Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Are you a union member?
Yes -- by choice 21%
Yes -- I am forced to be, but I don't mind 0%
Yes -- I am forced to be, and I hate it 2%
No -- My line of work is not unionized 32%
No -- Unions are anti-capitalist 30%
No -- Unions are anti-Christian 13%

Votes: 46

 Happy Labor Day -- Now Get Lost

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Sep 02, 2001
 Comments:
Most of us never bother to think about what Labor Day is supposed to symbolize. To the majority of people, it's just another three-day weekend. To many, Labor Day represents yet another meaningless "feel-good" liberalist holiday such as Martin Luther King Day. It's an excuse to fire up the grill, kick back in the hammock, watch a ball game, and participate in any number of time-honored American traditions. (All of this, of course, is at the expense of your employer, who is required by federal law to give you this day off.)

But are the institutions that Labor Day is intended to honor -- labor unions -- worth celebrating? Or are they instruments of leftivist hatred, a plot to trick Americans into accepting totalitarianism? We shall see.

communism

More stories about Communism
The Truth About Reality TV
Bedtime for Democracy: Human Rights and other Bad Ideas
From Kids To Commies: The Truth About Daycare
Dealing With Communism in the Workplace
Victoria, BC: Potemkin Village of the Frozen North
British engineering genius and the Homosexualist Socialist conspiracy
I know what you've been processing

More stories by
seventypercent

Is Catholicism to be tolerated?
Obesity and the Jennifer Lopez Message
The Truth About Reality TV
From Kids To Commies: The Truth About Daycare
The Scriptural Proof of Extraterrestrial Life
Review: Jurassic Park III
Beating Children Saves Lives
Gutless In Seattle
Isolationism Versus Go-F*ck-Yourself-ism
DVD Versus VHS: The Surprising Truth
Stunned Beef: Dangerous Compassion?
Don't Go In The Water
A Day on the Links
The Evil of M*A*S*H
Brett Favre Must Be Stopped
An Early Analysis of Today's Attacks
Dealing With Communism in the Workplace
Why We Need National Missile Defense
Review: Gran Turismo 3
Death Threats on Groups.Google.Com
Adequacy.Org Presents the Commonsense Crossword
Dealing with Nazism in the Workplace
Labor unions remain one of the filthiest and most immoral ideas that leftivists in this nation have ever concocted. They are anti-business, they destroy productivity, they reduce quality, and they are diametrically opposed to the Scriptural principles on which this nation was founded. In short, there is not one redeeming thing about labor unions; not one single thing.

And yet liberals will stop at nothing in their defense of labor unions. These slobbering zealots will often invent falsehoods in support of their position. A common example has to do with workplace safety; liberals say "Unions are required in order to make sure that people have a safe workplace!" This is an unbelievably hateful lie. The fact of the matter is that workplace safety is something that would be guaranteed by the free market -- if the government ever allowed the free market to reign. If a company had an unsafe workplace, all that its employees would have to do is quit and take their skills to another employer with a safer workplace. Problem solved. This is simple logic, which explains why it eludes so many liberals.

The fact of the matter is that the free market, if it is given a chance to actually work, will guarantee all of the things that labor unions claim to fight for. The unregulated free market will naturally favor employers who offer the best wages, the safest workplaces, the most feature-rich benefits packages, etc. Companies that have hazardous workplaces and poor salaries are going to fail because nobody will want to work for them.

For example, the other day while I was driving to work, I happened to pass an electronics component supplier. There was a man out mowing the factory's lawn; he was riding on a large John Deere mower. This man was wearing a heavy jacket (the temperature was about 80 degrees that day), a pair of wrap-around safety goggles, a hard hat, and a set of earmuffs! I thought "Dear Lord, what has this world come to?" A decade ago, there is no way that the decent working people of this country would accept such leftivist/ unionistic intrusions on their freedoms. But today, people just accept it. They've stopped asking questions. They no longer resist. They just do as they're told, because that's exactly what the leftists want them to do.

Liberals love safety goggles and earmuffs. They have a hardon for hard hats. The ACLU ought to include a pair of steel-toed "safety boots" with every new membership (all the better to goose-step with, my dear!) The only way that liberalism works is if the people are blinded to the truth and coddled with a false sense of security. Leftivists make all sorts of promises about how the government is going to take care of you (i.e., Social Security) as long as you sacrifice some of your paycheck "for the common good." Social Security is no different than the hard hats that liberal unions force people to wear. The entire purpose is to provide people with a false sense of security while at the same time accomplishing the REAL goal: controlling people's lives. When a union boss says that you've got to do your job with a pair of safety gloves on, he doesn't care one bit about your safety. All that he really cares about is making you comply with leftist orders. You're being conditioned for the day that government agents show up on your front porch and demand that you turn over your guns and your Bible.

But by far the worst thing about unions is the manner in which they can orchestrate work stoppages ("strikes"). Depending on what line of work the strikers are in, this can result in great inconvenience for a large number of people, but that's just the tip of the iceberg: these strikes can result in businesses losing millions, if not billions of dollars worth of wealth. America is a capitalist, Christian nation, and our survival revolves around our ability to create wealth and to provide for ourselves. It can therefore be said that an attack on our wealth creation potential is an attack on America itself. When the camel jockeys blew up the World Trade Center, they attacked our nation and did millions of dollars worth of damage. But is a labor strike orchestrated by union bosses any different, from a conceptual point of view?

Let's call labor strikes what they really are: terrorism. The United States has always taken a hard line against terrorism. We initiated an attack against terrorist training camps in Afghanistan as a result of the African embassy bombings. We struck strategic targets in Libya when it was discovered that Khadaffi was involved in the infamous Beirut night club bombing. With history as a precendent, what should stop us from hitting the headquarters of the United Auto Workers union with a couple of cruise missiles the next time that Ford or GM workers lay their tools down and step up to the picket line?

And let's not forget one of labor's most embarassing problems: they are nearly exclusively run by organized crime. Do the names Jimmy Hoffa and James Sweeney ring a bell? As an American, does it make you feel better to know that the American car that you're driving was assembled by a worker who is under the thumb of some greasy Italian with a snub-nosed .38? In some ways, it's fitting; the behavior of labor unions is so hateful and anti-Christical that you would expect organized crime to be behind it.

Here's the bottom line: Liberalism is a disease, and the presence of labor unions is one of the symptoms. Labor unions force employers and employees to conform to outrageous rules and regulations, and they do so in order to desensitize people to an even bigger and more intrusive government than we already have. Hatred of Christ is a fundamental component of all labor unions. Worst of all, labor unions engage in acts of terrorism against the United States of America, and they do it several times a year.

The solution? Let's start with a federal law calling for the mandatory dissolution of all labor unions. The moral community can then begin mopping up the mess by going after all of the old union bosses and syndicate members and putting them where they belong: in a jail cell. We can then allow the free market to run its course, and let the chips fall where they may. This country witnessed unprecedented economic growth before the introduction of labor unions, and once we have abolished these unions, we will witness it again. But it's going to take courage, steadfastness, and most of all faith .. faith both in God Almighty and in the forces of capitalism.

Unfortunately for the liberals, neither God nor capitalism has let us down thus far.

Sorry, liberals. The truth hurts, doesn't it?


s/labor/labour/ (2.25 / 4) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 11:34:56 PM PST
Please.
Thank you.


 
Unregulated market? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by twodot72 on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 01:16:52 AM PST
You claim that the free market will favor employers who offer better wages and work environments. Of course, this only works out well for employees if there is a worldwide labor shortage. As it happens, the opposite is true, which is why, at the moment, the free market favors only the employers. If a worker must choose between starvation or low wages and a dangerous job, s/he invariably chooses the latter, which comes in very handy for ruthless employers.

Furthermore, you are talking about an unregulated free market, yet you want to ban labor unions. How can you claim to have an unregulated market if you have a regulation against unions? Your whole argument is oxymoronic.


Can you be so sure of your claims? (3.00 / 2) (#7)
by Craig McPherson on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 01:53:49 AM PST
"If a worker must choose between starvation or low wages and a dangerous job, s/he invariably chooses the latter, which comes in very handy for ruthless employers."

How can you be so sure?

I'd choose starvation. Hard work sucks.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

How can you be so sure? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 04:37:31 AM PST
Have you ever been to China? How about some places in Mexico? I've been to the Philippines and I know for a fact that a person would choose a dangerous job over starvation. You'd be surprised at what you'd do when you're being starved.


Starvation (3.66 / 3) (#16)
by Craig McPherson on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 10:40:18 AM PST
I'd just go into the forest and eat leaves.

People overlook the most obvious solutions.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

Great idea! (2.33 / 3) (#17)
by twodot72 on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 11:00:22 AM PST
An estimated 9 million people die from starvation every year. 800 million suffer from malnutrition. I'm sure they would appreciate your excellent advice!


HOORAY! (3.66 / 3) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 08:09:27 PM PST
Once again, leaves save the world.
although i would recommend staying away from certain shiny leaves with white berrys...


 
just a matter of taste... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Hano on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 10:49:10 PM PST
That would be an interesting option, but, hey! did you know, that in some point, may be about
five whole hundred years, western civilization rediscovered spatial finiteness (which means also resources finiteness) of his natural life bubble, yeah! you're right! it's the earth! but there is more: Since it seems to me that in this forum everyone think HE is right, I would say something: Given that these resources are finite, that means YOU CANNOT let grow the CONSUME/PRODUCE carnot's cycle ad infinitum,.. oh well you can let it grow, but it wouldn't be nice. So a pure capitalist society wouldn't be right from the long-term endurance point-of-view, but neither a (let's call it "idealistic"?) society would be "right" 'cause it's inherent view of man "natural social order" doesn't allow to explore all the possibilities open to us. So the existence of both sides is needes in order to both sides to GROW and become AWARE. So if someone think capitalism is right, should live in a capitalist country, and promote his capital freedom, but if someone doesn't think that way, it's encouraged to go to some 3rd-world country and try to join some guerrilla and understand what mean to become part of other people, like you know, warrior people. Earth & man vs. machine & man, just a matter of taste.


I have only one problem with your recent comment. (3.66 / 3) (#29)
by Craig McPherson on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 03:46:57 AM PST
What?


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

what? (2.33 / 3) (#30)
by Hano on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 04:43:33 AM PST
what what?


i get you! (3.00 / 3) (#31)
by Hano on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 05:03:55 AM PST
well, may be i didnt make myself enough clear:

The leaves & forest option you recommend for those whom aren't entirely happy with the growing global economy it pretty good, but, you know? there are not anymore too much forest out there...

the other thing is about how people conceive freedom; distinct cultures conceive it differently. For example, the chinese enjoyed one the deepest and most diverse culture the world has seen ever. But although by our standards their society was very rigid, their keen sense of the methaphor is absolutely unknown to us. So what do you understand for the 7-letter word freedom is very ambigue, and the dull and generic use of the term you give to it(and other Ayn Rand believers) just tell me the mistery it should be to you its meaning.



 
Gee... (2.33 / 3) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 04:49:02 AM PST
"America is a capitalist, Christian nation..."
I didn't realize we threw out the First Amendment...

Anyway, I don't think the free market would end up with a safe labor market. This world is in a semi-complete free market and yet big companies still have sweat shops (*cough*Nike*cough*). He says that those people would quit, but when you have no other place to get a job and if the only way to get the money for food is through the dangerous job you have, many people would keep the dangerous job. They'd rather do that than starve. Starvation has a tendancy to do wacko things to the head. I've been to the Philippines and I know that many people there would take a dangerous job with no safety equipment even if the pay is poor. I've heard first-hand accounts of the same thing in China and other third world nations.

In this country, we're so spoiled that we forget that the basic needs of life, when threatened, can really mess up everything that a person has come to value.

I am not saying I favor labor unions, but I am saying that the free market will not necessarily weed out dangerous work places.


 
Footwear (3.66 / 3) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 05:07:55 AM PST
The ACLU ought to include a pair of steel-toed "safety boots" with every new membership

Shouldn't they be "jackboots" :)


 
One teensy problem... (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by localroger on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 06:11:17 AM PST
The fact of the matter is that the free market, if it is given a chance to actually work, will guarantee all of the things that labor unions claim to fight for. The unregulated free market will naturally favor employers who offer the best wages, the safest workplaces, the most feature-rich benefits packages, etc. Companies that have hazardous workplaces and poor salaries are going to fail because nobody will want to work for them.

As a matter of historical fact, this did not happen. Companies given free reign to do whatever they wanted offered slave wages, horribly unsafe working conditions, ran blacklists, and used their power and influence to turn the police against workers who dared resist them. Read something by Charles Dickens and you'll get the idea.

Also, you went over the top a couple of paragraphs further down. The rant would have been a lot more believable if you had segued from the safety equipment thing straight to the influence of organized crime (a real problem), ending with a more reasonable plea for unions' dissolution.

Dragging Christianity into it really ruined the tone, as I've never seen Christianity associated with the labor debate either positively or negatively. It's like the anti-abortion and pro-corporate wings of the Right -- the unions and free-speechers have hardly anything to do with one another despite supposedly both being "Left."

And the terrorism bit just struck me as over the top. But maybe I don't listen to enough talk radio to appreciate it.


Open foot, insert mouth .. (3.66 / 3) (#15)
by seventypercent on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 10:33:24 AM PST
Dragging Christianity into it really ruined the tone, as I've never seen Christianity associated with the labor debate either positively or negatively.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the debate.

In Scripture (the book of Exodus), God makes some things very clear. First of all, He says that we are to earn our bread with the sweat of our brow, and that those who will not work, will not eat. Secondly, the Seventh (as well as Ninth and Tenth) Commandment explains how God feels about stealing and unhealthy coveting. We can therefore authoritatively say that Scripture mandates an economic system founded on two key principles:

  1. Reward varies with work

  2. Private property is a fundamental absolute
If you're keeping score at home, and if you know the differences between the world's governmental systems, you've already deduced where I'm going with this: Capitalism is the only socioeconomic model that is sanctioned by the Lord. It therefore follows that anything that is anti-capitalist is by definition anti-Christian.

Labor unions directly defy both of these principles. For example, consider work stoppages ("strikes.") The Scriptural principle is that reward varies with work. The labor union principle is that people can stop working and end up with a greater reward (higher salaries, safer environments, etc.) This is hatred, pure and simple. Furthermore, organized labor's deep ties to the Democratic party and leftists in general demonstrate that they subscribe to leftivist ideals about private property (which say that private property ought to be eliminated) as opposed to moral ideals (which toe the Scriptural line.)

All clear now?

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

OK, I give up (5.00 / 5) (#19)
by localroger on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 05:08:43 PM PST
This screed gets +5 when the last few posts of mine get 0/none. Great. What does it take to get mojo here?

It's not like I'm not in on the joke (wink, wink) though it took awhile to figure out just what the parameters were. Look, you need straight men, right? Well, do you want totally stoopid straight men or someone who will chip in and make it interesting once in awhile?

At least at K5 I can feel that I am learning something when my posts are dumped, but lately what I get here is 0/none. Mojo isn't really that important, of course, but there is an absence of congruence here. I was referred to this site after I posted (and had dumped) a very Adequacy-esque rework of an essay by the Marquis de Sade. OK, marginal for K5. Obviously right here. But I don't feel I belong here, because I can't get any fucking goddamn feedback that makes any sense.

So please, let me know whether I should just forget about this place or if I'm missing something I should hang around for. I'm really a sick, evil, twisted guy at times, you just have to get to know me *sniff*. And can't we all just get along?


Ratings... (4.20 / 5) (#20)
by Craig McPherson on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 05:27:30 PM PST
You'll note that most comments on this site go unrated. I probably rate more than anybody and I still don't cover a lot of ground. Ratings just don't matter very much. The only thing on this site that Mojo does as far as I can tell is give trusted user status, and since there are so many editors to delete a relatively few number of trolls, being a trusted user isn't really useful for anything.

I was the one who 5'd 70%'s post. I wasn't thinking I'd upset anybody by it. I nearly always 5 any message posted by a friend of mine, wheras I tend to not rate people I don't know unless they say something very insightful/lame. You can be my friend too if you send me some pr0n or something. I 5'd both your comments so you won't complain anymore.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

 
Purpose (1.50 / 2) (#37)
by twodot72 on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 11:54:07 AM PST
The secret is, you have to adjust your expectations based on reality.

Consequently, I now know I'm only here in order to attract 1 ratings from Craig McPherson. Needless to say, I'm very successful.


Sorry (2.00 / 2) (#44)
by twodot72 on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 10:50:54 PM PST
That should have read: "1 or 2 ratings".


 
Dude, (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by CaptainZornchugger on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 12:04:02 PM PST
Ratings are part of the game. K5 is a place where they value the 'community spirit', and everyone wants to get along. It's not like that here. Here we're all performance artists, and we're standing on our pedestals arguing, but we're doing it for the sake of the viewpoints, and for the sake of the inherent humour, even if no one else gets it. A lot of people rate posts the same way, according to private jokes, or they don't rate at all. If you're trying to impress people, you're just going to get frustrated, because this place really isn't set up for that.

If you really want feedback, maybe you should try writing some stories. They do accept submissions. I referred you here because I thought your piece on K5 was a good piece and was partly wasted on all those who obviously didn't get. Here, a lot of people get it, even if there's really no way to tell, what with so many 'straight men'.

By the way, I'm a trusted user, and I can only see about 5 hidden posts, out of the probably hundreds that have been hidden. The vast majority of the time, the editors completely delete the posts, or hide them in such a way so that only the editors can see them. They all just say something like 'You suck and you're wrong because you're a troll', anyway. If they even vaguely give an argument, it's usually allowed to stay. Unless jsm is in a bad mood, of course. Mojo matters here even less than it does on Kuro5hin. Don't worry about it.



OK, that makes sense (3.00 / 2) (#40)
by localroger on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 08:03:07 PM PST
OK, I get it. *sniff* I feel all better now. Really. *sniff* I won't let it bother me any more. *sniff* I just gotta clean my handkerchief, that's all.

Oh, and thanks for the 5's to those who took pity. *sniff* But I get it now and I won't let it bother me in the future. *sniff* Really. I just got something in my eye, that's all. *sniff*


 
in the scripture... (2.33 / 3) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 08:36:21 PM PST
God says:

The mandatory punishment for any disobedient child is stoning to death. (Deut 21:20-21, Mark 7:10)

The punishment for a single woman having a child out of wedlock is...the woman may not be punished, but the boy and his descendants shall be cursed. (Deut 23:2)

People who overeat must die by plague. (Numbers 11:32-33)

Premarital sex? Can't go to heaven, so see you in hell. (1 Cor 6:9-10)

Promiscuous women? Stripped naked, noses and ears cut off, and burned with fire, and have their children taken away. (Ezekiel 23:25-27)

A couple who have sex during a woman's period shall be shunned and not allowed to interact with "civilized" people. (Leviticus 20:18)

A rapist and his (her, AFAIK, as well) victim shall be married. (Deut 22:28-29)


That decides it for me. A religion that can so conveniently overlook all the twisted ideals layed out in their so-called perfect book of everything needs serious help, and the bible is of no use as a reference to _anything_ let alone labor unions. Goodnight all.

kaxman


You are so right. (4.20 / 5) (#24)
by nx01 on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 10:24:52 PM PST
In this country, we've become far too lazy. We need to start taking Christianity and integrate it's teachings into the law of our country.

Sure, those of different religions will bitch and moan, but who cares? Jews have the same exact laws, and the Moslems have similar laws. It shouldn't be too difficult to convince them--they're pretty easy going.

As for the atheists, well, we know better than they do anyway! For that matter, I don't think there's that many of them here in the US, and the ones that are here are just bad citizens. They need a little bit of The Word to keep them from running around like animals, or else they may go and cause another Columbine!


"Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
-- James Gosling

an atheist standing up to be counted (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 08:17:10 PM PST
Apparently, you have a very messed up outlook on the U.S.. We are not bad citizens. In case you haven't read the constitution lately, there is a little something aboot separation of chuch and state. So, it's is our right to have whatever religous outlook we want to have. And we also have the right to make sure that NO religion is included in government. And not having a religion does not make me an animal, it makes me intelligent enough to see reality.


"Separation of Church and State" nonexis (3.66 / 3) (#52)
by Craig McPherson on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 08:46:32 PM PST
cat constitution.txt | grep -n [sS]eparation

Golly, there's nothing there.

However, the Constitution DOES have this to say:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Which part of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" don't you understand? I know you'll be upset to hear this, but that INCLUDES Christianity. Congress CAN NOT prohibit the free exercise of Christianity, which throws your "separation of church and state" idea out the window. You think it should be illegal to pray on government property or for an elected official to attended church on Sunday, but if you'd actually read the Constitution, you'd see that these things are defended by the Constitution.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

i have read the constitution many times (3.00 / 2) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 09:02:08 PM PST
But there is a HUGE difference between exercising the religion of your choice (which if you actully read my post, i am in favor of it), and forcing other people to belevie it by making it law as the parent to my previous post calls for. That is what separation of church and state is aboot. Of course government workers can practice a religion of their choice, but it's not right to enforce it on others. And no, I don't have a problem with people praying (unlike the chinese government), no matter where they are praying(unless they decide to pray in the middle of traffic). And "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." means that no religion will be favored over any other (which is not what the parent to my previous post was aboot). You are completely misreading my comment and twisting my words.


Oh, I see (4.00 / 4) (#55)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 10:38:13 PM PST
That is what separation of church and state is aboot.
So you're Canadian, then? It explains a lot.


i am not canadian (2.33 / 3) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 10:23:50 PM PST
I don't say that in anyway that would make it seem that I was insulted by such a immature claim. However, the truth is I type that way because it is slightly faster and accomplishes the same task.


 
Fool (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 03:17:30 PM PST
You clearly have no idea of basic Economics.

The reason that, before, conditions were terrible in England was a lack of what Economists call 'perfect information'. If you don't know jobs exist, you can't take them. If you don't have a car to move to three counties away, and still visit your family, you can't take a job.

Welcome to the fucking year 2001, man.


 
read up on the labor movement (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 09:59:32 AM PST
"America is a capitalist, Christian nation, and our survival revolves around our ability to create wealth and to provide for ourselves" ha! you mean create wealth for those who are already rich.. http://webmap.missouri.edu/htmlized/economics/cartoon.html but hey everyone knows that money for a lucky few is more important than being able to live without going hungry or jobless or geting killed on the job for all.


Dangerous Communist overtones in that cartoon. (3.66 / 3) (#14)
by Craig McPherson on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 10:26:26 AM PST
What you say sounds good in theory. IN THEORY.

But let's compare it to something else widely known for sounding good "in theory" -- Communism.

Let me quote a few lines from your cartoon before I point out what's wrong with it.

The cartoon features two characters. One is portrayed as thin, wise, and heroic, a strikingly handsome Aryan figure, which basically means the cartoonist has drawn a large arrow pointing to him saying "THIS IS THE GOOD GUY." The other is portrayed as a stereotypical fat, balding, smoking industrialist tycoon. Again, the cartoonist is telling us how she wants us to think by saying not only "THIS IS THE BAD GUY," but also "American business leaders are fat, bald, exploitative, ignorant, and they smoke. Not cigarettes, but CIGARS! They're so very very EVIL!"

If the blatant stereotyping weren't bad enough, then comes the message of the strip:

Aryan: How much do you pay [your employee]?
Capitalist: $25.00 a day.
Aryan: Where do you get the money to pay him?
Capitalist: I sell products.
Aryan: Who makes the products?
Capitalist: He does.
Aryan: How many products does he make in one day?
Capitalist: $100.00 worth.
Aryan: Then instead of you paying him -- he is paying you $75.00 a day...!

You may not have noticed, but this message is basically the thesis statement of Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto," which Adolph Hitler was a big fan of. In fact, "the Communist Manifesto" features a dialog very similar to that one to support its arguments that workers should control the means of production. I imagine the cartoonist was doing a "for the 90s" adaptation of the Communist Manifesto.

So a worker who makes $100 worth of product deserves to be paid $100? Yes, that makes a great deal of sense. It assumes that there are no costs involved in the production of a product other than the cost of labour, therefore the entire value of the product should go to the labourer. This was one of Karl Marx's favorite ideas. We just conveniently ignore the fact that making products requires materials, facilities, management, supervision, distribution, supply-chain management, etc., PLUS advertising, shipping, marketing, etc., if the product is actually going to be SOLD at $100.

The cartoonist does a rather lame straw-man to try to explain this away by pointing out that the boss bought the manufacturing machines by selling products make by workers, but she completely ignores the management and supervision factors involved. Without leadership, the workers couldn't actually make anything.

And on top of all the added costs besides labour, there's a much-maligned thing called PROFIT to consider. I know that today in the People's Republic of America, it's considered a crime to make a profit, but let's face it: without the profit motivation, we would have no business, we would have no industrial infrastructure, we would have no Internet, we would have no global communications, we would have no modern medical science, and we might still be living in caves.

That's what the Communists want.

I'm boycotting Labour Day. Today, I'm going to go out and find a job.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

yeah? well... (3.00 / 2) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 08:49:42 PM PST
...cds still shouldn't cost 17 dollars (11 pounds to all you crazies)


 
Yeeesh (2.00 / 4) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 10:08:15 PM PST
Well, just ignoring some of your previous comments (most just so baseless I'm not going to bother to shoot them down) "You may not have noticed, but this message is basically the thesis statement of Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto," which Adolph Hitler was a big fan of." Yes, it is sort of the message in the Communist Manifesto - and where the hell did you ever get the idea Adolf Hitler ever supported Communism? Hitler was famously anti-communist. Why the hell would he have commenced the disasterous Operation Barbarossa if he thought he could get allies out of the USSR?


Don't give me that. (3.66 / 3) (#43)
by Craig McPherson on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 10:30:12 PM PST
This article explains the situation quite well. Any other questions? Although Hitler wasn't a Communist per se, he was certainly a left-leaning Socialist. Oddly enough, I said the same thing about RMS a couple days ago, but the RMS-Hitler connection will be saved for another time. ANY reputable historian will tell you that Hitler took many of his ideals from the writtings of Marx, even if he wasn't your typical Commie.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

 
Propaganda #101 (2.00 / 4) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 06:24:50 AM PST
You may not have noticed, but this message is basically the thesis statement of Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto," which Adolph Hitler was a big fan of.

Yes, so? There's nothing wrong about having a message, and it's purely propaganda to tie it to hated dictators like Hitler.

So a worker who makes $100 worth of product deserves to be paid $100?

The cartoon doesn't say that. You just did. The fact is, by actually doing the work, the worker is contributing more to the company than some boss cracking his whip. The message I get from the cartoon is that this cigar chomper doesn't know his maths, is clearly middle management stuff, and should be fired so the workers can get a pay rise that actually meets inflation this year.

without the profit motivation

Profit motivation? A bit of an oxymoron, isn't it?

we might still be living in caves

Could be worse. We could be living in a Libertarian society. Thankfully, there are no Libertarian societies to live in. Not even Libertarians want to set one up, unlike their arch-rival communists.


Yes. Profit motivation. (4.00 / 4) (#48)
by nx01 on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 08:38:53 AM PST
Profit motivation? A bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? (Offensive link to hooved-mammal website removed)

Of course. Free software. I forgot that my family can survive off of whiny emails from users who can't find the "save" button, feature requests, and bug reports!

Or would you prefer we go back to a pre-money barter society? Perhaps a little hallucination you picked up from Star Trek?

Sorry, but I kind of like to eat.


"Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
-- James Gosling

Profit motivation vs work ethic. (2.00 / 4) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 05:01:07 AM PST
Of course. Free software.

Yes. Free, open software. I'm not decrying the idea of people work for money. It works. Let's keep that. However, as a model for producing good software, it's terrible, because those same salaried people lack the motivation to write good software. They'll still get paid even if they don't. That's what I mean when I say profit motivation is missing.

People who work on free, open software have a greater motivation, because they chose to create it, not their task-master. This is also why private enterprise is more successful than corporate behemoths, although they ultimately fall to the golden rule - those with the gold make the rules.


 
U.S. History 101 (none / 0) (#63)
by fat and ugly on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 04:52:38 PM PST
"The other is portrayed as a stereotypical fat, balding, smoking industrialist tycoon. Again, the cartoonist is telling us how she wants us to think by saying not only "THIS IS THE BAD GUY," but also "American business leaders are fat, bald, exploitative, ignorant, and they smoke. Not cigarettes, but CIGARS! They're so very very EVIL!""

Actually, if you knew anything aboot the Industrial Revolution, then you would be familiar with the most prominent businessMEN of that time period. Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller were all old, balding, overwieght, and cigar smokers. Portraying a businessman in that way isn't trying to promote that streotype but instead comparing him to horrible people like J.P. Morgan and what not. Please, just to find out information before you start blabbing.
I hate america

 
I wrote a short article on labor unions (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by shren on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 12:34:52 AM PST
Workers of the World, Unite!

Much like you did, but I argue the oppisite. I've always been told that Libertarianism/Objectivism/whatever is a consistant, rational philosophy, and so I've never understood thier general attitude towards Labour Unions. Why are L/Os so against labour unions?

I'll summarize the article. There's a reason why having a player put in the penalty box is such a grevious penalty in hockey. Being outnumbered almost guarantees defeat. If you're trying to get your workplace to provide something that they don't provide, you're alone against a legion of managers and lawyers. Alone, you lose much more often than you win.

If you get people together to protect your rights in the work place, well, you're the labour and you're making a union, so, it's a Labour Union.

There are only two possible alternatives.

One. No representation. You can only seriously advocate this if you believe a corporation to be a moral entity, capable of both seeing and doing the right thing on it's own. Make all the arguments you want - history stands against you. Corporations, at least in part, haven't been moral industries in the current day and in the past. How can you guarantee that giving them *more* freedom will suddenly make them moral? Why should we even think this will be so? Should a free market suddenly come to be, the same Corporations we have now will exist within that free market, and a lot of them do not have good track records.

Two. Have the government represent the workers against the government. From the Libertarian perspective, this isn't even a consideration. Add another government body? Make an existing one even larger? Why replace a non-government body (Labour Unions) with a government body? A Labour Union is a bunch of people getting together to do something that needs to be done without government mandate! You'd think they'd love it!


 
Human right (2.66 / 3) (#27)
by marx on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 02:29:55 AM PST
You can rave about how you don't like labor unions however much you want, but if you look at the universal declaration of human rights, in article 23.4, you will find this inconvenient little sentence:
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.


Tough luck. What you can do is start arguing for repealing the declaration of human rights, but somehow I don't think this will be a very popular idea with people in general.


There's no "Universal Declaration of Human Ri (3.66 / 3) (#28)
by Craig McPherson on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 03:08:37 AM PST
What you linked to is a United Nations op-ed piece, and has exactly as much legal standing as this very Adequacy article -- none. It's just an informal OPINION that someone wrote. Yes, the almighty "UN General Assembly" voted on it, but the United Nations itself is an informal body with NO legal standing.

The United Nations is an attempt to create a one-world, Communist government where Free Thought and Free Speech is outlawed, by the use of threats, propoganda, brainwashing, and millitary bullying.

Let's look at a section from this completely non-legal document:

"All human beings... should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Now, I wish everyone WOULD act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. However, I reject any entity that tries to FORCE me to act a certain way through the use of threats or coercion. That is NOT brotherhood, that's slavery. I WANT to acts towards others in a spirit of brotherhood, but I don't want to be FORCED to. If I'm FORCED to, then MY human rights have been violated.

I'd like you to prove how the United Nations has ANY legal authority before you start claiming that its opinion pieces are "international law." There's NO SUCH THING as international law. Such a thing would be an oxymoron based on the definition of the word "law."

Let's look at some more of this so-called "law" of yours:

"No one shall be subjected to... attacks upon his honour and reputation."

You, sir, are a cad and a bounder, and your family has no honor! Your father was a transvestite prostitute who impregnated your hermaphrodite mother while under the influence of various Opiate compounds! And you once kicked a puppy!

I just attacked your "honour and reputation." Did I just violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

is the United Nations going to come arrest me?

How is it that the United Nations can take away my right to free speech when they're not even a legal entity?

The United Nations is an ILLEGAL organization.

See my signature if you have any further questions.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

Misunderstanding of the UN (3.00 / 2) (#34)
by marx on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 09:17:07 AM PST
Yes, the almighty "UN General Assembly" voted on it, but the United Nations itself is an informal body with NO legal standing.


I think you've misunderstood how the UN works. The UN is not a super-state (at least not yet), it's simply a forum where countries can discuss things. A resolution is not a law, it's simply a statement that the majority agrees to. It is made to clarify to the rest of the world the viewpoint of the majority of the UN. If you go against a resolution, you can be pretty sure you've pissed off the majority of the world.

In the same way, the declaration of human rights is simply a statement that these things are considered good by the majority of the world, and that the law in all countries should protect these things. Note that the US was in favor of this declaration, and thus supported labor unions when it was written. Also, the US is very fond of accusing other nations of violating "human rights", and is basing for example economic sanctions on this. Which "human rights" do you think they are referring to?

I don't see what is so funny about your "attack" on my honor and reputation. Surprise, surprise, the US follows the declaration and has implemented laws against defamation (i.e. libel laws). I don't think what you said was illegal, but yeah, certain attacks on people's reputation is illegal in the US. Thus your argument is invalid.


You're WRONG and you're a GROTESQUELY UGLY FREAK!! (3.66 / 3) (#39)
by Craig McPherson on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 03:50:19 PM PST
"The UN is not a super-state (at least not yet)"

By the "at least not yet" statement, you ADMIT that you want a one-world Communist government.

Thank you for proving my point.

"it's simply a forum where countries can discuss things."

How is this any different from Adequcy.Org, then? Adequacy.Org could publish a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," but it still wouldn't have any legal standing.

"It's simply a statement that the majority agrees to."

A majority of people in the United States agree that homosexuality is at least "a little big gross," but that doesn't mean we should make it illegal. (Maybe we should or maybe we shouldn't, that's for another article)

Since when does a majority opinion not have to take MINORITY rights into consideration?

"If you go against a resolution, you can be pretty sure you've pissed off the majority of the world. "

And they will bomb you into the ground. Millitary bullying to enforce an illegal violation of ideological rights.

"n the same way, the declaration of human rights is simply a statement that these things are considered good by the majority of the world, and that the law in all countries should protect these things. "

So every country in the world should have the same values, the same set of morals, the same laws, and the same culture?

Wouldn't we all be living in THE SAME COUNTRY, then?

Oh, wait, that's what you want.

"Note that the US was in favor of this declaration, and thus supported labor unions when it was written."

The United States is a free coalition of independant people. Hence, it's impossible for the United States to be "in favor of" or "opposed to" anything.

"Surprise, surprise, the US follows the declaration and has implemented laws against defamation (i.e. libel laws)."

You're WRONG and you're a GROTESQUELY UGLY FREAK!!

You also know nothing about United States law.

If I said "Marx has been known to comitt acts of molestation against young children," that could be considered Libel. If I said "Marx is a male reproductive organ who smells of fecal matter and has the brain of Adolph Hitler," that would be PERFECTLY LEGAL in the United States because I'm expressing an OPINION, but it would be illegal in any country that follows this "Declaration."

You're WRONG and you're a GROTESQUELY UGLY FREAK!!

Uh-oh, the entire force of the "International Police" is at my door because I "defamed your character" by calling you a "GROTESQUELY UGLY FREAK." I'd go outside and beat them up, but I could probably only take 3 of them and there are 4 of them out there.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

Moon Cheese (3.00 / 2) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 06:11:47 AM PST
How is this any different from Adequcy.Org, then? Adequacy.Org could publish a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," but it still wouldn't have any legal standing.

Correct. That's because nobody at adequacy.org is an elected representative in one of the UN nations. So they are in no way qualified to pass laws. However, the politicians who mill and chill at the UN are. It's highly representative of the people of the UN nations. If you don't like what goes on at the UN, all you have to do is make sure that every politician there doesn't get re-elected. For example, say the majority of the USA want Al Gore as their president. All they have to do is ensure that Al Gore gets more votes than Dubya. Oh, they did. Ah well.

If you don't like the DoHR, wait for your nation to try and pass laws based on it, and use your effective lobbying skills to persuade them not to. From what I hear about the USA, all you need to do is say it would harm copyrighted work / the children! / baby seals, and they'll instantly capitulate.

Finally, if you really don't like it, go live in a non-UN Libertarian nation somewhere. Oh, there isn't one. Even New Zealand realised it wasn't a viable form of society and ditched it.


Assumptions from ignorance. (4.00 / 4) (#49)
by Craig McPherson on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 04:21:53 PM PST
> Correct. That's because nobody at adequacy.org is an elected representative in one of the UN nations.

What do you base this assumption on?

> However, the politicians who mill and chill at the UN are.

No. They're buerocrats appointed by buerocrats to push papers around a desk and wank-off while having wet dreams about a one-world government.

> It's highly representative of the people of the UN nations.

Why do 80% of US citizens say that the United Nations does NOT represent them?

> For example, say the majority of the USA want Al Gore as their president. All they have
> to do is ensure that Al Gore gets more votes than Dubya. Oh, they did. Ah well.

This is absolute bull.

1. Buy a dictionary and look up the difference between "MAJORITY" and "PLURALITY."

2. Most Americans did NOT vote for Al Gore. Most Americans DID NOT VOTE AT ALL. And among those that DID vote, less than HALF voted for Al Gore.

3. Al Gore did NOT get more votes than George Bush. We don't know WHO got more votes, because there is no nationwide popular vote count.

4. All you know is what the Liberal one-world media of your country has told you.

> If you don't like the DoHR, wait for your nation to try and pass laws based on it, and use
> your effective lobbying skills to persuade them not to.

Oh, I plan on it! However, I don't think the United States will EVER start passing laws based on that piece of toilet paper -- it would require suspending the First Ammendment, for one thing.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

George Bush: E$$o ate my brain! (2.00 / 4) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 06:05:08 AM PST
What do you base this assumption on?

I base it on the assumption that the proportion of normal people to elected representatives means I'm highly likely to be correct, and if I'm not, it'll piss off the adequecy krew. It's a win-win situation.

Why do 80% of US citizens say that the United Nations does NOT represent them?

Well, presumably most of that figure includes the vast number of inbred US citizens who have never seen outside their home town. If the UN were to put up a declaration for Reba to quit hoggin' the TV remote, they'd be all for it. The rest of the figure is probably made up by whining Randroid ankle-biters who'd prefer the international role of the UN to be taken over by their saviours - McDonalds, Nike and General Motors. Fortunately, they never get enough votes to have any meaningful power, so there's no need to worry about them.

3. Al Gore did NOT get more votes than George Bush. We don't know WHO got more votes, because there is no nationwide popular vote count.

Why do you contradict yourself? "X got more votes than Y. We don't know if X got more votes than Y." Clearly, the correct answer here is "Jeb Bush is the governer of Florida".

All you know is what the Liberal one-world media of your country has told you.

Unless they have forced-entry news reporters where you live. It's quite possible to avoid hearing anything the media has to say. But when chosing the media I wish to listen to, I have a choice of more than one countries' media, and I have access to media not owned and controlled by three global megacorps.

I don't think the United States will EVER start passing laws based on that piece of toilet paper -- it would require suspending the First Ammendment, for one thing.

Well, take heart from the fact that your government technically can't pass any law that goes again the constitution, except when non-representative one-world corporate organisations tell them to. And if libel law is so bad, why is it OK for corporations to use it against whistleblowers?. The idea that the UN DoHR might be more heavily enforced against other countries seems to have escaped you, too. Perhaps you would you prefer if we replaced the UN with a corporation, who could then enforce human rights.


Dangerous territory. (3.66 / 3) (#58)
by Craig McPherson on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 09:11:49 PM PST
I base it on the assumption that the proportion of normal people to elected representatives means I'm highly likely to be correct, and if I'm not, it'll piss off the adequecy krew. It's a win-win situation.


That's a dangerous assumption based on flawed logic. You neglect basic logic in concluding that no elected representatives read the popular news and discussion site Adequacy.Org

While it's true that the number of elected representatives is very small compared to the population as a whole, what you forget is that democratic elections tend to attract "the cream of the crop" and result in the best elements of society being elected to office. Those who are elected to represent the citizenry by holding public office are usually the most educated, most intelligent, and most "in-touch" people society has to offer.

While it's true that the number of readers of popular news and discussion site Adequacy.Org is very small compared to the population as a whole, what you forget is that the popular news and discussion site Adequacy.Org tends to attract "the cream of the crop", which results in the best elements of society reading the popular news and discussion site Adequacy.Org. Those who read popular news and discussion site Adequacy.Org are usually the most educated, most intelligent, and most "in-touch" people society has to offer.

Therefore, elected public officials read popular news and discussion site Adequacy.Org. As for trying to "piss off" people, I'd recommend against that, because it could be considered a form of trolling.
Well, presumably most of that figure includes the vast number of inbred US citizens who have never seen outside their home town.
Ad-Hominem attack.
The rest of the figure is probably made up by whining Randroid ankle-biters who'd prefer the international role of the UN to be taken over by their saviours - McDonalds, Nike and General Motors.
Now listen, as I pointed out here I have ZERO love for big business. Quite frankly, I don't want big business OR some illegal multinational one-world-government performing this "international role" you mentioned. I'd like to see things run by PEOPLE, not government. Also, I think Ayn Rand is an absolute retard.
Why do you contradict yourself? "X got more votes than Y. We don't know if X got more votes than Y."
I never contradict myself. I didn't say that George Bush got more votes nationwide than Al Gore, I said that we don't know who got more votes nationwide, which means effectively that neither of them got more votes than the other. We have a statistical tie.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

not popular or news (3.00 / 2) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 03:19:58 PM PST
Unless you have messed up definition of popular and news.

First, scrolling the front page and seeing 25 comments, 1 comment, 10 comments, 14 comments... can hardly be considered popular. I can understand you liking this site, and I really like Belvedere, but they are not popular.

Second, this site has no news. This site is an editorial site. Not one article one this site is objective or impartial in any way. Each editorial is filled with hateful language and insults geared towards whomever the writer dislikes the most.

Oh yeah, just because you are mayor bob of some hick town, that is only you. People are not that stupid to elect all of these editors to hold office.


 
one cannot libel the dead (4.00 / 4) (#50)
by cp on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 05:54:27 PM PST
It is a well established legal principle that the dead have no recourse under libel law. Whether this applies as well to the living dead (such as Ronald Regan) is not as certain.


 
you contradict yourself yet again (0.00 / 1) (#62)
by fat and ugly on Wed Sep 19th, 2001 at 06:31:07 PM PST
"If I said "Marx has been known to comitt acts of molestation against young children," that could be considered Libel. If I said "Marx is a male reproductive organ who smells of fecal matter and has the brain of Adolph Hitler," that would be PERFECTLY LEGAL in the United States because I'm expressing an OPINION..."

True, but your early commented featured the phrase "...and he once kicked a puppy." That is presenting information that you dont know as truth to be truth, and that is libel. I'm sorry to burst your self-righteos bubble.
I hate america

 
Sorry, bub .. (3.66 / 3) (#32)
by seventypercent on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 06:45:26 AM PST
.. but linking to a United Nations report is not going to impress anybody. I never gave my personal consent for the UN to operate. It is a hateful organization that the United States has no business being in. The moral community ought to band together, go to New York, tear the UN building down, and move the whole damn thing to Havana where it would be more appropriate.

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

Too bad (2.25 / 4) (#33)
by marx on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 08:59:15 AM PST
The moral community ought to band together, go to New York, tear the UN building down, and move the whole damn thing to Havana where it would be more appropriate.


Well, there's not much use arguing with that. I'll leave you to reading "Mein Kampf". Have a nice life.


Why are Nazis misidentifed as right-wing? (3.00 / 2) (#41)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 09:43:05 PM PST
They were socialists; just look at the name of the party: NDSAP, National Socialist Democratic Workers' Party. They nationalized (aka, socialism run amok) many industries and were anything but right-wing.

So how did right-wingers of today get tagged with that epithet? Just since it's the nastiest thing to say about some group?


you got it backwards (0.00 / 1) (#61)
by fat and ugly on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 02:21:59 PM PST
He never said that nazi's were right wing. He merely compared a right wing person to the nazis. Now, you are probably going to ask "why are right wingers called nazis" and what not, but do not fear as I will explain it to you. Many republicans (and reformists) are called nazis and referred to as that way because many are. There have been (and still are) many republican (and reformists) politicians that in some way support many nazi ideals (namely those surrounding race). So if you don't like the comparison, you have no one to blame except those politicians.
I hate america

 
Racist Article (4.33 / 3) (#35)
by Ruri on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 09:38:31 AM PST
"Greasy Italian" and "Camel Jockey" are a bit extreme, don't you think? Contrary to what they might teach in the "Bible" belt, most Italian-Americans are historically HARD WORKERS, not members of the mafia, and not everyone who practices Islam is a violent terrorist.

My (Italian) grandfather busted his tail working on the railroads in Pennsylvania. He never was part of any sort of union, and he worked long hours at low pay. He rejected the idea of joining any sort of crime organization. He made less than $5,000 a year, but it allowed my father to get a college education, and to eventually become a successful business man in a _Christian_ company.

This is even worse viewing this as a Christian, because the racist statements in this basically marr the image of our faith. Comments like these prevent people from accepting Christ, because it makes us all look like KKK members.

I think this article could have made the point without the racist slang.


Well (3.66 / 3) (#36)
by seventypercent on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 10:22:16 AM PST
"Greasy Italian" and "Camel Jockey" are a bit extreme, don't you think?

Well, let's start with "greasy Italian." Biologically speaking, it is an undeniable fact that the Italian race is greasier than almost all others, pound for pound. This is probably a result of their high-pasta diet. I don't see what's "racist" about pointing this out. You said that "Italian-Americans are historically HARD WORKERS," and I agree with this .. I agree with it 100%! I'm curious, though .. how does "greasy" imply "lazy" or "stupid" or anything other such negative statement? Italians, greasy as they may be, are basically good and decent people -- I would guess that you and I are in agreement on this.

I do agree that "camel jockey" is unnecessary and I should have used more discretion.

not everyone who practices Islam is a violent terrorist.

Perhaps not, but the Koran does nothing to discourage violent terrorism. It flat out says that anybody who dies in the act of killing Christians is guaranteed a spot in heaven. Why do you think there are so many suicide bombings performed by Islamicists? If these people wanted to rehabilitate their image, the first thing they should do is to start calling on people to ignore these verses.

Comments like these prevent people from accepting Christ

Only Satan has the power to prevent people from accepting Christ. If you're claiming that I, a fairly clueless writer on a somewhat obscure weblog, have the ability to shape people's eternal destinies, then I think that you're overreacting a bit. :-)

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

but connotation plays an important role (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 09:19:21 PM PST
While saying "greasy" may not be false, it is still used in a derrugatory way. For instance, calling a Native American a "redskin" may not be false (due to skin color), but the connotation of the phrase is very negative. The phrase was used to create an image of "savage hethens" who would scalp a person just as look at them. Much the same way people say "greasy Italian" to create an image of some fat crime boss.


 
Unions are essential to any free market! (5.00 / 4) (#45)
by plastik55 on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 11:39:30 PM PST
As a card-carrying Libertarian, I fail to see how one can glorify the free market on the one hand and despise labor unions on the other. They're exactly the same thing. Corporations have to compete with other corporations in order to provide their product. If the supply of a product is limited, the buyers have to compete and whoever offers the highest price wins. If the demand for a product is limited, the producers have to compete, and whoever offers the lowest price for the best product wins. That's the law of supply and demand.

Corporations also have to compete with each other to get the resources they need to make their product. Consider the desktop PC you're reading Adequacy.org on, which, unless you're a hobbyist with too much spare time on your hands, you probably bought as a complete package from a major PC provider. PC manufacturerers have to get their resources--things like RAM, hard drives, and monitors--from other manufacturers which compete with each other. You've probably noticed that every six months some factory in Indonesia blows up, and RAM prices skyrocket. Then the Korean economy crashes and RAM prices becoe reasonable again. The changes in supply affect the price of your desktop PC--a simple example of supply and demand at work.

A basic consequence of the law of supply and demand, which you should have learned from a basic econonmics course, is that the more of a particular market you control, the more control you can have over the price of your product, and the better you do overall. (Up to a limit, of course--monopolies have little motivation to improve their product, and are, historically speaking, easily overthrown by clever upstart competitors. The free market is a beautiful self-limiting mechanism.) Because Microsoft controls a majority of the web browser, operating system, and office applications market (without being, as some might accuse them, a monopoly), they have more resources to spend on improving their product. This is why Microsoft is able to make software which most of the world agrees is much better than the competition, and a better value than the alternatives, which while they may be much less expensive, are nonetheless inferior products.

Now, our free-market system is set up to provide benifits to corporations, because of the obvious benifits of working in large groups to produce your product--I referenced Microsoft just now, but you can see the phenomenon everywhere. If you try to operate a restaraunt all by yourself, your customers might get decent but expensive food, or they might get cheap food that gives then the shits. In either case you will find it hard to compete with successful restaraunt chains, whose customers will consistently get good food at a reasonable price. It's a fact that the Founding Fathers realized when they created the free market--production is much more efficient when done in large volume, and what better way to encourage efficiency, teamwork and mutually beneficient relationships between producer and client, than corporate competition?

"Now what does this have to do with labor unions?" you ask. Well, labor is a product just like anything else, and is subject to laws of supply and demand like anything else. People wishing to acquire labor have to compete with others who want the same labor. Whoever provides the best pay and working conditions wins the labor they want--and whoever can provide the best labor at the lowest prices gets the jobs they want.

As we've seen from other examples, it would be foolish for labor providers to try to compete for jobs individually! Therefore, just as restaurant chains and technological industries find advantage in dealing with large volumes, so too do the incorporated providers of labor--the trade unions. By their strength in numbers and corporate pooling of resources, labor unions can provide consistently better work then you can typically find from the individual job-hunter. The unionized laborer gets better pay and working conditions than his individual competitor--after all, why would a corporation risk good pay on someone who hasn't proved himself when unions can provide good labor at a reasonable price? Both the producers and consumers of labor benifit from the advantages unions have to offer. If one abolished labor unions, the quality of available labor will plummet. It's that simple. Now, if you're a corporation, and you want to get labor at better prices than what the unions are offering, what can you do? Well, you can try to hire non-unionized labor, but for all the reasons I outlined above, you'll probably get an inperior product. The obvious alternative is to increase the supply of labor, which will necessitate a reduction in labor prices. As an individual corporation this might be difficult--but liek I said before, strength in numbers is what capitalism is all about. Imagine if a number of corporations got together and launched an initiative to increase labor supply. This could be done in several ways -- discouraging common practices which lead to the reduction of labor is a start. One could also develop ways of eliminating certain jobs so that the same people can work where they're more needed. Such an alliance might also benifit by encouraging legislation which will increase the availability of labor. As we might expect, companies which employ these techniques are becoming very successful indeed. So there's plenty of room in the free market for labor unions, and as I have demontrated, they offer benefits to the corporations which patronize them as well as the workers they represent. So this Labor day I kicked back with a beer and celebrated the beautiful workings of our free market, which provides me with a good pay, while my employer gets a well-trained, productive worker.

---
You fucking terror midget. Die a firey fucking death. -- Matthew 30:06

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.