 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 12/6/2010 11:32 PM (GMT -6) |   | http://deadpeasantinsurance.com
Capitalism is more beautiful? I wonder... | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/7/2010 12:38 AM (GMT -6) | | To equate the two things is idiotic.
Does capitalism entail that such things occur? No.
Can people with free will do and concoct hideous things? Yes.
Take it up with God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 12/7/2010 11:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Asher: To equate the two things is idiotic. Does capitalism entail that such things occur? No.
Daniel: Maybe it doesn't entail such things from your understanding of Capitalism. But by your own claims, your understanding of capitalism is neglected by almost everyone. Regardless, such things have obtained anyway. You must remember, Asher, when I say capitalism I'm talking about the sort of labor relations that have come about in what's usually called "Late-capitalism" IOW, the reality of Post WWII corporate power in the USA and Western Europe and the diminished recognition of worker rights.
Although, your post does seem to suggest something along the lines of there being no mechanism of protection for labor relations within capitalism. In other words, instead of suggesting that capitalism can protect against such things, you simply say it doesn't necessarily follow. Which suggests that once it has obtained, there is no legitimate way for it to be undone, since you would be opposed to government coercion. So any policy made would be a hindrance from businesses making a profit.
Does your position even believe such things are problems to be solved? Or is your position laden with the implicit notion of non-action towards injustice?
Further, I'm not really sure I can take libertarian arguments seriously from a government worker. But we're all hypocrites, so it's really not my place to judge.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 12/7/2010 11:07:30 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/7/2010 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: Further, I'm not really sure I can take libertarian arguments seriously from a government worker. But we're all hypocrites, so it's really not my place to judge.
The libertarian test is...is the job itself inherently coercive (for example an IRS collector).
If the government disbanded tomorrow, some private individuals and firms would undoubtedly begin mail service. Being a mailman is not inherently coercive. And also, the post office is ran entirely from stamp and postage sales, not taxes.
Furthermore, when such a thing as an all-comprehensive government has taken control of nearly every aspect of life...then yes, there is a sense in which you are correct that we all become unlawful to some degree...but you are incorrect in that there is some way the system might be escaped so that a person has a choice in the matter.
And again...you're not likely to take libertarian arguments seriously anyways, now are you?
And...judge all things, hold fast to that which is good. So, judge away, just keep in mind that we will be judged on our judging...or lack thereof. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/7/2010 5:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: Although, your post does seem to suggest something along the lines of there being no mechanism of protection for labor relations within capitalism. In other words, instead of suggesting that capitalism can protect against such things, you simply say it doesn't necessarily follow. Which suggests that once it has obtained, there is no legitimate way for it to be undone, since you would be opposed to government coercion. So any policy made would be a hindrance from businesses making a profit.
Where in my previous post do I suggest, or even hint, there being no mechanism for labor relations within capitalism? No where. Your placing your own presuppositions upon my writing.
Although the title "Dead Peasant" insurance is unfortunate, let's look at it both from the benefits and disadvantages.
1) It's insurance. Are you against all insurance? What's so different about an employer taking out insurance on an employee that the company has trained and invested resources in, compared to a spouse doing the same? Also, there is a sense in which it is a transaction between two business firms, one the insured, and the other the insurer. Yes, it does involve a third party, but how is the third party actually harmed? (Again, keep in mind, I am not necessarily endorsing it, I'm just looking at all sides of the issue)
2) Abuses? Perhaps the company will be less likely to value the life of it's employee. Will the company ask the employee to do more dangerous tasks than it otherwise would have? Will the company take out a "hit" on unproductive employees?
3) Possible solution to address all angles: Notification to employees before such policies are enacted.
What is unemployment insurance, that the business itself it required to have on behalf of the employee, if not something pretty close to this type of insurance you are objecting to? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/7/2010 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Capitalism is a kind of investment-approach to economics. It involves contracts, etc. Contracts are enforced by what we call the government. Because individuals, acting as individuals, don't have the God-given right to enforce them. IOW, there is nothing about capitalism, per se, that rules out contract enforcement, the penalization of false-advertising/slander/etc, and so on.
In fact, there is nothing about capitalism, per se, that rules out State wealth redistribution. Clearly both occur simultaneously. The question is, would our economy be better for the poor if the State allowed the market to be more free than it currently is while advocating (PUBLICLY and OFTEN) collective bargaining by the relatively-economically-powerless?
I think the rich will assure the latter never happens. Because it's cheaper for them to buy off unprincipled politicians (who will work to divide the electorate, thereby rendering collective bargaining unlikely) than it is to contend with a labor pool that is more united in its approach to wage-negotiation, etc. And that's the path of least resistance for the politicians, anyway. Because it's easier to know how to campaign when you're buying votes with wealth redistribution.
Not to mention that the rich can have ideological bents of their own, anyway. So they also want to see a certain KIND of society brought about , but usually only so long as they will still be RICH in it. An informed, dignified, united labor pool is the greatest threat to the monopolistic tendencies of the super rich.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 12/7/2010 4:56:27 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/7/2010 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Asher. How about my question to, bro. I really am interested in your perspective on that.
Sidebar: I was looking at Luke 6:37. And I thought about the judging thing. In order to truly love oneself, it would seem that one would have to stop judging oneself and the projecting that self-judgment onto others. To the extent a person judges and condemns themselves, they just plain WILL judge and condemn others along those same lines. As I think about it, the "judging" that Jesus talks about sure sounds a lot like projection.
In Freudian psychology, Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies their own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
It's the perfect grounds for judging and scapegoating other while in unseen hypocrisy.
Total sidebar. Back to the topic. 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/7/2010 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: "...is there any thing inherent withing your personal view of capitalism that could prevent such obvious oppression by corporations?"
First, please describe to me the nature of the obvious oppression.
Read my other post to Daniel about the nature of insurance, then answer, Are you opposed to all insurance?
Do I think this is perfectly fine behavior?
Not exactly, but it is ameliorated if we examine it. 1) the nature of insurance and 2) what if it wasn't called "Dead Peasant Insurance"? (Keep in mind, the companies taking out the insurance are not the ones that originated the title "Dead Peasant Insurance" it was the insurance company.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/7/2010 5:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: "...is there any thing inherent withing your personal view of capitalism that could prevent such obvious oppression by corporations?"
It's also important to keep in mind a point from my first post.
Free will beings can and do twist around pretty much all morality. Is there anything about capitalism that prevents them from doing that? No. Then again, there is also nothing within socialism that prevents them from doing it either. Whether you are being oppressed by management from a company or management from a government...doesn't really make that much difference does it? Here's a key point...oppression can happen under both capitalism and socialism (socialism here meaning state socialism)...however, oppression is not entailed under capitalism, oppression is entailed under socialism (state socialism). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/7/2010 6:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: But the idea of corporations pocketing money off of dead employees from life policies that the employees (and families) were unaware of? That's kind of...well...ungodly and evil.
Again, I'm not saying it's in good taste, but what about the ameliorating factors, you haven't addressed them.
The company invested resources into it's employees to both train them objectively for their jobs and also to train them on the subjective atmosphere that any given company seeks to foster. The death of that employee is a loss to the company. To simply say "corporations pocketing money off of dead employees" is not to take account of all factors. How is the insurance that much different than life insurance payable to a spouse?
Consider everything I have mentioned in all posts in this thread as ameliorating factors, then let's ask again if we can unreservedly call this "evil".
Again, I'm not endorsing this as if it's perfectly acceptable to me, I'm just not as outraged as you and Daniel about it given all the factors. Should the employees be notified, and possibly have opt out provisions? Maybe. How does this type of insurance compare to unemployment insurance? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/7/2010 6:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
The company invested resources into it's employees to both train them objectively for their jobs and also to train them on the subjective atmosphere that any given company seeks to foster. The death of that employee is a loss to the company. To simply say "corporations pocketing money off of dead employees" is not to take account of all factors. How is the insurance that much different than life insurance payable to a spouse?
So...the life insurance policies on employees where the corporations are the beneficiaries (UNKNOWN and UNCHOSEN by the employees themselves)...is just so that the companies can have a re-coup of their "loss" of future money-making capacity in the death of the employee? That's how you see it?
Question: in this scenario, is it possible for the company to get paid from the employee's death...while the family doesn't get a dime (because the employee didn't get his own life insurance)?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 12/7/2010 5:20:01 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/7/2010 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
Free will beings can and do twist around pretty much all morality. Is there anything about capitalism that prevents them from doing that? No.
Dwayne: Hmm. Good to know.
I seriously don't know if you mean this tongue in cheek or if you totally missed the point of my post.
Every conceivable system...capitalism, socialism, etc. etc....they ALL have nothing within themselves to prevent free will beings from doing the unethical.
Dwayne: Just on a theoretical level, what about that covenantal socialism that you and I'd been talking about? Would oppression be largely actualizable in that system?
To the extent that God doesn't strike people dead when they transgress, then yes, oppression is actualizable there as well.
Someone, even within a covenantal socialism, is the final decider about how resources will be used. And not everyone is gonna agree...look at the dispute over the supporting of Jewish versus Gentile widows in the early church and you find people making just this claim...those in power were favoring one set of widows over the other set. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/7/2010 6:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: So...the life insurance policies on employees where the corporations are the beneficiaries (UNKNOWN and UNCHOSEN by the employees themselves)...is just so that the companies can have a re-coup of their "loss" of future money-making capacity in the death of the employee? That's how you see it?
I'm not saying that's how I see it. I'm just saying, it's not as simple as the way you see it. (Not just loss of future money-making capacity, but loss of training costs as well. The company now has to train someone else to do that employee's job)
Let's look at the UNKNOWN and UNCHOSEN aspects:
If the employees were 1) notified about the intent to take out such insurance on them...and 2) given the option of objecting....would the insurance in ITSELF be a problem to you? Is it the "behind the back" factor that makes this so evil for you, or is it the insurance itself?
If an employee was informed and objected...does the company have any recourse in your mind?
How is this that much different from unemployment insurance that companies are FORCED to have?
Dwayne: Question: in this scenario, is it possible for the company to get paid from the employee's death...while the family doesn't get a dime (because the employee didn't get his own life insurance)?
Most companies provide life insurance for their employees. It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison on all the companies in that list to see how many of them also provide life insurance for their employees.
When you ask "is it possible" I'm assuming you mean, do I agree with such an outcome...first, why didn't the employee get his own life insurance? That's the question that should be asked first. I'm not saying individuals and organizations aren't responsible for others...I'm saying that the first keystone of morality is self-responsibility. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/7/2010 11:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
I'm saying that the first keystone of morality is self-responsibility.
I feel a DEEP rant coming on about this...but I'm gonna try to moderate. 
I'll say this. When people struggle with mental health issues to a heavy degree (which is more of a classist problem than many would admit), asking them to hold themselves to some merticritous idea of "self-responsibility" in the midst of a system that exploits those very issues is less than realistic. My wife and I work with such people in her Adult Rehabilitative Mental Health Services business. Basically, some people are so beaten down by life circumstances, they plain don't have the ABILITY to advocate for themselves to get the rights due them...and corporations EXPLOIT that. Groups like Clear Horizons (my wife's business) to specifically AID people to whom this occurs.
I see it all the time, homie. Straight up.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 12/7/2010 10:37:06 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/7/2010 11:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: What I'm hearing from you, Asher, is this: Capitalism (as I'm understanding your take of it) is the least inherently oppressive economic option; at the same time, it is suceptible to unethical misuse of the system and has no inherent protectants against that abuse.
There is nothing about capitalism that entails oppression. Inasmuch as free will beings can act unethical because of their free will, then they can misuse the system. There is no such thing as inherent protectants against abuse in ANY economic system.
inherent oppression no inherent oppression
socialism capitalism
susceptibility to misuse
socialism + capitalism
inherent protectants against abuse
neither socialism nor capitalism | | Back to Top | | |
| 43 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:47 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|