PDA

View Full Version : Obamas attend church Sept 19, 2010



Calypso Jones
09-21-2010, 02:02 AM
of all sundays...only 2 years into his presidency and four attendances under his belt. And they pick...St John's Episcopal on THIS particular SUnday, 8 days after 911 to hear....A muslim speaker.

St. Johns Episcopal Church at Lafayette Square. It always pays to take a good look just under the surface.
Muslim speaker. He is DRAWN to muslims. he cain't hep it.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/20/obama-goes-to-church-to-hear-a-muslim-speaker/

from the church's calendar

http://www.stjohns-dc.org/article.php?id=41

Rockntractor
09-21-2010, 02:54 AM
No surprises with this guy.

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 03:27 AM
Muslims.







MUSLIMS.

NJCardFan
09-21-2010, 09:32 AM
Muslims.







MUSLIMS.

Idiot.







IDIOT.

FlaGator
09-21-2010, 10:20 AM
St. Johns is in an apostate state because it supports and endorses the actions of the presiding heretic of the Episcopal Church, Katherine Schori.

Bailey
09-21-2010, 10:32 AM
Me thinks the Magic Negro (piss be on him) is for-seeing his eminent ass kicking in 2012 and trying to fool some voters into believing he is a Christian.

FlaGator
09-21-2010, 10:42 AM
Me thinks the Magic Negro (piss be on him) is for-seeing his eminent ass kicking in 2012 and trying to fool some voters into believing he is a Christian.

By attending a Church that is Christian in name only. The message that gets delivered from that building on a weekly basis is decidedly not in line with the doctrines of faith as established by Christ Jesus. The message from this building is more of a "if it feels good God is okay with it" doctrine.

Odysseus
09-21-2010, 11:39 AM
Muslims.







MUSLIMS.

Some people think that he's a Muslim. Some think that he is a member of a Liberation Theology Church, which is to Chrisitianity as Marxism is to economics, the most destructive, wrong-headed doctrine in that can be loosely termed to be affiliated with the larger set. Some of us, however, think that he is a self-worshipping narcissist who sees religion as a scam to keep the voters in line.

I pick option number three, but then, I'm just cynical.

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 11:44 AM
Some people think that he's a Muslim. Some think that he is a member of a Liberation Theology Church, which is to Chrisitianity as Marxism is to economics, the most destructive, wrong-headed doctrine in that can be loosely termed to be affiliated with the larger set. Some of us, however, think that he is a self-worshipping narcissist who sees religion as a scam to keep the voters in line.

I pick option number three, but then, I'm just cynical.

You seem to know what's up. Could you explain a little more about what Liberation Theology is?

Bailey
09-21-2010, 11:46 AM
You seem to know what's up. Could you explain a little more about what Liberation Theology is?

Let me take this one major


Blaming white people for all the problems that beset black people :p

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 12:11 PM
Lol that's crazy. What have white people ever done to black people?

Calypso Jones
09-21-2010, 12:14 PM
well for one thing, they passed the Civil Rights Act.

FlaGator
09-21-2010, 12:38 PM
Lol that's crazy. What have white people ever done to black people?

Bought them from some other black people who sold them in to slavery instead of killing them like they did before they found out they could sell them to westerners.

Rebel Yell
09-21-2010, 12:49 PM
Bought them from some other black people who sold them in to slavery instead of killing them like they did before they found out they could sell them to westerners.

Here's the million dollar question, "What did they get from the white man in return for their slaves?"

FlaGator
09-21-2010, 12:54 PM
Here's the million dollar question, "What did they get from the white man in return for their slaves?"

Other than the right to sell the white man some more pre-African Americans you'll have to enlighten me.

Rebel Yell
09-21-2010, 12:57 PM
Other than the right to sell the white man some more pre-African Americans you'll have to enlighten me.

Guns. They sold slaves for guns to use to conquer more tribes and sell them as slaves for more guns.

At least that's what pissed off alot of blacks at Abraham Baldwin College when they took African American studies.

Bailey
09-21-2010, 01:04 PM
Lol that's crazy. What have white people ever done to black people?



Do blacks here on average have a better life then over in the mother land? Kind of like white people here had more opportunity then white folks had in Europe.


You kind of put your finger on the cause of most of the problems that reigh in the Black culture: "blame everyone else but yourselves"

FlaGator
09-21-2010, 01:49 PM
Guns. They sold slaves for guns to use to conquer more tribes and sell them as slaves for more guns.

At least that's what pissed off alot of blacks at Abraham Baldwin College when they took African American studies.

But the ones over here now have Kwuanza... seems to be a fair trade.

CueSi
09-21-2010, 01:57 PM
Liberation theology is more a "social gospel" with a collective spin...You save yourself through saving society. And if there's anything I hate, it's collectivism. So...yeah.

I, like the Major...do not think Obama is a Muslim. . . but I do think. . . in seeking some invisible approval from his father, he harbors stronger sympathies toward Muslim people and causes then Christian ones.

~QC

SaintLouieWoman
09-21-2010, 02:02 PM
Liberation theology is more a "social gospel" with a collective spin...You save yourself through saving society. And if there's anything I hate, it's collectivism. So...yeah.

I, like the Major...do not think Obama is a Muslim. . . but I do think. . . in seeking some invisible approval from his father, he harbors stronger sympathies toward Muslim people and causes then Christian ones.

~QC
You've got an interesting, and probably accurate, take on Obama's religious beliefs. Not having a dad can be difficult for any kid, particularly one who was shuttled around so much.

You'd think that he'd be smart enough to not keep playing into the hands of those who call him a muslim. Maybe his narcissism compels him to keep people guessing. Perhaps it's like a kid who wants attention, any attention, whether positive or negative.

His economic views frighten me more than his religious ones. I personally think that he doesn't have any particular religious views---other than worshipping the god of expediency and self-serving.

Calypso Jones
09-21-2010, 02:05 PM
sort of reminds you of the alleged self described middle class black woman a day or two ago in Obama's town hall..the one who said that she's exhausted defending him, his administration, his policies because she voted for him cause he was going to do something for the middle class, namely HER. Now i ask you...what actual middle class person expects the government or anyone else to do SOMETHING for YOU.

only a minority (this includes women in my opinion0 and illegals.

FlaGator
09-21-2010, 02:47 PM
Liberation theology is more a "social gospel" with a collective spin...You save yourself through saving society. And if there's anything I hate, it's collectivism. So...yeah.

I, like the Major...do not think Obama is a Muslim. . . but I do think. . . in seeking some invisible approval from his father, he harbors stronger sympathies toward Muslim people and causes then Christian ones.

~QC

There is somewhat of a movement towards corporation salvation. This has reared it ugly head in the past and gives rise to false concepts like my denomination is saved but all other are not. The implication is that you need only to join a certain Church to be saved. It is another form of heresy. Christ did not say that you would be saved by joining the Roman Catholic Church, He said you would be saved by believing in Him and that He died to cover the sins of all those who believe.

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 03:00 PM
sort of reminds you of the alleged self described middle class black woman a day or two ago in Obama's town hall..the one who said that she's exhausted defending him, his administration, his policies because she voted for him cause he was going to do something for the middle class, namely HER. Now i ask you...what actual middle class person expects the government or anyone else to do SOMETHING for YOU.

only a minority (this includes women in my opinion0 and illegals.

Yes there's a video of this too it deserves it's own thread. She called Obama out.

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 03:01 PM
Liberation theology is more a "social gospel" with a collective spin...You save yourself through saving society. And if there's anything I hate, it's collectivism. So...yeah.

I, like the Major...do not think Obama is a Muslim. . . but I do think. . . in seeking some invisible approval from his father, he harbors stronger sympathies toward Muslim people and causes then Christian ones.

~QC

Interesting take, my I ask why you hate collectivism?

Bailey
09-21-2010, 03:03 PM
Yes there's a video of this too it deserves it's own thread. She called Obama out.

I guess she got pissed that the Magic Negro(piss be on him) didnt pay her billz.

Rebel Yell
09-21-2010, 04:09 PM
Interesting take, my I ask why you hate collectivism?

Because it's not my job to make sure everyone else's kids eat.

CueSi
09-21-2010, 04:14 PM
You've got an interesting, and probably accurate, take on Obama's religious beliefs. Not having a dad can be difficult for any kid, particularly one who was shuttled around so much.

You'd think that he'd be smart enough to not keep playing into the hands of those who call him a muslim. Maybe his narcissism compels him to keep people guessing. Perhaps it's like a kid who wants attention, any attention, whether positive or negative.

His economic views frighten me more than his religious ones. I personally think that he doesn't have any particular religious views---other than worshipping the god of expediency and self-serving.

It's something I've gathered from what I know of his father, and what I know of boys who grow up without their fathers.

He is narcissistic, but possessed with the belief that what he is doing, he is doing it for others. And he is the person to do it for them. Simple as that.

~QC

CueSi
09-21-2010, 04:15 PM
Interesting take, my I ask why you hate collectivism?

Because I am not anyone else besides myself. God made me as who I am and I answer to Him on that level. I refuse to be beholden to someone else against my will. And what Rebel Yell said.

Read Ayn Rand's Anthem.

~QC

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 04:16 PM
Because it's not my job to make sure everyone else's kids eat.

What if it's on a smaller scale?

Something like a small group of people hunting and farming together, sharing the products of their labor and making sure everyone else's kids eat, is that wrong or undesirable?

Bailey
09-21-2010, 04:18 PM
What if it's on a smaller scale?

Something like a small group of people hunting and farming together, sharing the products of their labor and making sure everyone else's kids eat, is that wrong or undesirable?

Yes its wrong.

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 04:29 PM
Because I am not anyone else besides myself. God made me as who I am and I answer to Him on that level. I refuse to be beholden to someone else against my will. And what Rebel Yell said.

Read Ayn Rand's Anthem.

~QC

Randian Objectivism is one of the most shallow flawed 'philosophies' out there. It's based in classical thought that has been uprooted hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before Rand wrote. It's as if she read Plato, Aristotle and Nietzsche and based her entire flawed epistemology on that. It's as if she was totally ignorant of ontology, epistemology, and psychology of her time because her conception of a person is so idealistic it doesn't fit outside of the ancient greeks. I don't have a problem with atheist philosophers (if you could even call her a philosopher), but her worldview is soulless and only appeals to the beneficiaries of radical inequality (ignorant first worlders) who need a simplistic way to justify it as natural or right in their mind.

Oh, and just so you know, she idolized a serial killer: http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to _right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 04:31 PM
Yes its wrong.

How is that wrong? Everyone works, the group is small, everyone survives together. This sort of "collectivism" is what enabled humans to survive the ice age while the more individualistic (and consequently less linguistically skilled) and physically stronger neanderthal man died out.

If it's efficient, if it works, if it benefits everyone, why is it wrong?

Rebel Yell
09-21-2010, 04:32 PM
What if it's on a smaller scale?

Something like a small group of people hunting and farming together, sharing the products of their labor and making sure everyone else's kids eat, is that wrong or undesirable?


There is nothing wrong with people helping each other out. Rural folk used to do it all the time, but they ALL pulled their weight. If they didn't, they didn't recieve the benefits. The problem is forced collectivism. No one should be forced (taxed) into taking care of deadbeats

Arroyo_Doble
09-21-2010, 04:36 PM
St. Johns is in an apostate state because it supports and endorses the actions of the presiding heretic of the Episcopal Church, Katherine Schori.


By attending a Church that is Christian in name only. The message that gets delivered from that building on a weekly basis is decidedly not in line with the doctrines of faith as established by Christ Jesus. The message from this building is more of a "if it feels good God is okay with it" doctrine.


There is somewhat of a movement towards corporation salvation. This has reared it ugly head in the past and gives rise to false concepts like my denomination is saved but all other are not. The implication is that you need only to join a certain Church to be saved. It is another form of heresy. Christ did not say that you would be saved by joining the Roman Catholic Church, He said you would be saved by believing in Him and that He died to cover the sins of all those who believe.



Damn funny.

Bailey
09-21-2010, 04:40 PM
How is that wrong? Everyone works, the group is small, everyone survives together. This sort of "collectivism" is what enabled humans to survive the ice age while the more individualistic (and consequently less linguistically skilled) and physically stronger neanderthal man died out.

If it's efficient, if it works, if it benefits everyone, why is it wrong?


If you're coming at it from people helping people thats one thing BUT if you are talking about the Gov stealing more then half of your paycheck to give it to lazy bums is quite another.

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 04:41 PM
There is nothing wrong with people helping each other out. Rural folk used to do it all the time, but they ALL pulled their weight. If they didn't, they didn't recieve the benefits. The problem is forced collectivism. No one should be forced (taxed) into taking care of deadbeats

I see the difference between large scale societal collectivism vs small scale community collectivism.

I was only wondering if what people are opposed to is the flaws that arise in collectivizing such large groups, or the very idea of collective labor/fruits in any form.

BadCat
09-21-2010, 04:41 PM
How is that wrong? Everyone works, the group is small, everyone survives together. This sort of "collectivism" is what enabled humans to survive the ice age while the more individualistic (and consequently less linguistically skilled) and physically stronger neanderthal man died out.

If it's efficient, if it works, if it benefits everyone, why is it wrong?

Because there will always be people like you in a group, who won't do a thing and will expect others to provide for them.

Arroyo_Doble
09-21-2010, 04:43 PM
Because there will always be people like you in a group, who won't do a thing and will expect others to provide for them.

The mother of Capitalism.

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 04:45 PM
You are saying an otherwise good system or idea should be entirely and principally avoided because it won't be perfect?

Clearly trying to make a collective system with so many people has flaws, but does that mean that the very idea of collectivism is to be avoided at all costs? Sometimes it's better to work with a collective policy even with it's flaws. Sometimes it's not.

This total rejection of any collectivity seems a bit extremist.

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 04:47 PM
Because there will always be people like you in a group, who won't do a thing and will expect others to provide for them.

You're citing this as an exception. Within Capitalism, this is the Rule. The idea is that a person can own means of production and have others do the labor, while he only needs his symbolic status as "owner" and he claims all of the products of the labor and then pays out a small portion to those who do the work.

A small business is run like a dictatorship, a large business like an oligarchy.

Rebel Yell
09-21-2010, 04:50 PM
You are saying an otherwise good system or idea should be entirely and principally avoided because it won't be perfect?

Clearly trying to make a collective system with so many people has flaws, but does that mean that the very idea of collectivism is to be avoided at all costs? Sometimes it's better to work with a collective policy even with it's flaws. Sometimes it's not.

This total rejection of any collectivity seems a bit extremist.

Again, there is nothing wrong with collectivism. The problem is forced collectivism.

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2010, 04:52 PM
So what if people democratically vote for legislators who are offering collectivism?

Rebel Yell
09-21-2010, 04:53 PM
So what if people democratically vote for legislators who are offering collectivism?

Then you are forcing those who didn't vote for it to become part of the collective.

Jfor
09-21-2010, 04:57 PM
You're citing this as an exception. Within Capitalism, this is the Rule. The idea is that a person can own means of production and have others do the labor, while he only needs his symbolic status as "owner" and he claims all of the products of the labor and then pays out a small portion to those who do the work.

A small business is run like a dictatorship, a large business like an oligarchy.

Wrong on so many levels. The owner of said company has put his or her own livelihood on the line. Nobody is forcing workers to work there. What you have just said, highlights EVERYTHING you believe.

BadCat
09-21-2010, 04:57 PM
You're citing this as an exception. Within Capitalism, this is the Rule. The idea is that a person can own means of production and have others do the labor, while he only needs his symbolic status as "owner" and he claims all of the products of the labor and then pays out a small portion to those who do the work.

A small business is run like a dictatorship, a large business like an oligarchy.

No, I used YOU as an example.

You contribute nothing, you take from society.

In the system you describe, you'd be gutted and left at the edge of the village for the wolves.

Arroyo_Doble
09-21-2010, 04:59 PM
In the system you describe, you'd be gutted and left at the edge of the village for the wolves.

So there's an upside to this system?

Zeus
09-21-2010, 05:20 PM
Some people think that he's a Muslim. Some think that he is a member of a Liberation Theology Church, which is to Chrisitianity as Marxism is to economics, the most destructive, wrong-headed doctrine in that can be loosely termed to be affiliated with the larger set. Some of us, however, think that he is a self-worshipping narcissist who sees religion as a scam to keep the voters in line.

I pick option number three, but then, I'm just cynical.

I tend to be of the same thought as you in regsrds to the situation Thing is there is just to many "coincidences" for them to be coincidences if yoou know what I mean.

Zeus
09-21-2010, 05:32 PM
What if it's on a smaller scale?

Something like a small group of people hunting and farming together, sharing the products of their labor and making sure everyone else's kids eat, is that wrong or undesirable?

Not if it's only beholding to those that Voluntarily participate in the Group. It's wrong to impose those requisites on any outsider not a part of that group.

Sonnabend
09-21-2010, 07:28 PM
was only wondering if what people are opposed to is the flaws that arise in collectivizing such large groups, or the very idea of collective labor/fruits in any form.Estimates of the deaths from starvation or disease directly caused by collectivization have been estimated as between 4 and 10 million.

Case closed.

Odysseus
09-21-2010, 08:23 PM
So there's an upside to this system?
Didn't you read Badcat's comment? Wei would be gutted and left at the edge of the village for the wolves.


Estimates of the deaths from starvation or disease directly caused by collectivization have been estimated as between 4 and 10 million.

Case closed.
You're off by a factor of ten. It's 40 to 100 million.

CueSi
09-22-2010, 01:12 AM
Randian Objectivism is one of the most shallow flawed 'philosophies' out there. It's based in classical thought that has been uprooted hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before Rand wrote. It's as if she read Plato, Aristotle and Nietzsche and based her entire flawed epistemology on that. It's as if she was totally ignorant of ontology, epistemology, and psychology of her time because her conception of a person is so idealistic it doesn't fit outside of the ancient greeks. I don't have a problem with atheist philosophers (if you could even call her a philosopher), but her worldview is soulless and only appeals to the beneficiaries of radical inequality (ignorant first worlders) who need a simplistic way to justify it as natural or right in their mind.

Oh, and just so you know, she idolized a serial killer: http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to _right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers


And people Idolize Margret Sanger, who was a f'n racist. So . . . there's that.

But did you actually read Anthem? Because your understanding of Rand seems to becoming from a point of view just as biased as what you accuse it of.

~QC

noonwitch
09-22-2010, 08:54 AM
You seem to know what's up. Could you explain a little more about what Liberation Theology is?



Read up on it.


Contrary to what some here say, not all liberation theology is marxist in nature. Some is, some isn't.

I just read The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggeman, and many consider his works to be liberation theology (he is affiliated with the UCC/UMC). He proposes a lot of ideas in that book, but primary is that the message of the Old Testament prophets and the message of Jesus is that of the end of the old order of kings and a collective and fixed royal mindset to one of liberation and enlightenment for those who are not part of that system, or who are victims of it. Jesus came to the least of the people in society, and the hated-the prostitutes, the lepers, the tax collectors, the crippled and lame, and the mentally ill (or demon-possessed). The Kingdom of God, as preached by Jesus, is where the last will be first.


This could be seen as marxist teaching, if it is then taken and applied to governments. I don't think that as individual christians practice treating others as if the Kingdom of God was at hand, treating the least like they are first, healing the sick, clothing the poor, feeding the hungry, that this would be a wrong interpretation of the gospel. It's not a complete view of the gospel, but a reflection of one part of it, and one crucial teaching of Jesus.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 08:57 AM
Damn funny.

More true than funny. The irony is that I'm an Episcopalian and that I am a member of the church I attend's vestry and I sit on the communcation commission for the diocese.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 08:59 AM
Didn't you read Badcat's comment? Wei would be gutted and left at the edge of the village for the wolves.


Yes. That was sort of the joke.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 09:01 AM
More true than funny. The irony is that I'm an Episcopalian and that I am a member of the church I attend's vestry and I sit on the communcation commission for the diocese.

Are you part of the splitters? The Ikers? Did you stand up and cheer when members filed out?

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 09:58 AM
Are you part of the splitters? The Ikers? Did you stand up and cheer when members filed out?

I stayed. I was sad to see my brothers and sisters leaving but God called some to stay and some to go. Some work for change on the outside and some on the inside. I don't think that the direction of the Episcopal Church can be changed but some must try. Failing that then some will be needed to rebuild when the eventual collapse occurs.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 10:27 AM
I stayed. I was sad to see my brothers and sisters leaving but God called some to stay and some to go. Some work for change on the outside and some on the inside. I don't think that the direction of the Episcopal Church can be changed but some must try. Failing that then some will be needed to rebuild when the eventual collapse occurs.

Well, it's a fight over property now. Iker can kiss my ass.

Odysseus
09-22-2010, 10:49 AM
Yes. That was sort of the joke.
As was my response, that this was the upside.

Are you part of the splitters? The Ikers? Did you stand up and cheer when members filed out?
That depends on whether he's part of the Peoples Front of Judea, the Judean Peoples Front or the Popular People's Front.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 10:51 AM
As was my response, that this was the upside.

D'oh!


That depends on whether he's part of the Peoples Front of Judea, the Judean Peoples Front or the Popular People's Front.

Brilliant movie. The best bit was the whole "What have the Romans ever done for us?" thing. I often think of it and laugh when I hear people rail on about how bad government is.

Odysseus
09-22-2010, 11:35 AM
D'oh!

Brilliant movie. The best bit was the whole "What have the Romans ever done for us?" thing. I often think of it and laugh when I hear people rail on about how bad government is.


But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
It's a very funny line. But is it true...? No.

Judea was already a civilized nation before the arrival of Rome, and didn't get much in the way of civic improvements. They had sanitation, education, medicine, wine, public order, irrigation, roads and a fresh water system before Rome got there. Now, the Romans were superb engineers, and improved mightily on some things, but not always, and certainly not outside of Italy. They built a great deal in Europe because there was no infrastructure, but in the east, where the civilizations were older than Rome, they didn't do much. In fac, the eastern Roman provinces were governed very badly, with taxes that often left the locals impoverished (the rebellions against Rome often began as attacks on tax collectors), and that, as often as not, were spent on frivolous pursuits in Rome, rather than improvements in the local economy. The suppression of the culture of Judea led to two vicious revolts, and both came about because Roman emperors demanded to be worshipped as gods in the temple in Jerusalem and the local governers were too craven to resist it.

So, in fact, rebellion against Rome was a rebellion against a pampered elite that looted the property of captive peoples that they held in contempt, in order to finance their own debaucheries and pet projects, and whose culture and customs they insulted and destroyed for the most frivolous reasons. I often think of that and grimace when I hear liberals tell me how good big government is.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 04:39 PM
Wrong on so many levels. The owner of said company has put his or her own livelihood on the line. Nobody is forcing workers to work there..

Except for that damn need to eat and stuff.

Odysseus
09-22-2010, 04:42 PM
Except for that damn need to eat and stuff.

They can work elsewhere. A worker is not a slave. He or she can leave their job whenever they choose to, although they will have to live with the consequences. But their employer has no more power over them in a free market than they let them have. If you value the job, you follow its rules. If you don't, you quit.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 06:25 PM
They can work elsewhere. A worker is not a slave. He or she can leave their job whenever they choose to, although they will have to live with the consequences. But their employer has no more power over them in a free market than they let them have. If you value the job, you follow its rules. If you don't, you quit.

Unless there are more workers than there are jobs. Or if there is a moral obligation for a person to work but no moral obligation for an employer to hire.

You cannot grow your own food unless you own land. You cannot hunt animals either on someone else's land. To eat you need to purchase food. To do that you need money, to do that you sell your labor.

The problem is that the worker only has his labor to sell, while all of the negotiating power is in the hands of those who don't need to sell their labor, but can sell other people's labor.

A worker may not be a slave in that his employer cannot murder him and call it dealing with property, but his employer can determine the worker's entire livelihood if that worker doesn't have any capital of his own and must rely on his labor in an over-saturated labor market.

lacarnut
09-22-2010, 06:59 PM
his employer can determine the worker's entire livelihood if that worker doesn't have any capital of his own and must rely on his labor in an over-saturated labor market.

What kind of work do you do.

Lager
09-22-2010, 07:04 PM
What if it's on a smaller scale?

Something like a small group of people hunting and farming together, sharing the products of their labor and making sure everyone else's kids eat, is that wrong or undesirable?

And it's only in a small scale that it actually works. Let's say a colony arrives at a new location, intending to get established there. In the beginning it operates similar to your example. Everyone has a role and pitches in for the good of the fledgling community. They labor for the common good, with a shared goal; the survival of the colony. As it grows in size and security, several things begin to happen that make the original model unsustainable and undesireable. Perhaps it's a few individuals whose work ethic isn't as strong as the majority. They start to enjoy getting their needs met with little effort on their own part. If this behavior was not corrected, it could affect the overall health of the colony. It could begin to sow disent and resentment. It would also inhibit the ability of these individuals to take care of themselves in the future.

Perhaps there're also members who have talents above the ordinary. Hopefully they've had some good years and the colony is functioning well. These folks now want to turn their talents toward securing prosperity and a good life for their own families. A skilled carpenter might labor long to make quality pieces of furniture and perhaps he's ready to get compensated for his work. An expert hunter wants to trade the extra game he fells for goods he and his family need as well. Both still contribute to the good of the community, but it's their self interest that now comes first. But even these self interests can still be mutually beneficial to the colony as a whole. They can still share some things. They still want to collectively take care of the sick and elderly or the less fortunate. They may even help their neighbors raise barns or build a fence. However now their primary focus shifts to the needs of their own, as do the rest of the colonists. They will not have the time or inclination to worry about the needs of others.

At this phase every individual, whether they want to or not, has to find something they can contribute to the community in return for their needs being met. Whether it be a skill they possess, the sweat of their brow or a service they can offer. Those who thought they might get by without earning their comforts are forced to become productive if they wish to survive. They will either comply or fail. But this harsh reality will actually strengthen the community in the long run.

As societies grow in size the communal, collective model becomes harder to sustain. There's a place for everyone in society, but it's not the same place. Some with more talents or skills might have bigger houses, or more land to farm. Some might have skills or services that are more desireable, and thus accumulate more wealth. Yet this does not diminish their role or what they contribute to the overall population, nor does it take away or denigrate those lower in the economic scale. It's just a functioning outcome of human nature.

Jfor
09-22-2010, 07:08 PM
Unless there are more workers than there are jobs. Or if there is a moral obligation for a person to work but no moral obligation for an employer to hire.

You cannot grow your own food unless you own land. You cannot hunt animals either on someone else's land. To eat you need to purchase food. To do that you need money, to do that you sell your labor.

The problem is that the worker only has his labor to sell, while all of the negotiating power is in the hands of those who don't need to sell their labor, but can sell other people's labor.

A worker may not be a slave in that his employer cannot murder him and call it dealing with property, but his employer can determine the worker's entire livelihood if that worker doesn't have any capital of his own and must rely on his labor in an over-saturated labor market.

Then it is up to that individual. You don't work, you don't eat. It's called being responsible. It is not the employers duty to provide a job. It is not the governments duty to make sure someone has food. If I decide to give to someone that is my right. That someone does not have a right to what is mine.

Sonnabend
09-22-2010, 07:22 PM
Unless there are more workers than there are jobs.

Then the Government would be well advised to get off the back of business and quit taxing them so fucking much, so they can make more money, and employ MORE people.

Less "wealth redistribution", and more of "leave the employers the fuck alone or they will take their business and their jobs and move somewhere where it will cost them LESS to do business."

warpig
09-22-2010, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
What if it's on a smaller scale?

Something like a small group of people hunting and farming together, sharing the products of their labor and making sure everyone else's kids eat, is that wrong or undesirable?

Even at the beginning of colonization of America at Jamestown, they had a tough time the first year because everyone wanted to pick their level of participation in the work force. It didn't work. Your desire here is laudable but the assumption that everyone will "do the right thing" has never proven out.