RoR: Forum

Yet to call a basic human need for employment a 'pony-up' is to abuse words precisely as did Ree in Korea, circa 1950, when he executed 20,000 of his progressive, democratic opponents under ther rubric of 'communism'

The basic human need is to create value in order to consume value. That's an uncaring Universe laying down its strict conservative rules. We can call that 'employment' if you want. I've always had a basic human need for employment; I provided that need myself.

Who was supposed to provide that need for me? Or alternately, if only some can, who was I supposed to provide that need for, other than me? You should stay up late in the dorm one night, form a committee, and then let me know what the lit department decides. But first, you'll need a time machine. Good luck with that.

Your views on life in North Korea for the last 50 yrs, vs life in South Korea, are interesting. You really need to eat some progressive shoes for a few years in a re-education camp to get the real flavor of a true Worker's Paradise. Rhee was a virulent anti-communist? The hell you say. You say that as if it was a bad thing. 20,000 was a hell of a slow start-- real pikers compared to the agrarian Marxists in Kampuchea. Need to find a 100 Rhees to catch up on them. For them, 20,000 was a rounding error.

Fred

Post 101

Sunday, February 16, 2014 - 5:32pm

Re Rhee in my last post: again, you have to be a total moron to believe his claim that he murdered 'communists' by his daffy-nition of what 'communism' is:

The goal is a unification of Korea. American presence is a problem in many ways, not the least of which is the militarized, totalitarian north is a result of American presence in the south. The human tragedy is that the north is on a permanent war footing because of this....again, a fact that americans cannot seem to grasp....

Post 102

Sunday, February 16, 2014 - 6:16pm

In post #96, I said that the government has no moral or legal right to tell an employer what minimum they must pay an employee - that this is a private matter between an employer and the employee.

Matthews said:

The fact that I believe it should not have this right does not make it an issue of 'moral authority".

Of course it's authority is 'legal' (duh!).

Of course it's authority is moral if:

a) to the extent that the governmnt was fairly elected and

b) an individual cannot come up with a better moral argment than an ad hoc declaration as to what the moral authority of said government extends.

This is precisely the difference between a 'belief' and a 'philosophy'. The later must be defended and explained.

Legal? No. The constitution is first law of our nation and our government has no legal right to do anything that isn't a power granted by that document. There is no place in the constitution where the federal government is granted the constitutional right to determine what people must be paid.

Moral? No. Matthews makes the argument that democracy... a vote... can grant moral authority. Well, if the democracy votes that the government can kill anyone who criticizes the government does that make it moral? No way!

Then she says something very puzzling. Read that subsection 'b' under her moral argument. Does it make any sense to someone else? This is, I believe, the result of being deeply imbued in a subculture where there is no such thing as an objective morality. It has a kind of fuzzy subjectivism instead of any understanding of an objective morality. Is there anything in that statement that follows the kind of reasoning one should use to determine what is or is not moral in a given context? Not that I can see.

She says, "If you put your own sense of moral authority first, then, yes, you are a fascist." Wow! An entirely new argument from the moral relativists. If you think that there is something that an objective moral value, then you are a fascist. I'm in favor of the absolute maximum amount of freedom possible in a society - and I think that is a moral value and I think it should be enforced with authority. So, according to Matthews, a libertarian government is a fascist government. I support the smallest government possible that can protect individual rights. The moral rights to which I believe authority should enforce apply to the initiation of force (murder, rape, assault, etc.), theft and fraud. How can anyone pretend to any rationality whatsoever in the area of politics by making that kind of claim.

Matthews, are you saying that there is no moral authority to outlaw murder... that it can only be a moral position if it gets a democratic vote? Are you saying that murder is not a moral issue?

My position is that outlawing murder would be a moral position even if a majority voted the other way.

For you to call me a fascist is disgusting, obscene, inappropriate, without logic, and the cheapest kind of rhetoric... one totally lacking in integrity. I believe you should retract that and apologize. If you want to make that kind of statement then you should be restricted to the Dissent area.

Post 103

Sunday, February 16, 2014 - 6:18pm

Oh man...

Next she is going to say it was our fault the twin towers were destroyed...blowback or some drivel.

Sure sure pull out of South Korea so that Korea can be reunited! I am sure the South Koreans would be ever so grateful to you Eva for allowing that happy reunion to take place if you had your way!

No lights on after sundown - check

No food - check

Everyone works for the same mandatory minimum wage - check

Everyone that is not murdered for complaining equally oppressed - check

I think you should have stuck to being daddies little math prodigy - check check

PS you calling Steve a Fascist is bloody well disgusting.

I wonder if Brad Trun is her boyfriend!

(Edited by Jules Troy on 2/16, 6:22pm)

Post 104

Sunday, February 16, 2014 - 6:40pm

...the militarized, totalitarian north is a result of American presence in the south. The human tragedy is that the north is on a permanent war footing because of this...

America caused the totalitarianism of North Korea? Matthews, that is so wacky.

Post 105

Sunday, February 16, 2014 - 7:51pm

I think 9/11 was orchestrated by elite banksters, not islamic terrorists.

I think North Korea is as it is because of foreign aid to support NK's gov + American military presence and provoke. The powers that be like perpetual war.

FYI my girlfriend in college was South Korean, and I heard her and her family talk about their wish for unification. Although... they weren't philosophers nor capitalists.

Eva, On this topic, know that some objectivists are Team America World Police and others are Ron Paul Let's Not Get Involved.

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 2/16, 7:57pm)

Post 106

Sunday, February 16, 2014 - 8:23pm

re # 102 & my # 96:

Anyone who reads my phrase within the context of the full sentence-- as writte by me-- will clearly see that I made no such accusation against Wolfer.

It was a generic statement as to what early 20th century fascism prioriotized under the name as they gave themselves. In other words, they stated clearly, unambiguously, that it was okay to permit the poor to starve for the sake of their own, personal 'higher' ideal.

As to whether this pertains to anyone in particular is their own private matter, not mine.

Otherwise....

>>>deeply imbued in a subculture where there is no such thing as an objective morality<<<<

No, to say that there is an 'objective' morality needs to be proven. That means, observer-independent, as if one were able to grasp an elementary particle called a 'moron'.

What's deeply 'imbued' is the necessity of proof on Wolfer's part, not an outright declaration.

Post 107

Sunday, February 16, 2014 - 9:34pm

Matthews wrote this about accusing me of being a fascist:

Anyone who reads my phrase within the context of the full sentence-- as writte by me-- will clearly see that I made no such accusation against Wolfer.

Well, here is her full sentence, written by her, about me from Post #88:

So is Wolfer unable to intellectually walk and chew gum at the same time?.
Or perhaps he's just a garden-varietty fascist who refuses to believe that "unemployment is a huge affront to human dignity"? [emphasis mine]

Or in post #99, where she wrote the following (and I quote not just the full sentence but the preceding paragraph):

Lastly, if you say that you're opposed to an increase in minimum wage because of 'moral authority' then yes, you've derived a remarkable third argument nicely wedged between economic benefit and not caring.

Alternatively, one could say that such an answer nicely avoids answering the question: what's the value of your own sense of 'moral authority' versus a necessary benefit to others? If you put your own sense of moral authority first, then, yes, you are a fascist. [emphasis mine]

So, that is as about as clear as she gets and it says that if I believe that it is immoral for government to interfer in the employment contract, and apparently because she believes that a minimum wage benefit derived by force of law is a "necessary benefit to others" then I'm a fascist. Think about that. She should be in dissent if that is her position.

Post 108

Sunday, February 16, 2014 - 9:49pm

I would say dissent would be a mild place for where she should be...

Post 109

Monday, February 17, 2014 - 12:00am

Well, does Wolfer believe that unemployment is a huge affront to humen dignity?

If one puts your their own moral principles ahead of the human suffering of others then one is a fascist by definition...as I explained per the word's origin in early 20th century Europe.

Wolfer is free to deny the charge: that he would never think of putting his own moral principles ahead of the suffering of others and that he does, indeed believe that unemployment is a huge affront to human dignity (thereby agreeing with Krugnman!).

Then I will apologize and say, 'Well, gosh, you surely wrote stuff that would indicate the contrary!"

Post 110

Monday, February 17, 2014 - 12:07am

Dean,

One reason I'm fascinated by Objectivism is that Rand Paul was the only candidate whose foreign policy was for non-involvement...

I would furthermore suggest that those who feel that America should police the world are, Objectivistly speaking, so far out of bounds that they should go directly to moderation, and not collect $200.

Eva

Post 111

Monday, February 17, 2014 - 6:32am

Eva:

Matthews, or Von Braun? You seemed to be quite enamored of totalitarian thought; is it the cool uniforms? You must love that word: "uniform." It is so ...'unifying.'

"The goal is a unification of Korea."

Thank you for telling us what 'the' goal is; we've been breathlessly waiting for your leadership on this and other pressing organizational issues of The Tribe.

So, 'the' goal is a unification of Korea...at the point of bayonets. As in, via forced association. (After how many years of domination by Japan? Why not "re-unification" with Japan? Hard to keep up with the re-unification spin the wheel game...)

Or, 'a unification' of Europe / the world into "Germainia" ... or, "a unification" of the world into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, ... or whatever current "a unification" the Herdists dream up in their latest body bag filling, Gulag loving, concentration camp demanding, re-education camp requiring total fucking "you'd have to be a moron to believe"(seriously?) forced association madness. Why not unify Kuwait with Iraq? Unification is a wonderful thing...to the Herdists. Or, as Reagan observed on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, 'Force used for liberation is not force used for domination."

It was a polite if messy political difference until North Korea attempted to enforce their goal of "a unification of Korea" by pouring over the 38th parallel into the South. A rescue mission? Here come the commies to save Workers from freedom in the South? Come, eat shoes with us under our new, improved dictator--only, we aren't even asking, we are telling.

Korean families in Korea seeking unification hardly translates into Korean families in Korea desperately wishing to eat shoes under a communist dictator, shuddering in the dark and the cold, by way of bayonets streaming south. More like, will someone get rid of all these government twits, get them back to painting to the double yellow lines down the middle of the road, and let our families be? Sure thing, there would be a lot more lovin' the world if only the cops would pull back and let the rapists have their way via forced association.

Rapists hate a world in which civilization grasps the concept of the Paradox of Violence. It makes the fulfillment of their desires -- forced association by rape in their case -- so risk laden.

It is unfair of me to use a term like "Paradox of Violence" because it is a concept that is being politically shaped out of society by socialists. The Paradox of Violence, which is associated with the term Superior Violence, is(was?)the concept that justified civilizations creation of armed police, court rooms, heated jails, and the military as instruments of defense of civilzation-- examples of superior violence. As you have been instructed, it is the existence of armed resistance to violence that creates violence; without self-defence(a violent act)there would be no rape, for example, only peaceful getting some via forced association. (On what basis does any individual claim sovereignty over their life? Isn't it subject to demand of the Holy Needs of any peer in the Tribe, either singularly or as a committee/gang rape, without the inconvenient requirement to politely ask????) The concept "Superior Violence" is(was?)applied to violence/force used in response to the unjust first use of violence/force. So defensive force is(was once?) ethically distinguished from offensive force. The bayonets that responded to those streaming south over the 38th parallel had a different ethical justification. A rape that proceeds unimpeded, vs a rape that is resisted via violent self-defense, is not regarded as a more ethical rape due to the lack of resistance by the victim. Or is it today? What is the current modern sensibility pouring from the Dust Bunny Us these days? Even Ghandi supported the concept of Superior Violence as being crucial in defense of civil life. Of course, being so well read, you already knew that, even if, apparently, you never grasped the concept, or were instructed that it was inconvenient. The Paradox of Violence is that civil society ultimately depends on Superior Violence to defend civil life from the unjust first use of violence/force.

And so, the reason that this millenium long truth -- the truth that forms the basis for even ancient oriental forms of martial art--is being politically shaped out of society by socialists is, their absolute need to embrace forced association to get what they want, just like any rapist. Relax, world; lay back and enjoy it. It's going to be good (this time), we promise, as we convince the latest crop of the barely woken up that all the past failures of the same tribal insanity were due to the impurities of the previous crops.

So, you sat up like a trained puppy taking notes in an instructional pen somewhere while the Nth iteration of some closet Marxists professor used tactics like "you'd have to be a moron to believe" to fill in your eager to please blank slate, and now you are rotely barking back your leg lifting argument here. Do those tactics work well elewhere in your 'negotiations?'

You aren't even the messenger for this dross; you are a voice recording, passing on the propaganda recorded from some other voice recorder. The debate isn't with the self-replicating repeaters of dross, it is with the existentially terrified Herdists who set you all in motion decades ago, and they are all long gone, smouldering on the trash heap of history. The Cold War isn't quite over, the West didn't actually win it; we apparently caught the Cold along the way, and have some left wing phlegm that still needs to be coughed up. Thankfully, the current administration's bumbling failure is in plain sight and is likely going to be the last of it-- not because of any national enlightenement, but because in the end, this shit just doesn't float at all. So let's all wave at the last old steam train pulling out of FDR station for the goodbye tour, frayed red bunting waving in a cold wind.

Fred

Post 112

Monday, February 17, 2014 - 6:52am

Eva:

Well, does Wolfer believe that unemployment is a huge affront to humen dignity?

The thread topic is MW, so the same question applies to you. My youngest son, with Williams Syndrome, has an IQ under 60, my oldest, over 140. On average, they are average. My oldest son is working nowhere near MW, and neither am I--today. In HS, no doubt, in my part time jobs.

So by raising the MW, is the opportunity for employment by my younger son (or, me as a once HSer looking for part time work after school and practice)increased or decreased?

But, let's not stop at an IQ of 60; for the Holy Average, my youngest son would appear a moron, which begs the question: to somebody with an IQ over 140, what does the Holy Average appear as?

So, if you believe that raising the MW increases the opportunity for employment for those with IQs below 100, explain the mechanism, please. Are employers more likely to offer my son employment at $15/hr or $2/hr? Is sitting at home in his man cave preferrable to the indignity of him shredding paper, or labeling mailings, or doing any of the many tasks worth $2/hr to someone but not worth $15/hr to someone? Should concerned citizens, far away from his life, rush in to save him from the indignity of working for $2/hr as their latest example of feel good/doing good and on their way to their next bumper sticker cause while they fuck up the lives of those they neither know or care about with their Holy Average nonsense?. Or, can you explain how opportunbnbities for him and those many like him, all the way from and IQ of 60 to 70 and 80 and 90 and even 100, are increased by raising the MW?

And if you can't, then explain why you want to expose folks like my youngest son (as well as once me as a part time HS odd job worker) to a huge affront to human dignity? Because both me and my oldest son are shaking our heads at this.

I'll pretend that I think this is about MW, and not, guaranteed level of income without the dignity of earnings.

Fred

Post 113

Monday, February 17, 2014 - 8:17am

Matthews,

If one puts your their own moral principles ahead of the human suffering of others then one is a fascist by definition...

What does that mean, 'to put ones own moral principles ahead of the human suffering of others?' If I own my house, and ownership and property rights are among my moral principles, are you saying that keeping those who are suffering homelessness out of my house makes me a fascist?

Post 114

Monday, February 17, 2014 - 9:16am

Matthews,

...does Wolfer believe that unemployment is a huge affront to humen dignity?

Dignity is one of those words without a commonly accepted, precise definition. In psychology an individual might 'exhibit dignity' - an observable behavioral trait, and an individual might 'experience dignity.' It is a state that arises in the individual primarily based upon their sense of their self-worth, and their belief as to how a person of self-worth behaves. Those people who respect themselves tend to behave in a dignified manner. Psychologically, self-respect (as opposed to narcissim) is an earned state - a state that is the direct reflection of how a person has behaved relative to their beliefs on how a person should behave.

I have enormous respect for personal dignity where it relates to commonly recognized virtues... like courage, honesty, civility, or fairness. That is, when an individual carries themselves with a sense of personal pride, despite some suffering they are enduring for no fault of their own, I have great respect for that. Just as I have no respect for those who attempt to trade upon their suffering, parading it about like a claim on others, especially when such an activity is a substitute for personal responsibility. Some people have no dignity.

----------

Different humans have different values:

Some of them don't want a job and want someone else to support them;
Some of them lost their job and want to work but don't feel like it affects their dignity at all - it's just that they are between jobs and they'll take care of that;
And some of them take the loss of a job very personal and feel like their self-worth is less.

Note that none of those would justify saying "human dignity" - as if it were an inalienable, or innate part of human nature that expressed in the same way in all humans.

------------

There is a use of the phrase "human dignity," particularly among the far left, as something that justifies redistribution. For example, a welfare program might be 'justified' that would take tax dollars from those who are working to give to those who are unemployed by saying that unemployment is a 'huge affront to human dignity.' This use of 'human dignity' is nothing but emotionalism substituting for logic.

I'm guessing that Matthews is using "human dignity" in the way that the far left does - as if there exists some emotionally charged human need that amounts to a positive moral/legal right which is used to justify legislation that is redistributive.

------------

Human dignity has been used as the argument in favor of euthanasia and against euthanasia. It is considered an important part of some Christian teachings, justifying altruistic behaviors - engaging in sacrifices to prevent any 'affront to human dignity.' It is often used to designate an extension of the value of human life into mandating respect for human beings. And sometimes that call to respect human beings is done to stifle objections to individual behaviors (such as when a person does nothing to get a job, or nothing to hold a job, but then is to be treated with respect because they are human, and therefore have 'human dignity' that should not be affonted. This use of 'human dignity' is a way avoiding rational judgment of virtues and vices and to do so as if it were an ethical requirement to not make ethical judgments. This use of 'human dignity' is a way of getting the sanction of victim to be sacrificed.

Post 115

Monday, February 17, 2014 - 9:54am

Basic game theory shows that socialism reduces motivation to produce. Lower production results in less resources to survive on. Less resources to survive on means fewer people live.

No matter how many people live, its a fact of natural evolutionary life that a population/species will grow/expand to where some of the population is starving and dieing. In a propserous capitalist society there will be lots of humans, and hence lots of such people suffering and dying. In a socialist society where the population has already starved to death in large proportions, the remaining surviving population then has significantly fewer people who are living on the fringe (compared to the large population that was supported by capitalist resource allocation). Having a world population of 8 billion with 1 billion starving, or a world population of 4 billion and 0.5 billion starving, which is better? Not to say that these ratios are exact, but the former would be towards what happens with capitalism, where more poeple prosper, but also more people are on the fringe. And the latter would be more socialist, where fewer people propser and fewer people are on the fringe.

Movements towards socialism in a capitalist society has a temporary effect of enabling some special interest group to survive momentarily, but in the long term results in population decline. This is because before the movement to socialism is performed, there was some level of savings that exist that are being consumed in a different manner than the would have been in a more capitalist system. The different manner allows some on the fringe to live a little longer, but due to the reduced savings of others, reduces the motivation to produce and the ability for productive to take risks... reducing the long term productivity of the society.

The short-sighted plea that all humans should live with some "minimum level of dignity" fail to recognize these facts. The "dignity" plea acts as if capitalism (enforcing property rights) is an artificial cruel barrier that prevents starving people from living. When in real, this "cruel barrior" is what keeps the engine/motivation of productivity possible and has even enabled such depraved people to survive due to increased productivity and lowered cost of living. When in real, its not this "cruel barrior" that is starving these people, instead is it just the fact of life that productivity must meet or exceed consumption.

Some manipulators use the plea for dignity to pander. This is dispicable, but notably is quite effective in attaining majority votes from short sighted fools and we-don't-care-if-you-are-lieing-to-us special interest groups.

Post 116

Monday, February 17, 2014 - 12:45pm

From CNN today:

(CNN) -- A stunning catalog of torture and the widespread abuse of even the weakest of North Koreans reveal a portrait of a brutal state "that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world," a United Nations panel reported Monday.

North Korean leaders employ murder, torture, slavery, sexual violence, mass starvation and other abuses as tools to prop up the state and terrorize "the population into submission," the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea said in its report.

The commission traced the abuses directly to the highest levels of the North Korean government while simultaneously blaming world leaders for sitting on their hands amid untold agony.

"The suffering and tears of the people of North Korea demand action," commission Chairman Michael Kirby told reporters.

Commission Chariman Michael Kirby needs to check with Eva's Lit Department, because apparently, the goal is the reunification of South Korea ... with that.

If only we would remove those 30,000 tripwire defensive troops in South Korea, then North Korean leaders would not employ murder, torture, slavery, sexual violence, mass starvation and other abuses as tools to prop up the state and terrorize "the population into submission,"

Fred

Post 117

Monday, February 17, 2014 - 12:57pm

A coworker of mine has spent a lot of time in South Korea. In the city and to the north of it they have drilled pipe at intervals into the ground and filled them full of water. When the North Koreans send forces to excavate tunnels the water is tripped. They then flood that new tunnel and drown the fuk#rs.

(Edited by Jules Troy on 2/17, 12:57pm)

Post 118

Monday, February 17, 2014 - 12:57pm

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/07/opinion/lee-stanton-north-korea/

If only we'd remove those 30,000 troops from South Korea, the over the border mind control rays causing all of this mayhem would finally stop, and Eva's Lit Department could go cleanup those camps.

That was good stuff. I'm convinced. Where do I sign up? I could eat some good shoe right about now.

MMMMMMmmmm; death race rice cakes. Can't beat 'em with a bloody stick.

And what about those damned impolite CNN reporters, mentioning 'rape' all the time in that context of that democratic people's republic? Haven't they ever checked with Eva's Lit Department????

Fred

Post 119

Monday, February 17, 2014 - 12:59pm