To Wonderer

I’m not talking about the law - I’m talking about fairness. Your definition, which is what I seek.

I am not asking about what we don’t know - but only what we do, according to the scenario. But here’s some more.

You have chosen, out of a hundred employees, those who you believe will best discharge their responsibilities - those who have shown responsibility, those who have demonstrated that they care about the ongoing success of the business and who have worked the hardest - for who else would you choose? We’ll leave aside specific job skills, and assume that everyone has those, as they have all worked there from the start, and all know their jobs well. And we’ll stipulate that managers don’t work extra hours, but that their tasks are much less physically demanding than the rank and file.

Is it fair to give them raises? Is is fair not to?

It doesn’t make a difference either way it’s the perogative of the business owner.

In reality i think complete “fairness” in all aspects of the term is just as much of an unattainable ideal as “perfection”.

I’ve already given an answer faust, i said that it could be fair if all parties are in agreement (let’s say a sound understanding and agreement) and let’s also say that there is no desperation, then there is no “unfairness” because an employer is able to offer jobs at whatever price they want, as long as it is above minimum.

But as i said, given more information i might change my mind.

I don’t think i have a universal description or definition of fairness…

That’s extremely capitalistic of you.

well i’m in capitalist society am i not?

i would do the same thing.

Why would a business owner pay more to a manager?

Would he pay them more because they are more valueable and generate more wealth and therefore “deserve” more? or would he pay them more to increase efficiency and thereby make more money?

i’m not saying that capitalism is moral or immoral, afterall we all are all in it for ourselves. If we understand the basic principles of society and decide to compete within it, then it’s just as fair or unfair as a basketball game.

We are in agreement.

That was easy.

And do we agree that communism in theory is “better”? :smiley:

Nyet. Better to have a million little capitalist dictators who try beat each other than a few communist ones who wish to win together.

At least with the main dictator there is a chance when we hang them, that they new guys wont be as corrupt… at least for a time…

the thing about fairness is that it implies moral responsibility, or at least seems to.

when everyones in it for themselves there is no moral responsibility, and i’m not talking about being corrupt.

But the greatest virtue of democracy is the peaceful transfer of power. Coups are not always kind to the poor.

Well, do you want fairness, or don’t you?

Read The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Which revolutions do you referr to?

peaceful transfer of power is one thing, peaceful use of power is another.

i do but it’s not really an option. Looks like i’m gonna have to fight for my place.

I’m not sure i understand your point.

could you summarize it for me? (the point)

The boy was the one who suffered by lying. He lost credibility. His own interests were at stake. Everyone can be in it for themselves without sacrificing morality.

I suspected it was about credibility.

The thing about that is you can easily get away with it in the absence of, or in cahoots with the competition.

Do you remember the sroty about credibility, public opinion, and the early banks?

two competing banks… One bank goes to a newspaper and says “this here other bank doesn’t have any money, this bank is uncredible”

Naturally everyone took out their money from the bank and they actually did end up with no money. we have laws preventing that now though, preventing slander…

All you really have to do is offer minimum wage, and if people are willing to do that work for that wage then they will take the job.

credibility is such a retroactive mechanism. Besides if the company cheats enough not only can it destroy teh competition, it can buy out the media and control information…

They can create an imaginary wolf…

win win…

Okay, so morality isn’t required in communism?

no it’s implied and enforced. (ideally)

advocates of communism are always screaming that the practical failures of communism are not a result of communism’s inherent nature, they are a result of human failure or greed. as if all the real-life, historical tragedies perpetrated under collectivist flags were somehow “caused” by anything other than the system in which they emerged. it is time to stand up once and for all and denounce communism for what it is: a system which robs humanity of pride, self worth, dignity, freedom, progress and life itself. communism is not great “in theory”; it completely fails to take into account HUMAN NATURE and MAN’S MEANS OF SURVIVAL – his MIND. communism fails in practice because it fails in theory.

man is not some idle animal to sit and receive handouts, underserved wealth or live as an “equal” mediocrity with no purpose or self-direction. he is not a sacrificial animal whose life exists for anyone elses sake, be it his neighbors, or society itself. no one “owns” man but himself. he is a self-made animal, in the sense that he has an ego, a willpower and must, by his very nature, sustain his own life through a process of rational thought, with reality itself as the only judge of the right or wrongness of his actions. it is man’s thought which moves the world, which allows our species to prosper and survive in a harsh environment.

whose thought, you ask? simple: yours. there is no conflict inherent in the fact that each of us has different needs, and must produce them for ourselves. and there is no reason to embrace a system which nullifies man’s mind just because each man has different thoughts, desires and abilities. man must THINK, he must LEARN, he must GROW and make himself through his own hard work. NOTHING in nature is free, not even life itself. every breath needs to be sustained by mighty acts of will and intelligence.

communism is a theory that all men are equally worthless. communism asserts that “because we are all horrible, greedy, weak, evil beings”, then none should have power over the other. but then communism asserts that of course there must be a leader, a director who controls society for the “best” results; its answer is that “the people” are the leader, as a disembodied, leaderless pack of sniveling pitiful animals, each begging his neighbor for that which he has neither the ability nor the desire to earn on his own: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”; never has a more blasphemous, harmful and life-destroying creed ever been uttered.

communism is not perfect in theory; it is an abysmal failure. it ignores completely human nature and seeks to rewrite history and turn man into a sacrificial animal, a worthless, selfless brute, grovelling for his share of the bread rations, demanding his need be met by the man who earns, who produces, who creates, who LIVES…

as to your post Wonderer, i will respond to your points, probably throughout the night tonight. i appreciate your attempt to address my arguments directly, and i will be happy to return the favor. there is much for me to say, and i am glad that you at least seem to be taking these things with an open mind. i will give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply have not thought these things through before; that is ok, in fact i was there myself years ago. beginning college without any real knowledge of how think, or what was real, or what i believed, or who or what moved the world, i was soon indoctrinated to buy into all the leftist anti-capitalist propoganda. i never bought it completely, but as my mind was an unfocused haze, i never thought it through either, accepting what everyone around me seemed so sure of on faith alone.

the process of reeducating onesself is not easy; it takes years, a lot of honesty and hard work, and the ability to hold a standard of TRUTH above ALL ELSE, including ones feelings, past investments and the opinions of those whom you care about. but only an objective rigorous standard of truth will produce wisdom that comes from a consistent and non-contradictory set of beliefs. ones principles must be understood and verified down to the root, down to the very core essence of knowledge. then these beliefs must be constantly tested and verified in light of personal experience.

reeducating yourself to the truth is not easy, i will admit. there is a great deal of soul searching and self-doubt as you progressively reject more and more of the falsehoods and artificial reality of our socoety and “academia”; but it is well worth it. eventually you come to an impass; the person you were before is no longer the person you have become. this moment, the culmination of countless efforts of honest intellectual introspection and thought, is perhaps the happiest and greatest in a person’s life. i know for myself, this occurred about 1 and a half years ago. the simple joy of finally comprehending real truth, seeing the world as it is without illusion or fantasy, and understanding human nature and purpose in a full and complete sense is not something that can be explained. it is an experience that can only be lived, or not understood at all.

so i look forward to replying to your post. thank you again for the thorough and specific responses.

Wonderer - Then it exists.

Ideally.

So you compare an ideal communism with a real capitalism.

Doesn’t seem…fair.

humans nature? humans mind? what about it?

you get to say caitalism has never been tried, but i don;t get to say communism has never been tried? oh come now…

The historical tragedies were the result of exactly what took place. wether you want to call dictatorships and corrupt elite communism is a atter of definition.

What of americas endings? what of americas tragedies?

did man really make himself?

were you born a man?

did your mother not protect you and give you things? sacrifice her own life for yours?

did she not nourish and teach you? did you not learn and recieve the rational skills you have through oppourtunities given to you by other people?

As a people we sustain ourselves thanks to logic. Before that it was instinct, and before that it was luck, and before that we didn’t exist

As far as i know, the world moves thought. but hey, such distinctions are trivial.

Ill tell you what. Let’s try my society, andwhen the thought police spring into existence then i’ll join you in the riots.

i almost… naa never mind…

All this thinking, learning, and growing is a good idea. it’s not like a communist society would tell people not to think, learn , or grow, or even work hard.

whether working for society as a whole for happiness or for yourself for happiness, there is motive. The only distinction you make is one of being able to keep what you earn; that the motive is greater when we work for ourselves as individuals.

we all have different needs and desires, i’ll give you that. This however does not mean that in a communist society you are unabe to satisfy the needs you would be able to in a capitalist society.

it’s possible sure, but it’s possible not to be able to satisfy your needs and desires in a capitalist society; just survey a ghetto. The only difference in freedom is property rights. In a communist society there are wealth caps, which though stop people from continuing to produce (for themselves) allow for other people who have less oppourtunity to produce a shot at satisfying themselves.

One persons satisfaction can mean the dissatisfaction of another, this i simply against my set of morals.

well i’m not a complete marxist; to be honest i don’t enjoy reading him. i would rather create my own theories.

if you’re interested, here is the reciprocal of what you just posted, just from a dogmatic leftists point of view

Capitalism is the theory that some men are valueable and some men are worthless. Capitalism asserts that because people are stupid, fat, lazy beings, they do not deserve the same goods as the few exceptions. But then of course capitalism is about freedom; you have the chance to compete against the Sam Waltons, and when you lose you have noone to blame but your own inferiority. “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” is an example of the backwards logic used to incite patriotic devotion to a criminal syndicate that not only robs their own freedom, but has committed more than it’s fair share of atrocities around the globe, which we are all on, together.

how and why?

no, ideally a capitalist has no morals.

charity is bad remember? the drive is to be in it for yourself?

the property owner doesn’t need to share profit even if mnimum wage is unliveable.

We are comparing mutually ideal morals in this case faust…

Here is some trivia folks:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation

:smiley: :slight_smile: :neutral_face: :confused: :frowning: :angry: :imp:

The question is whether morality is built in to either system. It is built into neither. But nothing about capitalism prevents charity, and nothing about communism requires it.

Property owners do not share profit - the profit only occurs after everyone gets paid. A profitsharing plan merely disburses compensation differently than wages - it is still reckoned as employee compensation and not as profit.

You are equating “morally good” with “what you’d like to see happen”. Everyone does this - but this is a critique, then, of morality, and not of economic systems. That your moral values cannot be so easily built into capitalism is its strength - again, a million little dictators. For it can be more easily built into your company than in communism. Nothing about communism dictates your personal moral view - the workers do not own the company - the state does.

But worker-owned companies are perfectly allowable within capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t care who owns the companiy, as long as it’s a private entity. For ten years, three partners and I owned a company - and did all the work. We were commies, by your reckoning. But we weren’t.