makeithappen40

And we're back to number one. Remember, second place just means your the first loser. Yes, I remember that statement. I was wondering how long it would take for people to start blaming liberals and socialists for the problems the U.S. has here. I was expecting it in droves. You came in second place. First loser. Tough. Better luck next time!

Ok. Everyone read each of my comments before. Now i'm not.

>If they choose to not do the job - that is their choice. Right. You then would think: Gee, why would they decide not to do the job? Is it because they are lazy, or is it because they have an inadequate incentive to do so? Most of the free marketeers here would say that one of the major rules of economics is that people respond to incentives. (After all, that is why they engage in the market- they have an incentive to do so because they can earn profit) This is lost when someone is employed by someone who doesn't provide an adequate incentive. Thus, they simply say that the employee is "lazy" as opposed to compensating them correctly. (Not just in the form of wages or benefits, either.)

Yep. Your exactly right. Always.

>My comment was intended to convey that they ought to be judged on their work performance alone. In which case they appear lazy to you. And you judge them. Then, for you, it is ok. You fire them and wait for the next one to do the same thing. The manager never thinks that there is a reason within their managing techniques and business practices that makes the person lazy.

Law 39: STIR UP WATERS TO CATCH FISH Anger and emotion are strategically counterproductive. You must always stay calm and objective. But if you can make your enemies angry while staying calm yourself, you gain a decided advantage. Put your enemies off-balance: Find the chink in their vanity through which you can rattle them and hold the strings. These laws work only when the manipulated aren't aware of the techniques. Shux.

>I learned not to judge people based on appearance. Unless of course they look like hippies, drug users, or "lazy," then it would be ok. You know, like you said here: "The problem there is that you guys employ forgetful, lazy people. The correct solution is to fire them and replace them with people who aren't forgetful and lazy." Sounds a lot like your being judgmental up there. "But what are you talking about, makeithappen40, im not being judgmental there. These people really are, by their nature, forgetful and lazy. Of course, their "nature" has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that their work isn't the slightest bit interesting or that that they are working for someone who spends every hour of their day trying to find new ways of screwing their employees out of the wage and working conditions until there becomes a law that makes such a thing more difficult to do"

Whatever dude. Anything you say. Blind assumptions? You mean like the blind assumptions you have made about my stupidity, naivete', the quality of my parents and schools teachings, and the things that I value about myself? You've got a long way to go, bucko.

Unless of course they look like hippies, drug users, or "lazy," then it would be ok.

I love it when women hit the nail on the head like that yeaa baby!

Yep. Totally. There are very special ways of measuring self-worth out there, and market-orientation isn't one of them for me. (One of the methods being the ethical standards laid out in religion... you should know that being a mormon and all) Actually, measuring yourself in terms of the total dollar value you are worth or "marketing yourself to employers" happens pretty often in capitalistic societies. Wait a minute, isn't that the kind of society that you are defending here?

Repugnance.

Let's see, Flight Instructor, 850 hours, and a Bachelors degree by age 22. If they failed me, it sure worked out quite well. Hows your research on liberalism going?

'Cause these days you need a hitler-esque ability to assemble the masses. Ron Paul didn't have it.

No, but I learned not to trust people who look like mormons. (Sort of like you learned not to trust people who seem like socialists)

Remember, second place just means your the first loser.

>We are perched to slip into socialism, however What type?

If you can't take away other's free choices, how can you always have the opportunity for exercizing your own free choice on behalf of self-interest? (In other words, what happens when two people have clashing self-interests? Does the stronger simply take precedence over the weak? And if so, how does that answer remain consistent with what you mentioned about "not taking away other's free choices?)

I definitely did not expect such an intelligent response so soon here. Well done, my friend. Farewell.

They don't like big companies and corporations and conglomarates unless it gets them elected . . . then it's ok. Fucked up huh.

>Find me some incentive more effective than profit potential to drive improvement and innovation Thats not the issue, dude. Profit potential and profit gained through government spending are just a hair different. Most free-marketeers wouldn't agree with how the government spends/creates money to make/save mega-corporations. They would say that is a form of socialism, not free-market economics. Therefore, using the government as an economic crutch is not the same thing as selling goods in a free market. >Or do you think that society would be fine under a belief of to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities. That didn't work on the farm and it ain't gonna work here. I'm not sure yet. There hasn't ever been a clear cut example of the sort of socialism you just mentioned. It always turns out that people who don't need alot get alot, and those who need alot don't get anything. (Like in Russia) Also, socialism, by its standards is supposed to NOT be a form of government that results in exploitation of another man for a man. This has happened in every form of communism, just like it happens here. (Think middle class tax rates) I'm not sure how a totally free-market driven society would work either, as I know of no examples of societie(s) where this has actually occured. There seems to always have been some sort of exploitation, or some sort of government imposition in the market. >I have yet to meet anyone that gives every single cent above sustenance level to help others Me either. I don't think its possible. However, I still think current government spending habits are atrocious, because they don't even attempt to emulate actual capitalist or communist standards. >That is what you're asking these companies to do Show me. >People that I have talked with face to face that are in favor of socialized have been more interested in what they can take than what they can give. And how is that different from the self-interested means that capitalism is founded on, again?

Totally! I'm glad you agree, its total bullshit that they give these corporations so much money!

>Ah ha. There's where you screwed up. Effects of mj linger after the 'buzz' is gone. Nice! You've exploited your own ambiguity.

>What's your point? Did I suggest anyone was under the influence of marijuana at work? Either you work with them/for them/ or you provide a service for them.

That is a different argument though bill. He doesn't want to pay. He never said that he would just let someone rot there.