Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The're both by Ayn Rand, the founder of the philosophical movement "Objectivism"
Their website is www.aynrand.org

"Capitalism, the unknown ideal" is a collection of essays by Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, Nathaniel Branden, and Robert Hessen. There is an excerpt on the website
( www.aynrand.org/books_nonfiction.shtml) The excerpt is from "America's persecuted minority: Big Business" by Ayn Rand

"Atlas Shrugged" Considered to be the second most influential book ever written by some study that I can't remember the name of (I think it's stanford)

It's a fictional story about a neo-industrial revolutionary society It was written in the 40's so there is a big emphasis on steel mills and railroads.
It focuses on the attempts of a few superhuman businessmen to conduct business in a world that is slowly decaying from the corruption by anti industrialists.

There's also a C-span thing on her, I think you can find it at:
www.americanwriters.org/archives/player/rand.asp

That's pretty much all I can really say about Ayn Rand

What is wrong with sweatshops?

Well this is the answer I'll give you. They are gross violations of human rights, now from what you said you would probably counter with "But they help the economy, first world nations used to have them blah blah." When first world countries had sweatshops they were A) in a position of power(sweatshops really benefited the nation) B) used in conjunction with protectionist tariffs(B atually follows on from A) C) home-owned. Without protectionist tariffs to protect their home(main) market they could be undercut by other countries. Because the sweatshops are currently foreign owned(or owned by a big chain of sub-contracters) the profits leave the country. And the so-called "trickle-down effect" doesn't really work as most of the money got from the sweatshops is spent on food(which comes mostly from other countries again, they tend to have poor diets due to the long hours they work.)

ps: Sorry for being inarticulate, it was a fucking hard day. I would also like to stress the Human rights issue, when sweatshops were first around there were no such ideals.

Most of the money is spent on food... Well, I suppose that the answer is to take away the money?

No one forces them to work in the sweatshops. Sure the work sucks, but what is the solution, I'm not going to pay for it. If you want to donate money for aid to those countries I congradulate you on your compassion, but I think that to fight corporations is to bite the hand that feeds you.

Oh, I forgot to mention, "gross violation of human rights"

What human right is that? I never heard of the "right to a comfy job"

The only rights I acknowledge are: The Right to life (free from coercion), and the right to own property. Everything else must be acquired as a result of ones labors (and luck, I suppose, but who says life is fair?)

No one forces them to work in the sweatshops. Sure the work sucks, but what is the solution, I'm not going to pay for it.

How about the company just reduces its profits?

I think that to fight corporations is to bite the hand that feeds you.

Corporations feed me?

Oh, I forgot to mention, "gross violation of human rights"

What human right is that? I never heard of the "right to a comfy job"

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

The only rights I acknowledge are: The Right to life (free from coercion), and the right to own property. Everything else must be acquired as a result of ones labors (and luck, I suppose, but who says life is fair?)

This right to life you speak of, it would obviously include the provision of food, water, healthcare and shelter, y'know, essential things for modern day life.

Corporation reduce it's profit. HA HA HA HA, wow that's the funniest thing I ever heard, why would a corporation want to do that. There's no chance in hell that you can get a corporation to voluntarily reduce it's profits.

Corporations feed you. Yes they do, literally and figuratively.
1. Most of the food you eat is corporate.
2. If you have a job, it's probably for a corporation, or you are being fed as a result of someone working for a corporation
3. The computer you are using was made by a corporation (in whole or in parts, either way a corporation did the hard work)
4. The power that you use to cook your food and keep it fresh is likely supplied by a corporation (It might be different in the UK though)
5. the clothes you wear are corporate (small or large, it's still probably corporate)

On the UN. I do not recognise the UN as being the authority on human rights. They could declare the moon to be made of cheese, it wouldn't make it true though.

How about this. The right to leisure, at whose expense. Leisure and Jobs are products made by man, who's going to provide them. Forcing a corporation to provide them does not respect the property rights of the corporation. You are making slaves of the people who are providing the jobs in the first place.

No man has the right to enslave.

As for the right to life, I mean it as one has the right to be free of those who will, through application of force, take it away. Things like killing people or destroying their property. NOT things like, not giving food to homeless people, not donating to foreign aid programs, not working at a soup kitchen.

Corporation reduce it's profit. HA HA HA HA, wow that's the funniest thing I ever heard, why would a corporation want to do that. There's no chance in hell that you can get a corporation to voluntarily reduce it's profits.

Because they are greedy bastards?

Corporations feed you. Yes they do, literally and figuratively.
1. Most of the food you eat is corporate.
2. If you have a job, it's probably for a corporation, or you are being fed as a result of someone working for a corporation
3. The computer you are using was made by a corporation (in whole or in parts, either way a corporation did the hard work)
4. The power that you use to cook your food and keep it fresh is likely supplied by a corporation (It might be different in the UK though)
5. the clothes you wear are corporate (small or large, it's still probably corporate)

See, the problem here is that efore big corporations....these things still happened...and they would still after them.(And the UK is not different after bloody Margaret Thatcher (fucking whore))

On the UN. I do not recognise the UN as being the authority on human rights. They could declare the moon to be made of cheese, it wouldn't make it true though.

Why no love for da UN?

How about this. The right to leisure, at whose expense. Leisure and Jobs are products made by man, who's going to provide them. Forcing a corporation to provide them does not respect the property rights of the corporation.

The property rights of a Corporation are not as important as the rights of indivuals.

You are making slaves of the people who are providing the jobs in the first place.

A contract usually takes more freedom away from the worker than the Corporation.

No man has the right to enslave.

But they can sign contracts...right?

As for the right to life, I mean it as one has the right to be free of those who will, through application of force, take it away. Things like killing people or destroying their property. NOT things like, not giving food to homeless people, not donating to foreign aid programs, not working at a soup kitchen.

So by "right to life" you don't actually mean they would be given what is needed to live, just that other people couldn't kill them?

ps: Do you believe this Aryn Rand shite?

Have you read the Ayn Rand Shite, I've read all the commie stuff, I've read Kant, I've read Hegel, I've read Marx, I've read Engels.

"Because they are greedy bastards?"
What's so bad about greed, did they tell you that in church or something "avarice is bad, you'll go to hell for coveting your neigbor."

You really ought to read "Atlas Shrugged," that is unless you have already read it. It's a good book for teenagers, plus it's a chick magnet, really I'm serious, "who is John Galt" is a great pick up line.

I'll make you a deal, You read Atlas Shrugged, and make an attempt to like it. I'll read any book of your choice (less than 2000 pages if possible) and try to enjoy it.

How about it, is it a deal? I'd hate to see a briliant mind like yours be wasted helping poor people when you could be helping yourself. Plus I'd imagine that you'll have some influence someday (I think you already do, even here on the BBS) I'd like to avoid having to argue with you once you're set in your ways.

At 1/6/03 04:03 PM, Slizor wrote:

Because they are greedy bastards?

no. because they can do what they want with what's their's. they make the jobs, so they can make them as tedious as they want to.

See, the problem here is that efore big corporations....these things still happened...and they would still after them.

true but they (would) cost more.

The property rights of a Corporation are not as important as the rights of indivuals.

when a company employs you, they are paying you to do what they want you to do. you can always quit.

You are making slaves of the people who are providing the jobs in the first place.

slaves don't get payed wages, moron.

So by "right to life" you don't actually mean they would be given what is needed to live, just that other people couldn't kill them?

i think that's exactly what he means. the right to life is that you have a right to live, it's that simple. you don't have a right to have other people take care of you at their expense in the corporate world.

"slaves don't get payed wages, moron"

Let's not get testy, It could be said (from a misguided point of view) that a person who has only one potential employer with the only alternative as death from starvation is a slave. But, it has to be taken in context, the person CAN choose death, and the corporation can chose to acquire labor elsewhere. I think it most productive to think of the corporation as a benefactor, not a slaver.

Wal-Mart provides a good, cheap service, so I like them. Is it likely Wal-Mart will complete a horizontal consolidation monopoly? Quite possible, but that's why we have laws to stop it. :)

What's wrong with a monopoly? As long as the prices are reasonable, I see no problem with a monopoly. And if the prices are too high, competition will sprout up.

when a company employs you, they are paying you to give up some of your freedom for so many hours a day, so many days a week. you choose to give up some of your freedom in order to get paid. though you may deem it necessary, working is comlpetely volentary.no one forces you to work. you choose to go to work every time you do.

thus companies should have the right to make jobs overbearing, long, tedious, and self-demeaning if they want to. the only reason they wouldn't is because no one would work there. they put it upon themselves to make jobs as worker friendly as they can to attract and keep workers.

that is why the government shouldn't have any part in the restriction of company behaviour. human nature says to find an easy job and a company that isn't very nice won't have many applications for employment. thus, human nature on their part says to make nicer jobs so that people will work for them. that is what capitalism is. human nature pitted against itself in a self perpetuating manner.

At 1/6/03 07:04 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:

It could be said (from a misguided point of view) that a person who has only one potential employer with the only alternative as death from starvation is a slave. But, it has to be taken in context, the person CAN choose death, and the corporation can chose to acquire labor elsewhere.

precisely my point. well said.

Have you read the Ayn Rand Shite, I've read all the commie stuff, I've read Kant, I've read Hegel, I've read Marx, I've read Engels.

Kant is a commie? Well, I suppose with the Catogircal imperative it could be taken as a bit communist. Hegel wasn't actually a commie, but helped Marx along. I read the articles on the site.

"Because they are greedy bastards?"
What's so bad about greed, did they tell you that in church or something

(I never went to church.) Greed in small quantites is fine, but greed in large quantities, so large that it hurts other people? Not a very good idea.

I'll make you a deal, You read Atlas Shrugged, and make an attempt to like it. I'll read any book of your choice (less than 2000 pages if possible) and try to enjoy it.

I'm going to hae to decline this deal, but I may actually read Atlas Shrugged (one day I've got three books on the go and a pile on my "to do".)

How about it, is it a deal? I'd hate to see a briliant mind like yours be wasted helping poor people when you could be helping yourself.

What if I do both?

Because they are greedy bastards?

no. because they can do what they want with what's their's. they make the jobs, so they can make them as tedious as they want to.

(According to you) they can, but I was talking about their motives, not their right.

See, the problem here is that efore big corporations....these things still happened...and they would still after them.

true but they (would) cost more.

For the consumer(maybe) but there would be a fairer distribution of wealth.

The property rights of a Corporation are not as important as the rights of indivuals.

when a company employs you, they are paying you to do what they want you to do. you can always quit.

So you think people shouldn't be afforded the least it of dignity?

You are making slaves of the people who are providing the jobs in the first place.

slaves don't get payed wages, moron.

Do wage slaves?

So by "right to life" you don't actually mean they would be given what is needed to live, just that other people couldn't kill them?

i think that's exactly what he means. the right to life is that you have a right to live, it's that simple. you don't have a right to have other people take care of you at their expense in the corporate world.

"Their expense" hah.

At 1/2/03 02:21 AM, swayside wrote:

At 1/2/03 12:15 AM, NJDeadzone wrote: I'm upset for them because they are hurting our economy,

how are they hurting our economy?

I apologize for the delay. The sweatshop companies pay their employees 30 cents an hour and that's why they make their factories in other countries. Had they made them in america and pay workers fairly unemployment would decrease in this country

There is no unemployment problem in this country, just too many people who aren't willing to take pay cuts or bite the bullet and get a shitty job.

At 1/7/03 12:08 PM, Slizor wrote:

(According to you) they can, but I was talking about their motives, not their right.

their motives are irrelevant if it's not immoral. paying someone to do something is morral. and don't try to say that paying someone a small amount to do something is wrong because the person doesn't have to do it. he can always choose not to.

For the consumer(maybe) but there would be a fairer distribution of wealth.

and that's fair? distribution of wealth? only if you make/earn what you have. rich people aren't robbing you just by being rich.

So you think people shouldn't be afforded the least it of dignity?

in order to attract workers, busnesses have to make the working environment pleasant, but they don't have ti, just like no one has to work there.

You are making slaves of the people who are providing the jobs in the first place.

slaves don't get payed wages, moron.

Do wage slaves?

a slave, by definition, is a person "owned" by someone else. if a slave is paid, it's only because there "owner" deems it fit to give it to them. i'm not advocating slavery in any way.

if the "slave" has a job and is paid regularly paid a regular amount and is not "owned", then he isn't a slave.

i think that's exactly what he means. the right to life is that you have a right to live, it's that simple. you don't have a right to have other people take care of you at their expense in the corporate world.

"Their expense" hah.

i'd like to see you back up that "hah". caring for someone is an expense. anyone can tell you that.

(According to you) they can, but I was talking about their motives, not their right.

their motives are irrelevant if it's not immoral.

Motives make something moral, or immoral, so they are very important.

paying someone to do something is morral.

But ripping someone off is not.

and don't try to say that paying someone a small amount to do something is wrong because the person doesn't have to do it. he can always choose not to.

And he CAN starve.

For the consumer(maybe) but there would be a fairer distribution of wealth.

and that's fair? distribution of wealth? only if you make/earn what you have. rich people aren't robbing you just by being rich.

They deny people of their natural right to share in the wealth of the Earth.

So you think people shouldn't be afforded the least it of dignity?

in order to attract workers, busnesses have to make the working environment pleasant, but they don't have ti, just like no one has to work there.

I disagree, people HAVE to work there, they are just not forced to work there by the companies, but y their situation.

You are making slaves of the people who are providing the jobs in the first place.

slaves don't get payed wages, moron.

Do wage slaves?

a slave, by definition, is a person "owned" by someone else.

And companies in effect "own" the people they pay.

i think that's exactly what he means. the right to life is that you have a right to live, it's that simple. you don't have a right to have other people take care of you at their expense in the corporate world.

"Their expense" hah.

i'd like to see you back up that "hah". caring for someone is an expense. anyone can tell you that.

Caring for someone in the way of looking after a disabled person is an expense. Giving someone what they deserve is not an expense.

At 1/8/03 10:33 AM, Slizor wrote:

and don't try to say that paying someone a small amount to do something is wrong because the person doesn't have to do it. he can always choose not to.

And he CAN starve.

true, that's his choice though. if i have something i want done and will only pay someone so much to do it, it's not my fault if someone accepts the job.

They deny people of their natural right to share in the wealth of the Earth.

there is no such right. you don't have a right to what you don't have a hand in making.

in order to attract workers, busnesses have to make the working environment pleasant, but they don't have ti, just like no one has to work there.

I disagree, people HAVE to work there, they are just not forced to work there by the companies, but y their situation.

wrong. no one has to work for anyone. we could all very well have self sufficing farms. the only reason people "have" to work there is because a) they don't want to be self sufficient or b) they din't know how to farm. is it the corporations fault for either of these two possibilities? no.

And companies in effect "own" the people they pay.

you don't own someone if you're paying for their services.

"Their expense" hah.

i'd like to see you back up that "hah". caring for someone is an expense. anyone can tell you that.

Caring for someone in the way of looking after a disabled person is an expense. Giving someone what they deserve is not an expense.

"deserve"? if you don't work you don't deserve anything. why should other people care for someone if he won't work to support himself? you don't deserve anything if you don't work. he who works little deserves little. so, yes, if you don't work, you should be allowed to starve. there are plenty of oppertunities.

another thing is this, suppose i had something to do that i could very easily pay someone else to do. would i be wrong for doing it myself and "depriving" someone else of a paying job?

At 1/9/03 07:35 PM, swayside wrote:

At 1/8/03 10:33 AM, Slizor wrote:

I disagree, people HAVE to work there, they are just not forced to work there by the companies, but y their situation.

wrong. no one has to work for anyone. we could all very well have self sufficing farms. the only reason people "have" to work there is because a) they don't want to be self sufficient or b) they din't know how to farm. is it the corporations fault for either of these two possibilities? no.

(i forgot to mention this in my previous post) the situation of a person is irrelevant to the copany hiring them. the company doesn't hire people because they need money. it hires people to do things for it.

clarify 'they'

Thanks

At 1/10/03 09:19 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: clarify 'they'

anyone who would seek a job.

Thanks

' welcome

cool, I got it now.

And he CAN starve.

true, that's his choice though.

It's not a viable choice though.

They deny people of their natural right to share in the wealth of the Earth.

there is no such right. you don't have a right to what you don't have a hand in making.

Everything is made by the Earth, directly or indirectly. The Earth belongs to everyone equally.

in order to attract workers, busnesses have to make the working environment pleasant, but they don't have ti, just like no one has to work there.

I disagree, people HAVE to work there, they are just not forced to work there by the companies, but y their situation.

wrong. no one has to work for anyone. we could all very well have self sufficing farms.

And WHERE would people get the land?

the only reason people "have" to work there is because a) they don't want to be self sufficient or b) they din't know how to farm. is it the corporations fault for either of these two possibilities? no.

Do they take advantage of it? Yes.

"Their expense" hah.

i'd like to see you back up that "hah". caring for someone is an expense. anyone can tell you that.

Caring for someone in the way of looking after a disabled person is an expense. Giving someone what they deserve is not an expense.

"deserve"? if you don't work you don't deserve anything. why should other people care for someone if he won't work to support himself? you don't deserve anything if you don't work.

Rehash of natural right above.

he who works little deserves little.

So if you work for an hour a week you deserve the pay for an hour a week? So you don't agree with say a sweatshop worker who gets paid $0.50 a day and works a 70 hour week and a CEO who works say a 30 hour week and gets paid $10'000(some big figure.)

so, yes, if you don't work, you should be allowed to starve. there are plenty of oppertunities.

I'd like to see this plenty of oppertunities thing qualified, since there are unemployed people in every country.

another thing is this, suppose i had something to do that i could very easily pay someone else to do. would i be wrong for doing it myself and "depriving" someone else of a paying job?

No.

well i am just not sure i just think there prices are high. everything is high.

I don't see how the earth belongs to everyone equally? Could you elaborate on that topic Slizor, I think that this is an importand difference in opinion between us, one that should be resolved if possible (not likely though)