How To Ensure Fair Treatment

[Bondolon]

Plese identify what is "exploitation of workers" in this context.  As it stands, you are identifying voluntary agreement between two parties as 'exploitation'.  That is a fallacious position.

Perhaps my wording could have been better, for the sake of not offending the (obviously) easily offended. What I meant to say was not exactly that "explotation" was rampant, as much as the fair (I say fair in the strictest, 3-year old "that's not fair" sense of the word) treatment of workers was almost non-existent. Safe working conditions were not mandated by any larger body (nor do they "necessarily" need to be) while, at the same time, were not enforced by the businesses themselves. Take, for example, a textile mill. If a worker happened to be injured on one of the machines, (realize, machinery during the industrial revolution was only geared toward efficiency, not safety... the same is no longer true) one of two situations could arise:

• The worker is temporarily incapacitated, and is therefore fired or sent home until better (no pay)
  
  
  
  
  
• The worker is permanently incapacitated (e.g. Loses a hand), and is fired
  

Volvo makes 'really safe' cars.  It decides, because it can make more money (ie MORE PEOPLE WANT) cars without all the safety features etc, it will not include those features in its products any more.

This is something you condemn.  You condemn them making value choices with which you do not agree.

This is an agreement, as you mentioned before. Volvo agrees to make a car that lacks certain safety features, and said consumer agrees to pay a set price for a car, knowing full and well the implications of his buying decision. Do I disagree with it? I don't honestly give a crap.

However, when the Fast Food/Snack industry chose to switch to partially hydrogenated oils and fats because they have a longer shelf-life, said industries were informed about the possible risks associated with using said product. The chose to go ahead and use them because, in the end, it was cheaper. Basically, this boils down to not only the degradation of a product's quality, but of the misinformation of the consumer.

On a side note, I think it is "wrong" of you to make a summary judgement about my "beliefs". You laid down an example of consumer/producer agreement, labeled it in such a way that you were suggesting that my definition of such warranted condemnation and then presumed to tell me what I believed.

THAT is an invalid position as well.

It most obviously would be. Thank goodness it isn't my position.

[AS1633]

I would believe in a freemarket with no government interference if i thought that the business owners would treat their employees fairly...

It is obvious that you are altogether unfamiliar with Objectivism and, hoping not to be seen as delivering a "low blow", I would ask what prompts you to expose yourself in this forum?

[Fred Weiss]

What I meant to say was not exactly that "explotation" was rampant, as much as the fair (I say fair in the strictest, 3-year old "that's not fair" sense of the word) treatment of workers was almost non-existent.  Safe working conditions were not mandated by any larger body...

Where did said "safe working conditions" exist anywhere in the world, in any jobs, at that time? They certainly didn't exist in the era preceding the Industrial Revolution. You are applying current standards - made possible by that very revolution which you are condemning - to a period where the technology and wealth did not yet exist to make it possible. Life itself wasn't safe in that period. The average life expectancy was under 40 years! It is only the Industrial Revolution which made possible the changes in working conditions.

And now that life expectancy has doubled and most working environments are immeasurably safer and more comfortable than in the past, still that's not enough. Now you want to complain about hydrogenated oils???!!!

Fred Weiss

[Bondolon]

Where did said "safe working conditions" exist anywhere in the world, in any jobs, at that time? They certainly didn't exist in the era preceding the Industrial Revolution. You are applying current standards - made possible by that very revolution which you are condemning - to a period where the technology and wealth did not yet exist to make it possible. Life itself wasn't safe in that period. The average life expectancy was under 40 years! It is only the Industrial Revolution which made possible the changes in working conditions.

And now that life expectancy has doubled and most working environments are immeasurably safer and more comfortable than in the past, still that's not enough. Now you want to complain about hydrogenated oils???!!!

Fred Weiss

My point was only that the rate of improvement/advancement was not properly dealt with by the only people who were in a position to deal with it.

Also, I still fail to see why (despite my insistance to the contrary) you think that I am "condemning" anything. I'm merely attempting to bring to light the possibility that whereas capitalism in and of itself is not, has never and will probably never be a failure, human nature has proven to be one of the most destructive and creative forces in existence.

Who's complaining? You can take what I said out of context, possibly even push me off as some "liberal" for saying it, or you can read it, comprehend what it says, and then post a response to it. I was merely stating that corporations (as an entity) have been known to disregard certain evidence about the harmful nature of products in order to gain more of a profit margin. And my motivation behind saying that is to illustrate the possibility that, given the current state of things, any single corporation can be put in a position to have the more power than any other entity has ever had before, and whereas a person might do the responsible thing (meaning that he would do what is, in the long run, the most profitable for himself, which usually encompasses being honest with consumers), a modern corporation might not have the same "feeling", assuming a certain degree of humanity is lost.

[F*ckCommunism]

I remember I would hear those employees complain about their wages and how they wished they had better jobs, and then go spend all their income on alcohol and marijuana instead of saving up for a higher level of education that would have given them skills to carry them to the next level.

now if i was to generalize about 'business owners' like was done in the above statement, i would be shot down quickly and called lots of names!

It is obvious that you are altogether unfamiliar with Objectivism and, hoping not to be seen as delivering a "low blow", I would ask what prompts you to expose yourself in this forum?

i thought i could come to these forums to dicuss what i am learning. should i go talk to the commies about objectivists? i was a mormon once, and always said 'if you want to know about mormons, ask a mormon, not an 'anti'... now that i'm done with that whole mess of nonsense, i am reading and learning about other things, other philosophies, and i enjoyed ayn's fictional books, if i thought they were a little extreme in their characterization. (apparently all 'creators and producers' are good and all government and common workers are bad) i must say, i do enjoy learning about the beliefs of others, as i don't know everything and don't think i do.

Also, I still fail to see why (despite my insistance to the contrary) you think that I am "condemning" anything. I'm merely attempting to bring to light the possibility that whereas capitalism in and of itself is not, has never and will probably never be a failure, human nature has proven to be one of the most destructive and creative forces in existence.

it is that power to choose that causes the problems. take it away and we are less than men. but with it, we must choose between honesty and thievery, and in my opinion the worker who slacks off and demands his employer pay him more than the work he puts forth is worth, is the same as the employer who pays people less than their work is worth. so i am unwelcome with the commies as well as the capitalists...

[RadCap]

"Perhaps my wording could have been better, for the sake of not offending the (obviously) easily offended. "

Nice ad hom you have there. NOT a good way to start a supposedly rational response.

"Said corporations are those that would actually compromise the quality and/or safety of a product for the sake of increasing profits."

I adddress this - you then change your statement to a different meaning:

"What I meant to say was not exactly that "explotation" was rampant, as much as the fair (I say fair in the strictest, 3-year old "that's not fair" sense of the word) treatment of workers was almost non-existent."

In other words, you simply reasert your position, except use a different word, which you perport to define but in fact do NOT ("the strictest, 3-year old "that's not fair" sense of the word" is not even CLOSE to a definition. As such this entire paragraph does not change a thing, nor contradict my original statement.

--

"Safe working conditions were not mandated by any larger body (nor do they "necessarily" need to be) while, at the same time, were not enforced by the businesses themselves."

Safe working conditions. BY WHOSE STANDARDS???? You are making wild assumptions on what should and should not be a standard of anything to even UTTER such a statement.

--

"(realize, machinery during the industrial revolution was only geared toward efficiency, not safety... the same is no longer true) "

False statement. In comparison to today, there are now more saftey features, that is NOT the same as sayying there were NO safety features back then - ie that the machines were geared only towards efficiency.

--

"If a worker happened to be injured on one of the machines...one of two situations could arise:

The worker is temporarily incapacitated, and is therefore fired or sent home until better (no pay)

The worker is permanently incapacitated (e.g. Loses a hand), and is fired"

Merely ASSERTING this does not actual prove the point you want to make. This may indeed have been done. You have not explained how this is 'exploitation' - or 3rd grade unfair. (I personally tend to view concepts at a higher level than that anyway - third graders are notoriously illogical, so their idea of 'unfair' is likely flawed. Another reason for you to actually DEFINE your terms.)

Given these points, your first half of your post does not present a challenge to my statements.

-----

"This is an agreement, as you mentioned before.Do I disagree with it? I don't honestly give a crap."

Strange, because that sort of agreement is INCLUDED in your HASTY GENERALIZATION:

"Said corporations are those that would actually compromise the quality and/or safety of a product for the sake of increasing profits. "

Which means you yourself just invalidated your position. Thanks

"However, when the Fast Food/Snack industry chose to switch to partially hydrogenated oils and fats because they have a longer shelf-life, said industries were informed about the possible risks associated with using said product. The chose to go ahead and use them because, in the end, it was cheaper. Basically, this boils down to not only the degradation of a product's quality, but of the misinformation of the consumer."

This is an amazing set of fallacies on your part. First, it is IDENTICAL to the previous example in which you said you didng "give a crap". Second, you are complaining about MISINFORMATION - yet apparently YOU have that info. Guess everyone else is just stupider than you. Third, since 'degredation of product quality' (again WHOSE STANDARD?) has been declared a non issue "you dont honestly give a crap" this means you ahve now SWITCHED the entire context of your argument - from one of quality to one of 'the right of the consumer to know'.

NONE of those positions of YOURS is logical.

--

""THAT is an invalid position as well."

It most obviously would be. Thank goodness it isn't my position."

It was as you stated it. If you meant something else (which given your subsequent arguments, is NOT the case), then you should use DIFFERENT words. As it stands though, that IS your position and it IS invalid.

--

"n a side note, I think it is "wrong" of you to make a summary judgement about my "beliefs". You laid down an example of consumer/producer agreement, labeled it in such a way that you were suggesting that my definition of such warranted condemnation and then presumed to tell me what I believed."

LOL - so you are saying explotation - oh, Im sorry, not being fair - is something you actually condone and NOT condemn!!!

FUNNY!

If you didnt mean to condemn the practice, you should not have used terms which are moral in nature. In other words, there was NO 'presumption' on either MY part nor Fred's part. It is your OWN words which placed you in the position of condemnation.

So be careful in the future with your choice of words - and you might avoid such supposed misunderstandings (which I still say is not being misunderstood at all - at least bu US).

---

"My point was only that the rate of improvement/advancement was not properly dealt with by the only people who were in a position to deal with it. "

By WHAT standard? Your argument appears to be that there is a proper standard and a proper speed of acceptance for such standards which, if people do not adhere to them, they are not behaving morally (certainly not PROPERLY- as you EXPLICITLY state). Yet to make such a claim, you must posit an INTRINSIC saftey standard. And THAT is a fallacy as well.

--

FW "Now you want to complain about hydrogenated oils???!!!"

B "Who's complaining? "

YOU ARE!

"However, when the Fast Food/Snack industry chose to switch to partially hydrogenated oils and fats because they have a longer shelf-life, said industries were informed about the possible risks associated with using said product. The chose to go ahead and use them because, in the end, it was cheaper. Basically, this boils down to not only the degradation of a product's quality, but of the misinformation of the consumer."

Since you apparently CANNOT TELL, THAT is a COMPLAINT - a BIG one.

--

"You can take what I said out of context, possibly even push me off as some "liberal" for saying it, or you can read it, comprehend what it says, and then post a response to it."

No one has taken ANYTHING you have said "out of context". You simply aren't making any sense - at least your 'correcctions' and reasssertions are not - because they contradict previous or subsequent statements you make.

--

" I was merely stating that corporations (as an entity) have been known to disregard certain evidence about the harmful nature of products in order to gain more of a profit margin. "

Your argument was that corporations are a new and unique entity. Yet disregarding evidence about things in order to make a profit is QUITE old - and CERTAINLY *not* unique to corporations - or ANY group or particular individual. As such, this statement is IRRELEVANT.

--

" And my motivation behind saying that is to illustrate the possibility that, given the current state of things, any single corporation can be put in a position to have the more power than any other entity has ever had before,"

More falsehoods on numerous levels. Governments have had MUCH more power than a corporation will every have. Also - you engage in a MASSIVE equivocation with the use of the term 'power'. Corporations ONLY have ONE power - a power OPPOSITE of govt (which is the power of FORCE). Corporations have the 'power' to trade. And since you ahve already indicated you do not have a problem with this 'power', that renders any complaint about their 'power' (which is in the rest of your sentence below) completely moot.

--

"and whereas a person might do the responsible thing (meaning that he would do what is, in the long run, the most profitable for himself, which usually encompasses being honest with consumers), a modern corporation might not have the same "feeling", assuming a certain degree of humanity is lost."

So - your point is - when trading, a group of individuals might not have the same "feeling" that an individual does, because in a group some "humanity" is lost. And so he might not be honest with his trading partner.

Are you capable of actually sticking with ONE premise - stating clearly - and then defending it? I ask because NOW you are saying corporations are a problem because they might not be honest with their customers. That is not even close to the original assertions you previously made.

Stop swerving all over the place.

(Oh - and just so you know - your assertion about corporate honesty vs profits is yet *another* COMPLAINT. I figured I would point that out since you seem not to understand when you are actually making them).

--

Oh - and just so you know - your statement:

" human nature has proven to be one of the most destructive and creative forces in existence."

means "Reason has proven to be one of the most destructive and creative forces in existence."

While it is true that it is the most creative force in existence, it is not even close to being the most destructive. And your examples certainly do not come close to even the lower forms of destructive forces in nature.

[RadCap]

"the employer who pays people less than their work is worth"

The "worth" of work is established by one method and one method only - voluntary agreement between the person DOING the work and the person buying the work.

ANYTHING else is simply the attempt to DICTATE one's OWN concept of worth TO others. It is the attempt to DENY others the freedom to decide for THEMSELVES and then to act upon those decisions.

If you feel yourself not welcome with the capitalists - THAT would be a big reason for it. Such COLLECTIVIST ideas and behaviors are IMMORAL.

[nimble]

Rad Cap:

You said "Note to FC - I would suggest changing your nick, because you aint rejecting collectivism at all."

I want you to fist notice the date he joined this forum. Its only been a month. I am assuming he is young, because of the swear word in his name, and I am assuming he is new to Objectivism. Yet you throw this odd little remark at him. You accuse him of being a collectivist. This is to me the worst thing you can say to another Objectivist. Also, I thought it was supposed to be a joke, because the grammar in that was atrocious. I thought it was intended to be an attack like those of Jerry Springer, thus the word "ain't." When I compare it to Jerry Springer, it was an attack, but not a serious one, because I thought you intended it to be a joke.

Now as for your reaction to me saying that. Don't you think you got a little defensive? This is an online forum. You most-likely will never meet any of these people in your life. Don't take it too seriously. Argue your points, if you feel like it, and enjoy being here. I am assuming you do this for recreation. So it should be fun, not something you take personally and let hurt you. I meant NO OFFENSE, I think you overreact. As you get older, you will realize that there are important things, which are worth fighting about, and there are little stupid things like "me making a joking comment on an ONLINE FORUM" which arent worth fighting over.

[Capitalism Forever]

now if i was to generalize about 'business owners' like was done in the above statement, i would be shot down quickly and called lots of names!

Successful business owners don't tend to spend their income on alcohol and marijuana--that's what makes them successful!

[RadCap]

"Its only been a month. I am assuming he is young, because of the swear word in his name, and I am assuming he is new to Objectivism."

I make no such assumptions. I treat people at their face value. In his case, I treated him like a grown up, who understands or is interested in understanding the concepts he is talking about. If he needs to be treated like an easily hurt child, as you are implying, he needs to post elsewhere.

"You accuse him of being a collectivist. This is to me the worst thing you can say to another Objectivist."

I didn't "accuse" him of anything. I *identified* the nature of his philosophy. There is NOTHING in his posts which you can point to which contradicts that identification. But MUCH that confirms it. Now, again, if he is too fragile to stand up under this identification, he needs to go elsewhere.

Of course, there has been no EVIDENCE of this frailty on his part. There has only been your supposition - one which, besides being irrelevant, doesnt have support.

And speaking of support, there is no indication that he is, as you suggest, an objectivist. interest in objectivism, or even just speaking to objectivists, does not make one an objectivist.

Oh - and even if one claims to be an objectivist - if the premises of the posts by such an individual indicate that his actions are all flowing from a primary contradiction TO objectivism - specifically collectivism - then it is quite appropriate to say so. And that is what I did.

Sorry - I am not going to fake reality in order to 'spare' someone their feelings. Those feelings are NOT primary.

--

"Also, I thought it was supposed to be a joke"

You were wrong. Though if you considered it a joke, that does not explain your serious response to it.

--

"Don't you think you got a little defensive? This is an online forum. You most-likely will never meet any of these people in your life. Don't take it too seriously"

Contrary to your assertion, the discussion of ideas is a SERIOUS endeavor - because ideas are serious - they are man's MEANS of understanding and dealing with reality. That makes them of EXTREME import.

Where the discussion occurs does not matter. It is COMPLETELY irrelevant. If they took place in a men's room, it would make them no less serious.

Now, if YOU don't seek to take ideas serious, you are QUITE free to do so. But it is MORE than improper to condemn someone else for taking them seriously - ESPECIALLY on a site DEVOTED to the serious deiscussion of ideas.

So - when someone comes to this forum - attacks me for identifying facts of reality - and then tells me to not be defensive about such attacks, I have to tell them they are COMPELETELY WRONG in doing so.

"I am assuming you do this for recreation. So it should be fun, not something you take personally and let hurt you. "

Every ASSUMPTION you made was wrong there. I enjoy ideas, but they are NOT pursued recreationally - ie as if they were simply an amuusement park ride with no connection to reality or life. I DO take ideas personally. And I was NOT hurt by your comments.

You need to grasp that people who contradict you may do so because you are actually WRONG instead of because of whatever psychological motives you may attempt to attribute to them. And that is the case here.

--

"As you get older, you will realize that there are important things, which are worth fighting about, and there are little stupid things like "me making a joking comment on an ONLINE FORUM" which arent worth fighting over."

Accusing someone of inappropriate behavior is NO joke. I could say "Perhaps as you get WISER you will realize this." However I dont want to engage in the same stupid fallacy you have engaged in.

When I am accused of wrong doing, I do not consider it UNIMPORTANT. I am sorry you consider such attacks upon other people to be of no import. Of course, since that was what you were supposedly attacking me FOR, your statement to the contrary is QUITE BIZAARE (and most DEFINITELY contradictory).

---

Now - I asked you to either support your assertion or to retract it. You attempted to support it, but on the basis of logical fallacies.

You have provided no evidence to show that my assessment of his philosophic perspective is wrong. Since that is the ONLY thing that could make my comments "inappropriate" here, and you failed to even TRY to challenge them, then your claim that they were inappropriate remains UNSUPPORTED.

Instead of challenging the TRUTH of my statement, you made an appeal to the emotions of FC. That is a logical fallacy.

Instead of challenging the TRUTH of my statement, you claim that the identification of a particular reality is the worst thing you can do. This is a MONSTEROUS fallacy - one which, if you actually accept it, contradicts Objectivism completely at its metaphysical source.

Instead of challenging the TRUTH of my statement, you try to say that ideas are not to be taken too seriously, especially on a forum which is DEVOTED to the discussion of ideas. This is both fallacious reasoning and simply bizarre thinking.

And finally, instead of challenging the TRUTH of my statement, you claim you were just joking - but still meant it. In other words, you want to have your cake (you want the attack to stand), and eat it too (you do not want to have to defend it). That is another form of that same MONSTEROUS fallacy - the one which rejects the nature of identity.

And you wonder why your 'little' comment was taken so seriously? Well the above should demonstrate why. Your 'joke' was an attack based on fundamentally flawed metaphysical premises. To let you get away with it would have been to sanction those premises.

I will not do that.

So - since you have provided NO support for your assertions, I await their retraction and an apology for the attack. Since it was "only" a joke - one "NOT worth fighting over" - this SHOULD be no problem. (Note: A backhanded apology will NOT suffice. Any apology which is couched in other than sincere terms is only more evidence of the acceptance of the same flawed premises.)

[oldsalt]

No one is in business in order to have employees. Employees are one cost, along with many others, of doing business and is determined by the cost/benefit ratio of every employee or job in relation to the overall purpose of the business. You talk about a "living wage" as though the employer is somehow responsible for your life. Why should an employer take on the responsibility for another's life just because he enters into an agreement for that person to answer a phone, or work on an assemply line, or wait tables, or write computer programming, or design buildings, or give medical care, or run IBM. An employer pays a salary commensarate with the work done -- the value of the work to the company. If an employer does not pay what the value of the work is worth to the business, he will not keep the best people he can afford, but will lose them to a competitor willing to pay more. This is what the job market is, and it is why the handful of people capable of running a giant corporation are paid what they are. There aren't very many of them so the cost of employing a good CEO, for example, is high. The rare always costs more. Their salaries and benefits are costs of doing business (actually, staying in business!) just like the salary of the kid in the mailroom.

Cost factors have nothing to do with the "living" of any particular employee, they are concerned with the cost of doing business. The life of another is that individual's business, to be seen to by that individual, who must determine his own cost/benefit in the decisions he makes, i.e., every individual must mind his own business.

The way Laura is talking about jobs has nothing to do with individuals engaging in voluntary trade, which is moral, but how to best gain unearned advantage at the point of a gun, which isn't moral. One cannot say that one is against statism and them demand that the state regulate individual action -- and a business is made up of individuals. A business isn't a disembodied entity, but a endeavor undertaken by individuals in voluntary exchange with others (whether they are selling a product or labor).

Capitalism is the system of government founded on the fact that the individual is the unit of value in society. (In reality there exists only individual human beings, and reality is the starting place for any valid philosophy.) When you speak of "the state" you are speaking of individuals. When you speak of "business" you are speaking of individuals. When you speak of any group of people, you are speaking of individuals. You cannot demand the right to own your own life and then insist that it's okay to use the power ceded to the state (for the protection of individual rights) to control others for your benefit (or for the benefit of any group). In effect, you are bringing an armed third party into a voluntary trade of values, negating the value in the process. That is called extortion, and it is extortion no matter who the armed third party is.

Edited June 23, 2004 by oldsalt

[oldsalt]

This is OT and I apologize to those for whom this post is not intended.

nimble: I see that you have once again taken it upon yourself to admonish someone about their manners. I have read your posts and found many of them interesting. You have a bad habit, however of intruding in a discussion between two people merely to admonish one because you think they need to change their style of writing, or their tone, or their manners, etc. This is insulting and disrespectful to adults. You are not a parent or a teacher here, this isn't the dinner table or a classroom, and you are not addressing children. If someone is insulted, they must stand up for themselves. If things get personal between two posters, it is between the people involved. If it is a common tactic, or the argument gets out of hand, the moderator(s) will step in.

I would ask you to please reconsider posting every little negative evaluation you make of someone's behavior. It is distracting and throws the thread off topic, aside from being extremely disrespectful.

Otherwise, I enjoy your posts and I think you have something to offer the forum.

[DavidOdden]

Normally I don't do this, but in this case I feel strongly inspired, having read the post. Read the above post:

No one is in business in order to have employees... 

{and more}

That is called extortion, and it is extortion no matter who the armed third party is.

for a very nice summary of the moral essentials of the employer-employee relationship. Good identifications.

[nimble]

Rad Cap: I already apologized.

As for everyone one else: If i step in and act like "a parent" I apologize. I just think that when people discuss, they should have tact. And when I see someone whose tone does seem a bit off. I will call them on it. And if it is a menace to people, I will from now on close my eyes, because i will not subject myself to such a discussion.

[RadCap]

Retraction of the accusation and apology for a false accusation?

Where?

[nimble]

I cannot retract the statement it was already said. Would it make you FEEL better if i said that I retract the statement? If so, then I will, "I retract the statement." But as you were arguing earlier about facts of reality, here is one: I said it and it cannot be unsaid. I can apologize which I did. And I will apologize again: sorry.

This is a joke so DONT BE OFFENDED: maybe you were too busy being indignant to see my apology.

[RadCap]

"I cannot retract the statement it was already said."

This is the logical fallacy of Equivocation.

Now, I am giving you a VERY BROAD benefit of the doubt here. I am going to ASSUME you are ignorant of the fact that there are TWO meanings of the word, and that ONLY one can logically apply to the situation. But based on that asssumtion, I am now required to EXPLAIN that difference to you.

The meaning of your use of the word "retract" means to take back in the metaphysical sense. It means to remove from wherever a thing was used or placed or given etc. It is OBVIOUS that a past utterance cannot be taken back, because such things are epistemological, not metaphysical in nature. Thus any such request is a logical fallacy - as you imply.

HOWEVER, there IS an epistemological meaning to the word retract as well. In the context of this discussion it means to reject - to declare as invald - an intellectual position you once held as valid.

In your case:

You made an assertion which you believed to be true - specifically that I was acting improperly. To RETRACT that claim - that unsupported asssertion - that personal attack - requires you to REJECT its validity. It requires you to now admit the assertion was FALSE.

So far you have NOT done that. As such, any "APOLOGY" you provide is meaningless, because it is NOT related to the ERROR you have made (which it what you are SUPPOSED to apologize for in such an instance).

--

"Would it make you FEEL better if i said that I retract the statement?"

This has nothing to do with feelings. This has everything to do with others understanding that you are or are not a rational person - and thus indicating to such others whether further conversation with you should be attempted.

A *rational* person admits when they have been wrong. And if the wrong was directed at an individual, they APOLOGIZE for the accusation - for the impuning of that individual. Other rational people recognize these acknowledgements, and thus recognize a person with whom they can reason - even if they disagree on different subjects.

On the other hand, if a person refuses to admit they are wrong, in spite of evidence to the contrary, then other people are made aware of THAT part of their character instead. They recognize a person with whom they CANNOT reason, because that individual refuses to acknowledge facts or reality.

So you see, the issue is NOT as you would like to characterize it. The issue is NOT insiginificant. It is a VERY important philosophic point, in that it reveals both the philosophy of a person and tells others if they can deal with that individual using logic.

It reveals much about that person's character as a reasoning individual.

And THAT is the reason I have gone on and explained all this about what was seemingly a small offense. Not because I am mortally wounded by the attack, but because it is a blatant rejection of reality which places YOU in the position of someone with whome others cannot reason. And since we assume you are here to engage in rational conversations, then it is important you realize what such rationality entails - so that you can continue posting here in the future.

So you see - this is not about indignation. It is not my emotions. It is not about ME at all. It is about YOU - and whether you can demonstrate you carry yourself rationally on this forum or not.

Put simply - this has been an attempt to HELP you - whether you realize that fact or not.

--

" If so, then I will, "I retract the statement." But as you were arguing earlier about facts of reality, here is one: I said it and it cannot be unsaid."

This is not a retraction, because you claim retractions are impossible. As such, you are commiting a contradiction. And you state as much.

That nullifies your act - meaning no retraction has occured.

--

"I can apologize which I did. And I will apologize again: sorry."

As I asked before and you did not answer - WHERE did you apologize in the first place (and I am NOT referencing the very last post, since you said you made an apology BEFORE then). And more importantly WHAT THE HECK are you apologizing for? You have NOT provided ANY explicit apology at all. Sorry by itself is NOT an apology. The concept Sorry needs a referent - and you have provided NONE.

The ONLY implicit and vague indication of WHAT you MIGHT be apologizing for is given in your second sentence. You reference my "feelings". With your statements, you suggest you are 'sorry' for hurting my feelings.

The problem with that is - my feelings have not been hurt. More importantly however, my feelings are IRRELEVANT to the issue - the issue of whether you were RIGHT or WRONG. And it is for being WRONG that you need to apologize (I have already explained WHY such an explanation is required).

Given all of the above, you have NOT provided a retraction.

Given all of the above, you have NOT provided an apology.

--

"This is a joke so DONT BE OFFENDED: maybe you were too busy being indignant to see my apology. "

Your GALL is amazing. In the above you have just said: I am going to slap you, but hey - DONT BE OFFENDED.

That is morally reprehensible. There is NO basis on which to claim such an attack can be justified. Saying "Oh - its a joke" does NOT justify personal attacks. NOTHING justifies them in the context of a rational discussion.

It is EXACTLY such statements which violate identity. As I said, with them, you want to have your cake (insult a person), and eat it to (have it disregarded as an insult and logical fallacy).

Sorry - but I refuse to sanction such nonsense. No rational person allows an individual to get away with such improper behavior.

[nimble]

im done with this. its obvious that you like arguing. I'll leave you to argue with yourself. Before I become very disrespectful I am removing myself from any further discussion with you in any part of this forum. I apologize for accusing you of an attack, and I retract the statement. Good-life to you, sir.

[RadCap]

" I apologize for accusing you of an attack, and I retract the statement. "

Thank you. That was ALL you ever needed to say the whole time.

"im done with this. its obvious that you like arguing"

It is a shame that is all you have drawn from this discussion. It suggests the logical fallacies of which I spoke will remain uncorrected.

Regardless, I hope that what I have said does eventually sink in and you apply it to further conversations. I wish you good luck with your future postings.

[oldsalt]

I think nimble is the one with the hurt feelings, and that is too bad. I honestly don't think she grasps what is being said about this particular behavior, how disrespectful and presumptuous it is, nor does she understand the negative effect it has on her ability to engage anyone in a discussion. This is too bad, because I think she has something to contribute.

[Fred Weiss]

... I was merely stating that corporations (as an entity) have been known to disregard certain evidence about the harmful nature of products in order to gain more of a profit margin. 

So? That's why we need laws governing fraud and force.

I'll only add that corporations that do the sort of thing you are mentioning tend not to gain the trust of their customers. So whatever short term profit they may gain by the misrepresentation will be lost in the long term as customers become reluctant to purchase their product in the future. It's not good business practice and the vast majority of businesses grasp it.

Take a mundane example, Ebay. That's why they introduced their "rating" system where customers can comment on their purchases. It is hardly infallible, but I know that I tend to bid with greater confidence when a seller has a high positive rating and few if any negative ratings. I use similar practices when I purchase almost anything. That's the power of word-of-mouth and people recommending certain products/businesses. It literally makes or breaks most businesses and any good businessman is aware of it.

Fred Weiss

[AshRyan]

...i enjoyed ayn's fictional books, if i thought they were a little extreme in their characterization. (apparently all 'creators and producers' are good and all government and common workers are bad)

That's certainly not Ayn Rand's position. Where did you get that idea? And, at least in the case of workers, it's obvious even from her fiction that she does not regard them as bad (the character Mike in The Fountainhead for example).

[Bearster]

Hello to all still left in this thread.

I think there are three separate issues here: (1) concepts and thinking, (2) the nature of capitalism, and (3) economics and value creation.

(1) Concepts. If one attempts to think in non-concepts like "exploit" (I defined this on the Wiki as "when someone works for terms that I would not accept" to expose it for the subjectivist whim that it is), "big corporation" (a pointless smear word), "slave wage" (an obvious contradiction) etc., then one cannot think at all. These terms all have a "cash" value, leading to the next point.

(2) Capitalism. Socialism regards anyone who has something as a thief, and then proceeds to rob him. It is an entire society of envious, lazy people sitting around waiting for someone to produce something, so they can steal it.

(3) Value creation. Value, contrary to Marx, is not created by application of hard work. Contrary to Keynes, value is also not created by make-work. You think a working for a call center, or McDonald's, or a construction company is hard work? You think the "fat cat" owners are getting rich off your labor? You need to understand a few things. First, as several people have pointed out, what would happen to the company's fortunes if you quit and they hired someone else? Welcome to the concept of "commodity", and unfortunately, this concept applies to you. Don't like it? Feel free to get a B.S. in computer engineering, then a J.D., and then open up a practice as a pattent attorney. You will be paid at least $200 per hour, and perhaps a lot more. Second, the people running that call center are not being paid more simply because they're "fat" or whatever. They are worth their higher wages because they are acting to create value for the company (if not, the company will soon be out of business). The owners, of course, risked their money and possibly their careers, not to mention identified a market that wasn't being served well, and jumped in. Any sullen, resentful punk who hates his employer is free to open his own company? What was that silent sound? The sound of 75,000,000 angst-ridden worker-bees not starting their own companies? I thought so. Third, a company's customers are free not to buy from the company. If this happens often enough, the company will cease to exist. Where is the investor's "right" to be paid a "fair" return on investment? Fourth, value creation is hard! I don't mean hard in the sense of working one's back off leaning over a hot fryer cleaning it out. I mean identifying a new market, a new need, or a better business model. Commodities do not command prices sufficiently high to earn good margins, and generally the established company has the advantage in a commodity market (who would want to sell yellow-colored sticky paper competing against 3M?) In simple terms, every company is striving to offer something of value to its customers, and many competing companies are striving to make the first company's offering into a commodity or even irrelevant. How about a blacksmith's "right" to a "fair" wage, in the face of the automobile era where people don't need horseshoes any more?

[Tom Rexton]

What F*ckCommunism means by "exploitation" is what Marx and every socialists subsequently cite as examples:

1. Low wages

2. Long working hours

3. Poor/hazardous working conditions

4. Child labor

He and all other socialists attribute the cause of those forms of "exploitation" to the allegedly "arbitrary" power of the capitalists to determine all four. Hence the question, how does one ensure that this "arbitrary" power is wielded properly?

Now, I'm not going to write a long essay on this. Suffice it to say that it is not the arbitary power of capitalists, but the general productivity of labor at any given time that determines all four (real wages, working hours, working conditions, etc.). Wages were low, working hours were long, working conditions were poor and children labored because of the very low productivity of labor with which the Industrial Revolution began. Those gradually improved as the productivity labor rose continuously--not because the government legislated the improvements.

The essence of the Marxian exploitation theory is exposed and refuted in Capitalism, in Chapter 11, Part C and in all of Chapter 14, which also presents the "productivity theory of wages". You can download the PDF of Capitalism (complete, but with the print function disabled) from www.capitalism.net.

There are probably other books that provide a thorough refutation of the Marxian exploitation theory, but I have yet to read more books on economics before I can recommend some more. I'm sure those in here who are far more knowledgeable can recommend some.

[Bearster]

the general productivity of labor at any given time that determines all four (real wages, working hours, working conditions, etc.).

I agree, and this is because even if a business can maintain a high margin, what it pays its workers has a lot to do with the alternatives those workers have in other jobs. If no other company has such a high margin, then they cannot remain in business with higher wages. The one company can offer 10% higher than all other companies and hire the cream of the crop. Or it can offer similar wages and hire typical workers, whichever is appropriate to its business model.