Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Communism pays you for what you do, Capitalism pays the rich for what others do.

bill gates isn't evil because he's rich. i don't know why you think that.

I never said he was evil..

it's not unfair, either. he came up with a product that was very inginuitive for it's time and worked it's way into a majority of homes in america. the public bought HIS product.

They bought the program, which was on a disk, which was made by someone else.

he can retire and still be paid because he has the right to continue reaping the benefits of his company.

He should continue to get paid, even when he is not working?

what do you suggest he do? give up most or all of his money becuase some people weren't as successful as he? give up his fortune because others are misforunate? why sould he? you have no right to tell him how to run his buisiness. neither do i.

You're too stuck in the system. He didn't "earn" the money, he was given it. Bah, Bill Gates is not a good example, you can sell a program, yet still have it.

At 3/1/03 09:27 AM, Slizor wrote:

it's not unfair, either. he came up with a product that was very inginuitive for it's time and worked it's way into a majority of homes in america. the public bought HIS product.

They bought the program, which was on a disk, which was made by someone else.

a disk that he bought from someone else. what does the disk have to do with anything? if you think he owes something to the disk company, what about businesses who used the same disks from the same company that went bankrupt? should they share their disaster with the disk company? no. but that would be the same relationship as bill sharing his success with the disk comany.

he can retire and still be paid because he has the right to continue reaping the benefits of his company.

He should continue to get paid, even when he is not working?

that's up to him. it's legal, let him.

what do you suggest he do? give up most or all of his money becuase some people weren't as successful as he? give up his fortune because others are misforunate? why sould he? you have no right to tell him how to run his buisiness. neither do i.

You're too stuck in the system. He didn't "earn" the money, he was given it. Bah, Bill Gates is not a good example, you can sell a program, yet still have it.

people didn't just hand him money. he made something that people paid for. since programs can be duplicated, he had an unlimited resourse. he owned the origional and he owns all copies until they are sold under whatever conditions he sees fit.

At 2/25/03 02:51 PM, Slizor wrote:

No, a private citizen is not entitled to kill someone else.

So they can't do what they like? They can't act how they want?

Your point is assinine.

However a private citizen is entitled to deny some one admittance to their property. Like wise an employer should have the right to deny whoever they wish from being their employee.

They should? See in the end, this point will only come down to a conflict of opinion. You clearly think that the right of "free hiring" outweights the right to free thought.

You can think whatever the fuck you want. You don't have to work for someone who's views you radically disagree with. If you do, you are screwing yourself.

Oh is it now? Could you please tell me about this "nature"?

Why yes I can. If an animal does not gather food it starves.

So we are not experiencing nature? We do not have to gather food to survive, you could say we are above nature. So why the hell should what happens in nature effect us?

It is only the arrogance of man that makes him believe he is above nature. Man is an animanl we are ruled by the same laws. If a majority of the members of society didn't work then there would be mass starvation. If you don't work you are a cancer on society...a cancer that should be cut off.

So, disabled people, what do we do with them?

Disabled people lack the ability to work. This is totally different from someone who chooses not to work.

So they can't do what they like? They can't act how they want?

Your point is assinine.

Actually my point is that a "private citizen" can only act within the confines of the law, therefore we should make discriminatory hiring illegal.

Why yes I can. If an animal does not gather food it starves.

So we are not experiencing nature? We do not have to gather food to survive, you could say we are above nature. So why the hell should what happens in nature effect us?

Man is an animanl we are ruled by the same laws. If a majority of the members of society didn't work then there would be mass starvation. If you don't work you are a cancer on society...a cancer that should be cut off.

Disabled people don't work, should they be "cut off"?

You're too stuck in the system. He didn't "earn" the money, he was given it. Bah, Bill Gates is not a good example, you can sell a program, yet still have it.

people didn't just hand him money. he made something that people paid for.

Now, what about the programs that Microsoft currently produces? Does Bill Gates make all those programs? No, he probably doesn't do squat, yet he stills get rich off them...how is that fair?

At 3/1/03 05:31 PM, Slizor wrote:

So they can't do what they like? They can't act how they want?

Your point is assinine.

Actually my point is that a "private citizen" can only act within the confines of the law, therefore we should make discriminatory hiring illegal.

What you are saying is that you don't care how much you violate one persons right to control their property (in this case their company) as long as it benefits the common man. You are a hypocrite....why is the common man deserving of rights that the wealthy and educated are not?

Disabled people don't work, should they be "cut off"?

They don't work because they can't work. Not because they don't want to. The disabled deserve my pity because they were born into a state in which they cannot work. If you merely decide that you don't wish to work despite having the ability you do not deserve my pity nor my charity and you can starve for all I care.

Your point is assinine.

Actually my point is that a "private citizen" can only act within the confines of the law, therefore we should make discriminatory hiring illegal.

What you are saying is that you don't care how much you violate one persons right to control their property (in this case their company) as long as it benefits the common man. You are a hypocrite....why is the common man deserving of rights that the wealthy and educated are not?

To be a hypocrite I would have to say that a person has a right to property. As I don't I'm not. However, you agree that people have a right to think how they want without recrimination? Clearly, to allow someone to have such discriminatory hiring policies would go against this right. Ergo, you are the hypocrite.

Disabled people don't work, should they be "cut off"?

They don't work because they can't work. Not because they don't want to. The disabled deserve my pity because they were born into a state in which they cannot work. If you merely decide that you don't wish to work despite having the ability you do not deserve my pity nor my charity and you can starve for all I care.

So you don't value human life?

'Kay... well, monopolies stifle competition, and a monopoly IS necessary for a robust and thriving economy. The whole purpose behind capitalism is to have multiple businesses competing with one another, not a single business dispensing only its own products and services. Social darwinism doesn't work as well as you might think.

At 3/1/03 05:54 PM, Slizor wrote:

Disabled people don't work, should they be "cut off"?

They don't work because they can't work. Not because they don't want to. The disabled deserve my pity because they were born into a state in which they cannot work. If you merely decide that you don't wish to work despite having the ability you do not deserve my pity nor my charity and you can starve for all I care.

So you don't value human life?

slizor, you never cease to amaze me.

if you can help yourself and don't, die. just die and stop getting in the way. it's your job to value your own life. if you won't, why should i?

if you can help yourself

Again we come back to this. Why is it you think that there will always be jobs (see the Depression for a clear example, or were 14 million people just being lazy?)? Why do you cling to 19th century economics which have long been disproven?

At 3/14/03 01:56 PM, Slizor wrote:

if you can help yourself

Again we come back to this. Why is it you think that there will always be jobs (see the Depression for a clear example, or were 14 million people just being lazy?)? Why do you cling to 19th century economics which have long been disproven?

why do you hold to hold to communism?

you seem to forget that it's not business' job to keep the world fed. it's not the business' fault if poeple can't live outside of the paycheck they get from their employment. bussiness has no responibility to hire poeple if they can't survive in a self sufficient manner. business doesn't hire peole to pay them. it hires them becaude the poeple work for what they pay.

also, slizor, get something straight. emplyees should not have the upper hand in employment. nor should the business.

businesses display their need for workers with the classifieds. people display thier need for a job by looking for one.

businesses value the work an individual can give them more than they do the money they pay them. the individual values the money they get for their services more than they do the time they spend at their job. that's an equal transaction.

if a business' right to fire people is restricted, so should the right for a person to quit. if you think that's in any way wrong or unfair, tell me. i'd live to hear it.

At 2/28/03 04:13 PM, Slizor wrote: If you work harder in a Communist society, you get paid more unlike in Capitalism.

I mean look at Bill Gates, he earns more than most nations in the world. Does that mean that he works harder than whole nations of people?

Communism pays you for what you do, Capitalism pays the rich for what others do.

Or, in communism, greedy people put out crap and get away with it because they can easily exploit a large and cumbersome bureacracy, which any centrally planned economy must inevitably be. In Soviet Russia, pharmaceutical factory workers would water down drugs to meet and exceed quotas and thus get bonuses for their "extra work."

In capitalism, there is choice. If you make a bad product or do a bad job, you will go out of business or be fired. If you work well, you will be rewarded. In communism, it is easy for the greedy to trick the system and everyone else pretty much just gets lumped together and evened out, despite their talents or strengths.

Again we come back to this. Why is it you think that there will always be jobs (see the Depression for a clear example, or were 14 million people just being lazy?)? Why do you cling to 19th century economics which have long been disproven?

why do you hold to hold to communism?

you seem to forget that it's not business' job to keep the world fed. it's not the business' fault if poeple can't live outside of the paycheck they get from their employment. bussiness has no responibility to hire poeple if they can't survive in a self sufficient manner. business doesn't hire peole to pay them. it hires them becaude the poeple work for what they pay.

You missed my question. Why is it you think that there will always be jobs? This seems to be a centeral issue to you and I'm just wondering why you think it.

At 3/15/03 08:26 AM, Slizor wrote:

You missed my question. Why is it you think that there will always be jobs? This seems to be a centeral issue to you and I'm just wondering why you think it.

i never said that there will always be more jobs, and i would never think something so moronic. i don't know what made you think i would.

None of you understand economics.

At 3/15/03 11:08 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: None of you understand economics.

i've tried to put up with your sarchasm because you've agreed with me on most points, but this is just stupid. if you're going to make a statement like that, tell us why. otherwise, stay out of it.

Have you read this topic? "OMG BUSH policy is STUPID he take money is BAD"

That's the general concensus...

um...k...

At 2/21/03 10:39 PM, swayside wrote:

the right to provision of working environment

a buisiness has the right to provide whatever type of working environment it wishes to. in capitalism, people choose if and where they desire to work, thus the business has the right to deny applicants on any grounds they see fit. as for the working environment itself, it is fully regulated by the business. the reason that business environment standards stay up is that it desires to keep steady workers, who are free to leave at their own whims on any grounds they see fit. to keep these workers and encourage an influx of new labor, the business would keep its environment as pleasant as it deems nescessary. the nicer the environment, the more people would prefer to work there over somewhere else. this also attracts people of higher skill.

True in theory, this is proven wrong by the sweatshops and horrid factory conditions in America by the turn of the century. Such working conditions were part of the reason for the rise of the progressive movement.

the right to sovereignty of wages

a business has the right to offer however much money it sees fit to someone to do a job for them. businesses keep their wages reasonable to ensure consistant work. a business that offers higher wages will probably get a larger potential work force of possible greater skill.

Is this an attempt to justify minimum wages? I consider myself an economic conservative, but I totally disagree with this idea. The government must have a minimum wage law to ensure that businesses do not have virtual slaves working for them. This not true, you say? Well, if I was a cold-hearted businessman, I would want to hire 10 workers at 50 cents per hour each than one worker at $5.00 per hour. It's the worker's choice to obtain a job with a high enough salary. Well, there are some desperate people willing to take any job. Also, if there were no minimum wage law, then all businesses could lower their salaries for the lower-end workers, and filling up the executives' pockets.

the right to monopoly

a business has the right to become a monopoly. the business does not make itself a monopoly, consumers do. becoming a monopoly is not a direct act of the business. if a business becomes one, it has every right to remain one until change occurs. a business that is a monopoly implies a good product that people prefer over the product of other businesses of the same variety.

No matter how a business becomes a monopoly, it is still a monopoly. Once a business becomes a monopoly, it can gouge prices and lower quality of products. Also, because of their huge profits, monopolies can temporarlily lower their prices to eradicate any competition. A monopoly gives too much power to one organization. Power does not necessarily corrupt, as some say it does, but nobody should be trusted too much with power. As a republican (small r) I believe that an effective way to curb the abuse of power is to ensure its plurality.

the right to choice of work force

a business has the right to choose who it wants to employ based upon political/religious views and opinionations.

Discrimination is bad. If one can do the job, that person should be protected by the law. What if there was a place where everyone was racist? A minority there could not get a job without anti-discrimination laws.

the rights of the worker

the right to choose if and where to work

a worker has the choice of working or not, thus any application is of his own free will. he has the right to search for better jobs while currently employed. a worker can leave his current employment at his whims. the reason he would not is to not fill his resume with occurances that would cause a potential employer to distrust him.

a worker also has the right to choose who he wants to work for based upon political/religious views and opinionations.

All true, but workers also have the right to organize and bargain collectively. If the business is a whole organization, then how fair is it that workers have no other person to rely on when negotiating the work contract?

I agree with the other points though. I'm flaming the points and not you. I don't know if you believe this or you just posted it.

the rights of the business

the right to provision of working environment

a buisiness has the right to provide whatever type of working environment it wishes to. in capitalism, people choose if and where they desire to work, thus the business has the right to deny applicants on any grounds they see fit. as for the working environment itself, it is fully regulated by the business. the reason that business environment standards stay up is that it desires to keep steady workers, who are free to leave at their own whims on any grounds they see fit. to keep these workers and encourage an influx of new labor, the business would keep its environment as pleasant as it deems nescessary. the nicer the environment, the more people would prefer to work there over somewhere else. this also attracts people of higher skill.

the right to sovereignty of wages

this is so true. the less the government stayes out of the natural process, the more prosperose the economy will be as a whole and expecially to those who participate in it(ie. workers of all types)

a business has the right to offer however much money it sees fit to someone to do a job for them. businesses keep their wages reasonable to ensure consistant work. a business that offers higher wages will probably get a larger potential work force of possible greater skill.

its all about agency and having the right to do things. to take away rights and centralize power only hurts pratically everything. (having the right to do something does not me it does not have consequences, you CAN physically murder someone, but then you must go to jail. you have the agency choice to murder, but it comes at a price. but you CANT choose ot pay someone less then minamum wage. its not possible becase government wont allow it. murder can have a law against it becuase it is obviously evil. paying someone(who CHOOSES that job to work at, knowing ahead of time what they will get paid)realy really little, is not obviously evil, though not nice, it is fair. you are the employer, you should get to choose.

the right to choice of work force

a business has the right to choose who it wants to employ based upon political/religious views and opinionations.

thow this is a "touchy" area because discriminating is wrong, emploers should have a right to make the choice. just becuase it is a stupi choice, shouldn't limit you to the ability to make it. i woud never discriminate on race, or any other none changable catagory, but i will not take this choice right away from others. who am i to do that? i know disricminating is the wrong choice, but just becuase i know that, doesnt allow me to keep others from making the wrong chioce. let the stupid discriminaters make thier stupid choice and take the natural consequenses(which are, they will not have the best worker), who am i to force them not to?

sway side, you are a wise person.
sizlor, lets just say that after reading all the posts, when you said that you were communist(you believe in communism which makes you communist) i was not supprized. it is like the layers of an onion, swayside kept picking at it, and eventually you showed your true colors. you are not the only one, i have reasently started to find many people that are communist these days. its sad really.
"anyman who would give up freedom for temperary safty, deserves niether freedom or safty"-not exact quote(im doing it by memory) this was said by one of the founding fathers(agian, this quote is by memory)

At 3/16/03 09:55 PM, WhaleNuker wrote

thow this is a "touchy" area because discriminating is wrong, emploers should have a right to make the choice. just becuase it is a stupi choice, shouldn't limit you to the ability to make it. i woud never discriminate on race, or any other none changable catagory, but i will not take this choice right away from others. who am i to do that? i know disricminating is the wrong choice, but just becuase i know that, doesnt allow me to keep others from making the wrong chioce. let the stupid discriminaters make thier stupid choice and take the natural consequenses(which are, they will not have the best worker), who am i to force them not to?

while i'm not sure i gather all of what you mean here, i'll say this anyway. businesses should have the right to choose their work force base on politics, religion, and opinionation. however, they shoukd make no distiction towards unchangeable things. that's the only thing that should be outlawed in realation to distinction.

sizlor, lets just say that after reading all the posts, when you said that you were communist(you believe in communism which makes you communist) i was not supprized.

actually, i'm not sure what he calls himself. he's used the word communist in a derogatory sense once, so i doubt he calls himself that. just wait until he posts again, i'm sure he'll tell you.

i have reasently started to find many people that are communist these days. its sad really.

i know what you mean...

anyone else have a point.

You missed my question. Why is it you think that there will always be jobs? This seems to be a centeral issue to you and I'm just wondering why you think it.

i never said that there will always be more jobs, and i would never think something so moronic. i don't know what made you think i would.

Oh, so you would support benefit for the unemployed then? If there are no jobs then these people can't survive through no fault of their own.

At 3/19/03 06:33 AM, Slizor wrote:

You missed my question. Why is it you think that there will always be jobs? This seems to be a centeral issue to you and I'm just wondering why you think it.

i never said that there will always be more jobs, and i would never think something so moronic. i don't know what made you think i would.

Oh, so you would support benefit for the unemployed then? If there are no jobs then these people can't survive through no fault of their own.

so i guess you blame society? benefits for the unemployed should come from former jobs or poeple who see fit give them. they should never come from taxes. just because it's not their fault, doesn't mean they have a right to a free ride on the backs of those who can work.

benefits for the unemployed should come from former jobs or poeple who see fit give them.

Charity never works.

they should never come from taxes.

Taxes work. Anyhow, what's wrong with taking public money and spending it on the public?

just because it's not their fault, doesn't mean they have a right to a free ride on the backs of those who can work.

It is a safety net, there until they get another job, in which they would put the money back into society.

At 3/19/03 10:08 AM, Slizor wrote:

benefits for the unemployed should come from former jobs or poeple who see fit give them.

Charity never works.

neither does socialism.

they should never come from taxes.

Taxes work. Anyhow, what's wrong with taking public money and spending it on the public?

because you're taking more money from some than from others and then evenly distributing. if i have one dollar and you have five, and someone else takes half of each of our money then splits that amount in two and gives it back in those halfs, that is nothing close to fair.

does anyone else doubt capitalism?

At 3/1/03 05:54 PM, Slizor wrote: So you don't value human life?

There are 6 billion people on this planet. Man kills and hates his fellow man, and destroys the very world he lives on. I lack the compassion to care for every jackass not willing to pull his own weight. If you don't work you can starve thats how it is in nature. If the only plea you can offer me to fund you is that "I'm a fellow human being" than that isn't going to save you.

well said.