Sounds like you are thinking of something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_FrontLibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 5:44 pm » wrote: ↑ It the case of labor unions it is due to the right of their members to freely enter into any contracts they choose without undue government interference. The members of the union decided it was in their best interest to negotiate their contract as a group. Union contracts or "collective bargaining" are perfectly fine as long as the negotiations are free and fair. The must operate within the confines of the US Constitution.
Where they go beyond the American Idea is using threat of violence against anyone who attempts to enter into their own free and fair negotiations with these same industries. The often violently injure anyone who attempts to work for a company who isn't a member of the union. They also use graft and corrupt practices to enact unconstitutional legislation requiring work in certain industries be the sole right of those in their union. This is unconstitutional and un-American. They are free to collectively bargain but they have no right interfering with my same right to choose not to join the union.
I'm the opposite of a NAZI. I believe in freedom not tyranny.FOS » 29 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm » wrote: ↑ And yes when I compare you to nazis I mean it as a compliment. Cause I'm a nazi.
The loyalty of labor unions should be to workers. This is only possible if it is integrated with the state. Otherwise they may serve a foreign power such as bolsheviks.
LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 5:54 pm » wrote: ↑ I'm the opposite of a NAZI. I believe in freedom not tyranny.
Are you serving exhibition #35Z0C, "Libertardian gets owned by fascist?"FOS » 29 Dec 2021, 5:56 pm » wrote: ↑ freedom is only possible with Tyranny. I don't see the dichotomies that you were programmed to see.
Those who would restrict your freedom must be oppressed...right?
FOS » 29 Dec 2021, 5:56 pm » wrote: ↑ freedom is only possible with Tyranny. I don't see the dichotomies that you were programmed to see.
Those who would restrict your freedom must be oppressed...right?
He's probably the kind of guy that would raise hell about my broken down cars.FOS » 29 Dec 2021, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑ Actually no I don't really get it. What makes you think he wants an amusement park in his yard? Or gold bricks? And what would be the objective value of such a thing?
maybe he likes the yard as it is. In fact maybe he is used to it and comfortable with it..
Sometimes leisure really is more valuable than work.
Sorry I kinda feel the need to question this premise. There is not always work to do.
Oppressed is your term. I prefer discouraged and ignored. If reasoning with their better sensibilities doesn't suffice then at some point the discouragement is still not best described by the term "oppression", rather it would more aptly be described as a bullet to the head. My constitutional rights are inalienable. Americans are quite tolerant and we "live and let live". But when it comes to extremes and attempts are made to violate our Constitution or undermine our Republic all bets are off. Everyone is free to operate within the confines of the Constitution, "but not one inch further".Polar1ty » 29 Dec 2021, 5:58 pm » wrote: ↑ Are you serving exhibition #35Z0C, "Libertardian gets owned by fascist?
I don't think you understand what the difference is between FREEDOM, and CAPITALISM. You DESCRIBE freedom, and then you CALL that freedom "capitalism."LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 4:42 pm » wrote: ↑ The American Idea
At the heart of the American Idea is the Right to Property. As Jefferson paraphrased, if someone whittles a stick into an arrow with his own labor his right to that arrow and all the wealth entailed is sacrosanct. If he uses his arrow and his skill at hunting to fell wild game it too becomes the product of his labor and he may rightfully use it to feed his family or barter in free trade for something he deems of more value.
This anecdote was proffered by Jefferson to explain the bedrock of our system. This applies to all product of one's labor. Whether we trade our labor product for an agreed upon wage or sell such product directly. Under the American Idea no one else has the right to object or lay claim to the proceeds. Michael Jordan made the decision to apply his labor to developing the skills required to place a ball through a hoop (and all the other talents necessary to play basketball). At some point it turned out an owner of a basketball team thought it in his own interests to pay a freely agreed upon wage to Michael in exchange for his talents on the court. Now I consider $26 Million/year to earn for playing basketball astounding. Truth be told I am jealous as hell and it is only human nature to want someone to force Michael to hand over the product of his labor to me. I might even be willing to share in the theft of his wealth. But I and others have NO RIGHT to decide what is a fair price to pay for Michael's talents. Nor does he have any say in what I agree to receive in return for my labor. This is the American Idea. It is capitalism in its truest form.
What about a fluffer on a porn set? Where is the point of diminishing returns on a gig like that?LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 4:54 pm » wrote: ↑ If by productive work you mean the product of the work is worth less than the labor to produce it then yes. For the most part all work has SOME value. It just might not be worth my time. I could always be doing something else worth more to me. Even if that is just leisure around my pool. But it might also be more beneficial for me to learn how to do heart surgery. What is limited is the value of what I work to produce versus the cost in my effort to produce it. Always work to be done, it is up to me to decide what work SHOULD best be done if any.
If I already have everything I want provided to me by whatever means and I decide the most valuable thing to me I could do is relax in leisure that is what I will and should do.
My time on this Earth is limited as are my skills. I must decide how best to use these limited resources for my benefit as I perceive it to be. But the list of possible work I could attempt is limitless. The point is, when someone states unemployment is high because there are no jobs available really has no basis. What unemployment really means is no work is available which is worth the effort, paycheck, and buying power it would result in.
What shrooms do you grow?SJConspirator » 29 Dec 2021, 5:07 pm » wrote: ↑ I used to think having a work ethic was ethical. Morally righteous.
Now in the age of mass automation it's mostly just stupid.
The exception is work you love. Mixing substrates and pasteurized straw for my mushroom farming is labor intensive but I freaking love doing it
wow, you like capitalism. profound.LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑ Employment
So what causes employment. With an understanding of the limitless availability of work it becomes clear Employment is caused by one thing.... NEED or WANT. It is the motivation to work which any viable system intent on increasing the Standard of Living for its people must strive to increase.
Just don't call it capitalism - the entire scenario is free enterprise: an owner and an agent - NOT a publicly traded corporation (capitalism).LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 5:25 pm » wrote: ↑ Using Michael Jordan as an example:
Michael used his effort to hone his skills to a truly phenomenal level. As was his inalienable right to do so.
MJ <--> Owner of the Bulls
MJ and the owner of the Bulls entered into a private contract in which the owner agreed to pay him $26M/year to play for the Bulls without government interference. Both parties thought they would benefit from the exchange of labor (and they were right).
Owner <--> Fans
The owner risked this money paid to MJ with the prospect of increased revenue. He did this partly due to the prospect of increased ticket sales and cost of admission to the Bulls games. The fans willingly and freely agreed the cost of admission was well worth the exchange of their wealth to watch the spectacle. No one was forced to buy tickets so obviously all involved were happy with the exchange.
Owner <--> advertisers
Due to increased viewership advertisers also began paying more to air their commercials during Bulls games. They willingly did so as they perceived the best use of their resources (i.e. $) was to advertise their products in an effort to increase sales and prices of their own products. All freely agreed without government interference. Television viewers thought it a good use of their time to watch these advertisements if it meant getting to see the game.
It is not up to me to object to the contracts and compensations agreed upon. It isn't my labor being expended by Michael on the court and I'm not the one paying him $26M. Socialists claim this is unfair for Michael to earn so much more than the average Joe. This flies in direct contradiction to the American Idea. We all are equal in the regard we have the right to property and the product which results from our labor through free and private contracts without government interference. It is no one else's business to object or share in the proceeds. Our system isn't based on equal pay. It is based on equal opportunity.
There is no harder work than professional athletics.SJConspirator » 29 Dec 2021, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑ Playing basketball is not work.. its play. Hence the phrase "play basketball"
Sports is a form of entertainment. Pro Athletes are like actors and musicians in a sense.. they are paid to entertain.
That is not work. Working is providing goods or services, creating commodities
Right. Not share holders. No need for the SEC.LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 5:30 pm » wrote: ↑ Everyone is free to make their own decisions on how best to go through life. If the Bulls Owner had been wrong he would have lost a lot of his wealth. He was the one risking his wealth and it was he who should pay the consequences or reap the benefits.
It has EVERYTHING to do with capitalism.LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 5:36 pm » wrote: ↑ It is important to understand, this interference has little to nothing to do with capitalism or the American Idea.
It's like the weather - it's GONNA happen.DeezerShoove » 29 Dec 2021, 5:39 pm » wrote: ↑ I daresay nepotism, for one, has nothing to do with ANY political system ever invented.
It just is...
My apologies. I'm not familiar with this particular occupation. What exactly does a fluffer do?Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 6:12 pm » wrote: ↑ What about a fluffer on a porn set? Where is the point of diminishing returns on a gig like that
Not me. I'm gonna put a stranger over my own brother.FOS » 29 Dec 2021, 5:42 pm » wrote: ↑ You can count on me to always show nepotism. It's biology...which transcends politics.