Paid Sick Days

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i honestly don’t get your replies. Do you value art solely on it’s commercial succes?

A funny thing about a system where force (including government force) or fraud are not available means for getting money, is that those that get money, provide things in return that other people value. They value the things enough to voluntarily choose to pay for them.

That’s why the creators, makers, or service providers get the money.

Someone that produces art that other people actually value can get money in the process.

Then there those that turn out “art” that other people just don’t want to pay for. Because they don’t feel like the “art” is worth it to them.

Why should force be used to make them pay for it.

If their “art” is something that no one values enough to want to pay for, why can this person not earn their living producing things or providing services that people actually do want, and do art as a hobby?
[/quote]

Good point.

Does art serve a function that is worth paying for when noone is willing to pay voluntarily?

Obviously art that gets payed for is valued by people and it touches them in some way.

If however only the artist gets anything out of it, is it really art? Id call that therapy.

62

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i honestly don’t get your replies. Do you value art solely on it’s commercial succes?

Well first it was sarcasm because the Dutch of all people never had any problems financing talented artists and they were ultra-capitalists.

To say that these days they can only survive by shitty government grants is so sad really.

Then, after having read Bills post I had a vision of centuries of state sponsored Dutch art, and you surely must have seen fascist and socialist art?
[/quote]

Ah, now I see your point.

63

…because a society may value art simply because it’s art, and not just because it’s commercially viable or not…

64

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:If their “art” is something that no one values enough to want to pay for, why can this person not earn their living producing things or providing services that people actually do want, and do art as a hobby?

…because a society may value art simply because it’s art, and not just because it’s commercially viable or not…

[/quote]

You dont get it, how do you know if someone values something and how much exactly if he is not willing to pay for it?

That is how we usually do it.

65

[quote]orion wrote:Does art serve a function that is worth paying for when noone is willing to pay voluntarily?

Obviously art that gets payed for is valued by people and it touches them in some way.

If however only the artist gets anything out of it, is it really art? Id call that therapy.
[/quote]

…to make matters worse for you, the State actually buys works of art from “it’s” artists and we the people can rent art from designated galleries for a modest amount. These ‘art-lenders’ are very succesful, and many people use them. When you get bored of one piece, you return it and get another one. Fresh art all year round!

66

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:If their “art” is something that no one values enough to want to pay for, why can this person not earn their living producing things or providing services that people actually do want, and do art as a hobby?

…because a society may value art simply because it’s art, and not just because it’s commercially viable or not…

You dont get it, how do you know if someone values something and how much exactly if he is not willing to pay for it?

That is how we usually do it.

[/quote]

…allright, appreciate then. And ofcourse, we’re cheap [see my previous post]…

67

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:If their “art” is something that no one values enough to want to pay for, why can this person not earn their living producing things or providing services that people actually do want, and do art as a hobby?

…because a society may value art simply because it’s art, and not just because it’s commercially viable or not…

You dont get it, how do you know if someone values something and how much exactly if he is not willing to pay for it?

That is how we usually do it.

…allright, appreciate then. And ofcourse, we’re cheap [see my previous post]…
[/quote]

You do not gain anything by calling it “appreciate”. You either are willing to give up something for it is not worth anything to you.

The business model is interesting though.

Why do you need a government to do that?

Unless of course it would not succeed in the free market, but that would mean that more resources would be allocated towards art then it is actually valued by the Dutch.

68

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:If their “art” is something that no one values enough to want to pay for, why can this person not earn their living producing things or providing services that people actually do want, and do art as a hobby?

…because a society may value art simply because it’s art, and not just because it’s commercially viable or not…

You dont get it, how do you know if someone values something and how much exactly if he is not willing to pay for it?

That is how we usually do it.

…allright, appreciate then. And ofcourse, we’re cheap [see my previous post]…

You do not gain anything by calling it “appreciate”. You either are willing to give up something for it is not worth anything to you.

The business model is interesting though.

Why do you need a government to do that?

Unless of course it would not succeed in the free market, but that would mean that more resources would be allocated towards art then it is actually valued by the Dutch.[/quote]

…i don’t know if the business model would be succesful, but it stand to reason that there’s willingness to give up something [some of my money] for something else that does not directly benefits me. Why? I believe it benefits society…

69

I don’t see what the big deal is…I guess just keeping the government out of business which I can agree with. Give your people a few paid sick days a year but they should have to have a doctor approve it to claim the lost wages. This could also be used for your kids if you had to stay home when they are sick…as long as it is doctor approved. I don’t know about most people but if I’m sick enough to stay home then I’m sick enough that I need to go to the doctor and get the good shit. This would eliminate the “I’m sick but don’t need to go to the doctor” bullshit abuse.

If I ran a business I’d have a no note then we are taking it out of your vacation/wages policy.

70

So should artists that don’t/can’t produce works that anyone would want to pay a plug nickel of their own money for get paid sick days?

71

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:If their “art” is something that no one values enough to want to pay for, why can this person not earn their living producing things or providing services that people actually do want, and do art as a hobby?

…because a society may value art simply because it’s art, and not just because it’s commercially viable or not…

You dont get it, how do you know if someone values something and how much exactly if he is not willing to pay for it?

That is how we usually do it.

…allright, appreciate then. And ofcourse, we’re cheap [see my previous post]…

You do not gain anything by calling it “appreciate”. You either are willing to give up something for it is not worth anything to you.

The business model is interesting though.

Why do you need a government to do that?

Unless of course it would not succeed in the free market, but that would mean that more resources would be allocated towards art then it is actually valued by the Dutch.

…i don’t know if the business model would be succesful, but it stand to reason that there’s willingness to give up something [some of my money] for something else that does not directly benefits me. Why? I believe it benefits society…
[/quote]

Well then it would still be benefitting you, you get something out of it.

I do not get why someone else has to pay for that though. You claim not to care for money in these instances yet you need other peoples money to finance these things. So in fact you do care.

Is it not closer to the truth that it is not worth your money to you but it is worth their money to you?

After all now you get what you desire for “free”, your cost is close to zero.

72

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i don’t know if the business model would be succesful, but it stand to reason that there’s willingness to give up something [some of my money] for something else that does not directly benefits me. Why? I believe it benefits society…

Well then it would still be benefitting you, you get something out of it.[/quote]

…yes, indirectly it benefits me…

…come again?

[quote]Is it not closer to the truth that it is not worth your money to you but it is worth their money to you?

After all now you get what you desire for “free”, your cost is close to zero.[/quote]

…who is ‘their’? A fraction of our taxes goes towards funding artists like this, so if my cost is close to zero, everybody’s cost is close to zero…

73

The magic of leftist mathematics!

I have a great idea Ephrem. Why should only the artists benefit from this wonderful math where they get something quite considerable, perhaps an entire living, but it really doesn’t cost anyone else anything.

Why not expand this to everyone?

Each of your fellow citizens will need to pay practically nothing to allow you a 100,000 Euro per year living off of them.

And you will need to pay practically nothing for each one of them.

You could all be living well indeed from government checks!

74

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The magic of leftist mathematics!

I have a great idea Ephrem. Why should only the artists benefit from this wonderful math where they get something quite considerable, perhaps an entire living, but it really doesn’t cost anyone else anything.

Why not expand this to everyone?

Each of your fellow citizens will need to pay practically nothing to allow you a 100,000 Euro per year living off of them.

And you will need to pay practically nothing for each one of them.

You could all be living well indeed from government checks![/quote]

…are you done here?

75

I hadn’t planned to post any more on that point, as it should have been sufficient for any who were ever going to grasp it to do so.

And for any who will never grasp it, there’s no point in trying to explain it again.