Labour Party calls for "better capitalism"

[Seth]

Yes capitalism brought about 20-35 days paid holiday, maximum working hours , maternity/paternity leave, sick pay health and safety regulations, union representation and a decent health care for all. Ie all the things that make life worth living.

Or perhaps not

Why should an employer be forced by law to pay you to not work? All any of that does is drive up costs to consumers and jeopardize the existence of the very companies that people depend on for work and a wage.

If you want to negotiate a paid vacation, holidays with pay, maternity leave, working hours, sick pay or health care benefits with an employer privately, that's fine by me, but government has no business interfering in the contractual negotiation between employer and employee in that regard. If I want to work 20 hours a day to make more money, that's between me and the employer. If I only want to work part-time, that too is between me and the employer, and it's none of the government's business at all.

As for health and safety regulations, that's appropriate police-power regulation because it does not seek to advantage or disadvantage either party in the employment contract negotiation, it simply prevents the infliction of force or fraud by the employer.

[Seth]

...Everyone seems to think Capitalism is failing. But it seems to me what they mean is it's failing them...

Is that not the most important measure? How many people must Capitalism be failing before it can be declared "not for for purpose"?

Capitalism doesn't fail anyone. People fail at Capitalism all the time however. But that's their fault, not Capitalism's. Capitalism is just an economic model that says if you work hard enough you can improve your economic condition. If you don't want to work though, your economic condition won't improve itself, and nobody else is obligated to improve it for you and keep you in the slothful and idle lifestyle to which you'd like to become accustomed.

Adapt or die.

[MrJonno]

Yes capitalism brought about 20-35 days paid holiday, maximum working hours , maternity/paternity leave, sick pay health and safety regulations, union representation and a decent health care for all. Ie all the things that make life worth living.

Or perhaps not

Why should an employer be forced by law to pay you to not work? All any of that does is drive up costs to consumers and jeopardize the existence of the very companies that people depend on for work and a wage.

If you want to negotiate a paid vacation, holidays with pay, maternity leave, working hours, sick pay or health care benefits with an employer privately, that's fine by me, but government has no business interfering in the contractual negotiation between employer and employee in that regard. If I want to work 20 hours a day to make more money, that's between me and the employer. If I only want to work part-time, that too is between me and the employer, and it's none of the government's business at all.

As for health and safety regulations, that's appropriate police-power regulation because it does not seek to advantage or disadvantage either party in the employment contract negotiation, it simply prevents the infliction of force or fraud by the employer.

Why should an employer be allowed to run a business, if he chooses to not to why should he be allowed to keep capita in the country he lives in?

He is allowed to because he obeys employment and other laws as well as paying taxes

[Seth]

Yes capitalism brought about 20-35 days paid holiday, maximum working hours , maternity/paternity leave, sick pay health and safety regulations, union representation and a decent health care for all. Ie all the things that make life worth living.

Or perhaps not

Why should an employer be forced by law to pay you to not work? All any of that does is drive up costs to consumers and jeopardize the existence of the very companies that people depend on for work and a wage.

If you want to negotiate a paid vacation, holidays with pay, maternity leave, working hours, sick pay or health care benefits with an employer privately, that's fine by me, but government has no business interfering in the contractual negotiation between employer and employee in that regard. If I want to work 20 hours a day to make more money, that's between me and the employer. If I only want to work part-time, that too is between me and the employer, and it's none of the government's business at all.

As for health and safety regulations, that's appropriate police-power regulation because it does not seek to advantage or disadvantage either party in the employment contract negotiation, it simply prevents the infliction of force or fraud by the employer.

Why should an employer be allowed to run a business, if he chooses to not to why should he be allowed to keep capita in the country he lives in?

He is allowed to because he obeys employment and other laws as well as paying taxes

Begging the question.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Capitalism doesn't fail anyone. People fail at Capitalism all the time however. But that's their fault, not Capitalism's...

Right, silly me. Imagine thinking 'people' matter.

...Adapt or die.

Most human beings find your views on just about everything totally abhorrent - and that's not going to change any time soon.

Guess your stinking dogma better "adapt or die".

[MrJonno]

One unfortunate form of adaption is to kill, hungry people don't tend to just die quietly and if there is little work they don't suddenly find it.

What they do however is revolt, riot and generally make the place messy.

Of course if thats the world you want to live in when you sit in your house with your uzi and shoot a few who trespass looking for food then well luckily society doesnt have much room for people like you

[Gallstones2]

Of course if thats the world you want to live in when you sit in your house with your uzi and shoot a few who trespass looking for food then well luckily society doesnt have much room for people like you

Most of us don't have uzis, but some of have some nice looking Glocs , Smith and Wessons, and maybe even a Colt or two. But what we all have is plenty of ammo.

[Svartalf]

...Everyone seems to think Capitalism is failing. But it seems to me what they mean is it's failing them...

Is that not the most important measure? How many people must Capitalism be failing before it can be declared "not for for purpose"?

Capitalism doesn't fail anyone. People fail at Capitalism all the time however. But that's their fault, not Capitalism's. Capitalism is just an economic model that says if you work hard enough you can improve your economic condition. If you don't want to work though, your economic condition won't improve itself, and nobody else is obligated to improve it for you and keep you in the slothful and idle lifestyle to which you'd like to become accustomed.

Adapt or die.

I am deeply disturbed that you feel that it's people that fail at applying a system/ideology that has no claim at being on a higher seat than mankind, and is just a way to arrange the economy, not a set of higher moral values... or do you actually worship at the shrine of the Almighty Dollar?

I could understand chretins railing at people for failing to be good chretins and that kind of stuff, but while I'd enjoy money as much as anybody, I feel no higher moral imperative to being a good capitalist.

BTW, We ARE adapted... there's a reason why humans are fundamentally social animals, if we stuck to the kind of rugged arch individualism you seem to advocate, we'd still be running in the plains of Africa and and deeming sticks and stones wonderful clever tricks.

[Seth]

...Everyone seems to think Capitalism is failing. But it seems to me what they mean is it's failing them...

Is that not the most important measure? How many people must Capitalism be failing before it can be declared "not for for purpose"?

Capitalism doesn't fail anyone. People fail at Capitalism all the time however. But that's their fault, not Capitalism's. Capitalism is just an economic model that says if you work hard enough you can improve your economic condition. If you don't want to work though, your economic condition won't improve itself, and nobody else is obligated to improve it for you and keep you in the slothful and idle lifestyle to which you'd like to become accustomed.

Adapt or die.

I am deeply disturbed that you feel that it's people that fail at applying a system/ideology that has no claim at being on a higher seat than mankind, and is just a way to arrange the economy, not a set of higher moral values... or do you actually worship at the shrine of the Almighty Dollar?

It's not an ideology, it's just an economic model. The claim was that capitalism fails people and this is clearly not the case. People fail at applying the principles of capitalism properly, and they fail economically as a result. An economic model is not intended to achieve some pre-determined social result, it's merely a way of predicting how an economy will respond to inputs and outputs of capital and labor.

This is the great error that Socialists make in comparing Socialism and Capitalism...they are comparing apples to oranges. This fact is demonstrated by the observation that all so-called "democratic socialist" countries in Europe are using capitalism as their primary economic model for generating wealth in society.

Even Norway, with it's strong socialist roots and massive public entitlement programs depends on capitalism for it's economic existence and success. Without free-market capitalist countries to sell it's oil to on the open market, Norway's social systems and entitlement spending would bankrupt the nation very quickly.

So, you need to not conflate socialism and capitalism in the same argument. When you are arguing social policy you are comparing socialism to other political/social ideologies, not capitalism.

I could understand chretins railing at people for failing to be good chretins and that kind of stuff, but while I'd enjoy money as much as anybody, I feel no higher moral imperative to being a good capitalist.

Nor should you. Capitalism is merely an explanation of the way humans traditionally and all but inevitably engage in trade and commerce with one another most successfully. That's it. It's nothing more than that.

BTW, We ARE adapted... there's a reason why humans are fundamentally social animals, if we stuck to the kind of rugged arch individualism you seem to advocate, we'd still be running in the plains of Africa and and deeming sticks and stones wonderful clever tricks.

Except that you mistake, as usual, Libertarian philosophy for "rugged arch individualism" when it's anything but that. A respect for individual rights and the determination not to allow anyone, including government, to initiate force or fraud against any individual, does not mean that Libertarians are in the least bit anti-social or unwilling to be part of a community. It merely means that each individual gets the free choice of how to dispose of their labor and property, gets to associate or not associate freely and without obligation to anyone, and gets to make and be responsible for individual, private contracts for services and goods without the coercive force of government seeking to take and redistribute their labor and wealth to others without consent.

Libertarians do things as a part of a community for reasons of sane, mature adult personality traits such as rational self-interest, compassion, altruism and charity, not because some bureaucrat in Washington or anywhere else demands that they do them.

[Seth]

One unfortunate form of adaption is to kill, hungry people don't tend to just die quietly and if there is little work they don't suddenly find it.

What they do however is revolt, riot and generally make the place messy.

Indeed, which is why it's in the rational self-interest of Libertarians to make sure that people don't go hungry and have useful work to do. We don't need government to tell us this, it's obvious, and we don't need government to deal with the issue for us, we're perfectly capable and willing to look to our own interests in a peaceful and happy society by helping those who legitimately need help without some bureaucrat in Washington insisting that he knows how to spend our money better than we do.

It's really a simple concept, and I wonder why you have so much difficulty understanding it. It seems that you have absolutely no faith whatsoever in your fellow citizens and their willingness to contribute voluntarily to keeping society safe, peaceful and just, and your paranoid mistrust of their charitable instincts lead you to advocate the use of government force to take what you think you're entitled to by enslaving everyone else to your desires and needs. But a pathological mistrust of others is not a valid or rational basis upon which to formulate public policy or law.

Sadly, every socialist is fundamentally insane in this regard. They all have malformed and defective adult personalities and are locked into psychological pathologies of dependence and egoistic self-centeredness that qualifies as mental illness. Rational individuals with well-formed and healthy adult personalities grow out of this sort of selfishness and dependence before they turn 12.

Of course if thats the world you want to live in when you sit in your house with your uzi and shoot a few who trespass looking for food then well luckily society doesnt have much room for people like you

Your problem is that you are not comprehending what Libertarianism actually is or believes, probably deliberately so, because it conflicts with your dependent-class entitlement authoritarian steal-what-you-want collectivist ideology.

And Uzis are horribly inefficient at dealing with the occasional thief who tries to steal what is not his.

For close-in work a pistol or shotgun using a single round is far more efficient and cost-effective, and at long range, the Sako TRG-42 in .338 Lapua Magnum is highly effective at ranges beyond 1500 meters.

Uzis are really only useful against large hordes attacking at once at close range, and I'd prefer a Browning .50 BMG or even an M4 or SAW over a Uzi in almost every situation.

[Seth]

...Capitalism doesn't fail anyone. People fail at Capitalism all the time however. But that's their fault, not Capitalism's...

Right, silly me. Imagine thinking 'people' matter.

Silly you indeed, mistaking an economic model for a social model. Of course people matter. Libertarianism is all about people and how much they matter, as individuals. This is unlike Socialism which devalues people as individuals and turns them into replaceable and disposable cogs in the socialist hive-mind mentality. For all that socialists like to maunder on about how they care about the poor and oppressed, it's just another Big Lie that covers up the inability of socialists to comprehend or accept the idea that the individual might be more important than the collective.

Capitalism does not address such issues at all. Never has, never will. All it does is describe how economic free trade between willing participants works. It's an observation of human behavior that has become a predictor of economic results, nothing more. It neither says anything about nor cares about how an individual applies the lessons of Capitalism or whether it is just or unjust to any particular individual.

So yes, you're being silly by trying to malign capitalism for not being something that it's never been and has never pretended to be. Don't feel bad, your Messiah, Karl Marx, made the same idiotic mistake more than a hundred years ago, and so has every Marxist and socialist since then, so you're not alone.

...Adapt or die.

Most human beings find your views on just about everything totally abhorrent - and that's not going to change any time soon.

You speak for "most human beings" do you? You got some paperwork on that authorization because I don't believe you, I think you're lying.

[MrJonno]

It's really a simple concept, and I wonder why you have so much difficulty understanding it. It seems that you have absolutely no faith whatsoever in your fellow citizens and their willingness to contribute voluntarily to keeping society safe, peaceful and just, and your paranoid mistrust of their charitable instincts lead you to advocate the use of government force to take what you think you're entitled to by enslaving everyone else to your desires and needs. But a pathological mistrust of others is not a valid or rational basis upon which to formulate public policy or law.

Human beings can be charitable but only when they are reasonable certain that everyone else is being reasonable charitable as well and without some sort of tax system there is no certainty of this. People may well accept paying 1-2% of their income to pay for welfare payments as long as know everyone else is paying the same.

I can guarantee the very first thing to go if all taxes were voluntary wouldnt be the welfare state it would be the police and army. Most of us on a day to day basis have very little to do with either and hence wouldnt pay for it. Most of us however are well aware we could be out of a job one day and will pay for some sort of government protection when that happened

[Seth]

It's really a simple concept, and I wonder why you have so much difficulty understanding it. It seems that you have absolutely no faith whatsoever in your fellow citizens and their willingness to contribute voluntarily to keeping society safe, peaceful and just, and your paranoid mistrust of their charitable instincts lead you to advocate the use of government force to take what you think you're entitled to by enslaving everyone else to your desires and needs. But a pathological mistrust of others is not a valid or rational basis upon which to formulate public policy or law.

Human beings can be charitable but only when they are reasonable certain that everyone else is being reasonable charitable as well

That's your jaundiced view of human behavior, and I'm afraid it's not an accurate one.

and without some sort of tax system there is no certainty of this.

Why must charity be certain? It's charity. If people want to give, they will. If they don't, you can't force them to be charitable, all you can do is decide how much of their money you want and steal it from them against their will, which is immoral.

People may well accept paying 1-2% of their income to pay for welfare payments as long as know everyone else is paying the same.

Or not. So what? Nobody's entitled to welfare payments in the first place. If you want welfare, you have to ask nicely for it and not use a thug with a machine gun to steal it for you if everyone refuses your request. It's not your fucking money, and you're not entitled to it just because you want to be.

I can guarantee the very first thing to go if all taxes were voluntary wouldnt be the welfare state it would be the police and army.

If that's what society wants, that's what they are entitled to have.

Most of us on a day to day basis have very little to do with either and hence wouldnt pay for it. Most of us however are well aware we could be out of a job one day and will pay for some sort of government protection when that happened

That's fine if YOU are paying for YOUR unemployment. I don't mind you letting the government hold YOUR money in trust for YOU, but fuck you if you want the government to take MY money and use it for YOUR unemployment. Me, I'll put my own money away for my own unemployment and leave the middle-man of government swinging in the wind.