Why won't you let me do what I want?
- JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago
0As long as I'm not harming anybody else, why won't you let me do what I want?
Why won't you let me accept a job offer that includes a requirement that I exercise three times a week?
Why won't you let me sign a contract, allowing someone to beat me with a wooden dowel in exchange for money?
Why won't you let me do what I want to do? Why do you feel the need to infringe on my right to make choices?Sometimes people need to be rescued from themselves.....
So you wouldn't have a problem, if, tomorrow, Obama decided that everyone should be atheist and he's going to re-educate Christians to 'save them from themselves'?
The problem with allowing any erosion of liberty is that it depends on your favoured guy in power for you to get any benefit.Doesn't a capitalist system, by its nature, erode individual rights?
I give up freedom to do whatever I want when I agree to go to work for someone else in exchange for
pay.
They become the "favoured guy in power," and de facto, they do put limits on my personal liberty.No, it does not erode your rights.
You don't give up freedom to work.
You are still free to stay home and do whatever you want, but that can cause your termination to be ended. If you agree to do X, you can't say that agreement erodes your rights to do something else instead of X. You still have the choice, so you still have the freedom, which means you still have the right.
EDIT If your right were really taken away, you would LITERALLY be unable to not-work. I've never seen someone in a capitalist society LITERALLY unable to not-work.In reality there is an element of coercion inherent in the system. Saying someone can choose not to work is, in many cases, the same as saying they can choose not to eat. Technically it's true. Practically (assuming survival is one of their goals) it's not a viable option. In that respect many people are wage slaves. The only way they can pay for the cost of living is to sell their labour. That's not a choice, but a necessity.
The job is an option given to the person. Starving is the default. Either they take care of themselves, or find someone to pay them to work, but a job CANNOT be coercion, because the job is an added benefit over the default.
Let me see; job or starve, job or starve- Not much of an option, Jaxson.
Again, the job is a choice. Without the job, there is no choice.
Giving the choice increases freedom, not the other way around.
Would you seriously say that, if you had no jobs available, and I offered you a job for $5/hr, that I was coercing you into working for a low wage? That somehow I was doing you harm by offering you the position?Again, the job is a choice. Without the job, there is no choice.
So, in essence, you have no choice other than to accept the job.No, you also have the choice to not accept the job. Your situation doesn't change at all, no harm is done to you, and you are no worse off for having had the choice. In fact, you are better off for having had the choice.
If you starve, you die, yes? Job or death, no choice.
You're really not listening.
If you turn down the job, your situation is no worse than it was before the job was offered. Therefore, the job offer cannot be considered harmful.
If the job is preferable to death, you will take it, and your situation will be better.
If death is preferable to the job, you won't take it, and your situation won't be any worse.
There CAN BE no coercion, only increased opportunity.If the job is preferable to death, you will take it, and your situation will be better.
No Jaxson, you are really not listening, job or death is not a choice. A choice:
An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
Adjective
(esp. of food) Of very good quality.
Synonyms
noun. selection - option - pick - election - assortment
adjective. select - selected - picked - chosen - exquisite
Death is not really a possibility, well it is, but only if you are feeling suicidal. Therefore, if you are not suicidal and the basic instinct of survival is present, this is not a choice but a necessity. You make a choice when you are presented with real possibilities in this life, death is not a real possibility in this life.Death is a possibility. So is theft, or growing your own food, or creating your own job, or living off the land.
But, offering someone something OTHER than the current situation is a choice. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. It might not be a choice you like, or one you will accept, but it is still a choice.
This kind of thinking stems from people not understanding what it means to be their own agent, to control their own path.
But no, if someone comes along and offers you a choice which is better than death, but you don't think it's a good enough choice, let's just go ahead and complain about that too. Unbelievable.Death is a possibility. So is theft, or growing your own food, or creating your own job, or living off the land.
Death is not a possibility in this life, read those words, "in this life".
Growing your own food is a possibility if you have the land to grow the food, or money to buy the seeds, or the money to start your own business. Even if your newly created employment only requires your labour you still need money to eat and drink and keep a roof over your head before you meet your first pay cheque. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
Jaxson, a choice is a possibility between competing options; death is not an option when we're talking about survival. What is it that you don't get about this scenario?
But, offering someone something OTHER than the current situation is a choice. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. It might not be a choice you like, or one you will accept, but it is still a choice.
This kind of thinking stems from people not understanding what it means to be their own agent, to control their own path.
This kind of thinking (ie. yours) stems from those who are unable to imagine a life other than their own, where they have real options and real life chances. And who, constantly whinge about having their freedoms taken away whilst paying absolutely no regard for the freedoms and rights of others. When you "can't do what you want" you cry- but when others ask for their rights and freedoms to be taken seriously you cry "You have options, death or a job" Seriously?
But no, if someone comes along and offers you a choice which is better than death, but you don't think it's a good enough choice, let's just go ahead and complain about that too. Unbelievable.
Unbelievable that you cannot, in all honesty, relate to the lives of others. All you have to offer is "job, where you will no doubt be exploited and your rights seriously breached, or death" I find that, unbelievable.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Jaxson, if a person was truly bereft and starving, he/she WOULD take the job and adhere to the conditions and bylaws of the job. If it is between a job and starvation/homeless, a person would choose the former. Anyone who does not and chooses to be starving/homeless has some serious screws loose. Take the job, shut up and put up, and look for better!
Yes exactly, if the choice was between standing on your head in a bucket of sh!t for ten hours a day or starving, many would chose to stand on their head. It wouldn't make it right though and it wouldn't represent freedom either.
It is freedom. If you choose not to work, you can starve and be homeless. Work.......starvation/homelessness........work/starvation/homeless............Choosing.....choosing........WORK! That is freedom, John? What do YOU want? Nirvana? This is the REAL WORLD.
All with few exceptions work. Some people are smart enough to obtain specialty degrees, products, and establish brands to dictate their asking price while others prefer to be passive amoebas who do not develop their brand and/or expertise, do not pursue degrees, and other ways to stand out in the work world. The world of work is a game; those who are the most successful are the most adept in the game while others flounder and meander...............But why the need for some employers to include unneeded and often demeaning clauses in contracts?
I can answer the phone perfectly well without having to wear a blue shirt to the grocery store.Doesn't matter. It's their choice, they have their reasons. If you believe in freedom, you believe they have the freedom to offer those contracts. There are no two ways about it.
You've already admitted that you don't believe they should have that freedom, so you have shown yourself to be hypocritical in your boasting about being pro-freedom.Don't misquote me.
Saying that something is unfair is not the same as saying they shouldn't have the freedom to do silly things.You want me to go get the quote? You said they shouldn't have the right to do so, not that it is wrong.
Is this going to be another thread where I quote you saying X, and you deny it, even though it's there plainly for everyone to see?Oh no Jaxson, you are so obviously right in everything you do and say.
Here is where you said the employer shouldn't be able to offer the contract. Still want to deny it?
JAXSONRAINE WROTE:
So, if I want to hire you to sit at a computer and click 'reset' if my server goes down... and I offer to pay you $150,000 per year, plus full benefits... but I say you have to wear a blue shirt whenever you go to the grocery store, you think that's unreasonable and nobody should be allowed to accept it?
Why shouldn't the two parties involved in the contract be the ones to decide whether or not it is reasonable?
I'll ask again. Why are you so scared of letting people enter into contracts? Why don't you think people should be empowered to decide for themselves?
to which I replied -
No, I never said nobody should be allowed to accept it, that is your authoritarian interpretation of it.
I believe in freedom and especially freedom from oppression, you obviously don't and therefore we will never agree.I quoted you John. You're talking about a different part of the thread. Like I said, you've been flip-flopping.
I asked you if the employer should have the right to offer that contract in the first place. You said no.
It's quoted right there.
How can you constantly claim that you didn't say things that are quoted back to you?Well, I'm sorry, I manage to read most of your posts (apart from when you resort to shouting) and manage to keep them all in context.
I'll have to remember that is a skill you don't have.LOL.
So, when you take up both sides of an issue and keep flipping back and forth, I'm supposed to just 'take that in context'?
Ok, take this in context. Everyone deserves a fair wage, and has the right to a job that someone else provided. Also, nobody has the right to a job that someone else provided, or the right to any wage other than what is mutually agreed upon.
Later on I said -
"I'm saying that an unreasonable contract is, well, unreasonable and probably wouldn't be upheld in any English court. That isn't the same as saying nobody should be allowed to accept."Yeah, you've played both sides of the court on that issue.
But no, that was before what I quoted.And then I said -
You do not believe in peoples freedom to live their life the way they chose when away from their employment.Did you say that employers shouldn't have the right to offer those kinds of contracts? Yes or no?
You said 'no'. Then you said 'yes'. Then I quoted you saying 'no' after you claimed I was lying about what you said. So which is it John? Did you say what you said, or did you not say what you said?
It's like arguing with a 4 year old. "Nu-uh! Nu-uh!"Yes it is rather.
If you feel the need to score points, carry on, but without me.
It represents a choice.
Without a job offer, you literally cannot choose to do anything other than starve.(well, according to many here, I think you still have options). With a job offer, you can choose not to starve.
But of course, THAT HORRIBLE BUSINESSMAN WHO GAVE THE PERSON THE CHANCE NOT TO STARVE IS JUST COERCING THEM!!!
If I offer a million to a homeless person, I'm CLEARLY just coercing them!!@!!!lol, John, that's a choice and they should be grateful!
No, they should be mad that someone gave them an option and an opportunity to decide whether or not it is better than their current situation.
Damn employers, creating jobs and stuff. Who do they think they are creating all these opportunities for people to work and earn money?Doesn't matter, that's completely irrelevant to the topic of whether or not they should have the right to do so.
After all you are only talking about scummy workers aren't you?
They deserve no respect do they?Employees deserve whatever is in their employment contract. They have a right to nothing more.
Of course, there is nothing keeping a business owner from giving them more, that's the other part of freedom.
Do you get upset because you think that, because I believe in these freedoms, that I treat people who work for me horribly?
No, they should be mad that someone gave them an option and an opportunity to decide whether or not it is better than their current situation.
No, they should be mad that some *so called* libertarian, decided that their rights to a reasonable life do not matter. Whilst this *so called* libertarian cried every time someone opposed their selfish and authoritarian whims.Right to a reasonable life? What is that?
Libertarians DO NOT BELIEVE that people have the right to a job, or the right to a 'living wage', or any other such nonsense. That's an authoritarian, liberal viewpoint.No, but they do believe that their property and person should be protected, do they not?
What about the property and well being of other members of society, should they not be protected also?Protected, not sustained.
Right to life means nobody can kill you. Doesn't mean people have to feed you, clothe you, employ you, and give you shelter and medicine.
Each person is responsible for their own well-being. Liberty means freedom, not coercion... and the people in this thread who are complaining about coercion are the ones who would actually do the coercing.Sure, I'm just waiting for the opportunity to tell an employee what to eat for lunch.
Hey, as long as you both signed a contract, go ahead.
I may have missed it John, but did you ever explain why you don't want to let me do what I want to do?I have never said I have a problem with you doing whatever you want to do.
I have a problem with unfair and unreasonable terms of employment.Such is life.........there are aspects of employment which ALL people with few exceptions find unreasonable.....SOLUTION: work for yourself, establish a brand, have an in demand talent and/or in demand degree, there are CHOICES which ONE can take, John, why the endless complaining and whining?
Oh for pities sake!
OK how about this, I think everybody should be subject to unfair terms and conditions and just be grateful that they have any sort of job at all.
And you wonder why both our countries are going down the pan!NO ONE want egregiously unfair conditions in the workplace. However, there are people who WHINE, B#$%^&H, and COMPLAIN because they cannot get THEIR way at work. They go to work, believing that THEY should get 2 hour breaks, 2.5. hours lunch, leave work at 3, and report to work ANY D#$%N time they want.
They also believe in stretching the work day, socializing with other coworkers and reading on the job and when a supervisor or a superior explains to them that work is for......WORK, they become highly incensed, report YOU to the union, and maintain that YOU are being quite unfair when ALL you ask is that THEY work......not play. People always say things are UNFAIR when they believe that they should have THEIR WAY at work. Well, it DOES NOT work THAT WAY, JOHN!
And what has that got to do with employers making unfair conditions on their employees?
Some workers take liberties, some bosses take liberties too.
You can't have a situation where it is wrong for the workers to take liberties but right for the bosses.YOU get DON'T get it, do you, John! Most people get it but YOU apparently DO NOT!
Protected not sustained, that's hilarious coming from a man who cries "why can't I do what I want" I know you'll struggle with this Jaxson, but your * libertarian and authoritarian values* are infringing upon my rights, my human rights. Have you heard of those?
I have the right to live beyond servitude, to be respected and valued, not to become a resource for greedy little men who care nought for the rights of others. I have the right to survive on this earth, beyond the basic means of survival if I'm prepared to work hard and strive. However, in order to do so, I need equal opportunities. I have the same rights as you. Although, I guess, when you still put value in social contract theories which were established and written a few hundred years ago, favouring only landowners and men, it might be pretty hard for you to get your head around the society that you live in today, and how far it's evolved.Wow...
Ok, first of all, I'm not crying. I'm asking.
Second of all, there is no hilarity in someone with libertarian values asking people why they want to infringe on my rights.
Thirdly, my libertarian values(not authoritarian) do not infringe on a SINGLE one of your rights. Not one. You have exactly the same rights as I do.
You, however, do NOT have the right to have someone else create a job for you and give it to you and provide whatever amount of money and respect that you think your labor is worth. That's entitlement, not freedom. If you don't like the job that someone else OWNS and CREATED, then go find another or make your own. You are saying you have the right to someone else's stuff, that's authoritarian.
You have the same rights as me. You're right. You should do with your rights what I've done with mine. I worked hard, THANKFUL to people who created opportunities for me. I saved and saved and saved, and now I have my own business, and I have my own jobs that I have created for others. You have the exact same right to do that as I do. Go do it! Go make something for yourself, instead of complaining about how someone else hasn't respected your 'right' to a job.Ok, first of all, I'm not crying. I'm asking.
But you would be the first one to call out anyone (evidence in your own replies) who asked why their rights were being infringed upon. How many times have said throughout this thread and others, "but that's irrelevant*, "That doesn't matter" "Move if you don't like it" "create your own employment", "You talk no sense" If you can't answer with create your own employment or move, you dismiss the concerns (or freedoms and hard fought for rights) of others, period. However, when you can't have your own way, whenever you meet with any opposition, it becomes all about *your rights, and your freedoms* But when it comes to you, you're not crying or *expecting* rights to fall into your lap, you're just asking. Funny.
Second of all, there is no hilarity in someone with libertarian values asking people why they want to infringe on my rights.
And there is no culture of dependency when those who have values which are polar opposites to your own, make inquiries as to why their rights are being infringed upon too. See how that works?
Thirdly, my libertarian values(not authoritarian) do not infringe on a SINGLE one of your rights. Not one. You have exactly the same rights as I do.
Not authoritarian, pleeese! Was it not you who likened contracts of employment to that of being a guest in your house and categorically stating that it is YOUR HOUSE and YOU have the right to be authoritarian and make the rules? Doh! Make your mind up, Jaxson. Yes, exactly, I do have the same rights as you, however when I (and others) voice their concerns, you label them as irrelevant, illogical and other nonsense. If you truly believe that we (as in those who disagree with you) are equals, stop dismissing our concerns.
You, however, do NOT have the right to have someone else create a job for you and give it to you and provide whatever amount of money and respect that you think your labor is worth. That's entitlement, not freedom.
No, that's just you trying to reduce the debate to something else because you are either incapable, or unwilling, to see the situation from the point of view of another. Oh sorry! YOU are the only one who should be entitled to decide what anothers labour is worth. Who has the entitlement mentality? Now that *is* hilarious.
If you don't like the job that someone else OWNS and CREATED, then go find another or make your own. You are saying you have the right to someone else's stuff, that's authoritarian.
Erm, no I'm not. I already have my own business and thankfully I'm neither destitute or naive enough to swallow your BS! But keep trying, I'm sure they'll be some desperate family somewhere who believes that you truly *are* the only one entitled to determine the value of anothers labour. Of the "born to rule" variety. And whilst we're at it, if you OWN and CREATE the job, why don't you just do it yourself and stop expecting everyone else to do it for you? What's wrong with man, get on your bike?
You have the same rights as me. You're right. You should do with your rights what I've done with mine. I worked hard, THANKFUL to people who created opportunities for me. I saved and saved and saved, and now I have my own business, and I have my own jobs that I have created for others. You have the exact same right to do that as I do. Go do it! Go make something for yourself, instead of complaining about how someone else hasn't respected your 'right' to a job.
Already have! See, you have no idea what you're talking about. You simply assume that everyone who criticizes your values has not aspired to your lofty heights. lol.Ok, there can be no resolution between us, because we have different beliefs as to what rights actually are.
Everyone is the authority over their own domain in libertarian belief, but that authority is only on the individual level. That's why it's not authoritarian. you are using the term incorrectly, authoritarian is where one person makes all the decisions for everybody.
It's impossible to discuss with someone who thinks libertarianism is authoritarianism.The way I see it... I think...
Is that the side opposing free-will to enter contracts believe that people will be taken advantage of because of the inherent unequalness of resources available to individuals.
And the side that supports free will to enter contacts believes that individual rights to decide whether they are being taken advantage of or not interferes in the potential to enter contracts that may be beneficial to them but aren't universally beneficial to every single other person.
I see no way to completely level the playing field. People have different levels of ability/resources. To make all people adhere to the lowest level of ability is inherently unfair.
To ignore those who have the lowest level of ability is also unfair.
So what happens is those who are most desirable get the best leverage in choosing their own employment terms. Those who are least desirable have the least leverage.
No one wants to buy a lamp that doesn't work and no employer is going to pay equal wages to employees that are unequal in worth. So jobs will go to those who are most likely to produce a better product and they will always raise to the top of the employment pool, while those others will "be taken advantage of" by taking jobs with lower pay.
So, any solutions on how to make every person equal in ability so that an employer can just choose randomly among applicants? Or should he be forced to pay the same amount for unequal abilities... you know kinda like paying for steak and getting hamburger?But what has any of that got to do with employers writing unfair conditions into employment contracts?
Ok, there can be no resolution between us, because we have different beliefs as to what rights actually are.
This we can absolutely agree on, absolutely.
It's not impossible to discuss, just a matter of accepting that another may disagree with your definitions, (so not irrelevant, just different, yes?) I try to get my head around what being a libertarian means to you, but in essence, I find it authoritarian in particular scenarios, but not all.Libertarianism is only authoritarian in the sense that each individual is the authority over their own person and property. Nothing more.
There are, of course, different flavors, but it is the polar opposite of authoritarianism.I'm confused! All through this and the other thread you've been arguing exactly the opposite of that, that individuals don't have authority over their own person.
Then maybe you should read the threads again, because I've never said anything like that.
You've said that if an employer wants you to jump through hoops, you should be grateful for the opportunity he gives you and do it!
I've said, if you want to do it, you should do it.
It's amazing you have missed the entire point of the thread. If a person wants to sign a contract to work and wear a blue shirt, then they should be able to do it, because they are the only person who has the authority to control their life.
If you have the authority to make your own choices, then you can agree to that kind of contract. Seriously John, just try actually reading.*Sighs*
He's not going to get it. Give it up. Go have a beer... or a wooden dowel. Whatever it is you do to relax
Told you all. John will NEVER get it WHATSOEVER! It is futile..........futile............futile...............Jaxson, have some champagne and sushi...........
Trouble is, I do get it. Shame nobody else does though.
You'll whinge like nobodies business about big brother government and yet applaud and embrace big brother business.
It ain't natural.Big Brother government is only Big Brother because you have no choice. It's forced on you.
If the DHS or NSA offered you a contract that stipulated you would agree to be spied on, then I have no problem with you signing that and letting them spy on you. If they do it by force, then that's the problem.
Businesses don't force. You cannot force someone to do something simply by offering them a choice.But you do have a choice, you are free to leave the country any time you want, just as you are free to leave your employer any time you want.
Not the same. There is no contractual agreement. In fact, the government can illegally(they call it legal, but it's in direct contradiction to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land) spy on minors who, by law, cannot enter into contracts.
Who elects the government?
Who elects the heads of private companies?Minors don't elect anybody.
A minor can't agree contractually to be spied upon, cannot vote against representatives who support such measures, and can't even legally leave the country on their own(emancipation laws vary by state).
The government forces itself on you. Corporations don't. You have to go to a corporation to offer or ask for a contract, it's not a valid comparison.Minors can't take on full time employment either.
It is a valid comparison if you actually compare like with like rather than compare opposites.No.
The government, without contract, forces itself on minors just as it forces itself on adults.
Corporation do not force anything on minors without a contract.
How in the world you can think that is a valid comparison is beyond me.What, like not forcing Big Macs on kids without a contract?
If you really don't believe that corporations don't force anything on anybody then you'd better convince your mates in the corporate world that they are wasting shed loads of money on advertising.I know Ive never seen anybody force a Big Mac down anybodies throat.
You don't see much advertising then, and you don't have kids!
Yes I do, would you prove that McDonalds is forcing food on people, I'm afraid I don't believe it.
As you're a good corporate puppet, I can believe that
I guess that means you have no proof that McDonalds is forcing food on people.
On the contrary, use your eyes.
You don't believe that all their customers come on the strength of word of mouth advertising do you?No guns to the head? No being drug to the local McDonalds?
Their advertising precludes such drastic measures.
Ever wonder why people in advertising get so well paid? It isn't because they are no good at their job.That is exactly what I said, effective advertising.
Yes, makes people think they need what they don't even really want!
And all done without any sort of contract between the parties!It has never made me think it is what I need, not a single time. It has reminded me that I like the Hot and spicy McChicken
How did you discover that you liked hot and spicy McChicken?
I ordered it off the menu. If you are asking me why I went to McDonalds in the first place I'm sure my parents took me there when I was a child.
How many times do I have to tell you? Advertising!
