factories producing the same goods, you can't worry too much about the environmental impact of your activities, so don't; just concentrate on your own bottom line and let the consequences be "externalized". That's not theft either. Plan C. If you have some ethical qualms about Plan A or Plan B, you could maybe start a service business that helps to meet the needs of the poor or underprivileged. Of course, poor people generally can't afford to pay for much beyond the basic necessities, so this plan might not provide you with much of an income; it might just make you part of the working poor too. So... Plan D. Same as plan C but provide a service to the wealthy. The world can always use another corporate attourney or accountant, and you'll earn a decent income. See, person, there are lots of ways you can make it "the old fashioned way" without having to resort to theft.
From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 14 May 2004 11:43 PM
Yeah, it is such crap. You've seen the birthdate on my profile. I'm sure that I'd be prime material to be HIRED by a translation or communications agency. (rolling eyes several times). People my age are "consultants". Or I could go into an entirely different field, pure sciences, management? Go back to secondary school? By the way, I do study all the time. I'm on (source) language number five. Not just for the fun of it. ------- Beyond that, what Magoo wilfully refuses to see is that exploitation is a SYSTEM, not just a hard luck story or the failing of a few. And that talking about same does not mean whining: "Don't moan, organise!"
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 15 May 2004 01:32 AM
quote: you have no idea what i do with my life. that your arguement consists of merely reasserting the "liberal individual" as paramount is rubbish.
I'm not asserting that the liberal individual is paramount. I'm asserting that you have sufficient opportunity to work for yourself if you wish, that you are not somehow forever bound into wage slavery, and most importantly that the slavery in which you believe yourself trapped is not a sufficient excuse for theft. Nobody has stolen anything from you against your will, and so you have nothing to reasonably 'steal back'. quote: You've seen the birthdate on my profile.
If you want to be your own boss, wouldn't you factor that in early on, when you decide what you're going to do with your life? And at any rate, aren't you self-employed, Lagatta? Proving, rather than denying, my point that if you don't want to work for a boss, you don't actually have to? quote: what Magoo wilfully refuses to see is that exploitation is a SYSTEM
What I'm seeing is person petulantly trying to exploit that system of exploitation to provide some rationalization for theft. Do you really believe that here in Canada, with all of our first-world advantages (a free education not the least of them) someone with talent and drive is truly so shackled by the system that they cannot possibly find work other than for a boss? And more importantly (since this is the topic of the thread) does this grant an individual the right to steal?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 15 May 2004 03:21 AM
"What is "coerced labour"? Coerced by a gun, or coerced by the fact that rent is due?"It conjures up thoughts of low wage philanthropy, the declining rate of unionized labour in the U.S. and Canada, and the fact that the U.S. and Canada, one-two, have the highest rates of child poverty and infant mortality in the developed world. Mexico is one worse than both of our nations in this regard. Coercion of labour is made easier when collective bargaining units are reduced to "every employee for themselves." The "elimnination" of social democracy and trade unionism was ongoing theme of the fascist agenda's throughout the last century. Maggie and Milton did a wonderful job of pauperizing a nation of Britons in the 1980's. Chile's national income was disproportionately shovelled to the wealthiest while unemployment raged, at one time, 39% in 1980's Chile as a fully deregulated economy was their goal.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sleK
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2278
|
posted 15 May 2004 04:03 AM
quote: Have you ever stolen anything?
Hmm... A box of caps from Robinsons, a Hot-Wheels A-Team van from Safeway, a mammoth wireframe dinosaur from the local mini-golf, the condom dispenser from the boys washroom, every street sign from a local bridge, a retarded number of scarecrows (they looked great hanging from the aformentioned bridge), a plough, assorted melons from a grocery dumpster, some fire wood, and the hearts of a great many young women. /confession quote: Would you ever?
Evidently, only out of necessity. o_0 quote: Is it ever OK?
Yes. quote: Does it matter how much the item was worth?
No. quote: Who you are stealing it from?
No. quote: Whether you could afford to buy the item?
Depends upon the circumstances. quote: How much you wanted/needed it?
Yes. Theft is justifiable only out of necessity. Necessity measured by a threat to your survival. Your survival includes that of your kin. Theft of any other sort, be it vengeance driven or elitist in variety, is morally reprehensible. edit: I can spell, really! [ 15 May 2004: Message edited by: sleK ]
From: a chair - in a room - by a door | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 15 May 2004 11:54 AM
Fidel: "Not only is the punishment more severe for the bluer variety but there tends to be greater risk involved when gun play and brute force bring a health hazard component to that blue collar job description."What are you saying here? That someone who chooses to employ violence or the threat of violence should be given consideration at sentencing because of the risks to himself when he chooses such methods? That's so completely absurd that I have to ask if that's what you actually meant. Perhaps I misunderstood. Another interesting factor to consider, and it hasn't been mentioned yet, is the role of culture and upbringing. When I was in Japan 11 years ago, I discovered that if you were to lose your wallet on the subway, it would be returned to you - with all the cash still inside. I was speaking with someone about this, and he said it was natural that the money would be returned. He couldn't comprehend the idea of taking the cash. This seemed to be a norm that transcended personal income levels.
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511
|
posted 15 May 2004 02:36 PM
Magoo: You have an awfully legalistic viewpoint. What constitutes "theft" and what does not is determined, more or less arbitrarily, by custom and law: the definition of "theft" reflects the manner in which power is distributed throughout society rather than any ethical imperative.From an ethical standpoint, profiting by externalizing costs onto the environment, or by using exploitative labour practices is as much "theft" as is shoplifting, burglary or fraud. That the former are perfectly legal while the latter are not, indicates only that the unethical labour and environmental practices general benefit the elite, while those forms of theft that are deemed criminal are more often harmful to them. The playing field in our society is very uneven; when the rules of the game help the powerful to acquire even more power, encouraging the use of unethical means, "getting ahead" more often than not means being willing to serve the interests of the elite and to ignore the unethical means by which those interests are served. You may believe that everyone should play the game as its been devised, but then I've never heard you express any ethical concerns about the nature of the game. You seem content to uncritically accept the definition of "theft" that has been provided by your superiors.
From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 15 May 2004 08:43 PM
Fidel: "Not only is the punishment more severe for the bluer variety but there tends to be greater risk involved when gun play and brute force bring a health hazard component to that blue collar job description."What are you saying here? That someone who chooses to employ violence or the threat of violence should be given consideration at sentencing because of the risks to himself when he chooses such methods? That's so completely absurd that I have to ask if that's what you actually meant. Perhaps I misunderstood. ======== No, that's not what I said at all. What I mean is that there should be stiffer penalties for politicians who are caught cooking the taxpayers books. The perpetrators of stock and accounting fraud in ie. Enrong, Global Crossup, Adolphia and WorldCon should do harder time than what they will do. Laws need to be tightened up and securities commissions on both sides of the border should be watching for insider sell offs. ie. Nortel. I don't know how many American's 401K plans were lightened by those who would create instability in the economy for the sake of their own appalling greed and legal/illegal corporate dishonesty. There were massive losses to pension funds here in Canada as a result of those telecom and energy company collapses and affecting dozens more companies that they did business with. I think that if a Brian Mulroney or a Grant Devine caucus were to know that serious consequences would result from proof of conflict of interest and influence pedaling charges, then they would be less likely to mix taxpayers business with their private lives. A Dalton Camp type might not drag taxpayers thru a several million dollar investigation before resigning to avoid consequences before guilt is proven. But yes, there are stiff penalties for those who would rob a bank or knock over a liquor store. We do a very good job of crucifiction when it comes to blue collar crime. I'm not nearly advocating that we make bank robbery legal or declaring open season on liquor stores, especially not when they reap a profit for taxpaying Ontarians. However, I do advocate social democracy. There is no need for Toronto or Ottawa to become a world capital for homicide and violent crime that is Chicago or Washington D.C., "the most important city in the world." [ 15 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 May 2004 05:01 AM
Oatmeal Savage says: quote: Germany is looking at Atilla The Hen's policies as a cure for their economic malaise.
The Federal Reserve in the States tried Milton Friedman's monetarism in the 1980's. Unemployment shot up with the tight fisted money policy. Inflation was wrestled to the ground, but after a year and half of stagnant economy, the Fed realized that a monetarist disaster was unfolding in Britain with the Bank of England implementing similar policies there. The Fed gave up on monetarism in 1982 and switched to Keynesian fiscal stimulus. The American economy roared back to life several months later to begin a period of growth that lasted seven years. Meanwhile, with unemployment raging in England as a double whammy of Maggie's attacks on unionized coal miners and deregulation fling, the Bank of England tried as hard as it could to make Friedman's policies work. On Maggie's deregulating the economy end of things, trains stopped running on time(a few crashed), and water and power outages rewarded Britons for the priveleges of shelling out for skyrocketing utility rates. In Milton Friedman's Chilean experiment conducted in a human rights vacuum, unemployment raged at nearly 40% at one point and deficits soared. And foreign investment recoiled from Maggie's newly pauperized Britain. The Bank of England finally abandoned Friedman's elitist monetary policy in 1986. Friedman received no sympathy from his fellow economists. Paul Krugman of MIT has been a staunch critic of Friedman's theories as have a host of World Bankers and IMF'ers. If you want to read about a real economic miracle, check out Singapore just before the global downturn in demand. Singapore has been socialist since the 1960's and have risen further and faster than Hong Kong. Singaporan's enjoy the world's fifth highest incomes. National Post -- Singapore's Socialist Miracle by Lawrence Solomon, 2001 http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=2044 Socialist Singapore 4th most competitive in 2002 says Harvard http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/articles/SST_111302.html Harvard business school's Jeffrey Sachs and team does a Competitive Growth Indexing(CGI) of world economies every year. The U.S., of course, is always ranked high but slipped to tenth with this recession in the last year or so. Most of the countries ranked in the top ten for competitiveness are social democracies(ie. countries where neither Maggie or Milton are revered). India with its spending on freely accessable education over the years is picking up steam, too with 7, 8, and perhaps even 10% growth rates. Ssssssss! China has had free education for about 40 years under Mao's communism and only just now introducing some fees under the socialist wannabe, Deng Xio Ping. Salisbury's, "Tianenmen: 13 days in June", is a decent look at the Chinese students demonstrations for democratic socialism in that country. Finland best for business - report http://edition.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/10/30/global.competition/ P.S. I wouldn't worry about Germany. They're a rich country even with the cost of unification. cheers! [ 26 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 26 May 2004 05:18 PM
Tell me again, Bob, how have all of these unnamed "corporate bastards" stolen something from you? What exactly did they steal? And is that what you intend to steal back?If your "boss" takes the surplus value of your labour and you really feel you have the right to take it back then I'll let that go for the sake of argument. Problem is, a lot of anarchist-types think that if they work at a video store, and their boss is stealing the surplus value of their labour, that they're entitled to go to Radio Shack to rip off an .mp3 player. But I'm sure you wouldn't steal from anyone else's employer, would you? Since this isn't theft, so much as righting the wrong that your boss has done to you, you keep your theft confined to him and only him, right? Because bosses, and employees too, aren't in some kind of "club". Someone's boss at Radio Shack has not stolen anything from you. Nor Dominion, nor Jean Machine, nor anyone but, possibly, your own boss. And please don't suggest for a moment that because some corporations have polluted our air that now anything you define as a corporation is somehow fair game. And if Radio Shack is stealing the surplus value of their employee's labour then their employees, and nobody else, may have a moral right to take back what's been stolen. But you know all of this and practice it, right? If not then I stick by my accusation: you're looking for a rationalization for theft and couching it in high and mighty moral terms that simply don't apply.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258
|
posted 26 May 2004 05:33 PM
quote: Why not just be a thief? Nobody's forcing you to try and justify it.
This is amusing from someone who is contantly, ceaselessly, unendingly defending the status quo. Oh sorry is Capitalism short of apologists? You might wish to note that all property in this country(or any country for that matter) was forcibly or through duplicity taken from it's original inhabitants. Once the property was appropriated rules were set up to protect those who originally stole it. So apparently it is alright to trade in stolen goods?
From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 26 May 2004 05:38 PM
We now present the finger pointing part of our show.Lookit him! He's worse! That guy over there stole something so I can too! I'm not going to be left out of this steal-fest! What does your post have to do with your disputed right to steal? Are you suggesting that because our forefathers came over a few centuries ago and stole land from the people who had claimed it first, that somehow you have the right to rip off the latest Rage Against The Machine album from Recordland? By your reckoning, and in concrete terms: - who has stolen something from you? - what did they steal? - what does this entitle you to take back from them? - what does this entitle you to steal from someone other than them? [ 26 May 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 May 2004 05:40 PM
quote: LOL! Stealing something you want as a vehicle for social justice. That's rich. Why not just be a thief?
It was American social activist, Emma Goldman, who said, quote: "If they refuse you work, then demand bread. If they refuse you bread, then take it."
There are tens of millions in North America who live at and below OECD thresholds for poverty. The United States and Canada still come dead last and 2nd last for measures of child poverty when comparing developed nations. It's time for regime changes in both the U.S. and Canada. [ 26 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258
|
posted 26 May 2004 05:48 PM
It's quite simple if you set aside your rather tedious Dennis milleresque "satirical stylings" for a brief moment.Your whole concept of theft is based on the weak assumption that we are somehow operating in fair or just social system. Since this economic system is based on theft and plunder and maintained by ongoing corruption, your position is not really defensible. It has nothing to do with the fore father mother, aunties or grannies nor is corporate plunder a thing of the past, it is occuring in innumerable countries presently. quote: We now present the finger pointing part of our show.
That's rich,you're the one claiming other people are just lazy malcontents looking for an excuse to steal. All the while vigorously defending corporate grand theft. What do Corporations steal? Shared planetary resources, democratic political process, Labour, dignity. [ 26 May 2004: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 26 May 2004 06:14 PM
Ok. So we live in a corrupt system, by your reckoning. And you want to participate in the corruption — get 'yours', so to speak. And you've conveniently defined an "us" and "them" for yourself. You're the "us", and the unnamed "corporate bastards" are presumably the "them" (along with quislings such as myself). And in this simplistic model, the "them" side are unanimously cooperative in conspiring to steal all of life's joys from the "us" side, and now it's time for your side to fight back.Problem is, your model is too simplistic. Again I say, if someone has clearly stolen something from you then take it back. But don't get sloppy or lazy about who has and who hasn't actually stolen something from you. And don't take it upon yourself to be the vanguard of everyone who isn't stealing back, and don't get opportunistic by stealing material goods and luxury items that you covet by pretending you're doing the world a favour, or just playing along, or whatever. Since this is an anonymous board, would anyone want to tell us of something they've stolen, and their rationale for why it's OK? To be honest, I'd expect to hear about lots of pleasure items being stolen, and very little in the way of necessities like food, or surplus labour value.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dnuttall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5258
|
posted 26 May 2004 06:18 PM
I think this arguement is daft.If you want to live within society, you have to accept society's rules, or be prepared to accept the repercussions of your actions. Society, in is lack of wisdom, has not determined that corporations owe the people for their plunder. Before it would be 'right' for one to steal from a corporation, one would have to find a way to convince society that it is right to do so. To do otherwise will make you society's enemy, rather than the enemy you feel they should be fighting against. Dumb. Don't become your enemy while fighting against it. Social activism is required to create change, not chaos. Communicate, and ensure society becomes aware of the ills you see. But saying 'well, they stole from everyone, so I can take for myself' or even '... so I can take for others', is a pathetic justification. You can do better. In our society, ownership is an accepted fact (regardless of the truth). If you attempt to change ownership without consent, that's stealling. If I steal stolen goods, it doesn't matter. If I steal for survival, it doesn't matter. If I steal for plunder, it doesn't matter. Society regards all of this as theft, and it isn't allowed. The repercussions vary, but the act is still verboten. Yes, corporate giants plunder. Yes, politicians steal. Yes, there are evil people out there. But to say doing evil to evil is good is just stupid, and delusional.
From: Kanata | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Brant K
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5831
|
posted 26 May 2004 06:32 PM
quote: This is amusing from someone who is contantly, ceaselessly, unendingly defending the status quo.Oh sorry is Capitalism short of apologists?
Bah. Go ahead , liberate that bottle of gin from the liquor store. After all, drug dealing is profitable, not even the government can screw it up! Drug dealers with pension plans indeed. Rob that bank. The greedy capitalist pigs deserve it. And those nice unionized socialist prison guards will be so sympathetic as they clang the iron...lol
From: Van | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 May 2004 07:00 PM
I'm going to come to Bob's defense because I don't believe in two or three against one.Thank goodness that Nobel laureate economists like Robert Solow and dozens of others don't think this general issue is simplistic or dumb. I mean sure, we shouldn't advocate anarchy and wide spread theft, but economic and social conditions in N. America are pushing tens of millions of us to the brink, so to speak. In Ontario, Mike Harris' experiment with welfare reform is mired in controversy, and people like Solow have shown that it doesn't work well before the conservative party of Ontario set out to prove him wrong. In fact, neither Mike Harris or Ernie Eves would agree to do surveys showing exactly what has happened to the many welfare reciepient who were simply shifted off of welfare. Solow and others have shown that moving a million or so people off of welfare rolls and into low wage philanthropy will affect the displacement of a similar number of the already lowly paid into poverty. With the over-burdened homeless shelters turning record numbers of Ontarian's away and food banks turning families away from help in droves since the welfare experiment began, what level of desperation is required before people find city jails to be more hospitable than life on the streets, "couch surfing" and abject poverty ?. Since the beginning of the end of the booming cold war economy in the U.S. that was launched to kill an idea, they are experiencing higher costs for "warehousing" the poor in that country. Gulags and super-prisons were a 1990's theme stock in the U.S.A. . They now have the largest incarcerated gulag population in the world with over six million American citizens in gulags, on death row, on probabtion or on parole. And the Yanks are proving to the world that economic Darwinism costs more than spending on social democracy with the world capital for homicide being a tossup between Chicago and Washington D.C. . The links between violence, theft and abject poverty are well established. The Yanks spend a phenomenal anount on expanded policing, justice system, education for learning disabilites for kids from poor families and who are the next juvenile delinquents and super prisons. In the last 15 years, California has built 21 new super gulags to warehouse the poor and only one new university in that time. I remember an NDP source that said it was cheaper to provide the poor with four years of university tuition than to clothe, feed and house them in any of Canada's federal pens for just one year. We need social democracy in Canada, not lucrative corporate welfare for friends of the Liberal or Conservative parties who want gulag state. [ 26 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 27 May 2004 06:41 PM
Bob, I understand your anger. Don't fritter it away on election day by not voting. Offer someone a ride to the polls if you can. It's the one day every four or five years that the power brokers fear people like us.Take care and don't let these 50 thousand dollar a year capitalists sway your opinion of corporate welfare bums and their conservative and liberal enablers in sn'Ottawa. LOL! cheers! [ 27 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
EmmieD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5828
|
posted 27 May 2004 10:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by bobwarren:
Or maybe capping the CEO's salaries so they can't make more that 50% of the company lowest paid employee. The CEO wants more money?....Fine, all they have to do is to increase the lowest paid employee's salary and theirs goes up as well.
But if you, as CEO, make 50% of "the company lowest paid employee", aren't YOU then the lowest paid company employee and therefore free to jack that salary up as high as it will go?
Anyway, all this BS about equity between the guy or gal who runs the company and the guy or gal who puts a spit shine on the urinal pucks is just foolishness.
".... What can explain the desire to induce guilt in successful CEOs and to reduce their pay? It is the egalitarian remnants of Marxism. Though Communism has fallen, the premises of Marxism persist in our culture. According to Marxism, real wealth is earned by brute labor and therefore profits earned by managers and CEOs are assumed to be stolen rather than earned. Marxism evades the true source of wealth: human intelligence. Morally, the Marxist view holds that no individual has a right to his own personal gain; all must work self-sacrificially for the sake of the group, the state, society: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. This inverted morality punishes success and rewards indolence. Regardless of people's differences in ability and effort, on this view, the more able must sacrifice themselves—they must be forced to give up their "surplus" earnings—for the sake of the less able and productive. Modern capitalists—from the 19th century to the present, from John D. Rockefeller to Bill Gates—are hated because they became wealthy while other people, who were less able and less productive, did not. Ayn Rand described this hatred for achievement as hatred of the good for being the good. It is businessmen who have created wealth on a scale unprecedented in the history of the world and who have elevated America and the rest of the free world from a state of rural poverty to that of an advanced industrial civilization...." [URL=http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/nysechairman.shtml] [ 27 May 2004: Message edited by: EmmieD ]
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
EmmieD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5828
|
posted 27 May 2004 11:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by bobwarren:
No i think you misunderstood....my apologies it's the wording i used. I meant the CEO's salary shouldn't be higher than the lowest paid employee + 50%.
I got it, I was just having fun with you. I still think that, despite many CEOs and Execs soaking the employees and the company, most are decent creative people who really has the best interests of everyone in mind.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 28 May 2004 12:54 AM
quote: So to answer your question they have stolen more than just property from me....they have stolen my dignity. So if i ever get a chance to take something back from them.....it will be my pleasure.
Ok. According to you, they've stolen your dignity. What exactly do you intend to take back from them to replace it? Surely no item or piece of property could replace your dignity. Certainly not something you find in a Winners or a Walmart. And how do you intend to take something back from one of the big drug companies you mention? By stealing from a drugstore? They aren't the big drug companies — they simply sell drugs made by them. And what if I believe that my neighbour has stolen my dignity? What rights does that afford me with regard to him and his property? Certainly we can't only be talking about nebulous "big companies" alone. Anyone who steals dignity must deserve to be stolen from, no? And apparently I, and I alone, am the judge of when my dignity has been stolen. Which seems a mite corruptible, don't you think? (hint: better make sure your answer doesn't steal my dignity!)
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297
|
posted 28 May 2004 01:30 PM
“The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: “Do not listen to this impostor. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!” Rousseau Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Interesting topic. I was mulling this over yesterday at work. (Stealing time which my employer has paid me for.) I wish I had jumped on this topic earlier, it is so much easier to deal with the information in a couple posts rather than all 77 prior posts. There appears to be several levels to the initial question, judging by some of the follow posts. Firstly. A personal level, and a normal view of theft. (It appears some here, think I am stealing if I pay some kid to shove by walkway.) “Have you ever stolen anything? Would you ever? Is it ever OK? Does it matter how much the item was worth? Who you are stealing it from? Whether you could afford to buy the item? How much you wanted/needed it?” At an individual, personal character level, I am opposed to theft for a couple reasons. First, I don’t see any reason why I should be entitled to more than I have earned. Secondly, theft is rarely, if every really pursued on an individual basis for social justice reasons. It is more often motivated by baser desires, such as greed, envy and an obsession with material goods. All of these are to some degree a product of the consumer culture we live in, and they are not qualities I wish to nurture in myself. I think if one opens that door, and takes only things they really want, they will find themselves wanting more and more. Thirdly I came to find a couple years ago that one’s view of the world is a reflection of one’s self. People who were untrustworthy rarely trusted others. People who are willing to steal from others, thought others where wanting to steal from them. I know it sounds like some pop philosophy you get back what you put out type thing but it appears to me to carry a great deal of truth with it. I have a caveat to the above. I think that all people have the right to self-preservation. Stealing in this context is moral. Those in hunger can steal food. If lost and dying in the woods, you can break in to a cabin for shelter. If you don’t have an iPod, you are morally justified to steal one. (Just joking on the last one.) More to follow on the property rights and politics. (Assuming I don't get distracted.)
From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 28 May 2004 02:05 PM
quote: Those in hunger can steal food.
I agree. In fact I can't think of anyone I know who wouldn't. But I think it gets co-opted from there. In another thread I used the theft of my bicycle to make a point, and was told that "when there are no more food banks" was when I should expect to be able to own a bike and not have it stolen. So what does my bike have to do with food? Last I checked, it wasn't edible. And I don't believe that any hungry person would go to the trouble of smashing a Kryptonite lock, filing off the serial number on the crank, fencing or pawning the bike, and then buying a loaf of bread, when it would be ten times easier to just walk into Dominion and walk out with the bread, right then and there. Y'know what might make a person go to all that trouble though? Drugs. Which they don't have at food banks.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 28 May 2004 03:19 PM
quote: Originally posted by EmmieD:
Anyway, all this BS about equity between the guy or gal who runs the company and the guy or gal who puts a spit shine on the urinal pucks is just foolishness. ".... What can explain the desire to induce guilt in successful CEOs and to reduce their pay? It is the egalitarian remnants of Marxism. Though Communism has fallen, the premises of Marxism persist in our culture. According to Marxism, real wealth is earned by brute labor and therefore profits earned by managers and CEOs are assumed to be stolen rather than earned. Marxism evades the true source of wealth: human intelligence.
Yeah, yeah, CEOs love to think they're sooo incredibly smart and the whole thing would fall apart without them, whereas line workers are sooo incredibly dumb and should never, ever be allowed near a decision. Bullshit. Whenever people manage to set up worker-owned co-ops, they tend to do quite well; in England the historical problem has been that the laws for co-ops don't let them share out much of the profits, so eventually when they've built up huge equity the employees find it worthwhile to sell out to a corporation for much less than that nest egg is worth. Bye bye co-op, but not because it wasn't making money. To paraphrase Scott Adams of Dilbert, at a big corporation "Sure, somewhere back at the beginning someone may have done something right or had a good idea, but now it could be managed by gerbils and they'd still be making money hand over fist." The cult of the CEO as generator of value is just that--a cult. Once in a long while you might find a CEO so knowledgeable and with such a cool set of ideas that he actually has an impact. Most of them aren't very knowledgeable about anything except finance, which has little to do with actually running a business, and most of them have some ideas but no idea whatsoever about the relationship between their largely abstract ideas and the ideas' impact in practice on the business that they're hypothetically running. In the typical computer firm, the lead programmer and the lead system architecture guy who decides how the program's going to be modularized so different people can effectively work on it have *way* more impact on the success or failure of the firm than anyone in management unless the management types screw up spectacularly. But mostly, no single individual or small group can have that much effect on the direction and effectiveness of a huge concern. Knowledge is social. Everyone in the place has some, many of them have pieces which are hard to replace. If there's overlap and sharing and there's some point to becoming more knowledgeable and applying the knowledge constructively, then stuff gets done. The cult of the CEO on the other hand defines most everyone else as passive ciphers for the godlike CEO to wave a wand at. It also means that all the benefits go to the CEO and/or the stockholders. Now, what was the problem with Communism? No incentive for individuals in the system, I hear you say? Fine. So how about the CEO-cult corporation? Any incentive for individuals there? None. Nada. Zilch.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 28 May 2004 03:41 PM
If CEOs are essentially overpaid figureheads, and if gerbils could indeed run most companies, then how do you explain companies that fail? I don't mean companies that fail due to outright embezzlement... I just mean the ones that try and don't make it. Is that the fault of the workers then? Or is it a case that when the company succeeds it's really on the strength of the proud worker, but when it fails it's on the stupidity of the CEO? quote: Yeah, yeah, CEOs love to think they're sooo incredibly smart and the whole thing would fall apart without them, whereas line workers are sooo incredibly dumb and should never, ever be allowed near a decision. Bullshit.
Except Marxists and those influence by Marxism, who appear to believe that it isn't "work" unless your arms hurt when you're done, and that somehow pulling a lever on a metal press all day makes a "worker" a better judge of systems efficiency, supply-chain economics, marketing, investment and expansion and customer relations than the CEO — who, to Marxists, is inevitably the owner's son. Have you ever worked at a factory? I've worked in a factory among people who clearly needed every last brain cell they had just to pull that lever. To suggest that they, by dint only of their proximity to the floor, know best is absurd.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 28 May 2004 05:20 PM
I think that pay scales of CEO's and CFO's are out of whack with reality. In the states, CEO's and CFO's are rewarding themselves for the numbers of workers they trim with stock options and bonuses. Companies like MS, INTEL, GM and Motorola are handed what amounts to corporate welfare by the feds for the sole pupose of creating American jobs. A contentious issue in their election is the offshoring of white collar and living wage manufacturing jobs to Asia and the fact that American taxpayers are subsidizing the cost for this offshoring. They're paying corporations to subtract jobs from the American economy. And these same corporations have enjoyed annual taxpayer subsidies in attaining their corporate girth over the course of several decades.I think the former chief of Ontario Hydro was way overpaid. I think that the CEO's who have perpetrated the scandals that were Enrong, Global Crossup, Adelphia, World Con, Tyko were/are overpaid. I think that Nortel CEO's, Roth and then Dunn were overpaid. These people are very well off by way of stock options in a company that they helped to over-extend with frivolous takeovers and wanton spending which turned out to be disasterous corporate strategy. And I think that there are probably just a few more of them out there who do not justify their lofty salaries and unprecedented bonuses. Many of the newly unemployed from Nortel put their heart and souls into their work for nought. I think that the world wide experiment in deregulated economies is proving to result in predatory capitalism with corporations becoming overbloated and Soviet in size. Benign competition is absorbed. The results are larger corporations with more revenues and political power than nationalized entities were ever accused of by those proponents of de-regulation. And it's not working as planned. An estimated third of the total workforce of the group of nations subscribing to liberal democracy are currently unemployed. Many on the left are saying the economic model is deeply flawed and must be changed. We should not or cannot expect the other 95% of the world's population to subscribe to such a wasteful, polluting and highly unequal system of wealth distrbution that is middle class capitalism based on consumption. The planet simply won't support it. [ 28 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 28 May 2004 06:58 PM
Mr. MaGoo says: quote: You mean Eleanor Clitheroe? Who used public cash to pay for a nanny for her kids? Nobody disagrees. But just for the record, wasn't OH state-owned (ie: a Crown corporation) at the time?
This is what Howard Hampton said before Ontarian's elected Norman Bates and the Liberals: "In 1999, the Tories split Ontario Hydro into OPG and Hydro One, with fat-cat salaries for top executives. Latest numbers show OPG president and CEO Ron Osborne is being paid $950,767 this year, after netting $2.2 million in salary and bonuses a year earlier, and OPG executive VP and chief nuclear officer gets $2.5 million. Even fired Hydro One president Eleanor Clitheroe is still on the payroll, netting $681,192 this year, after taking home $2.2 million a year earlier." "They tell us they're worried about hydro debt, and look at these salaries", said Howard Hampton of the NDP. And as for Ontario Hydro's $38 billion stranded debt, of which ratepayers have been saddled with paying off $20.9 billion in residual debt through a debt retirement tax, Hampton points out, "every hydro electric utility in the world carries debt"; He adds banks and Bay Street investment houses were quite prepared to support this debt through bonds.Hydro Quebec, which just reported a decent profit of $1.5 billion, of which half was returned to its public owners, has a $37 billion debt. Manitoba Hydro's debt is $7.1 billion. Hampton says he'd also establish an Ontario Public Utilities Commission, with real teeth to regulate the hydro utility and set prices. As for criticism his NDP party is only backing bloated salaries of public, unionized workers, Hampton reminds us it was Bob Rae's government that axed 8,000 hydro jobs and shut down Ontario Hydro's construction division. He then slyly points to the Tories' record of axing public sector jobs, only to hire them back as consultants at three times the pay. Note: Bob Rae's was the first government in Ontario history to reduce actually reduce the year-to-year spending as a direct result of Brian Mulroney's conservatives short changing Ontario by $4 Billion annually in federal transfers added to the $3 Billion dollar annual budget deficit handed off to the NDP by the Peterson Liberals. In fact, government revenues were down world wide as a result of the then global recession. Public power, he adds, also means more green power and a phase-out of polluting coal-fired hydro plants, which spew carcinogens into the air. As a mother of a child battling cancer, that gets my vote." Renfrew NDP Press release http://www.renfrewndp.ca/Press%20releases/Linda-Leatherdale-article.htm [ 28 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 29 May 2004 05:30 PM
quote: Is it ok to steal from the rich and give to the poor?
No one truly makes 100 percent of his money by himself. Individuals depend on a wide array of government services to support the very free market in which they earn their money. Without these supports, there would be no free market in the first place. No man is truly an island. [ 29 May 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|