Sadly true.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
Sadly true.
I like using the Nazi analogy as much as the next guy, but it's not relevant. I disagree with a lot of people here, but I don't think they are crazy.
lol. I don't work in the firearms industry or even own any firearms - where are the profits for me?
Not necessarily.
You're smart enough to understand what's being argued here yet your responses don't reflect that.
He never said you placed YOUR profit above anything else. Just profit itself. And yes, you seem to worship it, like it's some deity. Apologies if that's not true but it's the impression I'm getting.
you're drowning.
You value economic freedom above everything else. Which is insane.
Stats are really complicated dude. You can't say something so incredibly simplistic and expect me to respond with anything serious.
Meh. Whatever my motivations may or may not be, I'm still putting forward my arguments.
If you ran the world it would crumble into anarchy and chaos.
reread your post Andrew.
Stats are not complicated btw...perhaps to you.
Stats are not complicated btw...perhaps to you.
You've got it the wrong way round. I value economic freedom simply because I believe it creates the best outcomes for society. There's nothing insane about that.
Hardly.
There's currently a thread in the general about a member of the caf who is overworked and is getting paid £4.44 an hour. He has little choice but to keep working there. Is it wrong of me to assume you're on the side of the employer? Because if you are, there's the perfect example of how it won't create the best outcome for society. People who have money would disproportionately benefit, and they already benefit disproportionately from the system we have, even in relatively socialist countries.
It's fast becoming a reality that the likes of Wal-Mart and McDonald's are paying their employees so little that they can't afford to shop anywhere else. That's a perfect example of how evil the pursuit of naked profit can be.
I'm pretty sure Andrew is against the minimum wage even being a thing. McDonalds and Walmart would turn into slave owners.
Why do I need to be on the side of anyone? Secondly, the system we have is a far cry from a 'free market' so the rich benefiting from it isn't really a surprise.
I am. And that is a ridiculous claim. Slavery and voluntary work are very different things.
Do you not think its immoral of his boss to pay people an unfair wage?
Don't you believe that companies would self-regulate and that all restrictive business laws need to be removed?
It was pretty obvious that you'd come back with 'he should get another job'.
When there's no paid left work the difference is experientially non-existent.
The argument for the living wage however is rather sound. If you work full time, you should be paid enough money to have a reasonable standard of living.
I believe there's no such thing as an 'unfair wage', only what the market rate is for someone's labour. Some times, employers take the piss and try to low-ball employees on what they are worth, but that's what unions and such are for, right?
Sure. That's not taking the side of the boss is it?
No, it's still not the same thing. Don't try to trivialise the actual horrendous experiences of slaves in order to make a point. Slaves live and die and the beck of the masters, you still have the option to walk out whenever you like.
What evidence do you have for businesses self-regulating in the past to convince me that government intervention isn't necessary?
And you really think that without regulation large corporation would actually hire people in a union?
The guy in the general doesn't really have the option to walk away if he wants to feed his baby.
Oh, you know, decades of corporations doing all they can to look after their employees well being, like Mcdonalds recently..
I'm actually expecting yet another glib answer.
Do you have any evidence of government intervention that hasn't led to massive unintended consequences?
Well yeah, life is fecking hard. I'm sure we're all in situations where we have to make sacrifices in order to eat. That's not slavery, it's called taking responsibility and doing what you need to do. I'd actually give the guy in the general a lot of respect and sympathy for the situation he's in.
Corporations don't normally like unions, this is true. But the only choice they have in unionised industries is to either work with the unions or hire people who aren't in the unions. This would work for low skilled jobs, but not for much else.
But you wouldn't give him the living wage? That's immoral in my opinion. Sympathy isn't going what's going to help him.
Low skilled jobs should also pay people enough to have a decent standard of living.
Life doesn't have to be "fecking hard". It's only made hard because of selfish pricks who don't want to share. We as a planet produce a surplus of food yet people still die of starvation. It's immoral, and it all stems from a greed that you would propagate further.
What kind of shit answer is that? Government regulation of industry has pretty much ensured universally better conditions for workers and protections for the public.
Some people just don't understand this basic truth.
I think in the (hopefully not too distant) future all essential things like food, drinking water, education, shelter and healthcare will be freely available to everyone on the planet and they're going to look back at us with the same kind of disgust we look back at slave owners and witch hunters with.
That video is a load of shit, you can't compare US violent crime to UK violent crime because of the different definitions.
Ah yes, a video by the unbiased commentator from the unbiased NRAnews.com, who in his last video, posted only yesterday, suggested that regulation of the market of firearms in the US is a big problem for the constitution.
I've been following him for quite a long time, and he only became a commentator on NRAnews.com at least a year after making that video.
Last edited:
I don't understand why you think the world works by 'sharing' and 'giving'. You can talk about surpluses as much as you like, but we live in a world of scarcity, and the only efficient way of distributing scarce goods is through a market system - economics settled this about 300 years ago. Unfortunately, most people believe the same nonsense you do, so we don't have a more efficient distribution of resources.
Oh well that's ok then, I'm sure he was totally neutral and unbiased before that
I don't think I ever claimed him to be neutral and unbiased. There aren't many people who are.
Sure. It's also done a lot of other things too. The interesting thing is, you guys hate corporate profits, but you support regulations which large corporations love because they create massive barriers of entry to competitors, meaning they have an even more privileged position in the market and even more profits.
Happily there is far more to living in a society than an efficient distribution of resources.