[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

I didn't say you complained about your life. I said you complain about the idea of a planned economy simply because you are able to make more than the average american and way more than 95% of the world. You set yourself as an example of how capitalism works; why else would you talk about your job?

Because I had just gotten off work and it was the first example that comes to mind. You claimed that bosses salaries were based only on hierarchy; not how hard they work, the significance of the work, or how important they were individually to the company. I showed you an incident where this was not the case and you said "You make above minimum wage and live in America therefore you're wrong". What part of your brain thinks that's a good way to proceed?

I mean you're not simply arguing that sometimes the way we trade is unfair to some, or that sometimes property laws are irrational. You're arguing theory here, you're trying to prove that the basic philosophy the concept of property, as we understand it, is unjust correct?

How the fuck, does ignoring...no, not ignoring, you're actually admitting that I did bring an example of just pay, and/or just property law, and then you're trying to pull "street cred" on me, and bring up unrelated examples from unregulated/under regulated third world economies to show that property is unjust. How the hell does this serve your argument?

Oh right, it doesn't. In fact, your line of reasoning proves that I'm right. You've admitted, that it works in NYC and therefore, you've admitted that the theory of property and varying wages is sound, you just don't like it when it's unfairly applied (me too), where we differ is that you irrationally blame the theory when it is misapplied. That's even dumber than blaming the car when someone gets in a traffic accident, that's like ignoring the fact that the driver was drunk and blaming the schematics of the car.

You're still assuming for no apparent reason that if there's no private property, a Harlem's syphalitic drug addict will crash on your couch, so yeah, you're still using hyperbole here. Don't we all just hate when the other uses a red herring?

That's not a red herring a red herring involves changing the subject, (such as ignoring that a person has pointed out that your line of reasoning does not support your argument, and instead harping on the tongue-in-cheek example they use to illustrate this point)

And yeah, I do friggin' hate it when The Other uses a red herring, but I hate it more when It uses slaver-wasps to turn innocent people into revenants.

That is a crime against nature.

But your argument FOR capitalism, limited as that capitalism might be, also doesn't say anything.
Basically you argued for private property because of hard labor. Where the
fuck do we get the connection between both?

Ummm, No in fact, I've said two or three times that this is not the only factor and provided examples as to why. Lots of things play into why the concept of private property is not arbitrary. Are you actually so dense that you can't see why a person who has devoted his life, risking his fortune and his livelyhood, to organizing and constructing something should be entitled to more of the rewards, and the same control over that creation than someone who simply come along and helps with a small part of it?

I'm pretty sure all of us here agreed that hard labor has nothing to do with profit in capitalism. Certainly Adam Smith himself would say that is stupid.

Actually, I think Adam Smith would argue that you don't know what you're talking about:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The labour theories of value (LTV) are economic theories of value according to which the values of commodities are related to the labour needed to produce them.

There are many different accounts of labour value, with the common element that the "value" of an exchangeable good or service is, or tends to be, or can be considered as, or "is to be measured as"[1] equal or proportional to the amount of labour required to produce it (including the labour required to produce the raw materials and machinery used in production).

Different labour theories of value prevailed amongst classical economists through to the mid-19th century. It is especially associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

So we are left with no argument for or against capitalism?
I beg to differ. The arbitrariness of private property rights have shown throughout history to exploit and rob a community from its resources. That should count as an argument against capitalism. Why doesn't it?

Probably because you just make blind assertions without backing them up, expecting us to take your word at face value because you "used to be a capitalist" This is probably for the best though, as when you do actually attempt to explain your position, what comes out of your mouth is so insane and irrational, anyone with half a brain can see that you have no idea what you're talking about.

So you're not arguing for the norm in the free market, huh?
So I go back to the original question which you yourself cannot answer directly: Where do you draw the line and why?

Which fucking "free market" are you talking about? Are you talking about the industrial revolution? Are you talking about the Bush era American economy? Are you talking about Europe's socialized economy? Are you talking about Anarcho capitalism? How the fuck am I supposed to give you a direct answer when you won't ask a direct question?

Cool, so then we'll agree that using your non-profit higher-than-minimum-wage job as an example of capitalism is stupid.

Dude, Carnegie Hall is a great example of capitalism: It exists in a capitalist society, operates under capitalist rules, it does over 4 billion dollars of business a year, and gives back to the community and the world at large in the form of one of the most comprehensive music education and outreach programs in the Continental United States.

Do you only define capitalism as evil, faceless, reaganite caricatures of corporations bleeding poor Mexicans dry of their rightly-earned wages?

These words will sound familiar to you:
That was never my argument, so stop pretending it was.
I never said that salaries were arbitrary under capitalism. Far from it. What IS arbitrary is the respect for the private ownership of the means of production.

I'm sorry I misunderstood you, it probably had to do with when you used a wage gap as an example as to why property was arbitrary.

No attempt at humor. And how is it a hyperbole?
Your boss earns more because he works more. Do braceros earn less because they work less? Or are they worth less?
How do you account for this ACTUAL example of how capitalism doesn't give a shit about hard labor for payment?

Well that's good to know, because it was funny as shit. oh and I was using hyperbole to ridicule the fact that you seemed to be using it as a buzzword.

Now I assume you're using bracero in some other sense than the 1942-1965 American guest worker program as this program:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

...mandated a certain level of wages, housing, food and medical care for the workers (to be paid for by the employers) that kept the standard of living above what many had in Mexico. Not only did this enable many to send funds home to their families, but it also had the unintended effect of encouraging illegal immigration when the USA's workers quotas were met. These new illegal workers could not be employed "above the table" as part of the program leaving them open for exploitation. This resulted in the lowering of wages and not receiving the benefits that the Mexican government had negotiated to insure their legal workers well being under the bracero program.

As this program was no doubt somewhat socialistic, and interestingly enough opposed by American labor unions:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Labor unions which tried to organize agricultural workers after WWII targeted the Bracero program as a key impediment to improving the wages of domestic farm workers[11]. These unions included the National Farm Laborers Union (NFLU), later called the National Agricultural Workers Union (NAWU), headed by Ernesto Galarza, and the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), AFL-CIO.

I hope you'll not think me too ignorant when I ask what the fuck you're talking about. I mean are you talking about the illegal workers who eroded the program by agreeing to work under the table as opposed to working legally where they would be afforded protection by the law? They were no doubt exploited. Is that what you mean?