- Capitalism and Alternatives -

The question is what are those limits, who sets them and to what ends?

Posted by: Sloopy on February 20, 19100 at 09:46:26:

In Reply to: Personal responsibility posted by David on February 19, 19100 at 23:12:15:

: What's wrong with that if nobody is being affected but yourself and maybe another consensual adult? "Ain't nobody's business!" is right.

MDG: Agreed.

Sloopy: Within limits, of course. The question is what are those limits, who sets them and to what ends?

: : True, but we believe that adults should have the freedom to do what they want to themselves, no matter how knuckleheaded, as long as they are not harming others. I'm a strong believer in freedom.

MDG: Agreed.

Sloopy: On the individual level, of course. So what about the behavior of governments? The US has bombed at least four different countries since 1998? That's harming others. Shouldn't the US military be condemned?
MDG: Maybe there are more people in prison now than ever because of this country's insane war on drugs.

The war on drugs is NOT insane at all. It provides a cover for the US military to monitor and subvert Leftist groups and grass-roots democracy. From the capitalists' point of view, the War on Drugs is quite logical.

D: I say, legalize all drugs.

Sloopy: This is a typical libertarian viewpoint coming from a young guy. What this position does is isolate the issue of its political and economic context, then assuming a grand, seemingly anti-establishment pose. William Buckley says the same thing, and he ain't no communist.

Making drugs illegal is as more about power than it is about public health and safety.

MDG (probably joking) I could go on, but my boss just told me I need to pee in a cup and give it to him, or else. Ain't it grand?

Dave: Well, you can always quit. I believe an employer has every right to drug test an employee, as it can directly affect his performance. For instance, do you want a guy who is doped up to be operating a fork-lift around heavy machinery? Around other people?

Sloopy: Not all jobs that require drug-testing entail operating heavy machinery. This is a class issue which translates into employer sovereignty.

Dave: If you don't like the company policy, find another job that doesn't require drug tests.

Sloopy: Like I said, as MDG is a lawyer he probably doesn't have to submit to the inconvenience and humiliation of peeing in a cup, at least not regularly. Some high-paid positions require drug-testing (e.g. sports) but most don't. This is a class issue.

But if MDG was of the proletariat class I would still object to what you said. I'd say, See what you've done, Dave? When you suggested that MDG can quit you put him, a WORKER (i.e. PRODUCER) in a position of a CONSUMER (the product being the job). You suggested MDG could CHOOSE another job, as if all these jobs were right in front of him on a shelf in a supermarket. But jobs aren't brands of toothpaste, and employers should not be sovereign. That's what capitalism does, it makes the only choice as the one between CONSUMERS and PRODUCTS, with the accompanying myth that the CONSUMERS are all-powerful because it's their CHOICES which determine what companies do. THIS IS FALSE.

Dave: Personal responsibility can be a bitch.

You say you're fond of moral absolutes, but when it comes to the very important question of how people are to provide for their livelihood, you advocate that the real power to be in the hands of the employers, while dishing out homilies about "choice" and "personal responsibility", the arenas in which you mistakenly believe the real power lies.

Follow Ups:

  • Choice David USA February 21 19100 (0)

The Debating Room Post a Followup