Well he wasnt exactly advocating that. He was more pointing at government being able to limit business practice based on moral values.
Advertisement
by Staenwald » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:17 pm
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.
Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."
The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.
by Mercator Terra » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:17 pm
by Mercator Terra » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:18 pm
by Staenwald » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:18 pm
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.
Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."
The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.
by Mercator Terra » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:20 pm
by Staenwald » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:21 pm
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.
Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."
The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.
by Staenwald » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:23 pm
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.
Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."
The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.
by Mercator Terra » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:24 pm
Staenwald wrote:Mercator Terra wrote:If that is the case that is ironic coming from a anarchist.
Doesnt that make this entire thread ironic then. No rules in anarchy at all. Well there are depending on where you live but when it comes down to it. Meh I don't understand the concept of left anarchism. You can't enforce a collectivist ideology on those who don't want one without the use of force to maintain stability. Aurely it would lead right back to a society with a state.
by Staenwald » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:27 pm
Mercator Terra wrote:Staenwald wrote:Doesnt that make this entire thread ironic then. No rules in anarchy at all. Well there are depending on where you live but when it comes down to it. Meh I don't understand the concept of left anarchism. You can't enforce a collectivist ideology on those who don't want one without the use of force to maintain stability. Aurely it would lead right back to a society with a state.
There are rules in a anarchist society. And I dont believe you would be forced into it. Free market anarchism is more tolerant on that matter (from what I have seen.) Social anarchists wouldnt force it on you but would be less tolerant.
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.
Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."
The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.
by Alevuss » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:28 pm
Okay now questions: Is this an acceptable type of business? If not why not?
Is it okay for an employee to sign away basic rights to the employer like this as a condition of employment?
Would it make a difference if the sportsman was given a machine gun and helicopter and had a 100% chance of killing all of the 5 employees instead of 1?
Would your opinion change if the hunter was not allowed to take trophies?
If the employment chance had been advertised as "ranch hand" or "Adrenalin junkies wanted!" in the paper and the part about agreeing to be selected for this game was in the "fine print" of the employment contract would it make a difference? If so why?
This question is to see if it's the actual words on the contract that matter or what was emphasized that matters.
Lets say one of the employees has second thoughts and no longer wants to be hunted but it's after the game already started. Is it still okay to hunt him because he signed the contract?
Now to turn the tables, one of the hunted humans hides in a tree with a large sharpened stick and as the hunter nears hurls the stick into the neck of the hunter killing the hunter.
The employee claims self defense. Is this a valid claim by the employee?
What, if any, damages is the employee liable for?
Would it make a difference if the employees where children? If so why and what ages?
Would it make a difference if they were indentured servants?
by Mercator Terra » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:36 pm
Staenwald wrote:Mercator Terra wrote:There are rules in a anarchist society. And I dont believe you would be forced into it. Free market anarchism is more tolerant on that matter (from what I have seen.) Social anarchists wouldnt force it on you but would be less tolerant.
But surely the support of free-market anarchism and social anarchism is down to individual preference....to me it seems like anarchism is getting mixed up between political systems and moral standpoints.
by Mercator Terra » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:37 pm
Staenwald wrote:Mercator Terra wrote:Then they're just subjective preferences. So your advocating enforcing subjective preferences. There is nothing "wrong" with that statement.
Anarchy has no contradications I know...but people need to be free of force if they want to live to their natures. Minarchist government allows this.
by Natapoc » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:39 pm
Staenwald wrote:Mercator Terra wrote:If that is the case that is ironic coming from a anarchist.
Doesnt that make this entire thread ironic then. No rules in anarchy at all. Well there are depending on where you live but when it comes down to it. Meh I don't understand the concept of left anarchism. You can't enforce a collectivist ideology on those who don't want one without the use of force to maintain stability. Aurely it would lead right back to a society with a state.
by Mercator Terra » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:41 pm
Natapoc wrote:Staenwald wrote:Doesnt that make this entire thread ironic then. No rules in anarchy at all. Well there are depending on where you live but when it comes down to it. Meh I don't understand the concept of left anarchism. You can't enforce a collectivist ideology on those who don't want one without the use of force to maintain stability. Aurely it would lead right back to a society with a state.
If some people don't want to participate inleft-anarchismany form of anarchism are free to not join the autonomous communities.
by Norstal » Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:50 pm
Staenwald wrote:Norstal wrote:We've been here before. The volunteer has to be 100% voluntary, with no outside force affecting their decision.
How is this possible?
Theres a difference between having your choices narrowed by rational limits and your own values or your consciousness of the values of others, and being pushed into it through force or fraud, by other people.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Caninope » Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:09 pm
Natapoc wrote:Servantium wrote:The answer you're going to get mostly is, "depends."
For instance, a lot of us are not adverse to the concept. However, the ideology does tend to oppose the specifics of their employment such as the coercion.
My personal view on the issue is that a non-majority child can have their guardian sign an employment contract and since non-majority children are basically slaves the parent would assume all legal responsibility for the child when they're on the job and there would be certain things the employer/parent could and couldn't do.
It's all very complicated and off-topic.
It's actually very related. If a child in america cannot sign a contract to participate in this "game" then a child cannot sign a contract to participate in some types of sweatshops where there is a possibility of death and if your objection is not with the possibility of death then any ethical allounces for children here must aslo be made for children oversees or you are:
A. Racist
B. Ultra nationalist (and probably racist)
Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.
Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.
by Servantium » Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:33 pm
by Conservative Alliances » Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:57 pm
Natapoc wrote:Is this an acceptable type of business? If not why not?
Is it okay for an employee to sign away basic rights to the employer like this as a condition of employment?
Would it make a difference if the sportsman was given a machine gun and helicopter and had a 100% chance of killing all of the 5 employees instead of 1?
Would your opinion change if the hunter was not allowed to take trophies?
If the employment chance had been advertised as "ranch hand" or "Adrenalin junkies wanted!" in the paper and the part about agreeing to be selected for this game was in the "fine print" of the employment contract would it make a difference? If so why?
This question is to see if it's the actual words on the contract that matter or what was emphasized that matters.
Lets say one of the employees has second thoughts and no longer wants to be hunted but it's after the game already started. Is it still okay to hunt him because he signed the contract?
Now to turn the tables, one of the hunted humans hides in a tree with a large sharpened stick and as the hunter nears hurls the stick into the neck of the hunter killing the hunter.
The employee claims self defense. Is this a valid claim by the employee?
What, if any, damages is the employee liable for?
Would it make a difference if the employees where children? If so why and what ages?
Would it make a difference if they were indentured servants?
Rhodmhire wrote:I love you.
Liuzzo wrote:Conversely Conservative Alliances, Vetalia, and others make terrific arguments that people may not agree with but you can discuss.
Glorious Homeland wrote:Although some individuals provided counter-points which tended to put to bed a few of my previous statements (conservative alliances, zoingo)
by Sungai Pusat » Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:26 am
by Maurepas » Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:39 am
by Staenwald » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 pm
Maurepas wrote:I don't see why not. I'm not even a "Right-Libertarian", but if someone wants to sign that stuff away, that's their prerogative. I don't have the right to stop them anymore than I have the right to bar them from suicide.
My questions of course would be, A) How much am I being paid?, and B) Do I have the right to kill my pursuer before he kills me, and if so, will I still be paid?
I would also say that it's only valid if any and all stipulations in relation to the contract are made available up front, and in bold letters. I would say that should be a legal requirement of any and all contracts. Fine print should be illegal, imo.
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.
Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."
The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.
by Staenwald » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:33 pm
Fizbar wrote:Out of character, I'm a socialist, so such a game should not be allowed.
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.
Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."
The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Diarcesia, Eahland, Fractalnavel, Haganham, ImSaLiA, Infected Mushroom, Masdobo, Russian Brotherhood, San Lumen, Spirit of Hope, The Lone Alliance, Washington-Columbia
Advertisement