Saturday, 7 September 2013

It’s Greedy For You To Keep Your Money…But Not For Me To Take It.


Left wing ideology is much harder to have patience with when you are working your tail off.  A major problem with left wingers is that they are all too often unable (unwilling/incapable?) of debating past their own contradictions and emotional tirades.  Simple points become massive stumbling blocks to further a discussion.  Is there anyone out there who can offer a semblance of intelligence with respect to the dialogue below?  

Socialist: “The employer should be forced to pay the employee more money. It’s not fair for the employee.”

Reason: “Why is it wrong for an employee and employer to come to an agreement  on wages  paid for work performed?”

Socialist: “When it means the worker is living below a poverty line, the employer should do more.”

Reason:  “Why should the employer pay more then the value of their work? Since when is the employer responsible for the financial living conditions of someone else?”

Socialist: “Because the employer has excessive profits and can afford to share”

Reason: “Then the worker should ‘pay up’ when the employer has losses, right?”

----conversation over----

Reason on tail end: “Why is the answer not to increase the skills of the worker and therefore their earning potential?”

Reason: “……I’m genuinely asking…”

----conversation over….still…----

Is it possible to further this discussion?

 The left goes wild when government tries to stop same-sex marriages. They always cite, “2 consenting adults should be able to make their own choice without government stopping them”….yet magically and suddenly…this very logic collapses when it comes to earning wages…all of a sudden 2 adults have no business agreeing on something between themselves and MUST have governments dictate to them the ‘rules of engagement’…please explain how the stench of hypocrisy is not enveloped in this simple matter. In the situations of same-sex marriage and wage negotiations: 1. It is with adults of a sober mind, 2. They are consenting with each other 3. They each agree to certain roles and responsibility within their functions and 4. there is no law being broken and they have the choice to engage or not to engage. 

Until some form of reason can explain these gaps (and I concede gaps are possible to be filled); it is reasonable to state the left’s agenda is not rooted in congruent principles and values, but in a pragmatist ad hoc approach that leaves the on-looker bewildered and confused with obvious contradictions in key policies and core values. 

NDP leader Tom Muclair is at the park with his son.  His son sees a little girl with 12 scoops of ice-cream and starts to cry.  Tom, a seeker of justice, asks his son what’s wrong.  With a huff and a puff Tom’s son pouts, “She has 12 scoops and I only have 1 tiny scoop…that’s not fair.”  Tom (the logical man he is) thinks to himself, “How do I take my core political values and apply them here?”  Tom walks over to the little girl and explains to her, “You do not need all that ice cream…it is a superfluous situation that requires my intervention as my son only has 1 scoop…your excess is causing my sons loss and that simply is unjust.”  The girl says, “This belongs to me,” and pulls the ice-cream back.  Determined to see justice done, Tom pursues the little girl and takes a scoop and gives it to his son who promises to stop whining…until the sugar high is over. 

In the real world, Tom would be charged for robbery…to avoid charges, the left simply seeks to change the laws.  Since the ice-cream ‘belongs’ to the little girl…you simply pass a law that says that ice-cream now belongs to the state. Since this example is absurd, the left will agree the ice-cream belongs to the little girl….hence the contradiction. 

The Left argues it is a core principle to seize ownership (money/property) of group A and forcibly give it to group B to re-distribute the wealth. 

Taking money from Group A (Excess profit mongers: Wal-Mart…Excess playground girl with ice-cream) and forcibly give it to less fortunate Group B (low income wage earners/Tom’s deprived son) brings justice.  The same principle is argued to be sound in 1 case…but clearly foolish in another. Same logic, same basic conditions…contradictory results…telling me the inherent core value is broken.  That’s why several on the left are notoriously known for emotional breakdowns in the midst of a sensible argument; because when faced with the inevitable contradictions of their policy, they do not humble themselves and concede a point…so they lash out.

I strive to live a life where the principles and values that govern my family life are consistently reflected at work, politics, media, church and at the park.

Perhaps the left should strongly consider winding down their strong critique of the right’s core values….and develop some ‘contradiction free’ values of their own.

 Bonus Material:
Who “owns” an employee’s  time and talent?  The evil capitalist thinks: the employee.

Who owns the capital in the company?  The capitalist thinks: the shareholder (by definition).

Who owns the risk of capital, the losses of a corporation, and the profits? The owner.

Why should the worker not determine the fate of what the own, and the shareholder the same; after all, they each own their respective contributions?

Why is it okay to take from one group and give to another?

Left, please create your position of forced increases in minimum wage by incorporating sensible answers to these questions…without embarrassing contradictions…then perhaps we can further the discussion.


  1. PART 1

    “Why is it wrong for an employee and employer to come to an agreement  on wages  paid for work performed?”

    It's not.

    But a big issue is that there are more people in need of jobs than jobs in the job market. That means employers hold more power in the hiring situation. If there's one person in the world that can do a job, then they will likely be very highly paid. If there are a billion people that can do a job, they'll have to settle for much less pay just to get the job. Just like if an entrepreneur offers a service that others offer, he/she will probably have to charge less just to get business.

    “Why should the employer pay more then the value of their work? Since when is the employer responsible for the financial living conditions of someone else?”

    The employer shouldn't pay more than (not then) the value of the employees' work. But who determines that value? If you own a paving company and you hire someone else to actually lay down the asphalt, haven't they done all the work? Isn't that more valuable? Oh yes, the owner put in the time and money to build the business and gain customers. But exactly how much is that worth versus the actual paving being done by others? It's not quite as straightforward as 2 + 2 = 4, is it?

    “Then the worker should ‘pay up’ when the employer has losses, right?”

    When the employer has losses, the worker does "pay up" in the form of layoffs, joblessness, reduced hours, etc. Everybody loses. Not just the employer. And remember, the employer is the one reaping the main profits because they are willing to make the biggest risks; so they also have larger losses.

    Is minimum wage really enough to live on? Not really. Have a look at this You might be able to survive in some way on minimum wage, but your quality of life will probably be pretty low.

    Get a better job?

    That may be a great solution! But, again, it's not always that simple for everyone, is it?

    How is the employee/employer relationship simply a relationship between two consenting adults? It's usually not. If you have to work at minimum wage to support yourself (and family?) you won't have much time to invest your own education or skill development. You need to make money to survive. It's not really a choice. There are generally a few people with much more power than the majority of others. That situation wasn't agreed upon by adults with equal power and agency of choice.

    And how do you account for varying life chances? Some people are born with a better chance to be successful than others. Life simply isn't fair. If your parents are millionaires, you're probably going to go to the best schools, have powerful connections, and be given/inherit much, much more than the average person. If your parents are alcoholics or drug addicts or impoverished for one reason or another, you probably won't get the chance to go to Harvard, etc., etc.; a "choice" which is largely out of your hands. You get the idea; a conservative capitalist economy isn't anywhere close to being a fair arena. It's a lot better than many other economic systems, but I don't think it's "key policies" and "core values" have quite created a utopia. What do you think?

  2. PART 2

    And sorry, your ice-cream illustration is ridiculous (and slanderous?). Who bought the girl her ice-cream? Did she work for it? Receive an allowance? What kind of adult allows a kid to have 12 scoops of ice-cream at one time anyway? That's disgusting and gluttonous. Nobody should have 12 scoops—unless they're tiny scoops—of ice-cream at one time. She should be forced to give some of it up. She'll just end up sick if she eats it all! I don't think this illustration furthers your argument...

    A worker doesn't own his or her labour. In a wage labour situation, the labourer sells his/her labour to the employer for a rate.

    "Why should the worker not determine the fate of what the own, and the shareholder the same; after all, they each own their respective contributions?"

    The worker determines his/her fate in that he or she tries to acquire and maintain a job. They don't own their jobs. If employees don't have the power to make decisions about how the employer runs the business, how are they realistically able to determine their own fate other than simply doing what they're paid to do? Look at the situation. The employer makes the decisions and takes the risks. The employer may stand to lose more (in a certain way), but he/she also stands to gain more. Employers need employees to be successful, and employees need jobs to survive. Employees and employers are not in the same situation, they do not stand on equal ground, and it's not a fair situation (for either party).

    "Why is it okay to take from one group and give to another?"

    You mean like paying taxes to fund our governing bodies, military, police forces, public services, etc? Is that what you mean by "taking"? If you don't like it, you should move to a country where people pay less taxes—or better yet, no taxes at all! Not feasible? Shoot, I guess life isn't fair. If only we could have chosen where and to whom we were born.

    "I strive to live a life where the principles and values that govern my family life are consistently reflected at work, politics, media, church and at the park."

    Good for you! Let's look at the words you've used in this post to describe yourself and others…

    You are Conservative, that is: "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion." OK.

    You derogatorily refer to The Left: "a group or party favouring liberal, socialist, or radical views". That's a large group of people. I'll agree, pure socialism might be taking it a bit too far. But what about being liberal or radical? Liberal: "open to new behaviour or opinions and willing to discard traditional values". Radical: "relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough".

    Now since you brought up church, I'm guessing you think Jesus was/is a pretty awesome guy. Which of the definitions listed above would you say best describes Him?

    And after you answer that question, let me ask if you still feel that your Conservatism is still congruent with your core beliefs?

    P.S. I'm not Left or Right. But it is still offensive to me when people degrade others because of what they see as logical "gaps". If you're trying to remain Conservative and closed minded, then insulting others is a great way to do so. Most adults are able to make a logical argument without name calling. So the next time you accuse The Left of committing "emotional tirades", you should probably refrain from making belittling remarks in your opening sentence.

    1. your post shows a clear left wing bias. you are using language to obscure the simple truth in the article. I was a small business owner and believe me the entire risk and capital was mine and only mine. various levels of government took (taxed me) damn near every cent the business could generate. Jesus died for our sins and has nothing to do with the argument as presented. by the way the government never ever backed off taking, even when they knew I was going to close the doors and put people out of work. you sure would not last long in the environment in which I had to operate.

    2. 18:46, I have had several idiot ideas in my short lifetime...ideas being idiotic does note the person an idiot. No slander intended or communicated to a person.

  3. The author's request was for "a semblance of intelligence with respect to the dialogue below". The author wanted a response from The Left. I stood in and provided a response, so of course my response has a "left wing bias". Are you saying that this "bias" makes my comments irrelevant or incorrect by default?

    You may be interested to know that I don't consider myself a Liberal left-winger anymore than I consider myself a Conservative. I've voted for members from several parties; I usually choose who I feel is the best person for the position—and too often I feel all of the options are (much!) less than ideal. I have no investment in any of our political parties. In fact, I think they could all use a little help!

    As a business owner myself, I can definitely sympathize with your troubles! I think our government could definitely do more to assist small business owners and give them a bit of break while they're starting out. When I was beginning, one of the first things I did was talk to an accountant to make sure I would have enough to pay the appropriate taxes when the time came. Planning for taxes is just one aspect of owning and managing a business—as I'm sure you are aware—but one that is too often neglected or overlooked. Again, I think the ways in which small businesses are taxed could be improved. But you can't really have a government or public services without taxes, can you? And to say taxation is theft is silly. How many thieves send you letters in the mail and make vast swathes of information available to the public detailing exactly how and when they are going to steal from you? Taxation simply isn't theft. Does it often hurt small business and individuals? Yes. But the issue is the application, not the concept.

    Bases on my comments, I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that I "would not last long in the environment in which [you] had to operate." How do you know anything about what I do and how I manage my business based on my posts here? Maybe if you shared some of your experiences with others they could avoid some of the issues you've had to deal with. Why would you proclaim failure over someone you've never even met?

    Furthermore, I am not using language to obscure anything. Knowing and using the definition of a word doesn't bring obscurity, it brings clarity. If you were initially mistaken about the meaning of the words Conservative, Liberal, and Radical, then I can see how it would be somewhat confusing. But if we're using language to discuss "simple truth", don't you think it's a good idea to know exactly what the words we're using to communicate mean? I think the omission of definition brings obscurity and confusion.

    And Jesus was certainly part of the argument presented. The author said, "I strive to live a life where the principles and values that govern my family life are consistently reflected at work, politics, media, church and at the park." Unless Jesus isn't part of the church he/she goes to, Jesus was involved in the argument presented by the author. I maintain that Jesus' character and behaviour were anything but Conservative. He was Radical to the core.

    1. Thanks for the reply...the thought is appreciated... I won't (on this post) get into my disagreement on your comments about Jesus;

  4. Ryan, is calling someone's thinking idiotic less offensive and childish than calling them an idiot outright? "Idiocy" means "extremely stupid behaviuor", so it's not just about ideology or mindsets. I'm surprised you know enough about every single "left-wing" individual to state that their behaviour is stupid. And I don't think it's a great start to an adult conversation.

    1. I did not say with how many and how frequent the idiotic behavior is...

    2. I think it's less goes to an idea...the other to one's identity. My identity is not tied to my 'idiotic idea' of leaving my clothes on the floor for the 50th time thus upsetting my wife. "I AM NOT" an was just an idiotic idea...Hope this helps.

  5. P.S. Jesus didn't really politically align himself one way or the other; He had His sights on other things. But one of the only times He gave political direction was when He was asked about taxes. He said, "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s."


Think of how you can make your point and be respectful.
Try to keep cursing to a minimum; with thanks.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain