Is "hard work" a virtue?

[Jackytar]

Right, let's nip this in the bud. You are a free market libertarian. I am a socialist libertarian. We don't need to fight over who gets to use the word, because it has nothing inherently to do with the concept of private property or socialism.

Libertarian:

Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty and minimize or even abolish the state. Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minimal government to openly anarchist. The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.


Can we at least agree to defer to the actual definition of the word? I am not talking about the right wing American libertarian movement. That particular group of people using the word to define themselves does not change the definition of the word.

Okay, I agree to defer to that definition. So tell me then, by this definition, which do you seek - to minimize or to abolish the state?

Yes, I agree that local governments are more accountable, efficient and effective, and I also prefer them over provincial and federal bodies. That's what makes me a libertarian.

Well, that's a step in the right direction.

However, not all libertarians are concerned about "an affront to free market capitalism." Many of us are concerned about social justice, civil rights, personal liberty and collectively working to ensure that nobody in our communities needs to suffer un-necessarily due to extreme poverty…

Yes, persons of all stripes are concerned about social justice. Where Libertarians differ is that I don't think I have the right to demand under penalty of law that you participate in things that I think are important, or impose on you my ideas of how to best tackle the concerns we share, by taking your money and using or administering it in ways that you may disapprove. And we also assert that the spontaneous order that benefits free market capitalism also benefits social entrepreneurship. That the free flow of ideas and actions is just as important in the social realm as it is in the economic one. That millions of individuals making countless decisions every moment will massively outperform a single state actor bound by law and procedure every time. And that by enforcing a state remedy to social ills we disincline and disable individuals from doing just that.

…and don't give a fiddler's fart about free market capitalism as long as the local free market capitalists we know and love aren't being driven out of town by faceless, brutal, unethical multinational free market capitalists.

I understand this sentiment. I feel it too. But by what principle are we to prevent this from occurring? Creative destruction is a feature of free market capitalism. We have to embrace change and allow businesses to fail. What is the alternative? What do you suppose would happen if we were to pass legislation to protect local businesses? We would essentially be eliminating competition from the marketplace. And where do we draw the line? Should we protect businesses that are operated by nice guys, or worse - politically connect guys, but who fail to compete because, to use your example, larger players are inherently more efficient? Should internet commerce be outlawed? Insofar as any business is "brutal" or "unethical" we should hold them accountable. But we can't color them evil greedy bast**ds just for being successful. That's how the economy grows. Nostalgia for the way things used to be, or sympathy for those who lose their jobs in failing or transforming industries, is not a sustainable economic principle. The news reports that GM laid off 1000 workers. I'm thinking, well people still need cars. I wonder how many people Toyota hired? When is the news going to report that? And could this be because consumers prefer Toyota products over GM products? I feel just as much sympathy for the GM workers as anybody else. But I'm not about to demand that our government do something about this "injustice".

I love hardware stores and deplore the big box retailers for offering poor quality products and no customer assistance to speak of. And I'm apparently not the only one. I frequent local hardware stores that seem to be recovering from the initial blow, at least around here, even with higher prices. Free market capitalism is not necessarily a "race to the bottom", driven solely by price point. Those who can afford it will create the demand and pay for good quality and good service. And those who can't, the very persons you advocate for, benefit from the lower prices and even from the big spenders in some instances. That low cost airfare you enjoy is subsidized by the fat cats in first class.

Here in the US Walmart now sells many essential generic prescription drugs for 4 bucks a month. Another economic miracle provided by the free market. I think they deserve a parade for this. Soon they will be offering low cost medical clinics, just as they already offer low cost eye examinations and prescription eyeglasses. Huzzah for Walmart!

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

Part II

I was thinking of the early models, much like what you suggested, where only people who paid for fire protection were covered, and got little plaques over their doors to say so, and the firefighters routinely fought a fire at one residence while allowing the one next door to burn to the ground. More like this, but without any alternative.

Now why do you suppose those consumers pay for additional fire protection?

Nevertheless, to sum up your article: Rye Brook had a contract with a neighbouring community's municipal fire service, then decided to pull out of this contract to bring in a private for-profit company. The municipality that previously provided the fire service stopped responding to calls (obviously, as they were no longer being paid to provide service to Rye Brook), and the private company was unable to supply adequate staff, resulting in a house burning to the ground, a lawsuit and the cancellation of the contract. So, where, in this picture, do you see the incompetence on the part of the public sector? I'm not getting where you're coming from.

Incompetence is not the word, my bad. That got screwed up in a rewrite of that sentence.

Funny how two persons can read the same article and both find support for their opposing views. Because what I read was a story about a public fire dept that felt threatened by a private fire dept in a neighboring community that they used to service. Now, why should they have felt threatened? Clearly it was their wages and their working conditions that was under the gun, either real or imagined. The fear on the part of the public fire dept workers was that those things would not be sustained by the open market. That only forced taxation of their neighbors could do that. But this wasn't how their union framed the issue. They initiated a public propaganda campaign to put fear into the local citizens that the private provider was incompetent and to appeal to the very same sense of nostalgia that you express that change is inherently bad, especially if it comes about by greedy free market capitalists, and that our very way of life is threatened. The reason the private fire dept was unable to provide adequate staff is because this campaign worked, That the reserve staff they hired that lived near the neighboring community quit or did not respond out of fear of being shunned by that community who were walking around with their heads full of misplaced and conceited moral righteousness. And, worse, the public fire dept refused to assist the private one when needed, some of them apparently showing up to watch the house burn and justified their actions with their hatred for the rich. The very same folks who provide the bulk of their funding. It wasn't as though the private company wasn't going to reimburse them for their troubles. I guess they naively expected them to uphold the time-honored tradition of neighboring fire departments helping out in times of crisis. To act as though they really are public service minded individuals first, as you say, and not self interested economic actors first, as I say. Hmmmm….

Last summer we experienced a very bad hurricane with lots of downed trees and power lines. It took them 11 days to restore power to our home. We had bucket trucks from all over the country responding to this emergency, all provided by privately run utility companies. The guys who fixed my power were from Ohio and Texas and were enjoying the overtime. Good for them. I thanked them and supplied them with ice water. Warm fuzzies all around, no high mindedness hero worship necessary.

I believe communities have every right to set and enforce standards of compensation, workplace safety, non-discrimination, freedom from harassment and any other standard they collectively agree will be of greatest benefit to the most people (including business owners) without disproportionate concern for private profits. Business owners who are part of the community, so of course they also contribute to the process. You "call yourself a libertarian", yet you prioritize private profits above any other concern, including liberty.

Wrong. Liberty rules. You cannot subjugate my person or property to your economic goals. Otherwise, have at it. So while most of those things you mentioned are protected by Libertarian principles, forced compensation rates are not. Those are to be negotiated freely between individuals. Third parties stay out. It is an encroachment on individual liberty AND it would impact the free market at it's foundation. Libertarians believe that with free market economic principles intact the pie gets bigger, faster and with more pie to go around we all benefit. That overall wealth is more important than relative wealth. Interference into the free market restricts economic growth, even shrinks it. You say the pie cannot get bigger. You ignore the fundamental fact that we started out with nothing but nature, with no pie at all, just a pantry of ingredients. That everything about modern civilization is the result of human ingenuity and effort and the march of progress will continue with or with you. You want a government that clamps down on spontaneous order, to control the imperfections in this trial and error process. Nice in theory, but history has shown us it doesn't work. That it is an exquisitely complex process with too many moving and interconnected parts that we can never truly grasp. That it is a delusion or a conceit to believe otherwise. The most learned economists in the world cannot get their arms around the whole of it. They disagree on every detail and continually fail to predict it's path. So Libertarians say, let's set rules for fair play and just get out of the way. Neither course of action will provide a perfect result every time. One is better than the other. History bears our side out.

I guess I should mention that Libertarian principles are not behind the grotesque "jackpot" fortunes we have witnessed recently in the US, or of the related financial collapse. Wealth that is largely the result of using the markets like a casino, not in actually producing a good or service with intrinsic value. To get "something for nothing", so to speak. This applies to investment banks, hedge funds managers and CEOs who are compensated on stock performance that outpaces the company's asset value. Libertarians are opposed on principle to state institutions and legislation (or lack thereof) that has distorted the market in this way. Go ahead, roll your eyes. But, as an example, Ron Paul was one of only four senators who opposed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

Part III

Have you ever actually worked for a local government? I'm thinking no. I appreciate your thoughts, but I also think local government's are not "inherently wasteful". I agree with pretty much everything you've said, but where we differ is that you believe civil servants are lazy, apathetic, wasteful ne'er-do-wells who don't give a fig for efficiency or effectiveness, whereas private business owners are innovative, cost-effective, energetic, hyper-efficient go-getters tirelessly striving to get the best quality for the lowest price. I don't subscribe to that kind of bigotry. People are just people, doing the best they can, wherever they work, and everybody wants to cut costs and get the best quality for the lowest price. There is a long list of things governments do better (higher quality, lower price) than the private sector, including the universal provision of necessities like water, sewers, public transport, health care, fire protection and law enforcement. Time and time again, elected officials, trying to appeal to people like yourself, privatise a previously public service - trains in England being one example, hydro in Ontario being another - and consumers soon find themselves paying twice as much for an inferior service, with endless bailouts from the government to keep the businesses afloat to avoid a collapse in necessary services.

Well lazy and apathetic people are not well suited for entrepreneurship and other creative pursuits. They have to find a place somewhere, I suppose. But I have stated repeatedly that government social programs are well intended, and that when they fail it is because the incentives are skewed. I've never said that anybody involved are inherently flawed individuals. Just their beliefs, which can be changed, hopefully, by reasoned argument. But you want to call me a bigot based on this. It's interesting to me you feel that I must be "blinded by bias" or "bigoted" or whatever other personal flaw you haven’t let slip out to hold a view that opposes your own. As though it's not enough to argue a point on its merits. I will remind you that I am the one putting my faith in others, and the free market of ideas, by advocating that we allow them personal and economic freedom. You are the one who lacks faith in others. Not me. And, not surprisingly, you are the one who feels you understand the complexities of such things as the transitional privatization of deeply entrenched and massive government run industries such as Ontario Hydro and British Rail. Enough to make sweeping conclusions about both. Not me. I talk about simple principles. My worldview does not demand anything from you except to respect my person and property, as I will yours. Neither does it make any special claim to superior knowledge. Your worldview makes broad sweeping demands on me that I object to. I guess the only way to justify this is to feel that I must be inherently flawed, and that my objections are therefore of no consequence in the execution of your grand social scheme.

Jackytar

 

[Reverend Rick]

Is hard work a virtue? Nah...... That is something we suckers do to provide all the tax money to fund all the smart people aka the slackers!

 

[Kathryn]

Working hard to earn a living to support yourself and your family is more virtuous than looking for reasons not to work, riding the gravy train as long as possible, and expecting other people to work hard to support yourself or your family.

I think that's pretty simple.

 

[Magic Man]

Is hard work a virtue? Nah...... That is something we suckers do to provide all the tax money to fund all the smart people aka the slackers!

Just keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day it'll be true.

Working hard to earn a living to support yourself and your family is more virtuous than looking for reasons not to work, riding the gravy train as long as possible, and expecting other people to work hard to support yourself or your family.

I think that's pretty simple.

Now that you've gotten the obvious out of the way, anything else productive you want to add?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm glad Maryland is not a bigger state.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm glad Maryland is not a bigger state.

Can I assume this is supposed to mean "I'm glad Maryland is not a bigger state, so that we don't have to make up for more people who don't pay taxes"? If so, that suggestion is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever read on here.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No, your states anti second amendment, extreme liberalism, if not down right socialist tendencies is a cancer upon this country, in my opinion. Your kind would not last five minutes in my state. Now, you know how I really feel. If you are offended, I would be glad to ignore you in the future. I'm really tired of your attitude that if anyone does not agree with you, they just don't understand or is down right stupid.

I love this country and I truly feel your kind is going to destroy it. There is no free lunch, so keep your hand out of my pocket. Health care is not a right, it is a privilege that has to be earned. Diluting the quality of care of everyone so people who do not feel like paying for their services is wrong. We give health care for EVERYONE who has a life threatening condition. We give health care to the poor. We give health care to the old. We give health care to the disabled.

If you expect me to give you any more respect from now on, you need to explain just what you believe is so different between national health care and medicare. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can call it anything you like, but that changes little.

 

[blackout]

Working hard to earn a living to support yourself and your family is more virtuous than looking for reasons not to work, riding the gravy train as long as possible, and expecting other people to work hard to support yourself or your family.

I think that's pretty simple.

And it is more virtuous to buy your struggling neighbor something they really need,
that might truly help them out,
than it is to buy yourself or your kids something that you already have one of,
don't really need to have, or upgrade.

Is that so simple?


There is always something that is "more virtuous".

 

[Reverend Rick]

And it is more virtuous to buy your struggling neighbor something they really need,
that might truly help them out,
than it is to buy yourself or your kids something that you already have one of,
don't really need to have, or upgrade.

Is that so simple?


There is always something that is "more virtuous".

Charity is very virtuous. The harder I work, the more I can give THE TRULY NEEDY!

I look at both concepts as the left and right hand of virtuousness.

 

[blackout]

Charity is very virtuous. The harder I work, the more I can give THE TRULY NEEDY!

I look at both concepts as the left and right hand of virtuousness.

I do not in any way see that as charity.

To me that is simply being a friend.

 

[blackout]

Charity is very virtuous. The harder I work, the more I can give THE TRULY NEEDY!

I look at both concepts as the left and right hand of virtuousness.

If your neighbor appears to need something,
do you give them an "income questionaire" to decide
if they are TRULY NEEDY! before doing a nice thing for them?

 

[Sunstone]

Working hard to earn a living to support yourself and your family is more virtuous than looking for reasons not to work, riding the gravy train as long as possible, and expecting other people to work hard to support yourself or your family.

I think that's pretty simple.

Kathryn, if you believe that people are saying that people should not work hard enough to support themselves and their family, then you are creating a straw man here. So far as I know, no one is saying that people should not work hard enough to support themselves and their family. Thus, it is quite interesting that you apparently wish to believe that's what they are saying when that is not what they are saying.

 

[Sunstone]

If your neighbor appears to need something,
do you give them an "income questionaire" to decide
if they are TRULY NEEDY! before doing a nice thing for them?

Actually, I don't doubt Rick is very generous, Violet. I do, however, strongly doubt that he looks for loopholes to get out of being generous.

Apparently, where Rick and I differ is he thinks private generosity is or will someday be sufficient, and I don't think private generosity will ever be sufficient. Rick seems to believe that if everyone did their duty as he does towards his or her fellows, then the less fortunate among us would be taken care of. On the other hand, I believe that any purely voluntary system will fall far short of taking care of the less fortunate among us.

 

[Sunstone]

I love this country and I truly feel your kind is going to destroy it.

This country will be destroyed by rampant, lone ranger capitalism long before socialism ever gets a fair chance to destroy it.

 

[Sunstone]

Is hard work a virtue? Nah...... That is something we suckers do to provide all the tax money to fund all the smart people aka the slackers!

Straw man.

 

[Kathryn]

Kathryn, if you believe that people are saying that people should not work hard enough to support themselves and their family, then you are creating a straw man here. So far as I know, no one is saying that people should not work hard enough to support themselves and their family. Thus, it is quite interesting that you apparently wish to believe that's what they are saying when that is not what they are saying.

I was just making an observation and stating MY opinion - I was not stating what I believe OTHERS' opinions are.

Seems like you apparently wish to believe that's what I am saying when that is not what I am saying.

 

[Sunstone]

I was just making an observation and stating MY opinion - I was not stating what I believe OTHERS' opinions are.

Seems like you apparently wish to believe that's what I am saying when that is not what I am saying.

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Magic Man]

No, your states anti second amendment, extreme liberalism, if not down right socialist tendencies is a cancer upon this country, in my opinion.

Any specifics you'd like to mention, or would you, like normal, like to keep it vague? Specifically what about Maryland do you think is socialist? And, just so you know, the real cancer upon this country is conservative thinking like yours.

Your kind would not last five minutes in my state.

Um...OK, I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean. I guess you wouldn't last five minutes in mine, then. :sarcastic

Now, you know how I really feel. If you are offended, I would be glad to ignore you in the future. I'm really tired of your attitude that if anyone does not agree with you, they just don't understand or is down right stupid.

Yes, now I know how you really feel about Maryland. Great. I'm not offended, especially since yours is a ridiculous opinion. It's too bad you're tired of that attitude, mainly because it's not mine. My attitude is that you don't understand and many of your ideas are purposely ignorant and stupid. That doesn't mean I think all ideas that disagree with me are so, though. You're just special, I guess.

I love this country and I truly feel your kind is going to destroy it.

And by "your kind", I assume you mean people who want a good standard of living for everyone and for everyone to help each other out and not impose our moralities on each other? Yeah, I can see how those ideas would destroy our country.

There is no free lunch, so keep your hand out of my pocket.

And you wonder why I think your ideas are purposely ignorant? My hand is no more in your pocket than yours is in mine. We all have to work together. None of us want a free lunch, which is the part you refuse to recognize. We just want everyone to work together and help each other, rather than being in it only for themselves. A very famous man actually promoted the same things. You might have heard of him, his name was Jesus.

Health care is not a right, it is a privilege that has to be earned.

Well, that's just stupid. Everyone has the right to be in good health, just like they have the right to protection by police and an education, among other things.

Diluting the quality of care of everyone so people who do not feel like paying for their services is wrong. We give health care for EVERYONE who has a life threatening condition. We give health care to the poor. We give health care to the old. We give health care to the disabled.

You're missing the point. Ideally, we won't be diluting the quality of care everyone receives. The point was that even if there was a slight decrease in the quality to make room for more people to get help, that would still be the way to go.

If you expect me to give you any more respect from now on,

Are you implying you've given me respect up until now? Generally, when people give each other respect, they actually listen to what the other person is saying. You have yet to do that on any of these issues. Otherwise, you wouldn't continually spout nonsense like "There is no free lunch".

you need to explain just what you believe is so different between national health care and medicare. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can call it anything you like, but that changes little.

Well, for one, it would be for everybody. For another, it's not like they're going to just use medicare for everyone. It will be a whole new system. It might have some things in common with medicare, but it won't be the same thing. I think a better way to look at it would be to compare it to other countries' healthcare who already have government-run systems. That would be closer to what our system will probably end up like. However, I know you don't really want to look at them, since they actually work.