Just because I have the power does not mean I have to exert it. In fact, I would not want an employee to work for me if I have to "exert" anything on them.
My peeps look to me to lead them. Sometimes leading means letting them take the reigns every now and again and try them on for size. My valued employees are part of my company. My best part.
Keep in mind, I only have 3 full time people, so I can only speak from where I am coming from.
But my folks want to be there. They want to do good. They have great work ethic. We are all rowing the same canoe. We all have personal obligations and committments. We all look to our job to be able to provide for those things. What is good for one is good for all.
I couldn't "exert" that kind of attitude over them on my best day. It just happens.
But we all know who's nuts are in a vice there. But I don't need a "boss" name tag.
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg
I prefer to use the standard, actual definition of liberty. Not giving somebody something they want is not using force or aggression against them.
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger
No, I contend that with each restriction you lose freedom and never have the possibility to gain it back.You contend that freedom with legal restrictions is a given. I would ask why?
People do in fact believe that and it is very much a dangerous view.WHY must freedom be limited, no, inhibited, by laws? Do we not do this, impose this restriction on freedom, in order to promote a greater level of freedom?
I don't think merely punishing of right violations keeps us save or promotes freedom. It merely deals with something after it occurs and punishes the right violation.Seems to me, the idea flies just fine...I restrict their freedom to violate other people's rights...those rights, by and by, being the enablers of THEIR freedom. Without rights, without those restrictions on freedom, very very very few people would ever actually be anything remotely resembling "free".
I'm pretty much only interested in rights and liberties from natural and scientific outlook and everything else is not my concern. Some will put schools and fire in there, but I will only use the functions that reach the ends I laid out to start out with. I don't believe I'm on a slippy slope since I established a foundation and understanding of rights and functions of government that can not not be added on too without scientific understanding expanding first. While surely the government would expand as time and understand grew using my system it would stay inside a fenced in area. The morality of the question doesn't seem to be involved since the foundation is established and understood at the start. Assuming of course that government doesn't do what it always does everything should be controlled.See slavery. Much more than safety. If you think our rights exist only to keep us safe, then I gotta say...I over estimated you. The core of what we are discussing has everything to do with libertarianism, and the primary difference between a minarchist, and an anarchist. Minarchists exist on the moral slippery slope of compromise, and some would call them (me) a small L libertarian, as in, not hardcore. The more hardcore libertarians adhere religiously to the NAP, which, when taken to the extremes that they (you?) often do, equals no government, since government is, and always will be, the single largest initiator of force/aggression against others. I put question marks after you, because I'm still not sure where you sit. Sorry if you're offended, I meant none.
It is an economic actively that generated wealth in exchange for an individual's performance. How is that not income?Not paying someone for services rendered, IE, an income, is not optional, and is illegal. Ergo, tips, which are completely optional, is not income. It is a gift. I know...splitting hairs.
The tip wasn't the thing that motivated action. The money is the motivator in the lap dance which the desire for existed before the lap dance and possibility of income from it came up. Therefore, the gift is only taking advantage of a prior motivation. Its the same thing in MoSurveyor's example but instead of a lap dance it's bribery. In both examples the motivation isn't created by the example but prior motivations.To compromise, I believe you are correct...gifts are NOT the most motivational thing out there. What motivates people are possibilities. The greater the odds of those possibilities coming to fruition, the more motivated people will be to achieve them. A stripper who thinks I am more likely to lay a big tip on her is gonna do more to impress me.
Last edited by Henrin; 01-24-13 at 09:12 AM.
Freedoms are gained back all the time. And perhaps from a current standpoint, that is, looking at this country today, you would view any new restrictions (laws) as being freedom inhibitors. But go back to the drawing board, and picture the US without laws. There are some mighty fine examples of what happens when the law, and those that enforce it, are abandoned, just within the last decade.=Henrin
No, I contend that with each restriction you lose freedom and never have the possibility to gain it back.
Explain how one is MORE free, as in, able to do what they want, when they want, without the rule of law, and a substantial force backing it.People do in fact believe that and it is very much a dangerous view.
The punishment is the deterrent. Ever hear of negative reinforcement? Yes, by the time someone is being punished, the crime is committed, and someone's rights have been violated...and that punishment is not going to UNviolate that person's rights. But, depending on the severity of the crime, the punishment for the criminal will be such that it deters other would be criminals from engaging in similar behavior. And face facts...ALL humans are potential criminals. A criminal is a being created under a specific set of circumstances.
I don't think merely punishing of right violations keeps us save or promotes freedom. It merely deals with something after it occurs and punishes the right violation.
Explain natural and scientific rights. Until you do, the rest of what you posted is pointless.I'm pretty much only interested in rights and liberties from natural and scientific outlook and everything else is not my concern.
Because income is obligatory, gifts are optional. IE, I hire that stripper to show up at a stag party...we negotiate a flat rate for her appearance...and I HAVE to pay her that, or it is a breach of contract, which is illegal. However, no one at the stag party needs pay her anything. Those tips she gets for her actual performance are not a part of her contract, are completely optional on the part of the dudes laying them on her, and are therefor not considered income. Not to me, anyway. Uncle Sam's greedy ass sees it differently.It is an economic actively that generated wealth in exchange for an individual's performance. How is that not income?
Right. The possibility. It's possibility that motivates people. Money is nothing more than a means to an end. Maybe she wanted that 15 bucks to buy milk and eggs for her kids, maybe she wanted it to score a little pot, or maybe she wanted it to make the rent that month. In all of those instances, the money is just the middle man.The tip wasn't the thing that motivated action. The money is the motivator in the lap dance which the desire for existed before the lap dance and possibility of income from it came up. Therefore, the gift is only taking advantage of a prior motivation. Its the same thing in MoSurveyor's example but instead of a lap dance it's bribery. In both examples the motivation isn't created by the example but prior motivations.
As for intellectual property...what's you counter proposal to it? The one's idea belongs to them, or that we should not have exclusive rights to concepts we develop? Thinking is labor (more so for SOME than for others...har har.), and concepts, plans, and ideas are the product of that labor. Are you suggesting we should not be able to own the fruits of our labor?
That intellectual property rights get abused...is not at stake here, because they ARE being abused by some. But to toss the idea out because of it? Much much worse, in my opinion.