Of course there is. Come on. Showing your interest starts with things such as eye contact, smiling at somebody, stuff like that. And if there's no response, move on. If there is, talk to her. It's not easy for us geeks, I know, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Eye Contact, don't you me Stare Rape
If your kid is in a park, grabs a rock, throws it at someone and causes harm, then you are responsible. Not the parks office, not the city, not the state, and not in the case of this incident, the school.
When the child is at the park they are the responsibility of of the person taking care of them, the parents. When the child is at school they are the responsibility of the school. The school gave the kid access to Facebook, the school did not monitor the child's activity. How would a parent be able to monitor their kids online activity at school?
The idea that a corporate person should have freedom of speech is, I think, a problem. For example, it allows them to spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns. This is undemocratic. Corporations don't get to vote or stand for election, but are allowed to have huge influence over politics through money. Since they are not real people they often act without morals or any sense of human decency, and try to get politicians with a similar disposition elected and the law change to reflect their myopic obsession with profit above all else.
The problem with this is that when you boil it down a corporation is just a group of people. That group of people pools their money together and buys adds or donates to politicians in ways that benefit the goals of their group. The rights of a person do not decrease when they are in a group. I would much rather corrupt politicians get removed from office then start limiting speech.
This quote is often used by people that don't know the whole quote or do and intentionally omit the end. Here is the rest of it. "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." No where does Jesus proclaim that a man is entitled to another man's property.
It seems that the goalposts just moved again. I offered this verse as a response to your statement "I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation". I did not offer it in support of an argument that a man is entitled to another man's property. This should have been apparent from the context, as I immediately preceeded this verse by the relevant quote from your own post.
How about this where does Jesus say it is required that you have to give up your possessions in order to go to heaven? Your quote is missing the context of the second half of his statement. Jesus does not say that the only way to make it to heaven is to sell all your possessions and give them to the poor.
You moved the goalposts by changing the subject of conversation from "no private property" to "means of production owned by workers", which are two very different things. Socialism does require the means of production being owned by workers. It does not require the absence of private property. If you look through the last few posts, you'll notice that you went from talking about "no private property" to suddenly talking about "means of production owned by the workers". You'll not that my objection was to your "no private property" definition of socialism (which is incorrect), and not your "means of production owned by workers" definition. My latest objection was that you "moved the goalposts" by abandoning your previous definition (which was incorrect) while pretending that your new "means of production owned by workers" definition was what you were saying all along. Also, it's unclear why I have to spell this out for you when it should all be apparent from context.
You going to have to understand the context of what I was saying. It's a big boy concept which means that you can't just look at one sentence you have to look at everything. If we are discussing workers being entitled to more of the profits, a person of average intelligence would be able to grasp that when someone says private property ownership in that context they are talking about workers having a share in the means of production. None of that changes the fact that your comment was about workers that did not invest in capital equipment getting more of the profits that were gained by that equipment. Which is a socialists concept.
Using violence because you think you are entitled to someone else's property is socialism and is how socialism has taken hold.
So when the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre in 1911 by Vincenzo Peruggia, this was socialism? I grow tired of your absurd attempts at redefining socialism. I figured after a few attempts, you'd give up and agree to the standard definition. Clearly I was wrong.
Again I am talking about means of production when I say property, I know it's tough for you to understand context.
It is possible. However, that's orthogonal to the discussion we're having. You stated that workers don't see the full benefit of their labor because they lack an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency. The necessary implication of that claim is that an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid.
Your logic has failed you again, it's not necessary that the ownership stake is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid. The ability to use it is a factor as well, two people one that is qualified to use machinery and one that is not, the one that is qualified will be paid more then the one that can only do manual labor. You are trying to define a grey world in black and white terms it simply won't work.
While I appreciate your condescending attitude, I don't see the problem with the hypothetical situation you set forth. The numbers line up, and everything is working fine. Are you offering this as an example of just how easy it would be for society to transition away from the compulsory-labor model we have now? If so, well done.
This was your quote.
that rewarding lazy behavior and creating more lazy people doesn't negatively impact those who "work hard" nor does it necessarily have any adverse effect on society as a whole.
If you go by my model they people working now have 6.5% less then before the lazy revolution, I would count that as negatively impacting those who work hard. I know you really wish you could do nothing get something in return and not impact anybody else but it's not true.
And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
This quote is often used by people that don't know the whole quote or do and intentionally omit the end. Here is the rest of it. "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." No where does Jesus proclaim that a man is entitled to another man's property.
Yes, you can. Indeed, it is required to be so. That's not the same as "no private property", though. You've just moved the goalposts.
How did I do that, please don't tell me it's because I didn't explicitly say owning the means of production? We are talking about worker owner relationships, your quote was about the threat of workers rioting because the owners are pocketing what is rightfully theirs. That has nothing to do with owning a house, car, or any other possession, it's hard to believe you are that dumb.
The use of violence implies that the workers are entitled to the profits beyond what they originally agreed to, and they are simply taking what is theirs.
No, the means of production being owned by the workers is socialism. Threat of violence is merely one mechanism through which socialism can be brought about. The threat of violence can similarly be used to bring about other forms of socioeconomic organization. It's not peculiar to socialism. Capitalists have used the threat of violence against workers as well; was this also socialism?
Could you find where I stated that violence is only a tool of socialism? Didn't think so? Using violence because you think you are entitled to someone else's property is socialism and is how socialism has taken hold.
Vladimire Lenin "Peaceful surrender of power by the bourgeoisie is possible, if it is convinced that resistance is hopeless and if it prefers to save its skin. It is much more likely, of course, that even in small states socialism will not be achieved without civil war, and for that reason the only programme of international Social-Democracy must be recognition of civil war."
You argued that it was their ownership of technology that entitled them to the gains afforded by it, did you not? Or are you now saying that its their work, not the ownership stake, that entitles them to reap the majority of the benefits provided by technology? Make up your mind.
Is it possible that the owner is in his tractor plowing the fields? Here is your quote.
However, we've established that the people footing the bill aren't working hard, they're merely owning capital.
That has not been established the people footing the bill can be working hard, just not doing unskilled labor.
Why wouldn't it fall on the people making the bulk of the money (the capitalists who own technology, as opposed to those who labor)? You seem to be contradicting yourself again.
I'll try to explain it very simply so even you can under stand. These numbers are just for illustration so don't take them literally. We start out with 90% of the people working, those 90% pay for the safety net of the 10% of lazy people 11.11% of their pay goes to the safety net. 5% of the people realize that they too could stop working and live off the safety net. Now 85% are paying for 15%, and pay 17.64% of their pay for the safety net. You simply can't have more people taking the same amount out while having fewer people put something in unless the people putting something in put in more.
I can't really see how imprisonment by a government is qualitatively worse than damnation to the fiery pits of hell for all eternity.Disingenuous argument.
I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation. What Jesus is saying is that is you give up your possessions, give the money to the poor and follow him you will be rewarded with eternal salivation. He did not say that is the only way to end up in heaven.
This is where I disagree. Much like "things fall to the ground" is an oversimplification of gravity (and as such, is not "gravity"), "there is no private property" is an oversimplification of socialism (and as such, is not "socialism"). If your understanding of socialism can be summed up as "there is no private property", then I can see how you could come to such a conclusion. However, that's not an accurate or complete characterization of what's generally understood to constitute socialism.
Can you have socialism with ownership of the means of production? Please give me your definition of socialism that does not include the means of production being controlled by the people. Gravity being inverse square to the distance is just as fundamental part of the definition of gravity as the means of production being owned by the collective is to socialism.
Not really, any more than the idea that police should enforce laws or that courts should adjudicate trials are socialist concepts. By your reasoning, anything beyond anarchy is a socialist concept. That's not what most people mean when they talk about socialism. The idea that land owners should give more to their workers less [sic] they revolt is more rational self-interest than anything else.
The threat of violence either through the government or mob riots to demand "a fair share" is socialism. Negotiating wages is not socialism, unionizing and refusing to work until demands are met is not socialism. There are many avenues that can be taken without the threat of violence to get "a fair share". The use of violence implies that the workers are entitled to the profits beyond what they originally agreed to, and they are simply taking what is theirs.
However, we've established that the people footing the bill aren't working hard, they're merely owning capital.
We have not established that, you would need to show that the owner is not working, which has not been done. There are many other things that have to be done on a farm besides picking fruit.
Nobody needs to "work hard" except to satisfy the owners of capital, not to meet the cost of maintaining society.
That how a business works, you have to make more money then you are putting in other wise you lose money and go out of business and then nobody is working. Do you think all business should lose money?
that rewarding lazy behavior and creating more lazy people doesn't negatively impact those who "work hard" nor does it necessarily have any adverse effect on society as a whole.
It does when you have safety nets. Someone has to pay for those benefits. When you have more people receiving them you need more money to pay for them, since the contributor base is shrinking because you have more lazy people the larger burden will fall on the rest of the people working.
And your electric circuit should have a fuse and other safety features that prevent fluctuations in the power.
It's not just power surges that can damage electronic components, under-voltage can do the same. You would need a UPS with power conditioning for all susceptible equipment.
Indeed, and "If you will be perfect, go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow Me" was something that Jesus supposedly said. Does this also sound like the beginning of socialism to you? Is any statement opposing unbridled greed "the beginning of socialism" to you? Most people have a slightly less superficial understanding of socialism, so that might explain why they aren't as quick as you to label everything "socialism". The same applies to your Rousseau quote.
No it does not, it sounds like you are free to choose to sell your possessions and give them to the poor. Socialism doe not allow for a choice it's give up your wealth by force or threat of force. Rousseau's quote was saying that no person had a right to private property and that all property belongs to the collective. "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.". I don't have a subscription to Modern Socialists but I'm pretty sure the means of production being controlled by the government is a pillar of socialism.
Gravity the concept as we understand it today, or gravity the force? One indeed did not exist before Newton's definition, while the other did.
Let me put it this way, if the understanding of gravity being inverse square to the distance was known before Newton officially defined gravity. Would that concept of gravity being inverse square to the distance not be considered an idea that lead to the Newtonian definition of gravity? That idea is in the Newtonian definition. Rousseau's idea that there is no private property is a socialists idea. Your idea that the land owners should give more to their workers less they revolt and take from the land owner is a socialists concept as well.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept all of the statistics you've provided. Are you suggesting that by merely foregoing cell phone ownership, avoiding modern transportation, and eschewing indoor plumbing, thereby returning to conditions comparable to those experienced by serfs, they'd only need to work a few minutes per week to support their newly-lowered standard of living?
If you owned the technology you could work significantly less. How much depends on how fast a person could plow with a tractor, seed with machinery, spraying with herbicide, insecticide and fertilizer, mowing/harvesting with a tractor, and transporting to sell. You would also need to account for costs to maintain your tractor, amortize your equipment over it's life, and consumables like seed, fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides, and diesel. I don't know where your coming up with minutes per week but you could definitely work much less.
The seasonal migrants all ready do work less only 1/4 of the the year. The year round workers don't own the technology so they don't see lions share of the benefit but yes if they choose to forgo modern technology they would not have to work as much to provide for them selves.
For the record, proto-socialist ideas started popping up in France distinctly after the revolution.
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or death" was the slogan of the French revolution. Fraternity was a concept that people had a legal responsibility to ensure that everyone gets their fair share. That sounds like the beginning of socialism to me.
Here is a quote from Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1754, way before the French revolution.
"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naÃve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."
So I guess it's safe to say that bounding ideas or concepts by the date is pretty foolish. Did gravity not exists before Newton defined it?
Did you read below that I will repeat it since you missed it, if you are saying they had it equally as good you need to find something that made up for a serf's lack of technology, like cell phones, clean drinking water, indoor plumbing, living quarters without livestock, cars, laundry facilities,... What area did the serfs have it better then migrant workers to make up for all those things I listed.
First, I'll reiterate my objection that those aren't things that migrant workers have, generally speaking. Second, I'll reiterate the response I offered earlier: leisure time and living space
80% of migrant workers have cell phones
42% drive a car to work, 8% walk, 35% ride with others, 8% take a bus, 7% use Raitero (shuttle).
95% had water for washing, 80% drinking water and cups, 93% had a toilet
Living space? serfs had live stock living in their "houses". I don't know if you know this but goats and sheep crap all the time. I don't know about you but I would rather live in a house cramped with people then with animals, feces, and urine.
Now for your claim of leisure time. From the study I cited the average hours worked per week was 43 hours. It's safe to say that is the average for a year round worker, serfs worked more then that. Now to the seasonal migrant. Seasonal migrant workers are not working 3/4 of the year, they would have to work 23 hours a day every day to work the same hours as someone who works 40 hours a week year round.
The disclaimer I've added to the end of my last three posts (as well as this one) has been rather prophetic, don't you think? Perhaps you're interested in breaking the 76-post-long-thread record I set with bingoUV? That would be even more impressive with this disclaimer in place the whole time. I totally think you should go for it.
You can stop responding any time you like, yet you still continue to respond.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
