Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Bill Wiltrack
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 86
|
Post: #1  Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:18 am Post subject: The new Meta-God |
  |
|
|
My God is a god of acceptance and understanding, with a brotherhood that has no bounds.
I believe in the inherent good of Organized Labor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #2 Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Bill Wiltrack there are many paths in search of God
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Wiltrack
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 86
|
| Post: #3 Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:10 am Post subject: May the road rise up to meet you... |
|
|
|
Well said...
Thank you Belinda.
I wish you a clear & rewarding path. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith Russell
Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Posts: 588
|
| Post: #4 Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: The new Meta-God |
|
|
|
| Bill Wiltrack wrote: |
My God is a god of acceptance and understanding, with a brotherhood that has no bounds.
I believe in the inherent good of Organized Labor. |
There is no abundant, independently verifiable, non-contradictory evidence that "God" exists (whether one believes that "God" is YWHH, Allah, Brahmin, Jesus, Odin, Bast, Vishnu, etc.)
(I haven't seen any evidence for the "inherent good of Organized Labor", either.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
| Post: #5 Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:19 pm Post subject: Re: The new Meta-God |
|
|
|
| Bill Wiltrack wrote: |
My God is a god of acceptance and understanding, with a brotherhood that has no bounds.
I believe in the inherent good of Organized Labor. |
Excellent: Love is boundless and makes brothers and a brotherhood of all neighbors and all neighbourhoods.
Thanx. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reflected_light
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 196
|
| Post: #6 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
How do you want us to reply Bill, 'your' god is whatever you want it to be.
'My' god has frisbees for eyes and enjoys a good foot rub. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1636
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #7 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:35 pm Post subject: Re: The new Meta-God |
|
|
|
| Bill Wiltrack wrote: |
My God is a god of acceptance and understanding, with a brotherhood that has no bounds.
I believe in the inherent good of Organized Labor. |
Organized Labor being that which binds men of unequal talents to the same treatment, regardless of their effort, input, or skill?
Sounds like a very unfair and unjust god.
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reflected_light
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 196
|
| Post: #8 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Bill believes in the inherent good of organized labor, not so much in that cynical protozoa that just crawled out of your mouth bog.
Organized or not, labor will always have its issues.
People just want too much.
I hate resorting to name calling, but I'm still working on my love and understanding for all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1636
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #9 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| reflected_light wrote: |
Organized or not, labor will always have its issues.
People just want too much. |
This discussion is more suited for the Politics forum, but I have to respond to this, so here you go.
Labor will not "always have issues" if each individual considers their labor an expression of their personal value. When that happens, they bargain with another party to come to a mutual agreement [no "collective bargaining" involved] on what the value of one man's labor is deserving of.
And when you say people want too much, you are essentially stating that some people value themselves and their labor too much. If somebody believes that their efforts, or the product of their mind, are worth a certain amount, who are you to decide that they "want too much".
It is only the party that the individual contracts with to sell his product/labor/idea to that retains the right to determine what the value of that particular thing is.
Some people feel that the products of their mind/labor are valuable. Others believe that they are entitled to a certain amount regardless of the uniquity of their contribution, and in some cases in lieu of any contribution whatsoever.
I don't think people want enough anymore, and that's the real problem.
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reflected_light
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 196
|
| Post: #10 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
WTS, can you not see the possible difficulties of co-workers receiving different wages for the same job, and possibly only due to their ability to barter or 'charm' their employer.
I am not saying it is not a viable system, but it too has it's challenges, just as many as organized labor.
As far as not wanting enough, I agree, but it all depends on what it is you are wanting. IMO, wages aren't the prominent injustices in many industries, the real problems between employees/employers are psychological in nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1636
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #11 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| reflected_light wrote: |
WTS, can you not see the possible difficulties of co-workers receiving different wages for the same job, and possibly only due to their ability to barter or 'charm' their employer.
I am not saying it is not a viable system, but it too has it's challenges, just as many as organized labor. |
I agree that there could be problems in my proposed system [not really mine, but you get my meaning I hope], but collective bargaining/"equal pay" is much, much worse.
Imagine a workplace where everybody earns the same no matter how hard they try, no matter how innovative they are, no matter what they do.
Now imagine a world where you find out your co-worker makes more than you. So, you either pout and work less hard [possibly getting yourself fired/demoted in the process] or you bust your butt, improve your productivity/innovation/work-ethic/etc. until you have a viable reason to ask for a raise.
Which is the better alternative? The one where you are free to fight for pay equivalent to the value you place in your work? Or the one in which you are forced to take the salary of the biggest slacker of your peers?
| reflected_light wrote: |
| As far as not wanting enough, I agree, but it all depends on what it is you are wanting. IMO, wages aren't the prominent injustices in many industries, the real problems between employees/employers are psychological in nature. |
Agreed, to some extent.
| Ayn Rand - Through Francisco D'Anconia in Atlas Shrugged wrote: |
| "Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?" |
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #12 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Whitetrshsoldier , it is more suited to the politics forum, but I have to ask you youropinion on this.
You wrote
| Quote: |
| Organized Labor being that which binds men of unequal talents to the same treatment, regardless of their effort, input, or skill? |
There is something wrong with organised labour when the unions have no power or don't exercise power to discipline members who dont do their work conscientiously. Please comment.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1636
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #13 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
| whitetrshsoldier wrote: |
| Organized Labor being that which binds men of unequal talents to the same treatment, regardless of their effort, input, or skill? |
There is something wrong with organised labour when the unions have no power or don't exercise power to discipline members who dont do their work conscientiously. Please comment. |
Everything is wrong with organized labor when it demands the same amount of compensation for differing amounts of labor.
It is not the responsibility of some third party to "discipline" a worker for not "doing [his] work conscientiously.
When you trade your value [of labor/thought/innovation/creativity/etc.] to another for money or other compensation, you do so by contracting with that party. This is individual bargaining.
However, when allow your value to be traded by a representative, who presents as a representation of a collective effort, as faceless, collectivist, and unhuman, you are no longer able to make demands as an individual. No matter how hard you work, no matter how innovative you are, no matter how much you contribute to your surroundings, you are no longer considered on an individual basis.
You are now just a grain of sand, another pixel on the screen. To lose you would not destroy the beach, nor would it disrupt the overall picture. You have no right to make an individual demand. Others may do the bare minimum, and you have no reason to try harder. You have sacrificed yourself for the sake of the whole.
| Adrian Rogers, 1931 wrote: |
"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end ..." |
I edited that quote for context, but I think you get my point.
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Wiltrack
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 86
|
| Post: #14 Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:16 am Post subject: Errr....wait a minute... |
|
|
|
One of the many beautiful and adaptable aspects of existing Organized Labor agreements is their inherent flexibility and continual ability to adjust to their surroundings.
One aspect of this ability to be flexible is expressed in every contract between related Labor, Capital, and associated Material/Objects, also called the Holy Trinity of Organized Labor, in regards to wages and benefits towards related labor. Let us not forget, as we work to understand the spiritual aspect of Organized Labor that existing Organized Labor agreements spell out the minimum wages and benefits Labor is to be compensated for defined activities; related work.
Capital is always allowed to pay addition amounts to Labor for any work performed.
The scope of Organized Labor contracts also define the responsibilities of representing Labor and Capital and their relationship and responsibilities to associated Material/Objects.
Again, I thank all of you for your efforts in working to understand the importance of this beautiful, fruitful, and vast subject of Organized Labor and how it relates to our spirit as philosophers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #15 Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Whitetrshsoldier wrote
| Quote: |
| When you trade your value [of labor/thought/innovation/creativity/etc.] to another for money or other compensation, you do so by contracting with that party. This is individual bargaining. |
Indeed that is part of it. The other part is that there are people who belong to trade and professional unions who do not keep their part of the bargain.
Organised labour began in good faith from the roots of exploited workers. So far , so good. But recently there have been some scandals (I am thinking about the National Helath Service)where certain nurses, hospital managers, and even certain highly paid and expensively educated doctors have turned away from their duties to helpless patients. So far nobody has put these persons in prison for culpable neglect.
It takes a third party to administer justice. It would be well if organised labour administered justice on its own behalf, instead of leaving it to the creaky old state.
The point I am making follows from your Aiden Rogers quote.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
