No one wants to be Rich.

[Orenica]

Fair is relative, in my opinion anything you agree to is fair.

(I'm not sure that you know what relative means, as you then go on to state an absolute rule, I think you mean subjective.)
So, if I have control of your only water supply, and I tell you to cut the tendons in your left leg and, thirstily, you agree, that's fair?
If you think that, I wouldn't let you run a post office.

[Duvniask]

But wouldn't being succesful in life make you happy? Provided it's done in a good way?

That depends on what counts as "success".

Having a job that pays spectacularly (most would agree) is "success" but, to be quite honest, if I was stuck in an office for 70 hours a week then it wouldn't really make me very happy.

I'd rather make much less money and be happy than be hugely successful and unhappy

Okay, but success is not always related to money.

You could be lucky to have found the love of your life for instance, or have a succesful friendship?

[Mavorpen]

Yes, they do it when there is more demand. More demand means more profit. How do you get more demand and consumption? You don't get it by shifting the tax burden to the poor and the middle class. Calling the rich "job creators" and using that as an argument for why they should be placed on a pedestal and for why they should get special privileges ignores why they are able to create jobs in the first place.

So again, you're not addressing my point at all.

Yes I am. We shouldn't shift tax burdens anywhere, just reduce them.

No, you aren't. You fundamentally ignored my entire point to create a straw man where I said that people who don't create jobs aren't job creators, which I didn't state, nor was my point at all.

[Tyrants]

*looks at title* Really? I'd love to be rich.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

The only problem I see is that income guarantees aren't higher.

The fact is, all wealth is social and so all individuals are entitled to an equal share of social wealth. Private ownership in excess of the social mean constitutes theft from those who have less, and is incompatible with freedom and individual liberty.

[Des-Bal]

Because rich people who own million dollar corporations are definitely equivalent to sweatshop workers.

Yes.

[Mavorpen]

Because rich people who own million dollar corporations are definitely equivalent to sweatshop workers.

Yes.

Okay, we're done.

[The Merchant Republics]

How is a first world company exploiting a third world laborer for cheap products any different than a third world laborer exploiting a first world company for a paycheck?

Protip:

If you want people to buy into your ideology, you probably shouldn't try arguing that 9-year-olds in sweat shops are really the ones exploiting the factory owners by getting paid $0.50 a day.

Why is it that the brilliant advocates of the Free Market are so invariably shitty at marketing their own ideas?

I'm not sure.

Frankly, you're right. We'd do a decent better if we didn't walk into every argument with "Hello, I'm a libertarian. I think sweatshops are neat and universal healthcare is awful."

I'm sure we must come off as some sort of bizarre real world Adamm's Family. We even have a thing for French words like "Laissez-Faire".

Still bad marketing aside, he's right. Although I wouldn't agree with the term exploitation for either party. Third world children are benefitting from the employment.

It's a point worth noting that the vast majority of child labour is done not by western corporations (who quite frankly are staffed with just as many bleeding hearts as any other institution) but rather by and large by domestic industries, particularly textile factories who sell their products to the corporations without their explicit knowledge (obviously a lot of "looking the other way" goes on), western corporations in Indonesia, China and India actually pay significantly higher wages than national averages, simply because they can't use the black market.

Most of the particularly egregious examples of abuse and exploitation, (like child slavery) occur in the black market, that exists solely because their governments are pressured by the West to criminalize child labour and it sends it underground because it's ultimately necessary.

[Esternial]

Because rich people who own million dollar corporations are definitely equivalent to sweatshop workers.

Yes.

You should re-evaluate your shitty view on third world countries.

[Des-Bal]

No, you aren't. You fundamentally ignored my entire point to create a straw man where I said that people who don't create jobs aren't job creators, which I didn't state, nor was my point at all.

I wasn't disagreeing with your point I was pointing out your rhetoric was bullshit.

[Esternial]

No, you aren't. You fundamentally ignored my entire point to create a straw man where I said that people who don't create jobs aren't job creators, which I didn't state, nor was my point at all.

I wasn't disagreeing with your point I was pointing out your rhetoric was bullshit.

So is your logic.

[Paixao]

That depends on what counts as "success".

Having a job that pays spectacularly (most would agree) is "success" but, to be quite honest, if I was stuck in an office for 70 hours a week then it wouldn't really make me very happy.

I'd rather make much less money and be happy than be hugely successful and unhappy

Okay, but success is not always related to money.

You could be lucky to have found the love of your life for instance, or have a succesful friendship?

Yes, if those made me happy then they would be 'successes' I suppose.

In the end it's all very relative. One man's success story is another man's failure kinda thing

[Mavorpen]

No, you aren't. You fundamentally ignored my entire point to create a straw man where I said that people who don't create jobs aren't job creators, which I didn't state, nor was my point at all.

I wasn't disagreeing with your point I was pointing out your rhetoric was bullshit.

You can't do that if you don't understand my point.

[Des-Bal]

I'm not sure.

Frankly, you're right. We'd do a decent better if we didn't walk into every argument with "Hello, I'm a libertarian. I think sweatshops are neat and universal healthcare is awful."

I'm sure we must come off as some sort of bizarre real world Adamm's Family. We even have a thing for French words like "Laissez-Faire".

Still bad marketing aside, he's right. Although I wouldn't agree with the term exploitation for either party. Third world children are benefitting from the employment.

It's a point worth noting that the vast majority of child labour is done not by western corporations (who quite frankly are staffed with just as many bleeding hearts as any other institution) but rather by and large by domestic industries, particularly textile factories who sell their products to the corporations without their explicit knowledge (obviously a lot of "looking the other way" goes on), western corporations in Indonesia, China and India actually pay significantly higher wages than national averages, simply because they can't use the black market.

Most of the particularly egregious examples of abuse and exploitation, (like child slavery) occur in the black market, that exists solely because their governments are pressured by the West to criminalize child labour and it sends it underground because it's ultimately necessary.

An idea that you have to couch in buzz words, smoke screens, or outright lies is not an idea worthy of having.

[Esternial]

I'm not sure.

Frankly, you're right. We'd do a decent better if we didn't walk into every argument with "Hello, I'm a libertarian. I think sweatshops are neat and universal healthcare is awful."

I'm sure we must come off as some sort of bizarre real world Adamm's Family. We even have a thing for French words like "Laissez-Faire".

Still bad marketing aside, he's right. Although I wouldn't agree with the term exploitation for either party. Third world children are benefitting from the employment.

It's a point worth noting that the vast majority of child labour is done not by western corporations (who quite frankly are staffed with just as many bleeding hearts as any other institution) but rather by and large by domestic industries, particularly textile factories who sell their products to the corporations without their explicit knowledge (obviously a lot of "looking the other way" goes on), western corporations in Indonesia, China and India actually pay significantly higher wages than national averages, simply because they can't use the black market.

Most of the particularly egregious examples of abuse and exploitation, (like child slavery) occur in the black market, that exists solely because their governments are pressured by the West to criminalize child labour and it sends it underground because it's ultimately necessary.

An idea that you have to couch in buzz words, smoke screens, or outright lies is not an idea worthy of having.

That's rich, coming from you.

[Hippostania]

I thought that you liberals didn't like my "love it or leave it" rhetoric? Fine then, if you don't unconditionally love and support America, get the fuck out. Nobody is forcing you to live there..!

We don't ask conservatives to love it.

We ask them to stop whining about "theft" while using the services of their supposed thieves, despite the fact no one is forcing them to live here.

What services? I certainly do not use any kind of public healthcare, social welfare or other bullshit like that, I see no reason to pay for something I don't use. If you want social security, pay for it yourself.. But wait, I forgot.. Those services are based on theft, poorer people are using the state to steal money and wealth from succesful people!

[Des-Bal]

You can't do that if you don't understand my point.

I understood your point, wasn't commenting on it.

[Mavorpen]

You can't do that if you don't understand my point.

I understood your point, wasn't commenting on it.

Yeah. Suuure.

[Des-Bal]

That's rich, coming from you.

Really? Because I've been nothing if not upfront, in fact this entire tangent has been about how eager I am to admit that I support sweatshop labor.

[Mavorpen]

What services? I certainly do not use any kind of public healthcare, social welfare or other bullshit like that, I see no reason to pay for something I don't use. If you want social security, pay for it yourself.. But wait, I forgot.. Those services are based on theft, poorer people are using the state to steal money and wealth from succesful people!

So you don't use public roads?

You don't want patent protection?

No copyright laws?

No public education?

No agency to make sure your water isn't polluted?

No agency to make sure your food is safe?

Until you give up all of this, don't expect me to take you seriously.

[Des-Bal]

So you don't use public roads?

You don't want patent protection?

No copyright laws?

No public education?

No agency to make sure your water isn't polluted?

No agency to make sure your food is safe?

Until you give up all of this, don't expect me to take you seriously.

If you're forced to pay for something you may as well enjoy the benefits of it.

[Duvniask]

That's rich, coming from you.

Really? Because I've been nothing if not upfront, in fact this entire tangent has been about how eager I am to admit that I support sweatshop labor.

I don't even. Why should those people deserve to work in shitty conditions for almost nothing, and you even support it?

[Souseiseki]

More than what and less than what?

More work than someone in a first world country in terms of labour and working hours.

Less than someone in a first world country in terms of money and benefits.

Do I need to spell everything out for you?

sibirsky once told me how could we possibly be exploiting the third world, look at their GDP?!

sorry for making this the sibbysaid thread

[Riserland]

That's rich, coming from you.

Really? Because I've been nothing if not upfront, in fact this entire tangent has been about how eager I am to admit that I support sweatshop labor.

....and there is a logical justification for that?

[Des-Bal]

I don't even.

You probably would if you read the posts. Someone accused me of being blunt, I said I don't use smokescreens, someone else insinuated I did, I pointed out that I clearly don't.