PDA

View Full Version : Dominoes - Pay a little more



MarillionFan
10th December 2013, 18:05
BBC News - Pay better wages, minister tells Domino's Pizza boss (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25321113)

1000 vacancies but he cannot fill them unless the government opens the borders. Exactly the point, just because you want to pay pennies doesn't mean there's a shortage in skills.

Boycott Dominos I say!

doodab
10th December 2013, 18:34
Wage inflation is desperately needed. I'm glad someone has finally seen sense.

vetran
10th December 2013, 18:44
was always the end game, cheaper and cheaper employees until they ran out of people to exploit. Then send out Lord Mandleslime to search for more.

kal
10th December 2013, 18:46
Wage inflation is desperately needed. I'm glad someone has finally seen sense.

Have to say well done to the government minister in this. Why should we just let more immigrants in so that yet another multi dollar global firm can exploit them, :winker:

Bellona
10th December 2013, 18:48
Lord Mandleslime

:rollin::rollin::rollin::rollin:


You must spread some reputation around before giving it to vetran again

Cliphead
10th December 2013, 18:50
Crap and seriously overpriced pizza anyway. Tried once never again.

Spacecadet
10th December 2013, 18:52
The pizza firms slicing a 900% profit off your delivery: £1.25 to make a Margherita... but you pay £12.49 | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370004/The-pizza-firms-slicing-900-profit-delivery--1-25-make-Margherita--pay-12-49.html)

vetran
10th December 2013, 18:59
That's all right Aldo will save you he is only making 600%.


Chef Aldo Zilli, who has launched his own range of pizzas for restaurant chain Prezzo, said: ‘I would always avoid takeaways as they do overcharge and the ingredients are often processed and unhealthy.

‘People can avoid extortionate mark-ups on takeaway pizzas by creating their own at home: vegetables for the toppings such as peppers and red onion cost hardly anything and pizza sauce can be made from a tin of tomatoes with some chopped garlic and onion.

Prezzo Restaurants - Winter Menu (http://www.prezzorestaurants.co.uk/menu/winter-menu)

£2.35 for a can of coke and £13.50 for a Pizza.

The mail should hit its advertising revenues!

mudskipper
10th December 2013, 19:02
The pizza firms slicing a 900% profit off your delivery: £1.25 to make a Margherita... but you pay £12.49 | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370004/The-pizza-firms-slicing-900-profit-delivery--1-25-make-Margherita--pay-12-49.html)

I think the mail are confused about what constitutes profit.

AtW
10th December 2013, 19:15
I think the mail are confused about what constitutes profit.

http://soccerlens.com/files/2010/11/money-gbp-brown-envelope.jpg

Dominos - unique product that can cost you a lot more when ordering online rather than call a shop :eyes

Good advice from the minister, very refreshing actually.

Zippy
10th December 2013, 19:15
BBC News - Pay better wages, minister tells Domino's Pizza boss (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25321113)

1000 vacancies but he cannot fill them unless the government opens the borders. Exactly the point, just because you want to pay pennies doesn't mean there's a shortage in skills.

Boycott Dominos I say!

Why pay more when the government will subsidise your piss-poor wages with tax credits? I guess he thought it was worth a try.

darmstadt
10th December 2013, 19:19
The pizza firms slicing a 900% profit off your delivery: £1.25 to make a Margherita... but you pay £12.49 | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370004/The-pizza-firms-slicing-900-profit-delivery--1-25-make-Margherita--pay-12-49.html)

Obviously the British public are mugs if they're paying that much for a pizza. I don't pay that much for one with all the toppings. Now if the mugs stop ordering them, then the company will have to look at it's pricing policy, it's only the market which drives the prices.

AtW
10th December 2013, 19:22
it's only the market which drives the prices.

Yeah, all those stupid buyers who clearly did not get proper edukation with home ekonomics - cooking your own is much cheaper! :eyes

greenlake
10th December 2013, 19:22
BBC News - Pay better wages, minister tells Domino's Pizza boss (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25321113)

1000 vacancies but he cannot fill them unless the government opens the borders. Exactly the point, just because you want to pay pennies doesn't mean there's a shortage in skills.

Boycott Dominos I say!

Is that why you went to California? Because the pay was better?

http://media.fastcar.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/aston_martin_pizza_delivery_11.jpg

http://media.fastcar.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/aston_martin_pizza_delivery_21.jpg

http://media.fastcar.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/aston_martin_pizza_delivery_31.jpg

AtW
10th December 2013, 19:25
Is that why you went to California? Because the pay was better?

Petrol taxes a lot lower there...

vetran
10th December 2013, 21:59
Why pay more when the government will subsidise your piss-poor wages with tax credits? I guess he thought it was worth a try.

do you think they will have the guts to make that point?

CheeseSlice
10th December 2013, 22:09
Sounds like a response to this one..

Stop complaining about immigrants and find a job of your own, former M&S boss says - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10503821/Stuart-Rose-Bulgarians-taking-our-jobs-immigrants-low-pay-wages-Romanians-EU-benefits.html)


High street veteran Sir Stuart Rose claims it's not the fault of Bulgarians and Romanians if they are prepared to come to the UK and work longer hours, and for less money, than Britons are prepared to

So who wins this argument?

d000hg
10th December 2013, 22:15
Crap and seriously overpriced pizza anyway. Tried once never again.Used to like it but now meh. Surely nobody pays the full price anyway... ours always has "any pizza £9.99" and often has "any pizza 5.99". At that price it's OK but even then our local place doing £4.99 happy hour is often nicer... £15 for a takeaway pizza FFS for that I want the wine thrown in!

Zero Liability
10th December 2013, 22:52
I think the mail are confused about what constitutes profit.

They are generally confused, as is the minister in question.

If the firm were that profitable, why isn't its share price soaring?

Mich the Tester
11th December 2013, 08:44
Lord Mandleslime

I don't agree with you very often, but on that man's name...:yay:

Mich the Tester
11th December 2013, 08:49
Sounds like a response to this one..

Stop complaining about immigrants and find a job of your own, former M&S boss says - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10503821/Stuart-Rose-Bulgarians-taking-our-jobs-immigrants-low-pay-wages-Romanians-EU-benefits.html)



So who wins this argument?

Dunno, but the pizza man's saying he wants easier entry for people from outside the EU so he can get enough staff who'll work for a pittance. Personally I feel we should be striving for more migration freedom worldwide, but that's besides the point here. There are 507 million people in the EU. If he can't find one or two of them prepared to go and make pizzas in his shops then he needs to take a long hard look at his business model, starting with the wages he's offering. As others have said, it's a market and the market rate is obviously higher than he thought.

minestrone
11th December 2013, 09:02
Their pizzas are pretty dull, we occasionally get them in if people are round.

doodab
11th December 2013, 09:08
I think the bigger problem is that for years big business has been allowed to set the agenda, now with a vast chunk of working people on benefits and people getting upset about new waves of immigrants the chickens are coming home to roost. It's about time politicians started representing all the people who live here, not just those who own businesses.

d000hg
11th December 2013, 09:11
Don'r know if it's the way they always do it, but our local Dominos is fascinating to watch - it's the same size as your typical pizza takeaway but instead of 2-3 people, there must be anything up to 20. They get the pizzas out quickly but not drastically faster than other takeaways so it's no surprise they want to pay their staff so little; they have 5X as many as other places!

SpontaneousOrder
11th December 2013, 11:34
Stop unemployment benefits - problem solved. The cost of labour for pizza makers is already artificially high thanks to minimum wage, so talk about exploitation etc is bullshit.

d000hg
11th December 2013, 11:37
Stop unemployment benefits - problem solved. The cost of labour for pizza makers is already artificially high thanks to minimum wage, so talk about exploitation etc is bulltulip.How does working all day and not earning enough to feed and house yourself solve any problems?

minestrone
11th December 2013, 11:38
If you took the total dominoes UK employee wages and divided it by dominoes UK pizzas sold I would think total wage cost per pizza is going to be substantially less than a pound. 60 pence maybe.

Scrag Meister
11th December 2013, 11:39
Is that why you went to California? Because the pay was better?

http://media.fastcar.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/aston_martin_pizza_delivery_11.jpg

http://media.fastcar.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/aston_martin_pizza_delivery_21.jpg

http://media.fastcar.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/aston_martin_pizza_delivery_31.jpg

I saw a smart Mustang with a pizza delivery sign on it, when I was in Hawaii.

AtW
11th December 2013, 11:48
If you took the total dominoes UK employee wages and divided it by dominoes UK pizzas sold I would think total wage cost per pizza is going to be substantially less than a pound. 60 pence maybe.

Yes, but I would not be suprised if it turned out that the royalty fee for usage of Dominos' brand paid to an offshore entity makes UK subsidiary totally unprofitable :laugh

Mich the Tester
11th December 2013, 11:52
Stop unemployment benefits - problem solved. The cost of labour for pizza makers is already artificially high thanks to minimum wage, so talk about exploitation etc is bulltulip.

Or you get a massive crime wave as people go on the rampage nicking food and other essentials like expensive tellies from wealthier people. Go and have a look at countries that have to social security system and ask some people in your income bracket how much it costs to pay for private security and walled neighbourhoods. I think you'll find that paying something for social security is cheaper.

Spacecadet
11th December 2013, 12:10
Their pizzas are pretty dull, we occasionally get them in if people are round.

If people are round then they should be eating salads!

IGMC

doodab
11th December 2013, 12:11
How does working all day and not earning enough to feed and house yourself solve any problems?

When a large chunk of working people are on benefits because wages are too low you have to ask if the companies employing them are actually sustainable. Seems to me like the economy has failed fundamentally if the majority of people would starve or turn to crime but for outside intervention.

original PM
11th December 2013, 12:16
When a large chunk of working people are on benefits because wages are too low you have to ask if the companies employing them are actually sustainable. Seems to me like the economy has failed fundamentally if the majority of people would starve or turn to crime but for outside intervention.

Two arguments on this one

1) You can actually earn anough to live on minimum wage - but that is it live.
2) These mim wage jobs are actually for the low/no skilled/students etc the idea is you worked hard at school/college etc and got some skills which enabled you to earn more the minimum wage - if all you did at school was su<k dicks in exchange for cigarettes then you know maybe you need to go back to using the one skill you did learn at school to make a living.

minestrone
11th December 2013, 12:26
Yes, but I would not be suprised if it turned out that the royalty fee for usage of Dominos' brand paid to an offshore entity makes UK subsidiary totally unprofitable :laugh

Are the individual units not franchise outfits so would be profit making entities in their own right?

Although, yes, outwith that the UK company would be totally unprofitable.

hyperD
11th December 2013, 12:35
I heard this on LBC the other night when I couldn't sleep again. The main views from the show were:

1. The website only showed 276 pizza jobs

2. Deliverers need to find their own car/bike

3. We already open out borders freely to most of Europe anyway, so what?

4. There's a huge churn rate of employees

5. Good advertising for Dominos to get people filling the jobs asap

6. Resident Brits generally don't have the right attitude to stick it out long enough

7. It's demanding work for little return

8. Having the pikeys flood in next year means he can keep the supply up to address the high churn and perhaps even lower salary.

doodab
11th December 2013, 12:36
To arguments on this one

1) You can actually earn anough to live on minimum wage - but that is it live.
2) These mim wage jobs are actually for the low/no skilled/students etc the idea is you worked hard at school/college etc and got some skills which enabled you to earn more the minimum wage - if all you did at school was su<k dicks in exchange for cigarettes then you know maybe you need to go back to using the one skill you did learn at school to make a living.

These aren't just people on minimum wage, and you aren't going to pay rent without help on minimum wage in London or the se.

I'd also question where all these highly paid skilled jobs are. I don't think working a coffee machine, even a complicated one, counts.

The fact is the economy as it stands doesn't have suitable niches for a lot of people. You can blame them for their predicament all you like, but the end of the day it's costing you and I money.

darmstadt
11th December 2013, 13:36
Don't have one where I live, I tend to use Joeys, but where I work there is one which strangely enough seems to have a few Brits working behind the counter. Maybe Domino's in Germany pays better :-)

Peoplesoft bloke
11th December 2013, 13:59
Don't have one where I live, I tend to use Joeys, but where I work there is one which strangely enough seems to have a few Brits working behind the counter. Maybe Domino's in Germany pays better :-)

Almost certainly pays better and has to have better worker protection by law - but then we all know that kind of thing doesn't work, and only total removal of all benefits and job security can lead us to prosperity :-)

NorthWestPerm2Contr
11th December 2013, 14:08
Crap and seriously overpriced pizza anyway. Tried once never again.

WHS

vetran
11th December 2013, 15:00
Two arguments on this one

1) You can actually earn anough to live on minimum wage - but that is it live.
2) These mim wage jobs are actually for the low/no skilled/students etc the idea is you worked hard at school/college etc and got some skills which enabled you to earn more the minimum wage - if all you did at school was su<k dicks in exchange for cigarettes then you know maybe you need to go back to using the one skill you did learn at school to make a living.

1. Not and actually rent anything. Even when I was young the wages were crud and everyone was scraping by. This suggests they are even worse:

UK wage gap widens. Get data for the past 25 years | News | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/09/wage-gap-rich-poor-widens-25-years-data)

2. The jobs are for anyone, I did them while at college as did many others at University. Now they are done mainly by Eastern Europeans in my area.

The conservatives should raise the minimum wage / promote living wage and remove the Working Family tax credits. Then at least the big multinationals would pay some tax.

Mich the Tester
11th December 2013, 15:10
Then at least the big multinationals would pay some tax.

NOOOOOOO!!!!!

While your suggestion may be well meaning, take a look at the spending record of governments since 1900 and you'll see that for every 100 quid/euro/groats they're given, they spend between 102 and 105 and leave you and me with a debt. You've got to be completely off your head if you want anybody to give them billions more.


I am opposed to making multinationals pay any more tax at all. In fact I'm opposed to making anybody pay more tax. However I agree that some of the wages are too low and effectively companies are being subsidised by the welfare state.

vetran
11th December 2013, 15:15
NOOOOOOO!!!!!

While your suggestion may be well meaning, take a look at the spending record of governments since 1900 and you'll see that for every 100 quid/euro/groats they're given, they spend between 102 and 105 and leave you and me with a debt. You've got to be completely off your head if you want anybody to give them billions more.


I am opposed to making multinationals pay any more tax at all. In fact I'm opposed to making anybody pay more tax. However I agree that ome of the wages are too low and effectively companies are being subsidised by the welfare state.

We are approaching a point where tax take will fall because every company is globalising their tax affairs. We are unlikely to win that battle as you pointed out we have a high cost base. So forcing them to pay tax on wages & realise we will see less tax on UK profits is the only way we can vaguely keep our tax take up.

The government needs to cut spending but soon they will be spending £105 on £50 of tax take.

Peoplesoft bloke
11th December 2013, 15:17
They are generally confused, as is the minister in question.

If the firm were that profitable, why isn't its share price soaring?

Earnings per share forecast to rise by 20pc. Pre-tax profits forecast £48:5 million.

AtW
11th December 2013, 15:18
The government needs to cut spending but soon they will be spending £105 on £50 of tax take.

Or they can just do the QE thingy.

:eyes

Mich the Tester
11th December 2013, 15:19
We are approaching a point where tax take will fall because every company is globalising their tax affairs. We are unlikely to win that battle as you pointed out we have a high cost base. So forcing them to pay tax on wages & realise we will see less tax on UK profits is the only way we can vaguely keep our tax take up.

The government needs to cut spending but soon they will be spending £105 on £50 of tax take.

Yes, you have a point; what I really object to is that people constantly demand that the multinationals pay more tax without stopping to think for a moment that any money they don't pay out in dividends is money that doesn't go into our pension pots, seeing as multinationals are owned for a large part by pension companies, either directly or indirectly via investment funds. Some folks seem to think there's a big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if only we can get the big companies to pay more tax. There isn't; it's still just shifting money from private to public and then subjecting it to all the profligacy of politicians.

vetran
11th December 2013, 15:37
Or they can just do the QE thingy.

:eyes

yeah that will end well

Hyperinflation and Weimar Germany (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hyperinflation_weimar_germany.htm)

MicrosoftBob
11th December 2013, 15:57
yeah that will end well

Hyperinflation and Weimar Germany (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hyperinflation_weimar_germany.htm)

Cameron probably thinks Poland is where the tellytubbies come from, it's not going to happen

SpontaneousOrder
11th December 2013, 15:57
Or you get a massive crime wave as people go on the rampage nicking food and other essentials like expensive tellies from wealthier people. Go and have a look at countries that have to social security system and ask some people in your income bracket how much it costs to pay for private security and walled neighbourhoods. I think you'll find that paying something for social security is cheaper.

no - they would just get a job instead. And when you remove minimum wage there will be plenty of jobs, and the economy, left free enough to do so, would boom. Overall productivity is MUCH higher (especially when you consider the fact that most people starting on the low end of the pay scale will move up it in time, whereas layabout benefit receivers, or those genuinely priced out of the market by minimum wages enforced by government violence, are much less likely to progress very far), prices fall, tax revenue by volume increases, so individual tax rates fall.

And if the survival of the poorest is really a concern, then removing VAT (more government meddling breaking the economy) would be a good place to start. Of all the taxes, VAT 'unfairly' affects the poorest the most. Currently we are ruining quality of life of the poorest with VAT, and then we 'help' them with minimum wage laws which price half of them out of the market, and and shrink the market such that the other half are fighting for too few jobs.

DodgyAgent
11th December 2013, 16:44
BBC News - Pay better wages, minister tells Domino's Pizza boss (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25321113)

1000 vacancies but he cannot fill them unless the government opens the borders. Exactly the point, just because you want to pay pennies doesn't mean there's a shortage in skills.

Boycott Dominos I say!

If the price of Pizzas rose to pay more for the staff would that mean you would eat less of them? :happy

Platypus
11th December 2013, 16:56
2) These mim wage jobs are actually for the low/no skilled/students etc the idea is you worked hard at school/college etc and got some skills which enabled you to earn more the minimum wage - if all you did at school was su<k dicks in exchange for cigarettes then you know maybe you need to go back to using the one skill you did learn at school to make a living.

The trouble is that almost EVERYTHING pays min wage nowadays. I believe that while it has pulled those at the bottom up, it has also pulled those who might once have earned more than min wage down.

In an article in the Times at the weekend, it was said that there are more and more middle-aged workers relying on "burger flipping" jobs, whereas that used to be the realm of the student trying to earn some beer money. i.e. these new minimum wagers are trying to feed their families on this.

MyUserName
11th December 2013, 16:56
If the price of Pizzas rose to pay more for the staff would that mean you would eat less of them? :happy

I do not eat that much of the staff anyway but if they increased the price of pizza I would probably eat more, if anything.

Ticktock
11th December 2013, 16:57
I do not eat that much of the staff anyway

No, that's ZG's job.

DodgyAgent
11th December 2013, 17:01
no - they would just get a job instead. And when you remove minimum wage there will be plenty of jobs, and the economy, left free enough to do so, would boom. Overall productivity is MUCH higher (especially when you consider the fact that most people starting on the low end of the pay scale will move up it in time, whereas layabout benefit receivers, or those genuinely priced out of the market by minimum wages enforced by government violence, are much less likely to progress very far), prices fall, tax revenue by volume increases, so individual tax rates fall.

And if the survival of the poorest is really a concern, then removing VAT (more government meddling breaking the economy) would be a good place to start. Of all the taxes, VAT 'unfairly' affects the poorest the most. Currently we are ruining quality of life of the poorest with VAT, and then we 'help' them with minimum wage laws which price half of them out of the market, and and shrink the market such that the other half are fighting for too few jobs.

Spot on well said Atw :happy

d000hg
11th December 2013, 17:02
I thought essentials and many foodstuffs were VAT-exempt?

AtW
11th December 2013, 17:04
I thought essentials and many foodstuffs were VAT-exempt?

Not take aways...

d000hg
11th December 2013, 17:07
If you're on the edge of starvation you wouldn't be able to afford a takeaway.

MyUserName
11th December 2013, 17:13
If you can't afford a takeaway then you're on the edge of starvation.

FTFY

SpontaneousOrder
11th December 2013, 17:14
The trouble is that almost EVERYTHING pays min wage nowadays. I believe that while it has pulled those at the bottom up, it has also pulled those who might once have earned more than min wage down.

In an article in the Times at the weekend, it was said that there are more and more middle-aged workers relying on "burger flipping" jobs, whereas that used to be the realm of the student trying to earn some beer money. i.e. these new minimum wagers are trying to feed their families on this.

The salient point to recognise here is that something is broken - Something 'else'. i.e. Dominos paying low wages isn't the problem here - the problem is that half of the older guys at dominos should be doing something else by now.

How come they are still at Dominos? There are lots of reasons, mainly beyond their own control. But the issue certainly isn't low wages - otherwise why not set th eminimum wage to £100 an hour?

AtW
11th December 2013, 17:16
the problem is that half of the older guys at dominos should be doing something else by now.

You mean anything that involves ordering overpriced pizza rather than making it?

d000hg
11th December 2013, 17:24
Why on earth shouldn't older people be doing low-end work? You see old waitresses and old cleaners every day, and old supermarket checkout staff, etc.

SpontaneousOrder
11th December 2013, 17:29
I thought essentials and many foodstuffs were VAT-exempt?


Yeah, that's kindof the point.
Lets say 10% of my income goes on the essentials, and the remaining 90% is spent un 'luxury' items/services which make life worth living.
A poor man might spend 90% of his income on the essentials, and so has only 10% left on the stuff that makes life worth living.

If the poor man saves up and buys a new TV, he might find that 50% of the final cost is VAT (i've not done the maths).
I'd find my new TV cost being 50% VAT too, but as a proportion of my luxury income, it's much less - the tax man is punishing me to the tune of 50% of all my luxury spending, but he's also punishing the poor man exactly the same even though he's had to save up for a whole year just to buy 1 luxury item.

I can only buy half of quite alot (Relatively speaking), but the poor man really gets kicked in the nuts.

Peoplesoft bloke
11th December 2013, 17:31
no - they would just get a job instead. And when you remove minimum wage there will be plenty of jobs, and the economy, left free enough to do so, would boom. Overall productivity is MUCH higher (especially when you consider the fact that most people starting on the low end of the pay scale will move up it in time, whereas layabout benefit receivers, or those genuinely priced out of the market by minimum wages enforced by government violence, are much less likely to progress very far), prices fall, tax revenue by volume increases, so individual tax rates fall.

And if the survival of the poorest is really a concern, then removing VAT (more government meddling breaking the economy) would be a good place to start. Of all the taxes, VAT 'unfairly' affects the poorest the most. Currently we are ruining quality of life of the poorest with VAT, and then we 'help' them with minimum wage laws which price half of them out of the market, and and shrink the market such that the other half are fighting for too few jobs.

The first part is bollocks - we had no minimum wage for most of our history. We had wages councils and strong unions but the Thatcher revolution removed both, without creating full employment - unemployment has many causes, abolishing the minimum wage won't cure it - in any case this is about a moron who wants to bring in more workers from outside to do jobs that are so poorly paid the government has to subsidise them to a point where people can actually afford to live.

The point about VAT is well made but couldn't be done without leaving the EU - and that's not going to happen.

AtW
11th December 2013, 17:35
I can only buy half of quite alot (Relatively speaking), but the poor man really gets kicked in the nuts.

Poor people should not worry about VAT on new TVs.

SpontaneousOrder
11th December 2013, 17:42
Why on earth shouldn't older people be doing low-end work? You see old waitresses and old cleaners every day, and old supermarket checkout staff, etc.

I did say 'half' of the older guys.


Most people in the lower income brackets are not an enduring class. Most working people in the bottom 20 percent in income at a given time do not stay there over time. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain behind in the bottom 20 percent.

There is nothing mysterious about the fact that most people start off in entry level jobs that pay much less than they will earn after they get some work experience. But, when minimum wage levels are set without regard to their initial productivity, young people are disproportionately unemployed -- priced out of jobs. -- Thomas Sowell from some random article - but it's the same sentiment he expresses in his books.


Some people, though, just arent productive - either through choice or incompetence. At least without a minimum wage they can earn their fair market price with the pride of a self-sustaining independant human being (rather than moocher or a looter as Ayn Rand would say), while leaving the more productive to do the things that they are better at.

I do strongly believe, though, that without minimum wages there would be far fewer older people doing the mega low-end jobs - at very low wages it could be mutually beneficial for employers to employ cheap unskiled workers who then are able to gain experience on the job.

Right now i'm earning fifty-something pounds an hour; imagine that I had a fresch school leaver who was my 'runner' - he/she would only have to save me half an hour a day to justify their £2.50 an hour wage. 6 months/1 year of that could really increase their employability, instead of being stuck in a minimum wage job for the rest of their life.

Peoplesoft bloke
11th December 2013, 17:45
I thought essentials and many foodstuffs were VAT-exempt?

Domestic utilities (Electricty, Gas etc) have VAT on them (although at 5%)

Almost everything else except food and some public travel has VAT - for example clothes (fairly essential) have VAT on 'em (except kids).

AtW
11th December 2013, 17:45
I do strongly believe, though, that without minimum wages there would be far fewer older people doing the mega low-end jobs - at very low wages it could be mutually beneficial for employers to employ cheap unskiled workers who then are able to gain experience on the job.

Yeah, those people will just have to turn to those dreaded 7 figure FTSE 100 CEO jobs, so that unskilled young workers could gain valueable skill - putting pepperoni correctly on some dough :rolleyes:

darmstadt
11th December 2013, 18:27
Cider

vetran
11th December 2013, 19:43
Short story: Housing, fuel and power becomes highest spending category in 2012 - ONS (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-spending/family-spending/2013-edition/sty-family-spending.html)

SpontaneousOrder
11th December 2013, 20:07
unemployment has many causes, abolishing the minimum wage won't cure it ...



and the economy, left free enough to do so, would boom.

99.9% of it, 99.9% of the time is because the market isn't anywhere near free.

That aside, how many of us could do with a gardener if we could get one cheap enough? Remove minimum wage and instantly thousands of low paying gardener (grass cutting, bush trimming, etc) jobs spring up. People doing those jobs can earn more at £2.50 an hour than they can on the dole (not that that is the point).

d000hg
11th December 2013, 20:11
And what do all those people earning £2.50/hr do when this isn't enough to cover the cost of rent and food? I suppose if they work 16 hours a day it'd be OK so there's no problem!

SpontaneousOrder
11th December 2013, 20:18
And what do all those people earning £2.50/hr do when this isn't enough to cover the cost of rent and food? I suppose if they work 16 hours a day it'd be OK so there's no problem!

How does a 40 hour week @£2.50 compare to a week's dole money?

The real question is, though, if you (assuming that you like the idea of minimum wage) think it's morally virtuous to make sure that those in need have some kind of minimum standard of living, then why aren't you willing to fund it yourself?

When you have to force others like myself who don't consent - because you don't want to give up as much as would be required if you were to do it all yourself - then your standard of virtue looks a little hollow.

I completely think that there is always a time & place for charity, but charity by definition is voluntary.

Peoplesoft bloke
11th December 2013, 20:47
How does a 40 hour week @£2.50 compare to a week's dole money?

The real question is, though, if you (assuming that you like the idea of minimum wage) think it's morally virtuous to make sure that those in need have some kind of minimum standard of living, then why aren't you willing to fund it yourself?

When you have to force others like myself who don't consent - because you don't want to give up as much as would be required if you were to do it all yourself - then your standard of virtue looks a little hollow.

I completely think that there is always a time & place for charity, but charity by definition is voluntary.

You keep leaping about between your political idealogy (free markets and charity) and the practical (where can I get a gardener for £2.50 an hour or less).

No mainstream party at present proposes the abolition of all social security provision and its replacement by charity, so the argument is a little hollow in itself as we live in a Western democracy that has some degree of consensus on that. As a purely theoretical point it's well made, but it's hardly relevant to Britain in the 21st Century.

Similarly, the point about it not being a free market is true but doesn't add much value - and we all know "free" markets in the sense of unfettered Capitalism pretty soon become distorted by anti-competitive practises.

The plain truth is, if that geezer from Dominos wants more workers, he could try putting up the wages a bit - I don't have access to their books, but they aren't exactly struggling......

d000hg
11th December 2013, 22:11
How does a 40 hour week @£2.50 compare to a week's dole money?What has that got to do with anything? Housing benefit is the big deal not JSA.


The real question is, though, if you (assuming that you like the idea of minimum wage) think it's morally virtuous to make sure that those in need have some kind of minimum standard of living, then why aren't you willing to fund it yourself?

When you have to force others like myself who don't consent - because you don't want to give up as much as would be required if you were to do it all yourself - then your standard of virtue looks a little hollow.

I completely think that there is always a time & place for charity, but charity by definition is voluntary.I think the point is the government reckon it's better they should step in to stop people being uncaring swine who would happily let others starve, i.e. Mr Scrooge "are there no prisons?" We've done that already in our history and apparently it's more civilised to force you to support education and healthcare for everyone regardless if you want to. Countries where poverty is used as an incentive to take any work lead to sweatshops and so on, because those people choose to work in those conditions rather than starve.

If you think government shouldn't interfere to that extent, you'll have to emigrate because no mainstream parties in the UK agree with you (even BNP/UKIP).

Old Greg
11th December 2013, 22:20
How does a 40 hour week @£2.50 compare to a week's dole money?

The real question is, though, if you (assuming that you like the idea of minimum wage) think it's morally virtuous to make sure that those in need have some kind of minimum standard of living, then why aren't you willing to fund it yourself?

When you have to force others like myself who don't consent - because you don't want to give up as much as would be required if you were to do it all yourself - then your standard of virtue looks a little hollow.

I completely think that there is always a time & place for charity, but charity by definition is voluntary.

Shall we fund the UK's nuclear deterrent by charity as well? I don't agree with it and the money is taken without my consent. But that's democracy for you. On balance, it's not too bad.

But by all means move to Somalia if you prefer.

Mich the Tester
11th December 2013, 22:30
How does a 40 hour week @£2.50 compare to a week's dole money?

The real question is, though, if you (assuming that you like the idea of minimum wage) think it's morally virtuous to make sure that those in need have some kind of minimum standard of living, then why aren't you willing to fund it yourself?

When you have to force others like myself who don't consent - because you don't want to give up as much as would be required if you were to do it all yourself - then your standard of virtue looks a little hollow.

I completely think that there is always a time & place for charity, but charity by definition is voluntary.

You're proggy. You're rumbled.

Mich the Tester
11th December 2013, 22:32
What has that got to do with anything? Housing benefit is the big deal not JSA.

I think the point is the government reckon it's better they should step in to stop people being uncaring swine who would happily let others starve, i.e. Mr Scrooge "are there no prisons?" We've done that already in our history and apparently it's more civilised to force you to support education and healthcare for everyone regardless if you want to. Countries where poverty is used as an incentive to take any work lead to sweatshops and so on, because those people choose to work in those conditions rather than starve.

If you think government shouldn't interfere to that extent, you'll have to emigrate because no mainstream parties in the UK agree with you (even BNP/UKIP).


Shall we fund the UK's nuclear deterrent by charity as well? I don't agree with it and the money is taken without my consent. But that's democracy for you. On balance, it's not too bad.

But by all means move to Somalia if you prefer.

You must spread reputation etc. Old Greg, doogie

SpontaneousOrder
11th December 2013, 22:35
You keep leaping about between your political idealogy (free markets and charity) and the practical (where can I get a gardener for £2.50 an hour or less).


It's tough, because all I'm actually concerned about is principle - that is (in this case), that enforcing a minimum wage is heinously immoral because it requires the mob to initiate violent force against a peaceful minority in order to force them to comply. Most people who have some decency & moral conviction hidden inside them need some gentle teasing into finding it, hence needing (maybe) to include some practical benefits in order to make the leap appear less daunting. So you're entirely correct in spotting that the two have little to do with one another.



No mainstream party at present proposes the abolition of all social security provision and its replacement by charity, so the argument is a little hollow in itself as we live in a Western democracy that has some degree of consensus on that. As a purely theoretical point it's well made, but it's hardly relevant to Britain in the 21st Century.


I think that it's most relevant precisely for the reason which you think that it's not relevant. We (as a collective :sick) have gone so far down the collectivist rabbit hole that for 99% of people it's completely impossible to discern truth from ideology, hence the almost ubiquitous belief in positive 'human rights' (such as a right to a minimum wage) as opposed to the true (negative) human rights, which are all derivatives of 1 single right - that men must be free from the coercion of other men. The former are self-contradictory because every positive right involves the violation of some other right (and presumably for the word 'right' to have any meaning it must be apply universally and consistently?), while negative rights don't have that problem.
So you're right again, single reforms taken in isolation make little sense in terms of results, but that doesn't mean that the principle isn't true.
I'd identify myself as an AnarchoCapitalist, or more typically a 'voluntarist' which makes it easier to speak to people with skewed ideas about what anarchy is, but I tend not to bother mentioning that because it provokes a predictable response from most people, who typically have never given the topic more than 10 minutes thought.
Economics, on the other hand, is fairly straight forward for anyone who cares to study the basics and it can be proven, objectively, that almost every single government policy to help the poor, or the economy, etc has the opposite effect. When people accept that politicians don't have their best interests at heart (or at least when they do that they're not aware enough to understand that they can't possibly outperform a free market in action) in certain regards then they will begin to see the flaws/evil in pretty much every government policy.
So yeah, you're right insofar as changing one thing might not help much on it's own is concerned. But the response to a floater in the toilet shouldn't be to piss in the sink so it matches - it should be to flush the toilet.
With a clean toilet bowl the OP's post would be moot, because there would no longer be any reason not to have completely open borders.
I suspect that we're mainly in disagreement (in a very general context - possibly ignoring the whole anarchy thing) because I've not been clear with regards to the scope of the context within which my original comments were made (for reasons i've just mentioned)... BUT



Similarly, the point about it not being a free market is true but doesn't add much value - and we all know "free" markets in the sense of unfettered Capitalism pretty soon become distorted by anti-competitive practises.


I don't agree with this at all. We've never had a truly free market (at least apart from perhaps a couple of very short episodes which were cut short by civil war in Spain, for example) and as such we've never had a population of people who embraced and understood the principles of, and the responsibilities involved in living in a free society. "unfettered" capitalism means no forced regulation, which creates a barrier to entry for smaller potential competitors. No compulsion for the populace to participate in a state controlled financial system, where fiat currency can be created or destroyed at a whim - again offering a barrier to entry for smaller competitors who cannot afford the risk of investing in an artificially manipulated market. Those are only two, but two things almost always overlooked when talking about a supposedly 'free' market.

In a truly free society it would be incredibly unlikely for anything other than a natural monopoly to emerge. And should such a natural monopoly choose to lower quality/increase prices/behave unethically then an opportunity would emerge for a potential competitor. The market is overwhelmingly more cooperative than it is competitive, even now, and it's only violence/fraud and the mob's acceptance of it as 'a necessary evil' which has any power to stop Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' (not that he was a real free-market guy :D) from seeing that scarce resources with alternative uses are allocated as efficiently as possible according to the subjective needs and wants of the billions of participants in the market.


This probably all sounds a bit off topic given the context of the OP's original post. But the issue I have is that we all spend so much time debating/arguing over ridiculous, childish problems of our own creation which are inevitable because they are the result of people's unwillingness to accept reality, and the consequently doomed policies based on ignorance and an almost religious disregard for reason in favour of faith. Shit policies built on a foundation of shit policies, built on fairytales.

Mich the Tester
11th December 2013, 22:37
Bla...
This probably all sounds a bit too long to bother with

ftfy

SpontaneousOrder
11th December 2013, 22:46
What has that got to do with anything? Housing benefit is the big deal not JSA.

I think the point is the government reckon it's better they should step in to stop people being uncaring swine who would happily let others starve, i.e. Mr Scrooge "are there no prisons?" We've done that already in our history and apparently it's more civilised to force you to support education and healthcare for everyone regardless if you want to.


You've completely dodged the question there. The question is that if you (presumably a majority) feel that it's a moral obligation, then why do you feel the need to use violent force to make others participate? If it's a moral obligation shouldn't you be giving up an extra 10 percent of your income rather than stealing it from people who think that you're wrong? Do you not think that doing so undermines your apparent virtue?




Countries where poverty is used as an incentive to take any work lead to sweatshops and so on, because those people choose to work in those conditions rather than starve.


Those 'sweatshops' are essential to the wellbeing of the people in those developing countries. Buying products manufactured in sweatshops is a good thing. Only factories that are making a profit will attract capital investment. That capital investment leads to better machinery, training, etc which increases productivity which ultimately leads to more jobs (so less people scavenging rubbish dumps) and increased wages. It happened in this country, and if we can get over ourselves and let these guys get on with it, it'll happen there too should their governments let it. Africa is one of the (maybe the?) richest continents in terms of natural resources, yet this natural wealth is not exploited because, as well as instability, the stigma attached to sweatshops. There are people dying decades earlier than need be because westerners naively judge sweatshops as being a bad thing.

xoggoth
11th December 2013, 23:00
Totally agree. Modern lefties who support immigration have a funny idea of socialism. Surely they should believe that, as a country becomes wealthier, that wealth should be shared with the working man in the form of decent wages and conditions, not that he should be undercut so bosses can boost their profits.

SpontaneousOrder
11th December 2013, 23:03
Shall we fund the UK's nuclear deterrent by charity as well?

Do you not think that there is a market for it then? I can only assume that you must think that not many people think it's a good idea if you think there would be trouble funding it. That's nothing to do with charity though.



But by all means move to Somalia if you prefer.

I don't know why you suggest Somalia. While it's true that in whole, Somalia's economic prosperity and standard of living without a government has been markedly better than when it did have a functioning government, i'm not sure "run away" is a particularly relevant response to "it's bad to hurt/threaten people".

Mich the Tester
11th December 2013, 23:10
Cider

Only sensible post in the last 5 pages.

SpontaneousOrder
11th December 2013, 23:14
What has that got to do with anything? Housing benefit is the big deal not JSA.


That's fair enough, but housing is only as expensive as it is because of things like housing benefits & easy money (which is state sponsored). Lose the housing benefits/stop this first time buyer loan bullshit and the buy/rent prices of housing tumbles. I know that's deliberately bursting a bubble, but that bubble will burst eventually anyway.

minestrone
11th December 2013, 23:14
Do you all know posts over 20 lines kick off the "gentile is back" alarm in admin's house?

xoggoth
11th December 2013, 23:58
Dominos - unique product that can cost you a lot more when ordering online rather than call a shop

Actually, things costing more online does not seem all that unusual.

AtW
12th December 2013, 00:47
Do you all know posts over 20 lines kick off the "gentile is back" alarm in admin's house?

No, it's actually over 2000 words limit per post that auto-bans the poster, don't try it ...

d000hg
12th December 2013, 08:18
You've completely dodged the question there. The question is that if you (presumably a majority) feel that it's a moral obligation, then why do you feel the need to use violent force to make others participate? If it's a moral obligation shouldn't you be giving up an extra 10 percent of your income rather than stealing it from people who think that you're wrong? Do you not think that doing so undermines your apparent virtue?How do you know I/we don't? But me giving up 90% of my income serves far less a purpose than the nation as a whole giving up .1%.

You think having to pay tax is "violent force"?

DodgyAgent
12th December 2013, 12:02
The problem with your average liberal middle class affluent leftie view is to them the practicalities of socialist policies are more to do with them and how they make them feel about themselves. They are never driven by any sense of "what works best" or any genuine concern for those that are less well off than themselves. Nor are they keen on giving any of their own money up to help those that are not as well off as they are. What they want are victims that they can identify with that will make them feel less selfish.

The left love the minimum wage just as they love Nelson Mandela. The minimum wage gives them the opportunity to play out their self congratulatory peities and be seen to be caring about the less well off.
The problem with this, quite apart from the fact that the logic behind it (in helping the poor) is deeply flawed and counter productive, is that in order to support their view it is necessary to categorise low wage earners as victims.

It may well be true that some low earners are indeed victims but I would wager that many of them do not feel that they are and they could do without interfering middle class ars*holes jumping on their bandwagon. To many on low wages it is a step to a better paid job or it fits their lifestyle or it is better than no job at all. Having a job and a wage no matter how big gives people the confidence and experience to grow up and make their own decisions about who they should work for and how much they should earn.

The minimum wage creates a vicious spiral of extra costs that in turn inflates the cost of living that in turn involves the government redistributing more money (inefficiently).

Ban it.

vetran
12th December 2013, 12:09
or it is better than no job at all. Having a job and a wage no matter how big gives people the confidence and experience to grow up and make their own decisions about who they should work for and how much they should earn.

The minimum wage creates a vicious spiral of extra costs that in turn inflates the cost of living that in turn involves the government redistributing more money (inefficiently).

Ban it.

I prefer the minimum wage to WFTC. Unfortunately the current situation is that there are more workers than jobs at the bottom end. If we remove the minimum wage then all those seeking to improve themselves will have to pay employers to work for them. If you don't believe me look at the abuse of interns. Look at the abuse of self employed van drivers.

End game would be only those that can support themselves will get the jobs that gain them experience.

Peoplesoft bloke
12th December 2013, 12:13
The problem with your average liberal middle class affluent leftie view blah blah middle class guilt etc C&P from Dodgy's library of std paras.

This news just in - Min Wage unlikely to go away - the USA even beat us to it.

What is your view on the Dominos geezer wanting to ship in workers from outside the EU? (rather than another neocon idealist lecture you get points for answering the point which was the original topic of the thread)

Should

a)The government do what he asks or
b) Not

DodgyAgent
12th December 2013, 12:20
This news just in - Min Wage unlikely to go away - the USA even beat us to it.

What is your view on the Dominos geezer wanting to ship in workers from outside the EU? (rather than another neocon idealist lecture you get points for answering the point which was the original topic of the thread)

Should

a)The government do what he asks or
b) Not

My view is that he should pay what the market says he should pay and not be allowed to go outside the EU. As for your comments about interns, I would rather employ someone who has worked unpaid as an intern than someone who has simply sat at home drawing benefits. Whilst I do not like the idea of these people being exploited I am not like many of you going to categorise them as victims. If it was me and there were no paid jobs on the market for what I wanted to do (anyone could go and get a paid job picking fruit or packing flowers) then I would look upon an internship as training, just as you might if you decided to learn a new skill whilst being on the bench.
Unfortunately the wailings from the left simply have the effect of removing opportunities.

Mich the Tester
12th December 2013, 12:22
This news just in - Min Wage unlikely to go away - the USA even beat us to it.

What is your view on the Dominos geezer wanting to ship in workers from outside the EU? (rather than another neocon idealist lecture you get points for answering the point which was the original topic of the thread)

Should

a)The government do what he asks or
b) Not

Continuing the simplistic binary 'lefty and righty' theme, according to the 'righties', the government should allow a free market for businesses to pay whatever wages they like and to place their offices and factories wherever they like (let the market decide), but workers mustn't be free to go whereever they like to work because that would mean letting Jonny Foreigner in (let the state decide).
Meanwhile, the 'lefties' want to let people move around freely all over the world and still not find a job because all the companies have been regulated or taxed out of business.

DodgyAgent
12th December 2013, 12:26
Continuing the simplistic binary 'lefty and righty' theme, according to the 'righties', the government should allow a free market for businesses to pay whatever wages they like and to place their offices and factories wherever they like (let the market decide), but workers mustn't be free to go whereever they like to work because that would mean letting Jonny Foreigner in (let the state decide).
Meanwhile, the 'lefties' want to let people move around freely all over the world and still not find a job because all the companies have been regulated or taxed out of business.

You should change your name to "Nutshell" :laugh

darmstadt
12th December 2013, 12:38
My view is that he should pay what the market says he should pay and not be allowed to go outside the EU.

What about the Commonwealth? What about if it's a load of really rich Chinese on tier 1 visas who just want to work as a wage slave for the hell of it?

vetran
12th December 2013, 12:47
My view is that he should pay what the market says he should pay and not be allowed to go outside the EU. As for your comments about interns, I would rather employ someone who has worked unpaid as an intern than someone who has simply sat at home drawing benefits. Whilst I do not like the idea of these people being exploited I am not like many of you going to categorise them as victims. If it was me and there were no paid jobs on the market for what I wanted to do (anyone could go and get a paid job picking fruit or packing flowers) then I would look upon an internship as training, just as you might if you decided to learn a new skill whilst being on the bench.
Unfortunately the wailings from the left simply have the effect of removing opportunities.

Yes but the point is that working unpaid as an intern requires the ability to support yourself while you do it. For our kids its fine, we can afford for them to live at home. As adults we all should have significant savings / resources behind us to retrain (Divorce etc willing).

Its not so easy when you are on benefits and you sign up for an internship or a low paid job you lose the lot at least for a significant period.

DodgyAgent
12th December 2013, 12:58
Yes but the point is that working unpaid as an intern requires the ability to support yourself while you do it. For our kids its fine, we can afford for them to live at home. As adults we all should have significant savings / resources behind us to retrain (Divorce etc willing).

Its not so easy when you are on benefits and you sign up for an internship or a low paid job you lose the lot at least for a significant period.

So who's problem is it? If an intern requires money to support himself then he can go and pick fruit or clean floors. If Tesco are giving internships on the basis they are getting free labour then that is the deal take it or leave it. If Tesco are forced to pay then they may decide they don't want to employ the people and put a stop to it. Who wins then? The lefties because it pleases them that they have put a stop to exploitation whereas the would be interns have no avenue to get into retail and are left either on the dole or picking fruit.

Mich the Tester
12th December 2013, 13:02
So who's problem is it? If an intern requires money to support himself then he can go and pick fruit or clean floors. If Tesco are giving internships on the basis they are getting free labour then that is the deal take it or leave it. If Tesco are forced to pay then they may decide they don't want to employ the people and put a stop to it. Who wins then? The lefties because it pleases them that they have put a stop to exploitation whereas the would be interns have no avenue to get into retail and are left either on the dole or picking fruit.

Yep. Aside from the money ,assuming 1 hour per day to travel to and from internship to work 8 hours, 1 hour a day to travel to and from fruit and veg picking and work 8 hours, then 2 hours a day to eat, tulip , wash and get dressed/undressed, he'll have 4 hours a day for sleep. What a great life; makes this 'career' thing look like a really wonderful option. I can understand people would give up and just stack shelves at Tesco or claim dole if that's the alternative.

DodgyAgent
12th December 2013, 13:17
Yep. Aside from the money ,assuming 1 hour per day to travel to and from internship to work 8 hours, 1 hour a day to travel to and from fruit and veg picking and work 8 hours, then 2 hours a day to eat, tulip , wash and get dressed/undressed, he'll have 4 hours a day for sleep. What a great life; makes this 'career' thing look like a really wonderful option. I can understand people would give up and just stack shelves at Tesco or claim dole if that's the alternative.

Yet again making assumptions that people are victims. I perfectly see why you are concerned and sympathetic and your nice middle class values make it that you are horrified that young people should face hardship.
It can be argued that your attitude (I have the same feelings) is also part of the problem that we think that by making it easy for young people to find a "good" job we are helping them. So often the opposite is true
If on the other hand you roll the clack back to your parents era you will find that people who found it hard to make a living and earn the right to a good career had better values than our generation.
What we actually need is a strong spirit of entrepreneurism that encourages people to take responsibility for themselves. We also need a strong sense of community and social interraction (the big society) where earning good money is a luxury not a means to buying essentials (health education).
What we do not need is to be taxed to oblivion giving money to governments to squander at the expense of free market capitalism that it has stifled in the first place.

SpontaneousOrder
12th December 2013, 13:22
You think having to pay tax is "violent force"?

Tell me what you mean by 'having to', and I'll tell you if it's 'violent force'.

For example, if I 'have to' give my wallet to a mugger or he'll kidnap me and lock me in a cage, then I don't see how anyone couldn't regard that as violent force.

doodab
12th December 2013, 13:31
Tell me what you mean by 'having to', and I'll tell you if it's 'violent force'.

For example, if I 'have to' give my wallet to a mugger or he'll kidnap me and lock me in a cage, then I don't see how anyone couldn't regard that as violent force.

You don't have to pay tax. It's part of the deal of living here, if you don't like it you are just as free to find somewhere else to live as a low wage worker is free to find a another job.

Mich the Tester
12th December 2013, 13:32
Yet again making assumptions that people are victims. I perfectly see why you are concerned and sympathetic and your nice middle class values make it that you are horrified that young people should face hardship.
It can be argued that your attitude (I have the same feelings) is also part of the problem that we think that by making it easy for young people to find a "good" job we are helping them. So often the opposite is true
If on the other hand you roll the clack back to your parents era you will find that people who found it hard to make a living and earn the right to a good career had better values than our generation.
What we actually need is a strong spirit of entrepreneurism that encourages people to take responsibility for themselves. We also need a strong sense of community and social interraction (the big society) where earning good money is a luxury not a means to buying essentials (health education).
What we do not need is to be taxed to oblivion giving money to governments to squander at the expense of free market capitalism that it has stifled in the first place.

Much of that is right, but I wonder whether employers are prepared to consider an alternative to selecting those who have done unpaid internships; how about those who, like me and Lady Tester, went out to work in a low end job because they had to do that to earn a living and simply couldn't afford to do an internship (due to troubles in the family business at the time I had to leave college early, go to work, finish studying on the OU and her parents couldn't afford to support her through an internship either). She went into nursing because while she had the brains to be a doctor, nursing provided paid training, not out of any great desire to be a nurse; the passion she has for her work came later, long after she'd trained. Now I am not seeking sympathy at all because we have nothing to complain about, and this is not simply 'middle class concerns', it's actually a realisation that right now, the internship system has an effect of maintaining a status quo where the professions are a middle class bastion that is becoming more an more difficult for anyone without relatively wealty parents to break into. I think that can have lots of nasty consequences . I'm damned glad that back then low end jobs actually paid enough for both of us to get higher qualifications at the same time. We worked bloody hard to move on and up, and I think it would be a hell of a shame if people can't take that route to the professions. I am not objecting to people going on internships, but I'm concerned that it's acting as a barrier to those who simply cannot afford to go on internships. How should that be dealt with?

vetran
12th December 2013, 13:34
So who's problem is it? If an intern requires money to support himself then he can go and pick fruit or clean floors. If Tesco are giving internships on the basis they are getting free labour then that is the deal take it or leave it. If Tesco are forced to pay then they may decide they don't want to employ the people and put a stop to it. Who wins then? The lefties because it pleases them that they have put a stop to exploitation whereas the would be interns have no avenue to get into retail and are left either on the dole or picking fruit.

So Tesco hire 1000 people on internship for free and sack or not employ 1000 workers. The profits are offshored. What benefit is that to UK PLC?

There are a lot of things that need fixing to avoid the race to the bottom most large firms are running.

1. Remove subsidies for labour for established businesses - Companies will find a way to compete. Short term grants should be allowed to establish and build business. WFTC is an abomination.

2. Reduce or recognise that cheap imported labour will pull wages down. Decide how you give priority to citizens. Where it means little or no wage related tax is paid in the UK make that difficult to achieve.

3. Encourage long term unemployed back to work.

DodgyAgent
12th December 2013, 13:35
Much of that is right, but I wonder whether employers are prepared to consider an alternative to selecting those who have done unpaid internships; how about those who, like me and Lady Tester, went out to work in a low end job because they had to do that to earn a living and simply couldn't afford to do an internship (due to troubles in the family business at the time I had to leave college early, go to work, finish studying on the OU and her parents couldn't afford to support her through an internship either). She went into nursing because while she had the brains to be a doctor, nursing provided paid training, not out of any great desire to be a nurse; the passion she has for her work came later, long after she'd trained. Now I am not seeking sympathy at all because we have nothing to complain about, and this is not simply 'middle class concerns', it's actually a realisation that right now, the internship system has an effect of maintaining a status quo where the professions are a middle class bastion that is becoming more an more difficult for anyone without relatively wealty parents to break into. I think that can have lots of nasty consequences . I'm damned glad that back then low end jobs actually paid enough for both of us to get higher qualifications at the same time. We worked bloody hard to move on and up, and I think it would be a hell of a shame if people can't take that route to the professions. I am not objecting to people going on internships, but I'm concerned that it's acting as a barrier to those who simply cannot afford to go on internships. How should that be dealt with?


:yay:

DodgyAgent
12th December 2013, 13:39
So Tesco hire 1000 people on internship for free and sack or not employ 1000 workers. The profits are offshored. What benefit is that to UK PLC?

There are a lot of things that need fixing to avoid the race to the bottom most large firms are running.

1. Remove subsidies for labour for established businesses - Companies will find a way to compete. Short term grants should be allowed to establish and build business. WFTC is an abomination.

2. Reduce or recognise that cheap imported labour will pull wages down. Decide how you give priority to citizens. Where it means little or no wage related tax is paid in the UK make that difficult to achieve.

3. Encourage long term unemployed back to work.

A different argument and I agree with what you say

d000hg
12th December 2013, 14:13
Tell me what you mean by 'having to', and I'll tell you if it's 'violent force'.Yawn.

Mich the Tester
12th December 2013, 14:24
Economics, on the other hand, is fairly straight forward for anyone who cares to study the basics and it can be proven, objectively, that almost every single government policy to help the poor, or the economy, etc has the opposite effect.

Well there's universal healthcare and education, public housing built after the second world war to house those whose homes had been bombed and at the same time improve people's living standards, rationing that ensured everybody got sufficient nutrition, school dinners, public works that provided clean water even to slums in the 19th century, adding up to the fact that someone born to a poor family now can reasonably expect to live about twice as long as someone born to a poor family 200 years ago but otherwise, nothing governments have ever done to help the poor has ever worked, no.

Old Greg
12th December 2013, 14:27
Tell me what you mean by 'having to', and I'll tell you if it's 'violent force'.

For example, if I 'have to' give my wallet to a mugger or he'll kidnap me and lock me in a cage, then I don't see how anyone couldn't regard that as violent force.

You have to pay money you owe or you will be taken to court and your assets seized to pay the debt.

Mich the Tester
12th December 2013, 14:33
You have to pay money you owe or you will be taken to court and your assets seized to pay the debt......after you've had the opportunity to plead your case and explain why you believe you don't need to pay, and had professional legal advice provided to do so, and may even have won the case and had your debts removed from your name.

It's all very violent indeed isn't it?

Peoplesoft bloke
12th December 2013, 15:08
My view is that he should pay what the market says he should pay and not be allowed to go outside the EU. As for your comments about interns,......

Thanks - I don't think I said anything about interns. I agree with you (and the government minister) that he should just offer better pay.

MicrosoftBob
12th December 2013, 15:15
Well there's universal healthcare and education, public housing built after the second world war to house those whose homes had been bombed and at the same time improve people's living standards, rationing that ensured everybody got sufficient nutrition, school dinners, public works that provided clean water even to slums in the 19th century, adding up to the fact that someone born to a poor family now can reasonably expect to live about twice as long as someone born to a poor family 200 years ago but otherwise, nothing governments have ever done to help the poor has ever worked, no.

But what have the Romans ever done for us ? :igmc:

d000hg
12th December 2013, 15:22
I quite fancy a pizza now. See they're doing a £5.99 deal at my local Dominos... but they don't do my favourite topping.

hyperD
12th December 2013, 15:23
I quite fancy a pizza now. See they're doing a £5.99 deal at my local Dominos... but they don't do my favourite topping.

Myhrr?

d000hg
12th December 2013, 15:24
Nope, kebab meat :eek:

northernladyuk
12th December 2013, 15:25
I quite fancy a pizza now. See they're doing a £5.99 deal at my local Dominos... but they don't do my favourite topping.

Give the old man a bell and he'll jizz on it for a quid.

darmstadt
12th December 2013, 15:32
But what have the Romans ever done for us ? :igmc:

Well if you're a Daily Mail reader or a UKIP voter, they've given us lots of Romanians to do the low paying jobs :-)

d000hg
12th December 2013, 15:39
Give the old man a bell and he'll jizz on it for a quid.I could do that myself for nowt.

northernladyuk
12th December 2013, 15:52
I could do that myself for nowt.

It's people like you jizzing on your own pizza who are killing the business.

minestrone
12th December 2013, 16:38
Well it was all much better before we had free movement of workers and the minimum wage, that's for sure.

One of them has to go at least.

SpontaneousOrder
12th December 2013, 16:57
You don't have to pay tax. It's part of the deal of living here, if you don't like it you are just as free to find somewhere else to live as a low wage worker is free to find a another job.

You're just replacing 'being forcibly put in a cage' with 'being forcibly moved'. The force/coercion is still there whether you change the words used or not. That's the most thoughtless resposnse you could have possibly given.

d000hg
12th December 2013, 16:59
You're discussing if the entire concept of taxation is acceptable now, really that's the best you can come up with to try and keep the argument alive?

SpontaneousOrder
12th December 2013, 17:01
Yawn.

I'm spotting a pattern here. I point out the blindingly obvious flaws in your (lack of) logic, and you try to hide it with sarcasm or by changing the topic. It's funny because the "Yawn." says more about you than you're attempting to project onto me ;)

Old Greg
12th December 2013, 17:17
I'm spotting a pattern here. I point out the blindingly obvious flaws in your (lack of) logic, and you try to hide it with sarcasm or by changing the topic. It's funny because the "Yawn." says more about you than you're attempting to project onto me ;)

How about enforcing debt payment?

SpontaneousOrder
12th December 2013, 17:37
How about enforcing debt payment?

The fraud or theft which led to the debt, or the non-repayment of the debt, was the initial instance of the use of force. So using violent force in retaliation is perfectly fine, just as you'd use violence to defend yourself when attacked in the street. It's the initiation of force against a peaceful person that's the problem.

Violence, threats of violence, or fraud are all violations of what would be called the non-aggression principle, because they are all at root derivatives of the violation of property rights (and yes - of course you own yourself).

Old Greg
12th December 2013, 17:44
The fraud or theft which led to the debt, or the non-repayment of the debt, was the initial instance of the use of force. So using violent force in retaliation is perfectly fine, just as you'd use violence to defend yourself when attacked in the street. It's the initiation of force against a peaceful person that's the problem.

Violence, threats of violence, or fraud are all violations of what would be called the non-aggression principle, because they are all at root derivatives of the violation of property rights (and yes - of course you own yourself).

Where do property rights derive from?

SpontaneousOrder
12th December 2013, 18:11
Where do property rights derive from?

Rights are a product of man's morality, and property rights (or it's derivations) happen to be the only right ever posited which is non-contradictory, internally consistent, and universally applicable.

Morality is a man-made concept, but like all concepts it has to be logically consistent in order to be considered 'truth'. If you don't believe in the value of morality, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, and if you do then the only right, derived from our morality, which we can grant one another is that of being free from the initiation of coercion (which is the same as having inalienable property rights over one's self and the product of one's labour).

For most (as far as i can tell) accepting that we have a sense of morality and, then analysing the consequences from first-principles, where we then see that freedom from coercion is the only logically consistent candidate for a 'right', is enough.

While I agree, I like Ayn Rand's Objectivism and her approach to epistemology and the science of ethics in particular (as opposed to someone like John Locke). Despite common misunderstanding, morality IS objective in nature.

You don't have to behave morally, but if you wanted to it's not a subjective experience.

d000hg
12th December 2013, 18:14
I'm spotting a pattern here. I point out the blindingly obvious flaws in your (lack of) logic, and you try to hide it with sarcasm or by changing the topic. It's funny because the "Yawn." says more about you than you're attempting to project onto me ;)Nope. At least when you're new you try to put in a bit of effort though, before everyone realises who it is.

Old Greg
12th December 2013, 18:21
Rights are a product of man's morality, and property rights (or it's derivations) happen to be the only right ever posited which is non-contradictory, internally consistent, and universally applicable.

Morality is a man-made concept, but like all concepts it has to be logically consistent in order to be considered 'truth'. If you don't believe in the value of morality, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, and if you do then the only right, derived from our morality, which we can grant one another is that of being free from the initiation of coercion (which is the same as having inalienable property rights over one's self and the product of one's labour).

For most (as far as i can tell) accepting that we have a sense of morality and, then analysing the consequences from first-principles, where we then see that freedom from coercion is the only logically consistent candidate for a 'right', is enough.

While I agree, I like Ayn Rand's Objectivism and her approach to epistemology and the science of ethics in particular (as opposed to someone like John Locke). Despite common misunderstanding, morality IS objective in nature.

You don't have to behave morally, but if you wanted to it's not a subjective experience.

If I peacefully move into your garden with a tent, would you use force to evict me?

AtW
12th December 2013, 18:33
Rights are a product of man's morality, and property rights (or it's derivations) happen to be the only right ever posited which is non-contradictory, internally consistent, and universally applicable.

Morality is a man-made concept, but like all concepts it has to be logically consistent in order to be considered 'truth'. If you don't believe in the value of morality, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, and if you do then the only right, derived from our morality, which we can grant one another is that of being free from the initiation of coercion (which is the same as having inalienable property rights over one's self and the product of one's labour).

For most (as far as i can tell) accepting that we have a sense of morality and, then analysing the consequences from first-principles, where we then see that freedom from coercion is the only logically consistent candidate for a 'right', is enough.

While I agree, I like Ayn Rand's Objectivism and her approach to epistemology and the science of ethics in particular (as opposed to someone like John Locke). Despite common misunderstanding, morality IS objective in nature.

You don't have to behave morally, but if you wanted to it's not a subjective experience.

Hi Gentile :wave:

Platypus
12th December 2013, 19:25
Hi Gentile :wave:

Old Hack more like

d000hg
12th December 2013, 19:36
Old Hack more likeMore likely than Gentile, that's for sure.

doodab
12th December 2013, 19:41
You're just replacing 'being forcibly put in a cage' with 'being forcibly moved'. The force/coercion is still there whether you change the words used or not. That's the most thoughtless resposnse you could have possibly given.

Not at all, I'm drawing a comparison between left with no realistic choice but to pay tax and being left with no choice but to work for peanuts. It's not at all clear why you consider the choice between paying tax or moving significantly different than the choice between starvation or slave wages. They are each coercion of a sort, in the sense that there is really no choice at all, so why do you consider one offensive and the other acceptable?

Peoplesoft bloke
12th December 2013, 21:03
It's people like you jizzing on your own pizza who are killing the business.

Home wanking is killing pizza.

And it's illegal.

Mich the Tester
12th December 2013, 22:35
While I agree, I like Ayn Rand's Objectivism and her approach to epistemology and the science of ethics in particular (as opposed to someone like John Locke). Despite common misunderstanding, morality IS objective in nature.


Read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments; he makes quite clear that in his view morality stems from the innate ability of non-psychopathic humans to reflect the emotions of others in themselves. That's emotion, not reason. Unless you think that emotion and reason are one and the same.

Zero Liability
12th December 2013, 22:50
Yes, that may explain the biological grounding of how we developed morals. Trying to justify them, however, requires logical argumentation. Ethics by and large is concerned with trying to justify norms that are conducive to social cooperation, which subsumes the notion of rights.

vetran
12th December 2013, 23:53
Read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments; he makes quite clear that in his view morality stems from the innate ability of non-psychopathic humans to reflect the emotions of others in themselves. That's emotion, not reason. Unless you think that emotion and reason are one and the same.

Understanding emotions is reason. Emotions aren't always reasonable. Emotions may have reasons.

Zero Liability
12th December 2013, 23:54
Understanding emotions is reason. Emotions aren't always reasonable. Emotions may have reasons.

You'll probably get a lot more valuable insights about the interaction of emotions and reason out of Aristotle than Smith. The Enlightenment brought with it a strong dichotomisation between emotion and so-called reason.

vetran
13th December 2013, 00:10
You'll probably get a lot more valuable insights about the interaction of emotions and reason out of Aristotle than Smith. The Enlightenment brought with it a strong dichotomisation between emotion and so-called reason.

Agree that part wasn't particularly enlightened.

Emotion almost always has a reason, even the love for V minors can be distilled into rational reasons, the fact it can be so overpowering it stifles reason doesn't mean it doesn't have a logical base.

Mich the Tester
13th December 2013, 08:42
Yes, that may explain the biological grounding of how we developed morals. Trying to justify them, however, requires logical argumentation. Ethics by and large is concerned with trying to justify norms that are conducive to social cooperation, which subsumes the notion of rights.


Understanding emotions is reason. Emotions aren't always reasonable. Emotions may have reasons.

You are both right of course, but in arguing the point with a person like Spontaneous Order, who seems to have a fundamentalist zeal about market economics, Adam Smith might prompt him to think a bit further.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 12:33
Not at all, I'm drawing a comparison between left with no realistic choice but to pay tax and being left with no choice but to work for peanuts. It's not at all clear why you consider the choice between paying tax or moving significantly different than the choice between starvation or slave wages. They are each coercion of a sort, in the sense that there is really no choice at all, so why do you consider one offensive and the other acceptable?

Presumably then you're also ok with the choice of being raped or leaving the country?

And no - having to work for peanuts if that's the only choice you have is NOT coercion. It's voluntary trade, and calling it coercion is rank intellectual dishonesty.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 12:35
If I peacefully move into your garden with a tent, would you use force to evict me?

Yes, because you are violating my property rights. You are initiating aggression towards me when you refuse to leave when I ask you.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 12:36
Read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments; he makes quite clear that in his view morality stems from the innate ability of non-psychopathic humans to reflect the emotions of others in themselves. That's emotion, not reason. Unless you think that emotion and reason are one and the same.

And who says that Smith is an authority on the subject? He is wrong. Rand is provably correct.

Mich the Tester
13th December 2013, 12:37
And who says that Smith is an authority on the subject? He is wrong. Rand is provably correct.

Prove it then.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 12:39
Understanding emotions is reason. Emotions aren't always reasonable. Emotions may have reasons.

Agreed. Our ability to reason is what distinguishes us from animals, but its a choice every man has to make - to be a man or not.

Instinct and emotions govern animal behaviour, but men have the ability to reason should they choose. Emotions can help guide us, but our faculty of reason must be the final arbiter, should we choose to live like men and not animal.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 12:43
You are both right of course, but in arguing the point with a person like Spontaneous Order, who seems to have a fundamentalist zeal about market economics, Adam Smith might prompt him to think a bit further.

I don't have a fundamentalist (poisoning the well is a cheap trick, btw) zeal for market economics. I have a zeal for truth. Having a zeal for truth means that I don't have the luxury of defining reality (such as economics) and morality according to what's convenient for me at the time.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 12:47
Prove it then.


"the virtue of selfishness" - 0451163931

Read this for proof.

Mich the Tester
13th December 2013, 13:11
I don't have a fundamentalist (poisoning the well is a cheap trick, btw) zeal for market economics. I have a zeal for truth. Having a zeal for truth means that I don't have the luxury of defining reality (such as economics) and morality according to what's convenient for me at the time.

Right, so now we're on the subject of truth and proof and defining reality according to what's convenient for yourself, let's come back to the post I made here in response to what our said about government schemes to help poor people;

http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/94896-dominoes-pay-little-more-11.html#post1855838

d000hg
13th December 2013, 13:20
Can't we go back to discussing something interesting, like pizza?

Mich the Tester
13th December 2013, 13:22
Can't we go back to discussing something interesting, like pizza?

Yes, I like pizza with ham and mushrooms. Although occasionally I'm adventurous and go for bresaola and artichokes. How about you?

d000hg
13th December 2013, 13:24
Thanks for asking. Salami, chillis and the aforementioned kebab-meat are amongst my favourites. With lots of onion.

Mich the Tester
13th December 2013, 13:24
Thanks for asking. Salami, chillis and the aforementioned kebab-meat are amongst my favourites. With lots of onion.

Found a nice Italian restaurant near clientco yesterday. Very simple, straightforward place run by a bloke from Naples. Food simple and affordable but perfect.

Trained for 1.5 hours then went out to eat, lots of bresaola, then involtini. Yum, yum. Cheers a man up after a day of HP QC.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 13:55
Right, so now we're on the subject of truth and proof and defining reality according to what's convenient for yourself, let's come back to the post I made here in response to what our said about government schemes to help poor people;

http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/94896-dominoes-pay-little-more-11.html#post1855838

So why have you linked directly to a prime example of the kind of 'necessary evil' reasoning that completely ignores truth? You posit that all of the coercion necessary to achieve those things were morally justified, based purely on your own subjective opinion that it was worth it?

What you have done is to
1) effectively imply that "Yes, violence (or threats-of) is used to achieve all of these things" (that's a good start - met people here won't even admit that much), and
2) more explicitly that you would approve of those things because you personally prefer the result to that result which you guess would be the case otherwise.

Nowhere in here is there anything to do with morality, there than the implied idea that what is moral is whatever you feel like at the time.

d000hg
13th December 2013, 14:02
Stop changing the subject SO. What kind of pizza do you like? The pretentious kind with a hole in the middle?

Mich the Tester
13th December 2013, 14:21
So why have you linked directly to a prime example of the kind of 'necessary evil' reasoning that completely ignores truth? You posit that all of the coercion necessary to achieve those things were morally justified, based purely on your own subjective opinion that it was worth it?

What you have done is to
1) effectively imply that "Yes, violence (or threats-of) is used to achieve all of these things" (that's a good start - met people here won't even admit that much), and
2) more explicitly that you would approve of those things because you personally prefer the result to that result which you guess would be the case otherwise.

Nowhere in here is there anything to do with morality, there than the implied idea that what is moral is whatever you feel like at the time.

Utter, utter nonsense. I have given examples of several government schemes that helped the poor inresponse to your assertion that nearly all government schemes to help the poor have had the opposite effect. Then you suggest that I have said something about the moral justification of such schemes. You are slithering about to avoid the fact that somebody has shown evidence that contradicts what you are saying.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 16:22
Then you suggest that I have said something about the moral justification of such schemes. You are slithering about to avoid the fact that somebody has shown evidence that contradicts what you are saying.


Your post was part of a line of discussion about morality with regards to reason/emotion...


Yes, that may explain the biological grounding of how we developed morals. Trying to justify them, however, requires logical argumentation. Ethics by and large is concerned with trying to justify norms that are conducive to social cooperation, which subsumes the notion of rights.

/------

Quote Originally Posted by vetran View Post
Understanding emotions is reason. Emotions aren't always reasonable. Emotions may have reasons.

So it's clear to see that you're the one doing the slithering.

But anyway, ignoring that...



Utter, utter nonsense. I have given examples of several government schemes that helped the poor inresponse to your assertion that nearly all government schemes to help the poor have had the opposite effect.

Ignoring the morality of the situation, you're making the mistake (deliberately or not) that Frederic Bastiat describes in "That which is seen, and that which is unseen". You're probably a fan of window-smashing too.



This is the winning quote though -

the fact that someone born to a poor family now can reasonably expect to live about twice as long as someone born to a poor family 200 years ago but otherwise, nothing governments have ever done to help the poor has ever worked, no.

Government is the reason people live longer than they did 200 years ago! 100 points for full-on retardedness.

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 16:44
Yes, because you are violating my property rights. You are initiating aggression towards me when you refuse to leave when I ask you.

What if Parliament passes a law stating I may live there?

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 17:02
What if Parliament passes a law stating I may live there?

What if parliament passes a law stating you're allowed to rape your neighbour?

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 17:16
What if parliament passes a law stating you're allowed to rape your neighbour?

What if Parliament has previously passed an Enclosure Act transferring your garden from common ownership to private ownership? Can you use violence to remove me then?

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 17:40
What if Parliament has previously passed an Enclosure Act transferring your garden from common ownership to private ownership? Can you use violence to remove me then?

If you're supposing that "my" land was previously stolen (and I strongly suspect that it will have been at some point; especially as I had to get an insurance policy to cover me if the church ever claimed cathedral roof repair moneys from me due to the convenient that comes with the land, and that historically the church has tended to just take hat it wants), then arguably it isn't mine. If it isn't mine then your original question of "If I peacefully move into your garden with a tent, would you use force to evict me?" would technically be malformed.

There will always be a requirement for dispute arbitration, and where we can be certain that one person is in violation of another's rights, then force can be used. Where someone's transgressions amount to what would be better described as "undesirable behaviour", then other methods are available, and arguable more effective too.

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 17:49
If you're supposing that "my" land was previously stolen (and I strongly suspect that it will have been at some point; especially as I had to get an insurance policy to cover me if the church ever claimed cathedral roof repair moneys from me due to the convenient that comes with the land, and that historically the church has tended to just take hat it wants), then arguably it isn't mine. If it isn't mine then your original question of "If I peacefully move into your garden with a tent, would you use force to evict me?" would technically be malformed.

There will always be a requirement for dispute arbitration, and where we can be certain that one person is in violation of another's rights, then force can be used. Where someone's transgressions amount to what would be better described as "undesirable behaviour", then other methods are available, and arguable more effective too.

So if I move onto your garden will you use violence to remove me?

AtW
13th December 2013, 17:51
So if I move onto your garden will you use violence to remove me?

No, he'll make you a cup of tea with biscuits - if you want to be beaten up then you'd just have to go to Bridgwater, just the M4.

HTH

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 18:09
So if I move onto your garden will you use violence to remove me?


I'd use violence against you, if you refused to leave, either directly or via a proxy such as the police.

While the land that my garden occupies has likely been stolen at some point in history, that was such a long time ago that I have no reason to believe that you (or anyone else) have a better claim to it than I do.

When you consider why we even need property rights (or morality at all) in the first place, then it would be easy, typically, to determine who has the best claim. If there is a dispute then someone like a judge can arbitrate (although it shouldn't be a judge that has a violent monopoly on arbitration - the market can provide).

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 18:35
I'd use violence against you, if you refused to leave, either directly or via a proxy such as the police.

While the land that my garden occupies has likely been stolen at some point in history, that was such a long time ago that I have no reason to believe that you (or anyone else) have a better claim to it than I do.

When you consider why we even need property rights (or morality at all) in the first place, then it would be easy, typically, to determine who has the best claim. If there is a dispute then someone like a judge can arbitrate (although it shouldn't be a judge that has a violent monopoly on arbitration - the market can provide).

The land is rightfully common and your claim to it arises ultimately from state sanctioned theft. Why shouldn't I be free to move onto it?

But you've admitted you will use violence. If I am better armed than you, will you engage the agents of the state (paid by taxation taken under treat of violence) to remove me violently?

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 18:42
Rightfully "common" according to whom? There is no god to gift it to anyone. It is there to be taken and belongs to no one before that point. Certainly not to everyone.

I mean really, is this it? If someone tries to mug me, will I engage the agents of the state to protect me? Yeah, I will, because they have a) already taxed me (far beyond what direct taxation will reveal when credit expansion co-ordinated by the central banks is accounted for) and b) they monopolise the provision of this service as it is. So what? If the gulag prisoner accepts a meal, have they consented to being imprisoned in the gulag? The thing is, the state is engaged in the incredible arrogance of monopolising services and then blaming you for not being satisfied with them. Just not patriotic enough.

I guess Hobbes said we need the state, and we can't possibly advance beyond what some deluded "Enlightenment" crackpot thought.

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 18:50
Rightfully "common" according to whom? There is no god to gift it to anyone. It is there to be taken and belongs to no one before that point. Certainly not to everyone.

Is this objectively true or your opinion?

Cliphead
13th December 2013, 18:51
Domino's pizzas are still overpriced shite :laugh

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 19:02
Is this objectively true or your opinion?

Is what true? That the land isn't common to everyone? On what basis is it? To say it is the case that it is owned by everyone implies some sort of relationship between it and the owner, beyond mere existence.

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 19:12
Is what true? That the land isn't common to everyone? On what basis is it? To say it is the case that it is owned by everyone implies some sort of relationship between it and the owner, beyond mere existence.

The relationship between common land (and other commons such as air) has a relationship which can be seen through right of access for example. Would you see the commons seized? On a first come first serve basis?

d000hg
13th December 2013, 19:19
Domino's pizzas are still overpriced tulipe :laughNot at £5.99. And glad to see someone is focusing on the important issues.

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 19:32
The relationship between common land (and other commons such as air) has a relationship which can be seen through right of access for example. Would you see the commons seized? On a first come first serve basis?

What you are referring to, with respect to air, are commonly referred to as easements. Air is also a super-abundant resource, for which economisation is unimportant, as is the case with sunlight. If someone were to obstruct the sun or drain all the air out of the world by some magic device, that could be argued to be a violation of an easement, because usage was actually being made of that resource. How would such an easement arise with respect to land that has never even been tread upon? I mean, the logical leap here is to go from the fact that easements can arise, to the view that such an easement has arisen with respect to land, even when it is in an untouched state.

The fact is, the 'commons' have already been seized even when no such pre-existing relationship can be shown to exist.

AtW
13th December 2013, 19:38
The fact is, the 'commons' have already been seized even when no such pre-existing relationship can be shown to exist.

:suicide:

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 19:40
What you are referring to, with respect to air, are commonly referred to as easements. Air is also a super-abundant resource, for which economisation is unimportant, as is the case with sunlight. If someone were to obstruct the sun or drain all the air out of the world by some magic device, that could be argued to be a violation of an easement, because usage was actually being made of that resource. How would such an easement arise with respect to land that has never even been tread upon? I mean, the logical leap here is to go from the fact that easements can arise, to the view that such an easement has arisen with respect to land, even when it is in an untouched state.

The fact is, the 'commons' have already been seized even when no such pre-existing relationship can be shown to exist.

So it's ok for Parliament to grant common land to individuals?

AtW
13th December 2013, 19:43
So it's ok for Parliament to grant common land to individuals?

Yes, it's fine - leave Gentile alone!!!

doodab
13th December 2013, 19:51
Domino's pizzas are still overpriced tulipe :laugh

I will have a nice Waitrose one when I get home. My first for 2 years, apparently I'm allowed to eat them now to get my strength up.

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 19:54
I will have a nice Waitrose one when I get home. My first for 2 years, apparently I'm allowed to eat them now to get my strength up.

When you get home after exploiting healthcare paid for by taxation stolen under threat of violence from Spontaneous Order and Zero Liability?

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 19:59
So it's ok for Parliament to grant common land to individuals?

I must've been very careless if I let that implication slip from what I said. Firstly, one would need to establish it is a commons, presumably by something a little more solid than mere verbal declaration by the government (although they clearly think these are binding and have the force of arms to ensure these declarations are obeyed), or the genocidal behaviours of the monarch's ancestors who 'conquered' this land. If I understand it correctly, the current Queen can't even claim this much. Parliament's authority is pretty much inherited from the monarchy's, i.e. the family with title to the kingdom obtained through blood, and if not this, then through pure verbal declaration on behalf of a supposed majority. So we aren't on very solid ground, to begin with.

If we were talking about land that was appropriated by individuals, perhaps through easements, that was then granted to the government (freely, not under duress), we could begin from there, but is there any such land in existence?

This is why this route is rather hopeless, you're better off trying to evoke the figment of the social contract.


When you get home after exploiting healthcare paid for by taxation stolen under threat of violence from Spontaneous Order and Zero Liability?

And most of the population, who consent to a couple of uses of their tax pelf but not the majority they are actually put to use for. Or are you under the pretense that a) we live in a representative ochlocracy (democracy) and b) that a majority imposing its will somehow gives rise to a legitimate argument, as opposed to a logical fallacy?

In truth, the costs of policies are highly dispersed and the benefits heavily concentrated, which is how lobbyists get their hooks into people's money with precious little opposition. Even better if you can finance it through inflation or debt, the former of which is very difficult to trace and the latter of which is deferred to the future.

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 20:04
I must've been very careless if I let that implication slip from what I said. Firstly, one would need to establish it is a commons, presumably by something a little more solid than mere verbal declaration by the government (although they clearly think these are binding and have the force of arms to ensure these declarations are obeyed), or the genocidal behaviours of the monarch's ancestors who 'conquered' this land. If I understand it correctly, the current Queen can't even claim this much. Parliament's authority is pretty much inherited from the monarchy's, i.e. the family with title to the kingdom. So we aren't on very solid ground, to begin with.

If we were talking about land that was appropriated by individuals, perhaps through easements, that was then granted to the government (freely, not under duress), we could begin from there, but is there any such land in existence?

This is why this route is rather hopeless, you're better off trying to evoke the figment of the social contract.

I am talking about land which was common (or not owned I you prefer) which was then allocated to an individual by an Act of Parliament. Does that Act and subsequent violent seizure by an individual and his forces constitute the rightful acquisition of property?

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 20:08
I am talking about land which was common (or not owned I you prefer) which was then allocated to an individual by an Act of Parliament. Does that Act and subsequent violent seizure by an individual and his forces constitute the rightful acquisition of property?

Whom is it being seized from if it is unowned? This is what I am trying to establish. Is an existing ownership relationship being frustrated, or not? If not, there is no issue. Ideally, it'd be better if it sold it and redistributed the proceeds to those it taxes.

If there is one, it is no different to a Monarch granting conquered lands to their most gifted psychopaths.

doodab
13th December 2013, 20:10
In a truely free society violence is as legitimate as anything else. It's only by paying our taxes and joining the biggest bullies gang we get to avoid dealing with it directly. Some places don't have that option, and I'm glad I don't live there.

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 20:13
In a truely free society violence is as legitimate as anything else. It's only by paying our taxes and joining the biggest bullies gang we get to avoid dealing with it directly. Some places don't have that option, and I'm glad I don't live there.

And what is to stop them from turning on you, as they surely do and will if necessary?

To give an example, if they decide they cannot finance the obligations of the state to those to whom (they consider) it is due (or not), and decide to write them off or pay them in heavily inflated money, how have you benefited? They don't respect any limitations.

We're currently living in pretty good times, where they don't have to resort to these measures, largely due to central banks which are very obliging handmaidens to the government. What happens when things turn sour, their handmaidens become impotent and they don't want to let go of the luxurious lives they've become accustomed to?

Violence is 'legitimate' and so is defending from it. If it were limited to defending you from violence, I'd have less of an issue with it, but of course it isn't.

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 20:14
Whom is it being seized from if it is unowned? This is what I am trying to establish. Is an existing ownership relationship being frustrated, or not? If not, there is no issue.

If there is one, it is no different to a Monarch granting conquered lands to their most gifted psychopaths.

Consider the old rhyme:

They hang the man and flog the woman that steals the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose that steals the common from off the goose.

The land was there (in a commonly owned state, I would say, and I think you would say in an unowned state) for ordinary people to supply food for themselves. Parliament decides that they will grant an individual the right to use force to seize it and deny people access to the land. I am asking whether this is a just acquisition of property or whether it should have remained in its previous state?

doodab
13th December 2013, 20:19
And what is to stop them from turning on you, as they surely do and will if necessary?

To give an example, if they decide they cannot finance the obligations of the state to those to whom (they consider) it is due (or not), and decide to write them off or pay them in heavily inflated money, how have you benefited? They don't respect any limitations.

We're currently living in pretty good times, where they don't have to resort to these measures, largely due to central banks which are very obliging handmaidens to the government. What happens when things turn sour, their handmaidens become impotent and they don't want to let go of the luxurious lives they've become accustomed to?

Violence is 'legitimate' and so is defending from it. If it were limited to defending you from violence, I'd have less of an issue with it, but of course it isn't.

Nothing. That's life.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 20:19
Domino's pizzas are still overpriced tulipe :laugh

Which reminds me... does some admin here have a gig at Dominos? Because since engaging in this thread I've been getting multiple dominos promo spam emails a day :confused:

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 20:19
The land was there (in a commonly owned state, I would say, and I think you would say in an unowned state) for ordinary people to supply food for themselves. Parliament decides that they will grant an individual the right to use force to seize it and deny people access to the land. I am asking whether this is a just acquisition of property or whether it should have remained in its previous state?

I don't think it's just in the typical sense of the word, no, because it should be left open to be appropriated, rather than simply bequeathed to a given individual. This flows from the fact that it is unowned.

Even if I were to assume it is owned in common (which I concede may be true in some cases, e.g. public enterprises where those taxed to finance them are hopelessly indeterminate or gone), we would then be reflecting upon whether Parliament can truthfully be said to be endowed with the power to act on the will of the 'people'. If it is so endowed unconditionally, surely from the perspective of those whom it represents, the action is just? It's a classic principal-agent problem.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 20:30
In a truely free society violence is as legitimate as anything else. It's only by paying our taxes and joining the biggest bullies gang we get to avoid dealing with it directly. Some places don't have that option, and I'm glad I don't live there.

This is the point. We don't need to have some big bullies to protect us - the only reason people think this is because they've been brainwashed since childhood to think that the government has magical powers that other men do not.

In a free society many of the same kinds of institutions would likely exist as government provides now - they'd just most likely be of a better quality, and cheaper, and could function without violating peoples rights. Government is an unnatural monopoly, built on violence, which has all of the same attributes we associate with other kinds of unnatural monopolies. What's worse is that it is a magnet for sociopaths and psychopaths. We here all the time that supposedly men are fallible, or even inherently bad - so why grant absolute power to a small few of them?

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 20:32
Nothing. That's life.

The way I see it, I pay them they leave me alone and stay out of my way and, where they don't, I try keep within the confines of their own rules. It doesn't mean I have to like them, ignore their hypocrisy or recognise their legitimacy.

Surely in our capacity as contractors who have to deal with IR35 and other tax contrivances, we are all too familiar with this?

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 20:38
The land was there (in a commonly owned state, I would say, and I think you would say in an unowned state) for ordinary people to supply food for themselves. Parliament decides that they will grant an individual the right to use force to seize it and deny people access to the land. I am asking whether this is a just acquisition of property or whether it should have remained in its previous state?


To add to what Zero said, I would personally suggest that there was already an implicit ownership of that common land. That is to say that if I am making use of that land then i already implicitly own it (at least as long as my cabbages are growing in it). If myself and others jointly make use of that land, then 'we' own it, or at least the patches we're using at the time. If i were to say one day "ok, from now on this cabbage patch i'm currently cultivating will be forever for my own exclusive use" then none could reasonably argue against it unless they had already collectively claimed the land as property of the collective - perhaps after I claim my own they will hastily claim the rest as a collective (and allow strangers to make use of it if they like).

To ask whether parliament can grant it to someone or not is irrelevant unless you believe that might makes right, and the mob can legitimately take from the minority.

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 20:40
I don't even think Parliament is representative of a "majority". It is a replacement for the Monarchy that is more palatable to our Enlightenment-influenced tastes. Very few Western countries have representative democracies. Not that these hold a superlative sense of legitimacy in my eyes, but it's best to be clear on what the UK and US and similar governments really are.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 20:46
When you get home after exploiting healthcare paid for by taxation stolen under threat of violence from Spontaneous Order and Zero Liability?

It wouldn't be quite so bad if it was paid for by taxation. The reality of it is that it was bought on Her Majesty's credit card, and will be paid for by your children and grandchildren who will most likely not even see the benefits of what their labour is paying off (let alone what their labour could provide in a free healthcare market).

It's easy to boast of a 'jewel in the crown' NHS when you just maxxed out the credit card to get it, just like it;s easy to look flash in a new sportscar bought on unaffordable credit. But when Billy big potatoes gets his car repossessed he just ends up looking like a ****.

doodab
13th December 2013, 20:48
This is the point. We don't need to have some big bullies to protect us - the only reason people think this is because they've been brainwashed since childhood to think that the government has magical powers that other men do not.

In a free society many of the same kinds of institutions would likely exist as government provides now - they'd just most likely be of a better quality, and cheaper, and could function without violating peoples rights. Government is an unnatural monopoly, built on violence, which has all of the same attributes we associate with other kinds of unnatural monopolies. What's worse is that it is a magnet for sociopaths and psychopaths. We here all the time that supposedly men are fallible, or even inherently bad - so why grant absolute power to a small few of them?

What you suggest is inherently unstable. That is why it hasn't spontaneously occured and when it has come close its been usurped by those who use violence.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 21:14
What you suggest is inherently unstable. That is why it hasn't spontaneously occured and when it has come close its been usurped by those who use violence.

The reason it hasn't occurred is because people aren't enlightened enough to understand that government is obsolete. Especially in our modern technological age. It wasn't very long ago that we were burning witches.

There is a lot of information available supporting the idea that a society without government would be more stable, and I've found that all arguments to the contrary tend to be self-contradictory and littered with logical fallacies.

If you've studied the topic and disagree then fine (although i'd still say that you're wrong), but 99% of the people posting on this thread have clearly never spent more than a few hours studying it, if that.

If you don't agree there is still the question of the proper scope of government, and a (very - it's not particularly complicated, despite what the talking heads on tv would have you believe) basic understanding of economics would cause most to at least hold the position that government should exist only to protect our rights, such as police, judiciary, military, border control (if you go in for that sort of thing). Then you'd be a minarchist as I used to be.

There's a joke: "What's the difference between a minarchist & an anarchist? about 6 months".

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 21:31
I don't hold much store by the legitimacy of Parliament and particularly not the Parliament if the days before universal suffrage. But I genuinely don't understand how you can hold such store by your claim to property rights when that claim derives ultimately from Enclosure.

How is your willingness to use state backed violence to defend this dubious claim objectively moral, whereas the state's forced appropriation of taxation is objectively immoral (or correct me if I have misrepresented the argument)?

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 21:46
Determining who is due what after centuries of state violence is a pretty convoluted topic and not amenable to one-size-fits-all answers, which is why I kept pressing for the actual relationships involved. The fact that some acquisition of property has been made due to the government does not imply all or even most of it has. It'd be nice if we could hit a reset button, however, as I am not particularly keen on people whose money derives from state privilege (or crime, more generally) keeping it, but equally we all know what came after the French Revolution, and how little it had to do with any notion of justice.

Faced with a dilemma, i.e. Parliament keeps it under its control or bequeaths it to someone else, I would have to say neither is a good option. But like I said, the relationship between Parliament and the electorate isn't necessarily one where Parliament is an agent of the former, or even a custodian over resources they may have entrusted it to control. There is nothing nearly as clear as the contract between a PLC and its shareholder, for instance, even though this is what the relationship is meant to mimic.

To give two concrete examples, in the case of a piece of unowned land, which the government merely proclaims ownership over, I see no problem with it bequeathing this to someone, though preferably it'd act in the interest of its principals (assuming the electorate is such) and sell it.

In the case of, e.g. the Royal Mail, you could make the argument either its workers or the taxpayers have higher claim over it and its assets than anyone to whom it is bequeathed.

Instances where land has been taken from someone (which is more or less how I understand the Enclosure) and they and any possible heirs are all out of existence resemble the first rather than the second scenario. However, if the government simply took it, you could always ask the question as to why the robber gets to determine where the property goes. Certainly in the case of Maoist China and Stalinist Russia, where similar events occurred, pushing masses of individuals into poverty, you could ask this question, so I see little reason why you couldn't of the British government.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 21:46
I don't hold much store by the legitimacy of Parliament and particularly not the Parliament if the days before universal suffrage. But I genuinely don't understand how you can hold such store by your claim to property rights when that claim derives ultimately from Enclosure.

How is your willingness to use state backed violence to defend this dubious claim objectively moral, whereas the state's forced appropriation of taxation is objectively immoral (or correct me if I have misrepresented the argument)?

Do you mean that the act of claiming property is itself an initiation of force? (like those that use more traditional use of the term anarchist to describe themselves do?)

As an aside, i'm only willing to use state backed violence to protect property rights because the state claims monopoly on the use of force; that is to say that my willingness to accept the state's valid uses of force shouldn't be interpreted as a recognition of the state's validity as an institution.

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 21:54
Indeed but that's no different to relying on it to protect any of your other rights. I think in cases where it has either directly engaged in robbery, slavery etc. or assisted these practices, it is very questionable that the beneficiaries enjoy any real property rights over what the government then sells or gifts to them.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 22:10
Oh, i see. Old Greg - you're asking how we can be so absolute about property rights now, given that land was forcibly taken and redistributed previously? Rather than how I can be so absolute with regards to property rights in principle?

I'd ask whether anyone has a better claim after such a long time? We can be objective about why we need property rights in the first place, and we can apply them going forwards.
Some people will have been wronged in the past, and other will be in a lucky position now. So what? If it's fixable to any degree then great, if not then tulip happens.

I think that what's important to remember is that those that benefit disproportionately today due to circumstance with regards to inheritance, etc, would be much less likely to do so in a free society. State enforced laws, regulations, etc, etc, all work to keep those in wealth & power where they are while creating barriers for those that might compete. Just look at the subsidies that farmers get - they don't even have to be profit making to keep their land. **edit** i should say they don't even have to break even.

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 22:13
Determining who is due what after centuries of state violence is a pretty convoluted topic and not amenable to one-size-fits-all answers, which is why I kept pressing for the actual relationships involved. The fact that some acquisition of property has been made due to the government does not imply all or even most of it has. It'd be nice if we could hit a reset button, however, as I am not particularly keen on people whose money derives from state privilege (or crime, more generally) keeping it, but equally we all know what came after the French Revolution, and how little it had to do with any notion of justice.

Faced with a dilemma, i.e. Parliament keeps it under its control or bequeaths it to someone else, I would have to say neither is a good option. But like I said, the relationship between Parliament and the electorate isn't necessarily one where Parliament is an agent of the former, or even a custodian over resources they may have entrusted it to control. There is nothing nearly as clear as the contract between a PLC and its shareholder, for instance, even though this is what the relationship is meant to mimic.

To give two concrete examples, in the case of a piece of unowned land, which the government merely proclaims ownership over, I see no problem with it bequeathing this to someone, though preferably it'd act in the interest of its principals (assuming the electorate is such) and sell it.

In the case of, e.g. the Royal Mail, you could make the argument either its workers or the taxpayers have higher claim over it and its assets than anyone to whom it is bequeathed.

Instances where land has been taken from someone (which is more or less how I understand the Enclosure) and they and any possible heirs are all out of existence resemble the first rather than the second scenario. However, if the government simply took it, you could always ask the question as to why the robber gets to determine where the property goes. Certainly in the case of Maoist China and Stalinist Russia, where similar events occurred, pushing masses of individuals into poverty, you could ask this question, so I see little reason why you couldn't of the British government.

Your dilemma is a false dichotomy. The status quo should have been preserved. As it was not any claim to the property is wrong.

Old Greg
13th December 2013, 22:15
Oh, i see. Old Greg - you're asking how we can be so absolute about property rights now, given that land was forcibly taken and redistributed previously? Rather than how I can be so absolute with regards to property rights in principle?

I'd ask whether anyone has a better claim after such a long time? We can be objective about why we need property rights in the first place, and we can apply them going forwards.
Some people will have been wronged in the past, and other will be in a lucky position now. So what? If it's fixable to any degree then great, if not then tulip happens.

I think that what's important to remember is that those that benefit disproportionately today due to circumstance with regards to inheritance, etc, would be much less likely to do so in a free society. State enforced laws, regulations, etc, etc, all work to keep those in wealth & power where they are while creating barriers for those that might compete. Just look at the subsidies that farmers get - they don't even have to be profit making to keep their land. **edit** i should say they don't even have to break even.

I have a right to healthcare I have decided. It needs your money. Shit happens.

Zero Liability
13th December 2013, 22:19
Your dilemma is a false dichotomy. The status quo should have been preserved. As it was not any claim to the property is wrong.

It is not false with respect to governments faced with this situation ex post facto, i.e. modern governments, burdened with such legacies. If you are asking was the action of Enclosure legitimate at the time, in all likelihood, no, it wasn't. But we're not in a position to reverse time.

SpontaneousOrder
13th December 2013, 22:45
I have a right to healthcare I have decided. It needs your money. tulip happens.

I have a right to get laid, so I'm gonna come around and rape your sister. Shit happens.

Two wrongs don't make a right <insert rim-shot>.

Old Greg
14th December 2013, 08:34
It is not false with respect to governments faced with this situation ex post facto, i.e. modern governments, burdened with such legacies. If you are asking was the action of Enclosure legitimate at the time, in all likelihood, no, it wasn't. But we're not in a position to reverse time.

It is perfectly possible to return the land to its previous status. You may think it is desirable to continue your occupation but two wrongs don't make a right. The world manages to return Nazi misappropriated art 70+ years in and will probably continue to do so for many years.

Old Greg
14th December 2013, 08:35
I have a right to get laid, so I'm gonna come around and rape your sister. tulip happens.

Two wrongs don't make a right <insert rim-shot>.

Then I will thank you not to use violence to remove me from your misappropriated land. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Zero Liability
14th December 2013, 10:08
You are analogising a situation in which there is a very clear aggrieved party, still in existence, to one in which there isn't.


It is perfectly possible to return the land to its previous status. You may think it is desirable to continue your occupation but two wrongs don't make a right. The world manages to return Nazi misappropriated art 70+ years in and will probably continue to do so for many years.

Then please, by all means, describe what its previous state was, and I'll take it from there.

Old Greg
14th December 2013, 10:36
You are analogising a situation in which there is a very clear aggrieved party, still in existence, to one in which there isn't.



Then please, by all means, describe what its previous state was, and I'll take it from there.

I am the aggrieved party due to your threat of state violence against me, merely for camping on land which without Parliamentary appropriation would be in its previous state of common ownership and of course before civilization of no ownership. I am unclear by what objectively moral authority, you threaten me with state violence.

Zero Liability
14th December 2013, 10:38
Until you actually qualify who owned this land when it was under "common ownership" and what you specifically mean by this (a King laying claim to it by verbal declaration? Parliament doing so? a few people treading on it once or twice? etc), I am afraid I am that is far from proven. So I am unclear by what moral authority these lands were held in "common" in the first place, and you persistently refuse to qualify this. Unless you are the heir of someone who was expropriated by Parliament, or are being prevented from appropriating areas of untouched land, you are aggrieved by no one in this respect.

Old Greg
14th December 2013, 10:52
Until you actually qualify who owned this land when it was under "common ownership" and what you specifically mean by this (a King laying claim to it by verbal declaration? Parliament doing so? a few people treading on it once or twice? etc), I am afraid I am that is far from proven. So I am unclear by what moral authority these lands were held in "common" in the first place, and you persistently refuse to qualify this. Unless you are the heir of someone who was expropriated by Parliament, or are being prevented from appropriating areas of untouched land, you are aggrieved by no one in this respect.

Can you objectively prove that common ownership (as it is generally understood) was not the previous state?

doodab
14th December 2013, 11:24
Until you actually qualify who owned this land when it was under "common ownership" and what you specifically mean by this (a King laying claim to it by verbal declaration? Parliament doing so? a few people treading on it once or twice? etc), I am afraid I am that is far from proven. So I am unclear by what moral authority these lands were held in "common" in the first place, and you persistently refuse to qualify this. Unless you are the heir of someone who was expropriated by Parliament, or are being prevented from appropriating areas of untouched land, you are aggrieved by no one in this respect.

Who "owned" it before people evolved?

Zero Liability
14th December 2013, 17:33
Obviously no one.


Can you objectively prove that common ownership (as it is generally understood) was not the previous state?

Can you objectively prove that it was the case, since you are now asking me to prove a negative? Outside of Enlightenment philosophers, who holds it to be common and on what basis?

Old Greg
14th December 2013, 18:13
Obviously no one.



Can you objectively prove that it was the case, since you are now asking me to prove a negative? Outside of Enlightenment philosophers, who holds it to be common and on what basis?

I don't claim that my position is objectively right so I have to prove nothing. Mine is a value position. You claim that property right is objectively demonstrable. So if there is a claim that land ownership rights are invalid because they are rooted in misappropriation from common ownership, then you must objectively prove your position.

SueEllen
14th December 2013, 20:07
Until you actually qualify who owned this land when it was under "common ownership" and what you specifically mean by this (a King laying claim to it by verbal declaration? Parliament doing so? a few people treading on it once or twice? etc), I am afraid I am that is far from proven. So I am unclear by what moral authority these lands were held in "common" in the first place, and you persistently refuse to qualify this. Unless you are the heir of someone who was expropriated by Parliament, or are being prevented from appropriating areas of untouched land, you are aggrieved by no one in this respect.

"common ownership" in the case land means that everyone who had access to the land i.e. everyone who lived in the region or travelled through it owned it.

It's really not a hard concept to understand especially as there is historical context to explain it.

Old Greg
14th December 2013, 20:13
"common ownership" in the case land means that everyone who had access to the land i.e. everyone who lived in the region or travelled through it owned it.

It's really not a hard concept to understand especially as there is historical context to explain it.

But his position is objectively correct so this must be false. And he will be along to prove it objectively.

AtW
14th December 2013, 20:18
But his position is objectively correct so this must be false. And he will be along to prove it objectively.

Objection sustained...

Cliphead
14th December 2013, 20:18
FFS, give it a rest already. No1 contender for the most boring thread of the year.

Go get pished / laid or whatever floats yer boat.

Oh wait, IT geeks :eyes

Get a room then.

AtW
14th December 2013, 20:34
FFS, give it a rest already. No1 contender for the most boring thread of the year.

Vote for this thread here -

CUK Reader Awards 2013 (http://www.contractoruk.com/cuk_reader_awards_2013)

:smokin

Zero Liability
15th December 2013, 10:02
I don't claim that my position is objectively right so I have to prove nothing. Mine is a value position. You claim that property right is objectively demonstrable. So if there is a claim that land ownership rights are invalid because they are rooted in misappropriation from common ownership, then you must objectively prove your position.

I take it you're unfamiliar with elementary reasoning. Trying to disguise a factual claim as a "value" claim so you don't have to provide evidence for it doesn't work. I have said nothing about what is "objectively demonstrable", however I have asked you to first of all clarify what you mean by common ownership, to establish if there's been any "misappropriation", since you are playing rather fast and loose with terms. You have refused and failed to do so repeatedly, and until you do, my answer will be the same.


"common ownership" in the case land means that everyone who had access to the land i.e. everyone who lived in the region or travelled through it owned it.

It's really not a hard concept to understand especially as there is historical context to explain it.

It is a pretty hard concept to understand when people refuse to define what they mean and keep referring, in the abstract, to things like easements. All an easement gives rise to is one particular subset of any bundle of ownership rights, i.e. the right of passage in this case, where you can actually demonstrate there was frequent enough travel to warrant an easement, through a given area, and even then it'd just apply to right of passage through that pathway. Why would this apply to all land in the country?

doodab
15th December 2013, 10:30
There is no right to assert ownership over anything, formerly unowned or not, other than that conferred by nature i.e. the ability to stake a claim and defend it, through violence if necessary.

It's only due to nature, in the form of cultural evolution, that we have moved on from this natural state of might is right to more subtle systems such as law courts and 'state sanctioned violence'. And only evolution will effect change, while you may critique government in the abstract your theoretical musings need to be tempered by what's feasible and achieveable from our current position. Anything that isn't is just BS.

At the current time removal of the state will simply leave a vacuum into which other things will rush. And it won't be filled with an anarchist utopia. Its no more feasible than communism.

SpontaneousOrder
17th December 2013, 00:43
There is no right to assert ownership over anything, formerly unowned or not, other than that conferred by nature i.e. the ability to stake a claim and defend it, through violence if necessary.

It's only due to nature, in the form of cultural evolution, that we have moved on from this natural state of might is right to more subtle systems such as law courts and 'state sanctioned violence'. And only evolution will effect change, while you may critique government in the abstract your theoretical musings need to be tempered by what's feasible and achieveable from our current position. Anything that isn't is just BS.

At the current time removal of the state will simply leave a vacuum into which other things will rush. And it won't be filled with an anarchist utopia. Its no more feasible than communism.

Noone is saying that we should throw a switch and simply dissolve government. I'm an atheist, but I don't think that demolishing every church in the land will make the population atheist : )

SpontaneousOrder
17th December 2013, 00:45
Can you objectively prove that common ownership (as it is generally understood) was not the previous state?

Surely you're not asking him to prove a negative?

SpontaneousOrder
17th December 2013, 01:05
I don't claim that my position is objectively right so I have to prove nothing. Mine is a value position. You claim that property right is objectively demonstrable. So if there is a claim that land ownership rights are invalid because they are rooted in misappropriation from common ownership, then you must objectively prove your position.

What's with all the straw men? Whether inalienable property rights are an a priori axiom, or not, has nothing to do with whether someone's claimed property, given that we have such a concept, is in fact someone else's or not.

You're begging the question too. The very fact that you are trying to disprove the concept of property rights by positing prior 'misappropriation' of that property is a performative contradiction.

Given that your argument is 'self-detonating' all we're left with is my original claim that property rights are self evident and objectively provable, if you care to ask yourself first why we need morality and from there to consider what it is.

I posted the title of a book, and isbn number, in which you'll find the proof; given that you don't have any discernible and logically consistent argument otherwise, I don't need to do any more.

Can I at least assume that you believe that you own yourself? Or, to be clear, that a man owns himself?

d000hg
17th December 2013, 09:09
This thread is as boring as a margherita pizza, hold the cheese.

Mich the Tester
17th December 2013, 09:17
This thread is as boring as a margherita pizza, hold the cheese.

WHS and I'd like some ham and mushrooms to go with that, and a carafe of cheapo frascati please.

d000hg
17th December 2013, 09:35
WHS and I'd like some ham and mushrooms to go with that, and a carafe of cheapo frascati please.It's a bit early for booze. Even on the mainland.

original PM
17th December 2013, 11:38
http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20090331/Pizza_270x273.jpg


om nom nom