|
| Thread: No Welfare for Drug Users |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted June 06, 2011 06:17 PM |
|
|
I have no problem with this.
Yeah, nothing else to add.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 02:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Except that the question is not whether you think your work is worth the money or not, but whether that "more" you think your work is worth is worth, is worth to starve for (and maybe that of your family as well).
No, you're making a fundamental mistake here - you're confusing what "worth" is. A person will not exchange unless what they give up is worth less to them than what they get - this applies to all transactions, including selling one's labor. From this, if a person is selling their labor, it necessarily means that they value what they're getting more than what they're giving up - they value the money more than they value their labor. From this, the meaning of the statement "they're being paid less than their labor is worth" is unclear and questionable, because they think their labor is worth the money they're getting. So what that statement probably means is "I think they're being paid too little", but that's nothing more than personal preference and not any kind of objective fact.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 04:12 AM |
|
|
Hm.
It seems to me what you're basically doing, MVass, is define things - this time, for example, "worth" - differently than JJ, and then use it in the same ethical context as he does.
If you define it your way, it's pretty much a very simple theoretical term which, much like Pareto optimality, isn't much of an argument when discussing the ethics of society and economics with any kind of aspiration for objective social justice. Of course everyone would pick mostly anything over heavy poverty and hunger (which would be a very real option considering your stances on welfare), especially when it comes to goods such as labour, like JJ said. And like I said, that renders you pretty much unable to efficiently and correctly use your definition for any broader point, outside of a schoolbook note.
If you do it JJ's way, said "worth" is more of a something the worker has a right to, something he's entitled to in exchange for his labour, but which, in your preferred system, he wouldn't necessarily get, as he could essentially be blackmailed to choose between working for (a lot) less than he deserves or borderline starvation.
Believing no one among us has the right to decide the minimum or maximum of what a man may deserve to earn (and don't think I don't understand why you'd feel this way), you're presenting some basic economic terms as the only reliable measure of social justice, when they actually have very little to do with it. You can't overlook the ethical factors; and it's been shown that it's generally better to add them into the bowl - even if they're confined in the context of our time and far from optimal on many levels - than renounce them completely.
Capitalism of the 19th to the beginning of the 20th century was hell bent on maximizing, hm, efficiency, at the cost of what the workers - in my personal opinion, fairly rightly - believed to be their rights and entitlements, and it ended up forced to either evolve or face a revolution as the masses progressively got more and more pissed on and pissed off - evidently not being that much better off as you believe they'd be.
Again, if this is all a completely and utterly theoretical discussion, by all means, go on and forget I said anything. Though it'd be a pretty useless one if at least a little practicality wasn't tied to it.
But if it's supposed to bring some slightly wider points to light, you're going to need to count a few more things in.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 04:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And like I said, that renders you pretty much unable to efficiently and correctly use your definition for any broader point, outside of a schoolbook note.
You don't see the wider implications of my definition? You think it's entirely theoretical? Allow me to present some counterexamples, then. As a broad rule of thumb, anything that is voluntary exchange without force or fraud should be allowed. This means the legalization of marijuana, organ markets, and the transportation of raw milk across state lines. It means not having to comply to TSA regulations (being groped and not being able to take much liquid onto planes) when you fly in America. It means being able to import haggis from Scotland. And it means people would have the option of going to medical care providers other than American Medical Association-approved doctors for the most basic of checkups. Hardly theoretical.
If you use JJ's definition, it raises a lot of other questions. Who determines how much labor is worth? How? By what standard? What right do you have to tell the worker that he can't work for the wage that is being offered, even if he wants to? What right do you have to tell a firm that they aren't allowed to accept workers who are willing to work for a certain wage? Sounds like central planning to me, and you know how that worked out.
Quote:
You can't overlook the ethical factors
I'm not overlooking the ethical factors. Pareto optimality is my ethics. If it isn't Pareto-optimal, it is unethical.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 06:49 AM |
|
|
@ Elodin
What makes drugs so special? And which drugs are you checked for? Is it just the forbidden drugs (which constitutes a crime)? So why then, are you checked only for THAT crime?
@ Mvass
For me, you talk nonsense, Mvass, because you prefer to overlook, that the exchange is neither willing nor voluntary. People have to live, and for that they have to sell what they have. They HAVE TO sell, and what they sell is their work. If someone buys, fine, but if no one buys or if the offer is not good enough, you can't keep and not sell, because in that case you will simply starve.
What you say is true only, when you CAN AFFORD not to sell, which would mean you do not NEED to sell.
Look at a normal business transaction. Take a house, and say, you want to sell. If you MUST sell, because you can't pay the mortgage anymore or you need the money for some costly specialist medical treatment or whatever, if it's a run-of-the-mill house, you won't get what it's worth. You will always sell below price because you NEED to sell. You can't wait for a better offer. And because of that, if you offer the house for a certain price and no one calls you will go down. Because you NEED to sell, since you NEED the money.
With work, it's the same thing. If you can afford not to work, you can wait. You don't need to sell your work to the guy living near your flat and offering you an immediate job. You can tour the country, check here, check there, wait even, until the demand for your work is higher...
But if you can't afford, you must sell.
So your prerequisites are wrong. The exchange isn't voluntary.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 07:24 AM |
|
|
An exchange can either be voluntary or forced. No one is forcing them to exchange, so the only possibility is that it is voluntary. If you think someone is initiating force here, who are they?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 07:49 AM |
|
|
Do you really want to discuss what societies have long accepted? What do you think is a minimum wage and what do you think that comes from? Or why are there labor unions?
The situation is that someone who doesn't HAVE anything to live off - a simple worker - has only his work to live off from. He MUST sell it, because the alternative is to become a beggar, which nowadays is forbidden mostly, since well-off people don't want to be molested.
Do you really think people work voluntarily and willingly in idiot jobs?
They do it, because it's the only option to them in order to survive. Sure, they could become a criminal, but that wouldn't change anything about the basic situation.
"Voluntary" does apply only when there is another VALID option (which excludes the option to starve and die, because that's not a VALID option).
So what VALID option do have-nots have except selling their labor for the price offered?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 08:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you think is a minimum wage and what do you think that comes from? Or why are there labor unions?
I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion about corruption, public choice economics, and systematic bias in the voting population, but that's a separate subject.
Quote:
Do you really think people work voluntarily and willingly in idiot jobs?
They're not forced, so yes, it's voluntary. "Voluntary" doesn't mean "Yeah, awesome! Great to do this!" It means acting in accordance with the option selected in a process of choice in which no initiation of force was involved. It doesn't mean they're happy about the situation they're in.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 08:54 AM |
|
|
Soy, you didn't answer the question, which means your answer isn't valid. 
Since you can read, it means that you can't or don't want to answer it, and that means, you have no valid point.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 09:06 AM |
|
|
To give a short answer, unions were formed because the government was lax in enforcing the rule of law, and so firms were able to get away with doing stuff that they shouldn't have been able to get away with. However, unions are not necessary because the vigorous application of the rule of law is better. As for why we have the minimum wage, it's a combination of public ignorance of economics, a desire to help the poor, and pressure by unions who don't want competition from lower-wage workers.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 09:07 AM |
|
|
Funny thing is .. I have no issue with drug tests for receiving welfare.. some jobs have random and mandatory drug testing...so why not?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 09:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So what VALID option do have-nots have except selling their labor for the price offered?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 09:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Funny thing is .. I have no issue with drug tests for receiving welfare.. some jobs have random and mandatory drug testing...so why not?
Because there is no reason not to check your flat for illegally obtained - downloaded - media files, if you can be echecked for drugs. Why stop at drugs? What makes drugs so special?
The only exception are jobs that can't have people drugged AND people having easy access to LEGAL drugs: surgeons, for example.
However, THAT kind of drug test makes sense only, if ALL drugs are tested for, not only the illegal ones, because the purpose is to have people SOBER at their work.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 09:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
To give a short answer, unions were formed because the government was lax in enforcing the rule of law, and so firms were able to get away with doing stuff that they shouldn't have been able to get away with. However, unions are not necessary because the vigorous application of the rule of law is better. As for why we have the minimum wage, it's a combination of public ignorance of economics, a desire to help the poor, and pressure by unions who don't want competition from lower-wage workers.
Oh dear.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 09:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So what VALID option do have-nots have except selling their labor for the price offered?
Not selling their labor.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 09:32 AM |
|
|
That's not a valid option. You should KNOW that meanwhile: if you have nothing else, the only deal you CAN offer involves your labor.
Offering nothing isn't VALID because that will lead either to you starving or crime which is both invalid.
So while no PERSON, and of course not the buyer, is forcing you to sell your labor, you are forced nonetheless. You are forced to sell.
Also I find your way to answer posts pretty selective and superficial. You seem to ignore everything you don't like and simply throw in a minimum of words, often completely ignoring certain facts and implications.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 02:42 PM |
|
|
You are aware, MVass, that most of those currently illegal things, or things you need specific licenses for, that you mentioned are that way because that's the only way the government can keep an eye on them and prevent force and fraud?
Organ markets, doctors not approved by the Association, etc.
And why on Earth would anyone want to import haggis. It's bloody awful.
Quote:
Pareto optimality is my ethics. If it isn't Pareto-optimal, it is unethical.
I have no doubt your opinions are harmonious within yourself. Although I fail to see how you can be an advocate of abolishing the minimum wage, which would necessarily open the doors to drastic pay cuts, and at the same time claim that your ethics are based on Pareto optimality, meaning someone getting better off with no one getting worse off.
There is a really limited number of things you can do in the current system that are Pareto optimal, and just following Pareto isn't enough to get rid of a lot of problems in society.
So you'd have to do things that aren't Pareto optimal, and that way you're setting a starting point for Pareto optimality on which to build on - and which wouldn't be equal, and hence, it'd be as subjective and arbitrary as JJ and mine's stance on workers' rights.
In any case, Pareto optimality, much like a refrigerator, isn't a notion of ethics; it's a notion of efficiency, and a minimal one at that. Nowhere in its definition does it say it has to result in any kind of socially desirable distribution, it probably even wouldn't. It would, in fact, usually result in a very similar, if a little more saturated distribution that we have now - and Pareto optimality can bring to a number of positive changes, don't get me wrong, you just can't base your entire ethics on it. It's vague enough to sound nice, "someone being better off while no one's being worse off", just like "from everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his need" sounds nice, but as we know, rarely is anything that simple, and if you start looking at some of the wider-ranging implications solely from a Pareto-optimal view, you'll end up confined within it and unable to understand - or, well, believe in - anything outside of it.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 04:50 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Offering nothing isn't VALID because that will lead either to you starving or crime which is both invalid.
No, it's undesired. Undesired isn't the same thing as invalid. If you choose to live, deal with reality as it is.
Quote:
So while no PERSON, and of course not the buyer, is forcing you to sell your labor, you are forced nonetheless.
That's impossible. You can't be forced without someone forcing you.
Bak:
Quote:
You are aware, MVass, that most of those currently illegal things, or things you need specific licenses for, that you mentioned are that way because that's the only way the government can keep an eye on them and prevent force and fraud?
That's what the government wants you to think, and the public does think it because they have an anti-market bias. However, the real reasons for these licensing restrictions have nothing to do with preventing force or fraud - doctors want less competition, taxi companies want less competition, etc. Organizations with political influence want to restrict entry into the market. As for organ markets, I genuinely don't understand the squeamishness some people have towards them.
Quote:
Although I fail to see how you can be an advocate of abolishing the minimum wage, which would necessarily open the doors to drastic pay cuts, and at the same time claim that your ethics are based on Pareto optimality, meaning someone getting better off with no one getting worse off.
The starting point (before any Pareto improvements are made) is a lawless state of nature. Then we add laws that comply with the Pareto principle until we can't any more. As for the minimum wage, in a competitive market, workers are paid according to their marginal productivity of labor, and most workers would be unaffected by the availability of below-current-minimum-wage workers - a thousand people willing to work for $5 an hour aren't going to replace even one plumber or one teacher or one engineer. Besides, even most low-income jobs pay above minimum wage, contrary to what someone like you would expect. Thus, even if you don't start from a state of nature, abolishing the minimum wage is consistent with the Pareto principle, because it will enable those with below-minimum-wage marginal products of labor to become employed - that is, exchange their labor for money. I don't see what good is being done to them by forbidding them from working. If you really want to help the poor, call for the abolition of the minimum wage.
Quote:
Nowhere in its definition does it say it has to result in any kind of socially desirable distribution, it probably even wouldn't.
What is a "socially desirable distribution"? I don't think that phrase has any meaning.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 05:11 PM |
|
|
Mvass, the way you define "forced" there is never any force. If someone puts a gun to your head he can't force you to do something: While the result of not doing his bidding - shooting you down - may be undesired, but it's the harsh reality of lifeand you have to deal with it.
Which makes your definition completely useless and even nonsensical.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 05:18 PM |
|
|
If you can point to a person who is doing something to you, then it could be force. Otherwise, it can't.Quote:
If someone puts a gun to your head he can't force you to do something: While the result of not doing his bidding - shooting you down - may be undesired, but it's the harsh reality of lifeand you have to deal with it.
In this case, it's both "harsh reality" and force - because the person is giving you the non-free choice "do what I want or I will do something to you", as opposed to "do what you want, but no one will do anything to you that you don't want, regardless of what you choose".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
