Originally Posted by gansao

There is an island of the coast of Africa inhabited by sheep,leopards and pygmies.
The pygmies ate the sheep whenever they can find some scraps left over by the leopards and sometimes the leopards eat the pygmies.
There are just enough pygmies and sheep to feed the leopards and just few enough leopards not to eat all the pygmies and sheep.
The pygmies, unaware of the natural equilibrium that benefitted all three creatures came up with a plan..they will hunt down the leopards with pointed sticks and kill them.
The natural equilibrium was disrupted and the island became full of leopard skin wearing pygmies who ate all the sheep.
It was no ones fault that the leopards ate the pygmies neither was it anyones fault that the pygmies killed all the leopards but it was always going to happen.

Interesting, not sure what it means; but I like the ending. A little bit of fan fiction: pygmies domesticate the sheep grow crops, build a civilization write great stories songs and poems, learn so much about the world around them that they can go to the moon or defeat the diseases that plague them for ages. After the collective effort of dozens of generations, each striving to learn more and do better had finally built what their ancestors would have called a place equal to the gods themselves a few miscreant pygmies lamented the loss of the leopards which they had never lost a loved one to, the freedom of the sheep which they had never tried to catch. They became so blind to the monumental accomplishments of their ancestors that they took for granted that they were the zenith of nature and never imagined why that was so, who made it that way, and most importantly... why.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Interesting, not sure what it means; but I like the ending. A little bit of fan fiction: pygmies domesticate the sheep grow crops, build a civilization write great stories songs and poems, learn so much about the world around them that they can go to the moon or defeat the diseases that plague them for ages. After the collective effort of dozens of generations, each striving to learn more and do better had finally built what their ancestors would have called a place equal to the gods themselves a few miscreant pygmies lamented the loss of the leopards which they had never lost a loved one to, the freedom of the sheep which they had never tried to catch. They became so blind to the monumental accomplishments of their ancestors that they took for granted that they were the zenith of nature and never imagined why that was so, who made it that way, and most importantly... why.

No they ate all the sheep because people understress and underfed dont usually see the bigger picture.
Thats the point..people peeking out of their (comparative) hovels and seeing the rich employer do not always feel lucky not to be gnawing roots in the forest just as the pygmies did not see that the leopards were keeping the equilibrium of the food chain on thier island.
People can be like that.........

Originally Posted by gansao

No they ate all the sheep because people understress and underfed dont usually see the bigger picture.
Thats the point..people peeking out of their (comparative) hovels and seeing the rich employer do not always feel lucky not to be gnawing roots in the forest just as the pygmies did not see that the leopards were keeping the equilibrium of the food chain on thier island.
People can be like that.........

Free trade is not like some ecosystem where predators have to be tolerated.

Comparing the leopard's to rich employers is fallacious because where the leopards ate the pygmies sometimes rich employers did not and could not harm their employers (and no we aren't talking about accidents).

It also fails on another level, the leopards consumed the natural resource of the sheep better than the pygmies, employers do not suppress or remove the opportunities of potential employees; they give them opportunities which did not exist before. If you've got a mob of starving people on the London streets and turned all the factories into parks you've got a mob of starving people on a nice backdrop. In the factories or in the mines they were offered the opportunity to be a part of a great act of production, their cut however meager must have seemed acceptable or they would not accept the arrangement.

So if I were to update the analogy the leopards never ate the pygmies and would allow them to have scraps of meat from their kills in return for skinning the sheep. Then the pygmies became indignant at how little meat they got killed the leopards and then complained that it was too hard to hunt sheep.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Free trade is not like some ecosystem where predators have to be tolerated.

Comparing the leopard's to rich employers is fallacious because where the leopards ate the pygmies sometimes rich employers did not and could not harm their employers (and no we aren't talking about accidents).

It also fails on another level, the leopards consumed the natural resource of the sheep better than the pygmies, employers do not suppress or remove the opportunities of potential employees; they give them opportunities which did not exist before. If you've got a mob of starving people on the London streets and turned all the factories into parks you've got a mob of starving people on a nice backdrop. In the factories or in the mines they were offered the opportunity to be a part of a great act of production, their cut however meager must have seemed acceptable or they would not accept the arrangement.

So if I were to update the analogy the leopards never ate the pygmies and would allow them to have scraps of meat from their kills in return for skinning the sheep. Then the pygmies became indignant at how little meat they got killed the leopards and then complained that it was too hard to hunt sheep.

The employer used the worker as a resource just they used machinery,energy and raw materials.
The employer paid the worker enough money to ensure that they had workers. No better than the farmer feeds animals to ensure he has a farm animals.
Im not sure whether I am making a direct comparison with an ecosystem although if I were the leopards would not be the employers.
My point is that people who are starving and living under stress do not see the big picture.
I repeat a worker living in slum conditions and hardly able to feed his children is never going to look at his rich employer and thank him for keeping them from actully starving by letting him work 12 hours a day in his factory.

They didnt accept it did they?
They formed cooperatives that negotiated new deals(or more often than not failed)and they used the political system to ensure a better future for their children.
Far better than waiting for the people who treat you as a resource no more valuable than beast of burden to give you a better renumeration when they felt like it.
The notion that a poor worker would feel to be part of a great act of production is a preposterous as a child chimney sweep would feel proud to be a part of a clean chimney

Originally Posted by Freedom

The risks of the job are implied with the trade. If it is safer than usual or unusually unsafe these are merely added terms to the trade on top of capital transfer....

Worker safety vs. capital transfer.

Human life and welfare vs. money.

Jaysus Kerist! That is really cold and mechanistic.

Originally Posted by Freedom

.....It doesn't take a genius to know your rights....

With glee I denounce all meddling in the moral affairs of others....

It may not take genius, but it certainly takes a certain level of education about individual rights.

Workers, however, have a self-interest in looking out for their own income safety. Do you have a problem with humans looking out for their own interests, their self-interests?

Originally Posted by jet57

(chuckle)



Uh, no. You have days off for holidays, vacations, sickness and – you enjoy a safe and hopefully clean working environment (with benefits) because of labor; so, you’re welcome.

Unless you are on a seniority list of some kind, you have no bidding power. If you are on a seniority list; you’re welcome. There may be some demand for your skills, but the employer sets your pay scale and standards of work. If you are a private contractor, you skills and your package will be measured against others and the employer will take the most for the least.



A monopoly is total control over the price of a commodity or price of goods. Labor is a specialized skill: just like when you have your car fixed or take it to the body shop. You will notice that all mechanics and body shops have very similar labor rates. That is not a monopoly either. Your notion of a monopoly is skewed by your political views and your view is not rational.



Negotiations must be done from a position of strength or you’re not negotiating. If you are negotiating on an individual basis at your job, then what you do is no different than what 100 people at a time do. You are setting your pay, benefits and standards based on the premiums of the market. Everybody in a given industry or trade knows what everybody else is charging or they shouldn’t be in business.

The difference is, a labor union has the strength of negotiation and the ability to set a wage and the ability to keep it. You’re operating on the erroneous assumption that unions just willy-nilly demand a high wage and benefits package drawn from thin air.
Moreover, what you are doing with your own employment, as I said, is no different than what a union does. So your entire argument is disingenuous at best, and otherwise relies on faulty logic and lack of experience in these matters to be taken credibly.

Well said, Jet57.

Originally Posted by gansao

The employer used the worker as a resource just they used machinery,energy and raw materials.

They can't, the need the consent of the worker legally and morally; and while you can easily find a 'greedy' business you almost never find one willing to violate rights.

Originally Posted by gansao

The employer paid the worker enough money to ensure that they had workers. No better than the farmer feeds animals to ensure he has a farm animals.

Enough is how much the worker agrees to. If farm animals could quit there might be an analogy.

Originally Posted by gansao

My point is that people who are starving and living under stress do not see the big picture.

Sometimes they do.

Originally Posted by gansao

I repeat a worker living in slum conditions and hardly able to feed his children is never going to look at his rich employer and thank him for keeping them from actully starving by letting him work 12 hours a day in his factory.

But his/her rich employer didn't keep them from starving anymore than the worker saved the company, the worker saved him/her self. The worker was merely trading with the rich employer to make their own efforts efficient enough to sustain.

Originally Posted by gansao

They didnt accept it did they?
They formed cooperatives that negotiated new deals(or more often than not failed)and they used the political system to ensure a better future for their children.

When you take a job you are accepting the wages which were offered, unless you're claiming they were lied to on a regular basis.

Companies agree to sell products and accept the profits from such, that does not mean they won't try to get a monopoly if they can.

Finally the political system is not an avenue to get what you want because acts of law are acts of force and passing a law like minimum wage is morally equivalent to using the violence on the company yourself.

Originally Posted by gansao

Far better than waiting for the people who treat you as a resource no more valuable than beast of burden to give you a better renumeration when they felt like it.

You delude yourself into thinking you are a slave and so you turn to enslave your supposed master. Sounds more like a tragedy.

Originally Posted by gansao

The notion that a poor worker would feel to be part of a great act of production is a preposterous as a child chimney sweep would feel proud to be a part of a clean chimney

Everyone can and should feel pride for their own achievements in proportion to the magnitude of those achievements. That however is beside the point, it is undeniable that as a collective the companies were accomplishing things the greatest empires of the past could not, they were great producers.

Originally Posted by simone

Worker safety vs. capital transfer.

Human life and welfare vs. money.

Jaysus Kerist! That is really cold and mechanistic.

The greatest tool for human life and welfare is trade and the greatest tool for trade is money. They are no more vs than a pillar is against the roof.

Originally Posted by simone

It may not take genius, but it certainly takes a certain level of education about individual rights.

Workers, however, have a self-interest in looking out for their own income safety. Do you have a problem with humans looking out for their own interests, their self-interests?

I only have a problem with people violating rights. I only have a problem with those ideas which spring from or allowed by irrational or unsound ethical theories.

Originally Posted by simone

Well said, Jet57.

Those who have no defense but silence have to stick together, having so little confidence in the first place.

Originally Posted by simone

Well said, Jet57.

Thanks very much. As we can see however:

I only have a problem with people violating rights. I only have a problem with those ideas which spring from or allowed by irrational or unsound ethical theories.

Those who have no defense but silence have to stick together, having so little confidence in the first place.

there are those who have difficulty grasping simple truths and concepts . . .

Originally Posted by Freedom

They can't, the need the consent of the worker legally and morally; and while you can easily find a 'greedy' business you almost never find one willing to violate rights.


Enough is how much the worker agrees to. If farm animals could quit there might be an analogy.


Sometimes they do.


But his/her rich employer didn't keep them from starving anymore than the worker saved the company, the worker saved him/her self. The worker was merely trading with the rich employer to make their own efforts efficient enough to sustain.


When you take a job you are accepting the wages which were offered, unless you're claiming they were lied to on a regular basis.

Companies agree to sell products and accept the profits from such, that does not mean they won't try to get a monopoly if they can.

Finally the political system is not an avenue to get what you want because acts of law are acts of force and passing a law like minimum wage is morally equivalent to using the violence on the company yourself.


You delude yourself into thinking you are a slave and so you turn to enslave your supposed master. Sounds more like a tragedy.


Everyone can and should feel pride for their own achievements in proportion to the magnitude of those achievements. That however is beside the point, it is undeniable that as a collective the companies were accomplishing things the greatest empires of the past could not, they were great producers.


The greatest tool for human life and welfare is trade and the greatest tool for trade is money. They are no more vs than a pillar is against the roof.


I only have a problem with people violating rights. I only have a problem with those ideas which spring from or allowed by irrational or unsound ethical theories.


Those who have no defense but silence have to stick together, having so little confidence in the first place.

Freedom.The freedom to starve is NOT a choice.
You may deny the validity of subjectivism but an empty belly is subjective .

Do not insult the intelligence of the poor by saying they should be educated enough to appreciate their poverty.

Originally Posted by gansao

Freedom.The freedom to starve is NOT a choice.

So no one has ever committed suicide by starvation?

It is nature that demands you sustain your body to live, not employers. If the 'decision' between starving and getting a poor job is no choice what is the situation when there is no job, only starvation? Even presuming the idea that the said decision is somehow not a choice it was not caused by the company for that 'lack of choice' existed before.

Originally Posted by gansao

You may deny the validity of subjectivism but an empty belly is subjective .

I think you can observe the facts of starvation objectively, what's your point?

Originally Posted by gansao

Do not insult the intelligence of the poor by saying they should be educated enough to appreciate their poverty.

What do you mean 'appreciate'? If a man is not happy with his life or accomplishments he should not surrender to his circumstance. Appreciate could mean understand why, it could mean accept, it could mean be thankful for. Of which only understanding seems proper.

Originally Posted by Freedom

So no one has ever committed suicide by starvation?

It is nature that demands you sustain your body to live, not employers. If the 'decision' between starving and getting a poor job is no choice what is the situation when there is no job, only starvation? Even presuming the idea that the said decision is somehow not a choice it was not caused by the company for that 'lack of choice' existed before.


I think you can observe the facts of starvation objectively, what's your point?


What do you mean 'appreciate'? If a man is not happy with his life or accomplishments he should not surrender to his circumstance. Appreciate could mean understand why, it could mean accept, it could mean be thankful for. Of which only understanding seems proper.

Im glad that you posted the last paragraph.
They didnt surrender to their circumstances.They formed collectives to improve their renumeration and represent them in government.
Thats how they improved their circumstances not by waiting for the employers generosity to emerge while they marvelled at his achievements.

You cannot (or at least should not be expected to) observe the facts of starvation objectively if you are the one starving.
To expect people to overcome the instinct of self preservation to observe their plight objectively smacks of Marie Antionnettes alleged delusion.

Originally Posted by gansao

Im glad that you posted the last paragraph.
They didnt surrender to their circumstances.They formed collectives to improve their renumeration and represent them in government.
Thats how they improved their circumstances not by waiting for the employers generosity to emerge while they marvelled at his achievements.

You cannot (or at least should not be expected to) observe the facts of starvation objectively if you are the one starving.
To expect people to overcome the instinct of self preservation to observe their plight objectively smacks of Marie Antionnettes alleged delusion.

Well your last paragraph is ironic because in times of crises is when you need your objectivity the most.

The kind of 'not accepting' you refer to could just as easily take the form of a rampaging mob or a beggar turned thief. Immorality is not an option which should ever be considered without objectivity so yes I expect for that one matter everyone to remain objective no matter how hard it gets.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Well your last paragraph is ironic because in times of crises is when you need your objectivity the most.

The kind of 'not accepting' you refer to could just as easily take the form of a rampaging mob or a beggar turned thief. Immorality is not an option which should ever be considered without objectivity so yes I expect for that one matter everyone to remain objective no matter how hard it gets.

It could be an angry mob and it could be a collective .Desperate people can become either or both.