Fast Food Strikes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]moroots wrote:
Several years ago, I was in Paris, and I walked into a McDonalds hoping to get a Royale with Cheese just for the novelty of it. After seeing on the menu that the burger alone - not the value meal - was over 6 euros, I said fuck it, novelty or not, I’m not paying $9 for a shitty McD burger. Why can European McDs afford to pay the higher minimum wage, mandatory benefits, etc? Because the price is passed along to the consumer.

McDs would be going out of business left and right if they started charging these prices in the U.S. This illustrates what is an uncomfortable truth to statists: making the low-cost end of the product spectrum essentially illegal (by setting price floors in input prices) destroys the ability of entrepreneurs to bring the cheapest and most affordable products to market. You know those that the poor might most be able to afford. [/quote]

Europeans also can’t make a burger worth a shit. Seriously, I stopped at a Burger King near Florence, Italy and thought I bit into a tire.

82

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
If an increase in the minimum wage leads to an overall effect of improving the lifes of people stuck in low-wage employment and increasing Growth in Your domestic market, then I will say that a few bancrupt company’s is Worth the cost. As they say, you have to break some eggs to make a omelett.[/quote]

lmao… Yes, shrinking the already low job pool for unskilled workers is SURE to end in a net benefit for everyone…

jesus dude. [/quote]

If you had taken the time to check out a post I made afer that one, I clarified my position. In essence I didnt mean that fewer total jobs in the nation is a positive. I can admit the post you qouted was poorly worded, hence why I clarified later.

83

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
but if you want a capitalist system that is not living hell for most, [/quote]

WTF are you talking about?

You seriously need to crack a history book. Capitalism is such fucking hell, the people bitching about “I need $200 an hour to mop floors and pour coffee” shit into water that is still cleaner AFTER they shit in it, than billion’s of people’s drinking water.

Get the fuck out with this nonsense. [/quote]

Perhaps it is you who need to open up a history book. History tells us that the state have interfered in the market because pure capitalism didnt work out for most. Thats why you did get regulations, a welfare state and unions. The two first are band aids solutions. If you remove to much of those band aids, then I bet you that regular working People will like capitalism alot less. Not saying btw that the market havent produced something good, but history clearly shows that the working conditions under the industrialisation( not shure if that was spelled right ) was horrible and still are in many developing countrys. “band aids” solutions are necesary if you dont want a popular revolt against capitalism.

BTW I am currently writing my Masters thesis in history, so I have read my share of history.

84

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
but if you want a capitalist system that is not living hell for most, [/quote]

WTF are you talking about?

You seriously need to crack a history book. Capitalism is such fucking hell, the people bitching about “I need $200 an hour to mop floors and pour coffee” shit into water that is still cleaner AFTER they shit in it, than billion’s of people’s drinking water.

Get the fuck out with this nonsense. [/quote]

Perhaps it is you who need to open up a history book. History tells us that the state have interfered in the market because pure capitalism didnt work out for most.[/quote]

Hold on… So because government had to step in and use rule of law to prevent one group of people from taking advantage of another group, you’re conclusion is “capitalism is hell”?

So I suppose America is still a slave state in your logical interpretation then? I mean, forget the whole 300k+ people who died to end it.

Yes, murder being illegal is a regulation too, does that mean not being chained to a post for all eternity is a living hell?

Do you apply this same level of analysis to all rule of law, or just the ones you don’t like?

I’d be willing to bet you’d be completely wrong, hence this thread.

These people don’t like the way they have been treated and are pissed. If you entertain the notion that we couldn’t just eliminate the child working laws without 7 year olds going back to factories, I honestly can’t help but chuckle.

This is 1876, 1652 nor any other time. In the developed world we’ve become accustomed to a system that works a certain way, and the rules now, reflect that custom. We’ve built norms… Social norms don’t need laws, for the most part.

So you completely agree with my point that the more free markets of the contemporary developed world has given a much better living situation than the centrally planned markets of the repeated failures of collectivism?

Fair enough… Maybe indulge in different interpretations then…

85

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Hold on… So because government had to step in and use rule of law to prevent one group of people from taking advantage of another group, you’re conclusion is “capitalism is hell”?

So I suppose America is still a slave state in your logical interpretation then? I mean, forget the whole 300k+ people who died to end it.
[/quote]

Try to follow. Living and working conditions for workers under the industrial revolution(s) was bad ergo People reacted to this and implemented laws to protect workers, the enviroment and New political ideology’s( social-iberalism and various forms of socialism ) popped up as an reaction to 19-century capitalism. What saved capitalism then and made it more liveable are those laws and thats thanks to Democracy not capitalism. Also since this did happen and similar stuff happened again, you can conclude that a purer form( closer to the wet dream of libertarians ) was hellish to live under and unpopular. Why do you think libertarianism is so unpopular compared to more moderate variations of Liberalism( conservativism and social-liberalism ) and more moderate forms of socialism( social-democracy )

And no I dont consider Your country to still be a slave state. My argument is simply that if capitalism is to work and be tolerated or liked by the People, then you need to have laws and institutions that help and protect workers. Also a minimum wage wich put People above the poverty line is an obvious part of such a variation of capitalism.

I am offcourse talking strictly about regulations that interfere in economical matters.

Capitalism is a global system, there is still child Labour in the world and we in the west benefits from that trough cheap goods.

No I dont agree and Your argument there doesnt make sense.

Ditto.

86

[quote]florelius wrote:

Try to follow. [/quote]

Ditto

hmmm… So you’re blaming the citizen’s ownership of capital, otherwise known as freedom, for the actions of some of these people who own capital, whom allowed people to, by choice, work for them?

I mean, last I checked no one was forced by rule of law to work for anyone else.

So… Your stance is as follows: The will of the people to change the working conditions was so great that they forced their representatives in government to make rule of law apply to the industrial revolution, which no one had ever encountered before.

I mean, your contention is the people in the nation wanted certain limits and their government codified those changes into law? So the very people who choose to work for these companies, then choose to force these companies to respect them/treat them a certain way?

This is what you attribute to “saving” private ownership of capital? The will of the people to enact rule of law is what you are contending prevented the government from just taking over ownership of capital?

And btw, America is a republic. Again, that pesky history thing…

WTF are you talking about? How can private ownership of capital be anymore pure than it is? Your argument here makes no sense.

I think times change, views change, and your assessment of what is or isn’t popular is very skewed by your environment.

So… rather than have happened, be what happened, you think if what happened didn’t happen the people would instead ask for government to take over ownership of capital?

Do you not see how you’ve completely contradicted yourself?

You: If what happened didn’t happen, the system I don’t like would have failed, but the fact what happened did in fact happen means the system I don’t like is a failure.

Um yeah, until the short term effects of that wage fade, and the long term effects of that wage create a need for another raise.

You see, your ideals promote laziness and a lack of productivity, because you don’t have to earn more, you are given more. Low paid labor gives an incentive to not be paid shit wages.

[quote]

I am offcourse talking strictly about regulations that interfere in economical matters. [/quote]

Right, because your logic extended falls apart. At least you admit it.

[quote]
Capitalism is a global system,[/quote]

Nope. No it isn’t. It is becoming one, but isn’t there yet.

GASP! You mean other people might have to do what people in the west did and effect change in their own systems? NOOOOOO!

I wonder if they do what they did here and enact regulation that prevent abuse but still keep the system that has made generations of entire populations wealthy beyond the wildest imaginations of anyone in the world 200 years ago. Nope, you’re probably right and they will ask the government to take over control of the capital and live under the totalitarian rule that plagued mankind since civilization’s origin and prevent all but the chosen few to enjoy wealth and comfort. Yeah, they will certainly choose the latter.

[quote]

No I dont agree and Your argument there doesnt make sense.[/quote]

Keep thinking about it, it will dawn on you soon enough.

I worshipped the collectivist tit for a couple decades, this is my new perspective. Amazing what being in the real world will do for your life view, and not just going to college all day.

87

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Try to follow. [/quote]

Ditto

So… Your stance is as follows: The will of the people to change the working conditions was so great that they forced their representatives in government to make rule of law apply to the industrial revolution, which no one had ever encountered before.

I mean, your contention is the people in the nation wanted certain limits and their government codified those changes into law? So the very people who choose to work for these companies, then choose to force these companies to respect them/treat them a certain way?

This is what you attribute to “saving” private ownership of capital? The will of the people to enact rule of law is what you are contending prevented the government from just taking over ownership of capital?

And btw, America is a republic. Again, that pesky history thing…

WTF are you talking about? How can private ownership of capital be anymore pure than it is? Your argument here makes no sense.

I think times change, views change, and your assessment of what is or isn’t popular is very skewed by your environment.

So… rather than have happened, be what happened, you think if what happened didn’t happen the people would instead ask for government to take over ownership of capital?

Do you not see how you’ve completely contradicted yourself?

You: If what happened didn’t happen, the system I don’t like would have failed, but the fact what happened did in fact happen means the system I don’t like is a failure.

Um yeah, until the short term effects of that wage fade, and the long term effects of that wage create a need for another raise.

You see, your ideals promote laziness and a lack of productivity, because you don’t have to earn more, you are given more. Low paid labor gives an incentive to not be paid shit wages.

[quote]

I am offcourse talking strictly about regulations that interfere in economical matters. [/quote]

Right, because your logic extended falls apart. At least you admit it.

[quote]
Capitalism is a global system,[/quote]

Nope. No it isn’t. It is becoming one, but isn’t there yet.

GASP! You mean other people might have to do what people in the west did and effect change in their own systems? NOOOOOO!

I wonder if they do what they did here and enact regulation that prevent abuse but still keep the system that has made generations of entire populations wealthy beyond the wildest imaginations of anyone in the world 200 years ago. Nope, you’re probably right and they will ask the government to take over control of the capital and live under the totalitarian rule that plagued mankind since civilization’s origin and prevent all but the chosen few to enjoy wealth and comfort. Yeah, they will certainly choose the latter.

I said what I had to say in the post I posted before on the subject of hellish living conditions in a purer form of capitalism than we have today in the western world. I am not going to keep making the same argument over and over again.

And btw People that attend university live in the real world too you fucking arrogant prick.

88

Btw regarding Republic:

“A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people,[1] and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world’s 206 sovereign states use the word “republic” as part of their official names.” ( wikipedia.org )

Sounds very similar to representative Democracy in my book.

Here is a “fun fact”. In my country I am a republican because I am against the institution of monarchy. America is a Republic because you dont have a king, but you still have a representative Democracy.

89

[quote]florelius wrote:

I said what I had to say in the post I posted before on the subject of hellish living conditions in a purer form of capitalism than we have today in the western world. I am not going to keep making the same argument over and over again. [/quote]

I want to quit arguing this too to be honest. I don’t have the energy tonight.

And btw I attended university (2 of them) for a total of 8 years, undergrad and graduate. I have 3 degrees and a whole bunch of letters after my name. That doesn’t come from arrogance, but rather, been there, done that…

90

[quote]florelius wrote:

Sounds very similar to representative Democracy in my book. [/quote]

Great. You’re wrong, but good for you.

Some states in the Union allow certain regulations to be decided by democratic means, and our representatives are chosen through democratic (to a degree) means. Other than that, not a democracy, not at all.

But that’s a truth that doesn’t fit the statist narrative so they don’t bother to teach the subtitles anymore.

[quote] but you still have a representative Democracy.

[/quote]

Just like your argument above, you can say the same things over and over if you want, doesn’t make them true.

91

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

I said what I had to say in the post I posted before on the subject of hellish living conditions in a purer form of capitalism than we have today in the western world. I am not going to keep making the same argument over and over again. [/quote]

I want to quit arguing this too to be honest. I don’t have the energy tonight.

And btw I attended university (2 of them) for a total of 8 years, undergrad and graduate. I have 3 degrees and a whole bunch of letters after my name. That doesn’t come from arrogance, but rather, been there, done that…[/quote]

Finaly we agree on something LOL.

I know you went to university, you work with acounting right?
I am sorry I called you a prick, but you being done With college and “living in the real world” dont disprove my world view. Its an autorativ argument. Its the same as if I said I know better since I have a history degree during a discussion regarding historical matters. That would be an asanine argument for me to make and I would be extremely arrogant for making it. I d however understand your point that People change their views( many do atleast ) during their lifetime, but I have done that on many issues and I have afterall been Reading and posting in a pre-dominantly conservative forum for years. Atleast I am challenging my views.

92

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Sounds very similar to representative Democracy in my book. [/quote]

Great. You’re wrong, but good for you.

Some states in the Union allow certain regulations to be decided by democratic means, and our representatives are chosen through democratic (to a degree) means. Other than that, not a democracy, not at all.

But that’s a truth that doesn’t fit the statist narrative so they don’t bother to teach the subtitles anymore.

[quote] but you still have a representative Democracy.

[/quote]

Just like your argument above, you can say the same things over and over if you want, doesn’t make them true. [/quote]

If you mean ancient greek Democracy or Direct Democracy when you use the term demoracy( repetative I know ) then yes you dont have a Democracy and neither do my country. But in modern lingua Democracy are mostly used to describe a country With a representative democractic system and With a constitution wich limits the state in some respect( humans rights for example ). I know that your model is different than Ours, but I would argue that your system is a variation of representativ Democracy. If you want to Call that a Republic then fine.

93

[quote]florelius wrote:
you work with acounting right? [/quote]

Yes

lmao, dude, don’t be sorry, I am a prick. I don’t take this place personal and we’re arguing politics. There is going to be some digs tossed around once in awhile.

, [quote]but you being done With college and “living in the real world” dont disprove my world view. Its an autorativ argument. Its the same as if I said I know better since I have a history degree during a discussion regarding historical matters. That would be an asanine argument for me to make and I would be extremely arrogant for making it.[/quote]

Agreed. That was really (honestly) a statement on how I’ve changed, and why I changed. I’m basically 180 degrees different than how I was “raised” to be and was throughout school.

I give you a lot of credit for listening to us windbags whom you must think have some sort of mental disorder to believe what we do, lol.

94

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Sounds very similar to representative Democracy in my book. [/quote]

Great. You’re wrong, but good for you.

Some states in the Union allow certain regulations to be decided by democratic means, and our representatives are chosen through democratic (to a degree) means. Other than that, not a democracy, not at all.

But that’s a truth that doesn’t fit the statist narrative so they don’t bother to teach the subtitles anymore.

[quote] but you still have a representative Democracy.

[/quote]

Just like your argument above, you can say the same things over and over if you want, doesn’t make them true. [/quote]

If you mean ancient greek Democracy or Direct Democracy when you use the term demoracy( repetative I know ) then yes you dont have a Democracy and neither do my country. But in modern lingua Democracy are mostly used to describe a country With a representative democractic system and With a constitution wich limits the state in some respect( humans rights for example ). I know that your model is different than Ours, but I would argue that your system is a variation of representativ Democracy. If you want to Call that a Republic then fine. [/quote]

I do want to use the strict definitions because to not do so plays into the narrative that is currently in vogue here. A narrative I reject and do generally fear.

95

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
you work with acounting right? [/quote]

Yes

lmao, dude, don’t be sorry, I am a prick. I don’t take this place personal and we’re arguing politics. There is going to be some digs tossed around once in awhile.

, [quote]but you being done With college and “living in the real world” dont disprove my world view. Its an autorativ argument. Its the same as if I said I know better since I have a history degree during a discussion regarding historical matters. That would be an asanine argument for me to make and I would be extremely arrogant for making it.[/quote]

Agreed. That was really (honestly) a statement on how I’ve changed, and why I changed. I’m basically 180 degrees different than how I was “raised” to be and was throughout school.

I give you a lot of credit for listening to us windbags whom you must think have some sort of mental disorder to believe what we do, lol.
[/quote]

Thanks for that.

Well not mental disorder LOL, but I get shocked from time to time. Not when People defend capitalism or argue for a Libertarian utiopa, but when some argue for the Death penalty, argues for eugenics for Downs People, makes racist or sexist remarks or in some way or the other shows a lack of the minimum of empathy you would expect from a decent human-being, I sometimes feel like I have stepped into a Virtual reality. Our discussion today is not one of those times.

96

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Sounds very similar to representative Democracy in my book. [/quote]

Great. You’re wrong, but good for you.

Some states in the Union allow certain regulations to be decided by democratic means, and our representatives are chosen through democratic (to a degree) means. Other than that, not a democracy, not at all.

But that’s a truth that doesn’t fit the statist narrative so they don’t bother to teach the subtitles anymore.

[quote] but you still have a representative Democracy.

[/quote]

Just like your argument above, you can say the same things over and over if you want, doesn’t make them true. [/quote]

If you mean ancient greek Democracy or Direct Democracy when you use the term demoracy( repetative I know ) then yes you dont have a Democracy and neither do my country. But in modern lingua Democracy are mostly used to describe a country With a representative democractic system and With a constitution wich limits the state in some respect( humans rights for example ). I know that your model is different than Ours, but I would argue that your system is a variation of representativ Democracy. If you want to Call that a Republic then fine. [/quote]

I do want to use the strict definitions because to not do so plays into the narrative that is currently in vogue here. A narrative I reject and do generally fear.
[/quote]

I can understand that. I am rather anal regarding other terms( See my discussion With pittbull regarding the meaning of the term socialism ). I also dont like that your country conflates liberalism With socialdemocracy, thats confusing as shit for a person from Europa LOL. Liberalism in Europa( except England ) is Close to what you in US Calls Libertarianism.

97

[quote]florelius wrote:

Try to follow. Living and working conditions for workers under the industrial revolution(s) was bad ergo People reacted to this and implemented laws to protect workers, the enviroment and New political ideology’s( social-iberalism and various forms of socialism ) popped up as an reaction to 19-century capitalism.

[/quote]

True to an extent, however “socialism” actually developed in response to feudalism in the 18th Century. It was also a result of abstract political philosophy that came about from the disillusionment in the divine right of kings and the existential crisis that ensued from rationalism/atheism. There have been three epochs in history:

  1. All of history till the enlightenment >> age of theocracy.

  2. Enlightenment till the French Revolution >> age of abstract political philosophy.

  3. Industrial Revolution till today >> Age of Science.

It was not democracy that made capitalism more bearable it was the paternalistic intervention of 19th Century reformists who were from the upper classes. Better conditions were pretty much granted to the commoners. Democracy is actually what led to the French Revolution, Revolutions of 1848 and eventually Bolshevism.

98

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Sounds very similar to representative Democracy in my book. [/quote]

Great. You’re wrong, but good for you.

Some states in the Union allow certain regulations to be decided by democratic means, and our representatives are chosen through democratic (to a degree) means. Other than that, not a democracy, not at all.

But that’s a truth that doesn’t fit the statist narrative so they don’t bother to teach the subtitles anymore.

[quote] but you still have a representative Democracy.

[/quote]

Just like your argument above, you can say the same things over and over if you want, doesn’t make them true. [/quote]

If you mean ancient greek Democracy or Direct Democracy when you use the term demoracy( repetative I know ) then yes you dont have a Democracy and neither do my country. But in modern lingua Democracy are mostly used to describe a country With a representative democractic system and With a constitution wich limits the state in some respect( humans rights for example ). I know that your model is different than Ours, but I would argue that your system is a variation of representativ Democracy. If you want to Call that a Republic then fine. [/quote]

I do want to use the strict definitions because to not do so plays into the narrative that is currently in vogue here. A narrative I reject and do generally fear.
[/quote]

I can understand that. I am rather anal regarding other terms( See my discussion With pittbull regarding the meaning of the term socialism ). I also dont like that your country conflates liberalism With socialdemocracy, thats confusing as shit for a person from Europa LOL. Liberalism in Europa( except England ) is Close to what you in US Calls Libertarianism. [/quote]

Good article discussing modern liberalism:

http://www.tomsunic.com/?p=319

Carl Schmitt argued that modern liberalism is an extremely dangerous ideology for a number of reasons:

  1. It is a utopian philosophy like Communism.

  2. It is global in perspective. It seeks to “spread” liberal democracy throughout the world.

  3. It claims to represent “humanity” and “humane ideals” therefore anyone who opposes it is necessarily inhumane and working against humanity.

Put these 3 together and you have a recipe for an extremely destructive and dangerous globalist ideology.

99

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It was not democracy that made capitalism more bearable [/quote]

It wasn’t capitalism that wasnt’ bearable. Human history has shown again and again the State can be a ruthless master.

What wasn’t bearable were the conditions in specific situations where people voluntarily went to work for other people in conditions they didn’t like and wanted to change.

100

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It was not democracy that made capitalism more bearable [/quote]

It wasn’t capitalism that wasnt’ bearable. Human history has shown again and again the State can be a ruthless master.

What wasn’t bearable were the conditions in specific situations where people voluntarily went to work for other people in conditions they didn’t like and wanted to change.
[/quote]

That seems like an attempt to disassociate the conditions under which factory workers and miners laboured from the economic system that led to those conditions. Of course such conditions would not have been any better if the state owned the means of production so it’s not a comparative indictment of capitalism. But it’s a fact that capitalism is what fuelled the industrial revolution. It’s what fuelled plantation slavery in the Southern states. By its very nature capitalism is exploitative despite its voluntary nature. When someone sells something they seek the highest price - they exploit vulnerability: scarcity and necessity.