Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own

[Chris]

The Left’s inherent challenge is justifying their claim to what others own. This challenge arises from the contradiction between the Left’s motivating ideology and the failure of its economic application. ...

...The accusation in question is materialism — the charge with which they seek to indict capitalism. ...

...If there is a political embodiment of the ethos of greed, it is not capitalism, but socialism, where everything is reduced to no more than a means to that society’s self-professed end: material production. While Marx explicitly made this the basis of everything — not only in socialist and communist societies, but all human history — it is no less the implicit motivator of the rest of the Left.

However it is perhaps history’s greatest irony that the Left consciously choose to eschew capitalism — history’s most efficient means of producing the material resources they require. The Left deny the equity of any distribution of resources that they do not control. Capitalism is therefore the most egregious violation of their sense of fairness, because it is premised on a lack of control — i.e., a free market....

@ Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/13/understanding-the-lefts-demand)

Perhaps this could be extended to the right as well....

[Alif Qadr]

The idea that I have for a fair and equitable economic system is that whatever you put into an effort is the amount of return on said effort. If a person gives 35% to an effort, his or her return is 35%. If a person gives 50%, the return is 50%, etc. What you give is what you get.

[RtWngaFraud]

The idea that I have for a fair and equitable economic system is that whatever you put into an effort is the amount of return on said effort. If a person gives 35% to an effort, his or her return is 35%. If a person gives 50%, the return is 50%, etc. What you give is what you get.

Unless you're a fatcat CEO, then you just decide what you want to be paid and screw they labor to get yours. Great system.

[Alif Qadr]

Unless you're a fatcat CEO, then you just decide what you want to be paid and screw they labor to get yours. Great system.

I do not recall mentioning CEOs, CFOs or anyone else beside myself. If you do not like the pay, leave. It is that simple.

[RtWngaFraud]

I do not recall mentioning CEOs, CFOs or anyone else beside myself. If you do not like the pay, leave. It is that simple.

Sure, there are SOOO many jobs out there for the picking. The fatcats own everything and will pay what they can get away with. If they could pay 3 cents an hour, that would be the going rate.

[zelmo1234]

Unless you're a fatcat CEO, then you just decide what you want to be paid and screw they labor to get yours. Great system.


Yes please tell us how the workers a being made to work for pennies? I can't even find people who can count change to get a new venture started.

And Is in not amazing that some people seem to find a way to become very, very succesful, while others just get stuck in the same place.

Why is that do you think? Could it be that they have a plan to be successful and then they toss in some hard work and didications a WOW! they become successful? Imagine that,

On the others side of the coin, you have people that do just what the absolutly have to to get by and nothing more, and they tend to get stuck in one position with no promotions? Wonder why?

[zelmo1234]

Sure, there are SOOO many jobs out there for the picking. The fatcats own everything and will pay what they can get away with. If they could pay 3 cents an hour, that would be the going rate.

So how is it that your boss is keeping you down and what have you done to be an exceptional employee? And how has he or she cheated you out of yoru rewards?

[RtWngaFraud]

The fat cats only seek low skilled, cheap labor. If they could find somebody to work for 3 cents an hour, they'd do it (and they'd still make them clock out for lunch and keep working). Greed. Pure and simple. Not much different than the labor scams the mafia ran in the 70's.

[Captain Obvious]

The fat cats only seek low skilled, cheap labor. If they could find somebody to work for 3 cents an hour, they'd do it (and they'd still make them clock out for lunch and keep working). Greed. Pure and simple. Not much different than the labor scams the mafia ran in the 70's.

They're called "unions".

Still around, more corrupt than ever.

Libtards still kissing their asses.

[RtWngaFraud]

They're called "unions".

Still around, more corrupt than ever.

Libtards still kissing their asses.

Without the unions, minimum wage would be 3 cents a week.

[Private Pickle]

Without the unions, minimum wage would be 3 cents a week.

Without unions America would still have a viable manufacturing and laborer market (a legal one that is).

[Chris]

The idea that I have for a fair and equitable economic system is that whatever you put into an effort is the amount of return on said effort. If a person gives 35% to an effort, his or her return is 35%. If a person gives 50%, the return is 50%, etc. What you give is what you get.

There's two "liberal" ways to look at that. One, from the Scottish Enlightenment, seeks equality before the law, rule of law. That is what the founders meant by created equal, equal before the law to pursue happiness. The other, from the French Enlightenment, seeks equality before man, rule of man. IOW, make all equal in happiness. The problem with the latter is to make people equal you have to treat them unequally. That, I think, is another contradiction of the left. I think your suggestion, besides being difficult to measure, slips into the latter. As the owner of a company I'm not going to give you 50% because I also need to make a profit, otherwise, what's in it for me? We also need to reinvest in the company.

[Chris]

Unless you're a fatcat CEO, then you just decide what you want to be paid and screw they labor to get yours. Great system.

And you suggest what, let the worker screw the owner? That's exactly what I just posted, you, a lefty, wants to impose rule of man, you want to pick winners and losers, you want to level the playing field and make people equal by treating them unequally.

[Boris The Animal]

Sure, there are SOOO many jobs out there for the picking. The fatcats own everything and will pay what they can get away with. If they could pay 3 cents an hour, that would be the going rate.
You know, why don't you just quit with the class warfare bullshit!

[Boris The Animal]

Without unions America would still have a viable manufacturing and laborer market (a legal one that is).Usefull communists like Rtwing think that a broom pusher should make $50/hr with all the fringe bennies included. "Screw the companies" is the Left's motto.

[Adelaide]

They're called "unions".

Still around, more corrupt than ever.

Libtards still kissing their asses.

Technically I'm a "libtard" and pro-union, but I do not agree with how unions are currently run or what they stand for. They no longer stand for the principles that made unions great. Also, legislation has mostly absolved the necessity for most unions. There are still gaps, however, where unions would/could serve a purpose if they could get their heads out of their asses.

[Chris]

Technically I'm a "libtard" and pro-union, but I do not agree with how unions are currently run or what they stand for. They no longer stand for the principles that made unions great. Also, legislation has mostly absolved the necessity for most unions. There are still gaps, however, where unions would/could serve a purpose if they could get their heads out of their asses.

I'm pro-union for that matter, just against their collusion with government to force what they want.

[Peter1469]

In the US, the major unions seem to focus on laundering money for the DNC.

[patrickt]

You know, why don't you just quit with the class warfare bullshit!

It's the only excuse the incompetent nitwit has.

Unions are extortionists. They are organized crime. I am not pro-union, pro-DNC, or pro-mafia.

[Captain Obvious]

Technically I'm a "libtard" and pro-union, but I do not agree with how unions are currently run or what they stand for. They no longer stand for the principles that made unions great. Also, legislation has mostly absolved the necessity for most unions. There are still gaps, however, where unions would/could serve a purpose if they could get their heads out of their asses.

I agree, there is a purpose still for unions. I've stated that somewhere here before, but industries like coal mining should be wholly unionized.

However for basic industry - say cars, steel, healthcare. There is no need for unions. None. Regulation and legal process covers this base, the only reason unions are big in this area is purely political/power.

Unions had a huge role to fill in the industrial age, but functionally they're obsolete today.

And crime ridden.

[Mainecoons]

Don't forget that over half of the union members "work" for government. That's right, you give these folks your tax dollars and they take them and give them to the Democrats who then reciprocate by bankrupting your communities with fat pay and pensions for government workers, who then give the money to Democrats who then. . . .

No one can claim that government work is dangerous, underpaid or having any of the reasons that should require unionization of the work force. Even that blatant socialist FDR realized that unions have no place in government. In fact, they have become one of the primary reasons for the gross incompetence of the government work force.

I have no problem with unions in the private sector so long as the playing field is level and union elections are by secret ballot (something the Democrats have been trying to abolish). There, they take their chances and if they get too greedy, like the Bakers union and Hostess, they end up deservedly on the street. To have unions in government where they are so over protected that they rarely get fired for anything, is nonsense.

[Ivan88]

If what they tell us in our nice Communist school system that we consented to be governed is true, then we should shut up and pay whatever taxes the gurus that govern us demand.

If we follow what the 1774 American Declaration of Rights said that the American People never consented to be governed, then maybe one can object to the mess we are in.

"That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following rights:
Resolved, N.C.D. 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to anysovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent".
2017