The implications of donations by billionaires
- Thread starter Alrik Fassbauer
- Start date
dteowner
Shoegazer
I don't give two shit about everyone getting along, to be honest, but I don't base my politics on "fair", which is what got this whole fiasco going. For this leftie fairness fantasy to work out, everyone HAS to agree what "fair" is all about. I have no such obsession, I'm just highlighting the fact that y'all HAVE to be obsessed with it in order for your system to function.
You've done my work for me. Who gets to say which opinion is "some idiot who refuses to see reason"? Who makes that determination, and by what authority? If some guy's opinions are getting stomped all over, that doesn't sound all that "fair" to me. Thus, your mission to be fair requires being unfair to function. Doesn't that strike you as some twisted logic? Seriously, I'm not being snarky with this--it's a logical question and the crux of this whole discussion.
So now we have agreement, and we hold the majority over BN. Is it "fair" for us to impose our will on him if his actions aren't affecting others (in other words, he's not driving a semi down the road while he's approaching unconsciousness)? Maybe it's perfectly fair for us, but he might think otherwise.
Why?
"Trying to please everyone at once" isn't part of what I think is fair. If someone is wrong about what's fair then it's fair to overrule him.
Also, why is it fair to overrule someone who disagrees? Like I said, if we include absolute veto into our discussion we're going to end up with anarchy, because we won't be able to agree on any rules. So it doesn't matter that we might overrule the guy who's 100 % spot on on what's fair, because the result of not including absolute veto is still fairer than what we'd get with absolute veto.
So, since fair is what the Veil of Ignorance dictates us to do overruling the lone guy who doesn't agree is fair. Now we just need to figure out how exactly to go about dealing with disagreements. There's GOT to be some better way than absolute veto (since absolute veto ensures that nothing gets done).
You, me and BN aren't the only ones affected by alcohol being legal/allowed though. If alcohol is illegal there will be alcoholics. Alcohol is involved in 80 % of all violent crime, so if alcohol is illegal there will be five times as many victims of violent crime. If there are alcoholics there will be kids growing up with alcoholic parents, or they're going to get removed from their parents since their parents aren't able to properly care for them and in either case their growth is going to be miserable (more or less).
Either these pepole (the alcoholics, the violent crime victims and the kids with alcoholic parents) are going to be worse off because we don't ban alcohol, or BN (and all other drinkers) will be worse off because we don't.
It's arguable which side is right, though I tend to side with the first side (hence why I'm for a ban on alcohol, at least in theory). I believe grief hurts more than pleasure heals and I believe the positive effects of alcohol comes with hidden negative effects even on the users who can handle it (meaning, doesn't get violent or addicted). But (like I said) that's arguable, and I believe most pepole would disagree. I personally write that down to bias. Most pepole like alcohol so much they don't want there to be anything wrong with it.
(Of course, prohibition doesn't work so banning alcohol (and other drugs) becomes rather hollow, but let's pretend it does for the sake of argument.)
Übereil
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
I would say self-preservation more so than greed. Greed has a very negiative connotation, and while Gordon Gecko would disagree, outright greed isn't always a good thing, but I see nothing wrong with someone wanting the best for themselves and their families that they can provide.
dteowner
Shoegazer
If you're going to state that it's OK to overrule the opinions of others in your move toward "fair", would it not follow that Saddam's Iraq was a fair society? He defined the terms of "fair" and he overruled any definitions that didn't agree with his own. That meets your stated criteria for "fair", so you are pretty much obligated to agree. If you reach a conclusion that's obviously crap without violating your own logic, that simply has to call into question the validity of the logic, yes?
Ultimately, your structure moves toward what YOU think is "fair", but may not result in anything remotely close to what I think is "fair" or Thrasher thinks is "fair". You have no authority nor exclusive expertise to make an objective judgment that your vision of "fair" is any better than mine. You're just going to jam it down my throat because you say it's OK, which is exactly what you're accusing me of doing with my "unfair" world.
Thus, I believe we've come right back around to the fact that the concept is subjective and situational, and as such not a good basis for a political movement.
Ultimately, your structure moves toward what YOU think is "fair", but may not result in anything remotely close to what I think is "fair" or Thrasher thinks is "fair". You have no authority nor exclusive expertise to make an objective judgment that your vision of "fair" is any better than mine. You're just going to jam it down my throat because you say it's OK, which is exactly what you're accusing me of doing with my "unfair" world.
Thus, I believe we've come right back around to the fact that the concept is subjective and situational, and as such not a good basis for a political movement.
Would you like to switch life with a random person in Saddam's Iraq? No? It doesn't matter that you could end up as Saddam himself, it's still a pretty shitty switch that will most likely end up with you having a shitty life. And therefore Saddam's Iraq isn't fair. There are far more fair societies out there. USA, for instance. Or even better: Sweden.
No, it moves towards what's fair. As determined by the facts. Which we try to interpret, and then we discuss our interpretations until we, together, figure out what is fair. And move towards what we, together, concluded. It's not something I do to everyone else, it's something everyone in unison does to everyone.
Übereil
dteowner
Shoegazer
So, you talk it out until everyone agrees on a definition and then move. A couple posts ago, you said there will always be some idiot that won't agree. Therefore, your stated plan cannot possibly succeed. The only way out is to say then when you say "everyone" you actually mean some subset of everyone, the "reasonable" people.
So, who will determine whom gets to be part of "everyone" and whom does not? You? Me? Saddam? It can't be "all of us" because it's utterly silly to think anyone is going to eliminate themselves from the "in" crowd. Again, you're back to subjective judgments being made by people that self-nominate to have that authority. You (or some group that you assemble) determine which people's opinions will matter and which ones don't, but your choices of which opinions matter are no more valid than mine or Saddam's. Thus, in claiming to be fair, you must be unfair to do it.
So, who will determine whom gets to be part of "everyone" and whom does not? You? Me? Saddam? It can't be "all of us" because it's utterly silly to think anyone is going to eliminate themselves from the "in" crowd. Again, you're back to subjective judgments being made by people that self-nominate to have that authority. You (or some group that you assemble) determine which people's opinions will matter and which ones don't, but your choices of which opinions matter are no more valid than mine or Saddam's. Thus, in claiming to be fair, you must be unfair to do it.
dteowner
Shoegazer
Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're agreeing to sentence one below and not addressing the problem raised in the second sentence. The post clipped below was a response to the post you quoted, and it still is.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
So you think it's fine if corporate management outsources jobs, and sells off corporate assets so that they get billions of stock options, while all their employees and the US economy gets screwed?
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
No, as that would violate their fidicuriary responsibility to the shareholders of the corporation.
Selling assets just to pump up the stock price rarely works anyway. Wall Street isn't that dumb.
Outsourcing is fine, if it makes sense in the long term interest of the shareholders. Done for the right conditions, it benefits the economy as a whole as it frees up those resources for better economic use.
Selling assets just to pump up the stock price rarely works anyway. Wall Street isn't that dumb.
Outsourcing is fine, if it makes sense in the long term interest of the shareholders. Done for the right conditions, it benefits the economy as a whole as it frees up those resources for better economic use.
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
Yes it does. It allows those resources to be used in a more efficient manner. If the cheapest a person can legitimately do a job in Country A is $10/hr and it can be done in Country B for $5/hr, moving the job to Country B frees up the $10/hr resource for work that is actually worth $10/hr.
Sure it is not always seemless, and certainly more than just cost is involved in the decision (quality of work, communications issues, etc.), but in the long run, a country will benefit by using its resources, both labor and capital, in the most efficient manner. It's basic economics.
Sure it is not always seemless, and certainly more than just cost is involved in the decision (quality of work, communications issues, etc.), but in the long run, a country will benefit by using its resources, both labor and capital, in the most efficient manner. It's basic economics.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
That is bullshit. That money goes into the pockets of the managers and shareholders.
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
Who said that it didn't? I said that the resource was freed up for more efficent use. I didn't say that use was with the same company.
Regardless, companies do not exist to benefit their employees beyond whatever it takes for them to recruit and retain the level of employees they desire.
Regardless, companies do not exist to benefit their employees beyond whatever it takes for them to recruit and retain the level of employees they desire.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
You said it benefitted the outsourced economy. It does not. It only benefits very few people and the outsourced economy is hurt.
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
Try re-reading what I posted. It DOES benefit the economy that outsources the job, because those resources are freed up for more efficient uses within that economy. Now, to be fair, the economy has to have an environement that encourages innovation and growth, or yeah it becomes a problem, but that has never been a problem in the US (not sure about Europe).