Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote: Exactly how do you figure out equal work, amount of work, quality of work, amount of time fucking around, disrupting other people, taking time off from work for different reasons. Oh, I know, you let the fucking government evaluate all these factors, and at the same time hire bureaucrats off the street to do it, thereby reducing unemployment.

You can't, which is exactly why there are laws governing it. Women used to automatically be paid less than men for the same work. You seem to believe that without laws humans will all behave impeccably towards each other, and everything will be fair and wonderful. Sorry pal, it doesn't work that way. We have evolved laws for a reason. Without them humans treat each other like shit.
Correction: I forgot, you don't give a crap about 'fairness', you only care about your 'freedom and liberty' (whatever that's supposed to mean).

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Exactly how do you figure out equal work, amount of work, quality of work, amount of time fucking around, disrupting other people, taking time off from work for different reasons. Oh, I know, you let the fucking government evaluate all these factors, and at the same time hire bureaucrats off the street to do it, thereby reducing unemployment.

You can't, which is exactly why there are laws governing it. Women used to automatically be paid less than men for the same work. You seem to believe that without laws humans will all behave impeccably towards each other, and everything will be fair and wonderful. Sorry pal, it doesn't work that way. We have evolved laws for a reason. Without them humans treat each other like shit.
Correction: I forgot, you don't give a crap about 'fairness', you only care about your 'freedom and liberty' (whatever that's supposed to mean).

It doesn't matter if an employer doesn't like your race, religion, gender, age, disability or anything else about you, if he wants to pay you less or not hire you at all, that should be his absolute right, just like you have the absolute right not to patronize an establishment for the same reasons. Unfortunately, you have a very limited understanding of what freedom is all about.

bobevenson wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Exactly how do you figure out equal work, amount of work, quality of work, amount of time fucking around, disrupting other people, taking time off from work for different reasons. Oh, I know, you let the fucking government evaluate all these factors, and at the same time hire bureaucrats off the street to do it, thereby reducing unemployment.

You can't, which is exactly why there are laws governing it. Women used to automatically be paid less than men for the same work. You seem to believe that without laws humans will all behave impeccably towards each other, and everything will be fair and wonderful. Sorry pal, it doesn't work that way. We have evolved laws for a reason. Without them humans treat each other like shit.
Correction: I forgot, you don't give a crap about 'fairness', you only care about your 'freedom and liberty' (whatever that's supposed to mean).

It doesn't matter if an employer doesn't like your race, religion, gender, age, disability or anything else about you, if he wants to pay you less or not hire you at all, that should be his absolute right, just like you have the absolute right not to patronize an establishment for the same reasons. Unfortunately, you have a very limited understanding of what freedom is all about.

Apparently it means anything that fits with your warped and brain-washed little view of the world. I'm not sure why you write on a philosophy site, because it's philosophy that has driven these very laws you despise so much.

I guess you didn't realize that I am Bob the Baptist, the new guru, the modern messiah, the wizard of Ouzo, and a divinely-inspired prophet of all things spiritual, political and economic, so I'll just ignore your comments if you don't mind.

bobevenson wrote:I guess you didn't realize that I am Bob the Baptist, the new guru, the modern messiah, the wizard of Ouzo, and a divinely-inspired prophet of all things spiritual, political and economic, so I'll just ignore your comments if you don't mind.

Bob, I get the feeling this thread will disappear.

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:I guess you didn't realize that I am Bob the Baptist, the new guru, the modern messiah, the wizard of Ouzo, and a divinely-inspired prophet of all things spiritual, political and economic, so I'll just ignore your comments if you don't mind.

Bob, I get the feeling this thread will disappear.

I was hoping it would be you that disappears.

bobevenson wrote:


Bob, I get the feeling this thread will disappear.

I was hoping it would be you that disappears.[/quote]

LOL, Yes, I know.

bobevenson wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Exactly how do you figure out equal work, amount of work, quality of work, amount of time fucking around, disrupting other people, taking time off from work for different reasons. Oh, I know, you let the fucking government evaluate all these factors, and at the same time hire bureaucrats off the street to do it, thereby reducing unemployment.

You can't, which is exactly why there are laws governing it. Women used to automatically be paid less than men for the same work. You seem to believe that without laws humans will all behave impeccably towards each other, and everything will be fair and wonderful. Sorry pal, it doesn't work that way. We have evolved laws for a reason. Without them humans treat each other like shit.
Correction: I forgot, you don't give a crap about 'fairness', you only care about your 'freedom and liberty' (whatever that's supposed to mean).

It doesn't matter if an employer doesn't like your race, religion, gender, age, disability or anything else about you, if he wants to pay you less or not hire you at all, that should be his absolute right, just like you have the absolute right not to patronize an establishment for the same reasons. Unfortunately, you have a very limited understanding of what freedom is all about.

It does matter bob, it just doesn't matter to you. You are not the all singing all dancing crap of the world bob, some people care about a fair shake and a fair deal for everyone. At least you are calling such people liberals now instead of socialists, some progress has at least been made.

Blaggard wrote: It does matter bob, it just doesn't matter to you. You are not the all singing all dancing crap of the world bob, some people care about a fair shake and a fair deal for everyone.

That's what socialism is all about, giving everybody a fair shake, a fair deal, a level playing field, all meaningless phrases and euphemisms for stealing from people and taking away their freedom.

"the Power of Government Must be Limited"

Yes, I agree completely. Who doesn't?

The rest of the Walter Williams quote is biased, blinkered and thoughtlessly misleading. For instance ...

In a distant third place were the Nazis, who murdered about 16 million ...

In third place, if you ignore the important factor of time. That's 16 million in 12 years, a annual state murder rate of 1.3M, whereas the Soviet Union's 62M and China's 40M correspond to annual rates of 0.89M and 0.92M. Appalling, yes, but far worse than the Third Reich? No.

He makes similar scale-blind errors when he says ...

The 20th century turned out to be mankind's most barbaric.

... and ...

... during earlier times, there wasn't the kind of concentration of power that emerged during the 20th century.

There weren't as many people being governed by anyone before the 20thC, true, but the Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire ... all were concentrations of power of exactly the same kind as the Third Reich etc.

Why does he want to confuse his readers like this? Because at the heart of his thesis is a big lie that he needs to hide. It isn't socialist ideals that threaten the people, it is anti-socialist factions. Hitler wasn't gifted his holocaust powers by the left, but by industrialists and businessmen who feared socialism just like Americans are taught to do.

The masses are always duped by well-intentioned phrases.

No, not always they aren't.

Walter Williams was directly on target, but you try to disparage his remarks by introducing extraneous issues.

Valid criticism of ideas is a bit disparaging of them, bob. It's supposed to be. That's how philosophy works.

Do you have a problem with philosophy now?

mickthinks wrote:Valid criticism of ideas is a bit disparaging of them.

You did not offer a valid criticism of anything Walter Williams said.

You don't recognise valid criticism of people and ideas you support, bob.

mickthinks wrote:You don't recognise valid criticism of people and ideas you support, bob.

A prophet supports no one:

From: bob evenson
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:08 AM
To: Walter E Williams
Subject: Your Latest Column
Got to disagree on who should be allowed to vote. No proper basis for discriminating against anybody, including murderers, rapists, prisoners of any kind, ex-cons, children, or babies in utero.

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:39 AM, Walter E Williams <wwilliam@gmu.edu> wrote:
Thanks. You disagree but whom did I say, in the column, should be allowed to vote?
Cheers.
Professor Walter E. Williams
George Mason University, Economics
4400 University Dr., MSN 3G4
Fairfax, VA 22030

Me
To Walter E Williams
You implied that convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to vote when you said, "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently stated that we must revisit the laws that ban convicted felons from voting. Why?"