Warpath you are without doubt the selfishist person i have heard.

A job is something that needs someone else cant do and therefore needs you to do it. Professor, cleaner etc. NOT watching T.V. Pay should be distributed by effort not by ability. A African farther working 18 hour days, day in day out should get paid less than a Singer who just got a bit luck and now gets paid obscene amounts of money for little effort?

And Warpath learn to read. EQUAL rights. Not more rights. Yes, i think we should have more freedom but i'd rather no-one had freedom than 50 did and 50 didn't.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

If you do not tie compensation to economic value added, then you are asking for trouble. The free market when regulated reasonably is by far the most efficient distributor of resources. Although it is not perfect, it does a lot better job of matching resources with needs than any central planner.

You have to have performance benchmarks and you have to have sufficient rewards to motivate people to create innovations in technology and processes. When compensation is not tied to performance, then motivation goes way, way down. Also, if compensation is going to be by some standard other than profit, then who gets to decide what the new compensation will be based upon. Will it be you? If so, then what criteria will you use? Who is to say yours will be any less arbitrary or more fair than the profit motive?

Do you think I ever would have risked everything I owned and worked myself silly to start a business and create some jobs if I was not going to be paid any differently than any one of my employees? The number of new jobs created by small business will completely dry up under this new "fair" compensation plan. Just maybe we would also have a dropoff in talent regarding new doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc if there was not some brass ring to grab at the end. These guys are putting in a lot of effort and time to learn the skills for these jobs.

Pay is never going to be equal because contributions to society as judged by our profit motive benchmark are not equal. You say the singer should not make the money he or she makes, but the people choose where they wish to spend their money. You cannot control people's compensation until you decide you wish to control their consumer choices as well. Where does it end?

I think its far more kind and just to do more to effectively assist those who are on the outside of the economy. We should do a better job of educating our kids for starters. Second, we should do a better job or retraining our adult workers for the more relevant jobs in our changing economy. If you give someone the skills needed to create a bigger contribution, then I think you gain a lot more than you would be paying them what you feel is fair regardless of what economic value they give.

Sorry wrong answer Pixie. I'm not a conservative.

So as long as I try I get paid? Even if I don't accomplish anything. Come on. Wake up and smell the coffee. Try building an economic system around the belief that you don't have to be able to do anything. And watch the name calling. I am neither selfish, nor am I a conservative. I think it is very selfless to stop people from stealing money from those who work hard for it.

That's not even worth commenting on. Take a politics class. Learn the differnece between positive and negative rights. Then you can come back on here and talk. You obviously have no understanding of what you are talking about.

Explain to me where i mentioned positive and negative rights. Explain to me why i need to be politically educated to discuss BELIEFS. Explain to me how i didn't make sense. Explain to me why you can't accept that you lost a argument?

I don't care what you say, until i see reason to think otherwise I'm treating you as conservative. I think that's why you slagged of the political compass because you didn't get a score you liked.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Pixie.... get this through your skull. I am a libertarian... which is why I hate communism so much.... because it is on the exact opposite of the political spectrum. Just because I don't support communism like pinko democrats, does not make me a conservative.

Now... since you don't understand positive and negative rights, I'll explain them to you, son. A negative governmental right is when the government preserves your rights by not doing something... i.e. not infringing on you rights to freedom of speech, not restricting the right to bear arms, not restricting the right to freedom of religion,etc... and it is the government protecting a person from natural rights infringements from other citizens. (In other words... stopping people from trampling on one another's rights to life, liberty, and property). Positive rights are when the government does something in order to preserve a greater good that it construes as a right. For instance... when the government enacts affirmative action it is going out and legislating in areas that do not concern a person's right to life, liberty, and property.... it is restricting the negative rights through positive rights. It does so out of a belief in a greater good... that the government should trample on a person's negative rights, in order to serve the positive right of the community. Do you understand now? If not, don't comment on why I am wrong. All I am doing is explaining political theory.

I said you need to get politically educated because you didn't understand what you were talking about. When you don't understand something you either learn about it, or refrain from talking about it.

Now allow me to explain equal rights. Equal rights in the negative sense is the government providing the same (equal) rights to all citizens. Each citizen has the right to life, liberty, and property. Equal rights must not be construed in the politically positive sense, which is what you were doing. You were saying that the government does not provide us with equal rights, just because not everyone has the same income. In other words... the equal "right" of which you were speaking is the right to have whatever I make, in order to ensure that our incomes are the same. Which is why I condemned you for using the words "equal rights" to describe your perceived right to my property.

Now do you understand?

Also, I did not condemn the political compass for my score. I still scored as a right libertarian (which is accurate to a point). I condemned the compass for its communitarian leanings. I condemned it because it construed politics in a social context. It equated government with society, in a very Marxist manner. That was my main criticism of the compass.

Great! Now explain why this has anything to do with what i was talking about.

Your property? Why should you have the right to more property than me because you were blessed with more talent at a certain hing than i am, despite me putting in the same effort?

But why should a person be allowed more liberty, or a longer lifespan, or more property than a person who's had tried just as hard through life but did not have the money to college etc.? And why on earth can't equal rights be used in the positvie sence.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Ok I already explained what the first part had to do with it.

Second part. I don't know. Why don't you ask God.

Thirds part. He's not allowed more liberty. Everyone has the same liberty.

Your posts are totally non-sensical.

I don't know why I even respond to them, because you obviously lack the mental capacity to comprehend my answers.

You don't seem to have the mental captivity to understand what EQUAL means. You counter every argument about equal rights with something about rights. You completely ignore the equal part. And if you don't think people should have more liberty your in favor of equal rights then arn't you? And no mate it doesn't have anything to do with equal rights, your trying to make me seem ignorant and failing badly. All you are saying is that you think people should have what is given to them and not what they deserve. That people should be allowed to live better lives than another person because there parents were rich, they went to a better school etc. You just shove positive and negative in to your sentences to make it seem like you know what your talking about.

The compass said you were a right wing liberal? Thats a conservative mate and I'll treat you as conservative.

Oh and what effective argument ask God was. The kind of thing a person says when the've ,lost a argument and can't accept it. Just say it Warpath 'i lost you'll feel allot better.

So go on walk away Warpath, Because until you reply i'll take it that i won.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.