Subject:
|
Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2001 03:37:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1002 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I'll let your own words and posts speak for themselves and let it go at
> that. I'm satisfied with my characterisation.
Denial is a powerful thing. As I said, we agree on much more than we
disagree, why focus on the points of disagreement.
<snipped discussion on Toys R' Us>
You asked for my opinion on fair pricing, I gave it. I'm satisfied with my
opinion or point of view on that topic, but perhaps my example didn't suit
you. We both have more subjective views on LEGO than the average consumer
just picking out a birthday gift for someone, etc. Shall I give another
example or do you get the basic idea?
<snipped Columbia example>
> Who is doing this when you say "we"?
<snipped comments>
I'm probably being too general, but I say "we" as in the American government
and it's lobbyists such as big multinational corporations with monopolies on
many markets. I know you'll agree that our country ends up contributing to
"bad business" because it's left in the hands of certain corrupt government
officials on the payroll of certain equally corrupt big businesses.
<snipped comments and discussion>
> Here are your exact words:
>
> > If you DON'T AGREE that there are
> > ethics in business and pricing, THEN I'll be happy to elaborate on "fair
> > pricing."
>
> So I have to "not agree" that there are ethics in order for you to elaborate
> on what fair pricing is? Is that or is that not what you said? It's unclear
> to me. Sorry.
Taken out of context, my friend. My point is skip the elaboration if we both
agree on something (which we do). We may look at it differently, but I'm not
out to convince you to look at it exactly my way. As far as I'm concerned,
we're both looking at the same thing but have different ways of
understanding or explaining it. Yours is a more practical, business
analysis, mine seems to be a more altruistic, idealistic analysis. Same
destination, different route.
<snipped comments on business ethics>
> Agreed. Hmm.. who said it? "Honest friendship with all..." I forget.
Don't know what you're talking about. Maybe I missed something. If you're
trying to be sarcastic, please don't bother elaborating in your next reply.
<snipped comments on child labor>
> > I don't think "enumerating the alternatives" is the issue. In my opinion,
> > since our country has labor laws based on the principles of human rights and
> > worker's rights,
>
> I'd tend to dispute that being the basis of our labor laws.
I share a degree of cynicism but I would like to believe that our labor laws
have a noble basis.
<snipped comments on child labor>
> Sounds great. On paper. What are the alternatives? Should we subsidise
> saving the whole world? Should we erect protectionist barriers to keep goods
> made by children out of the country? What exactly would you have us do?
I don't have all the answers and what you or I say here makes no big
difference. But I see no reason why we couldn't subsidize "saving the whole
world" in certain ways. We certainly have enough money for it. The problem
with that idea is that there MUST be a true humanitarian doctrine, with no
intent of profit. However, our nation seems a little too consumed in it's
excesses to realize, collectively speaking, that what it does affects the
whole world in very bad ways sometimes. I'm sure you'll agree on this too.
> OK, skip it. I'd rather talk about US labor laws than foreign but we can
> work this either way.
Talk away, I'm listening.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) It's not that the example doesn't suit me, it's just that it's incomplete. I gave an example similar to your scenario of pricing above the prevalent retail and asked if it was fair or not under your definition. I think you need to give another (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) I'll let your own words and posts speak for themselves and let it go at that. I'm satisfied with my characterisation. (...) Suppose they didn't do that though? Take FAO for an example... they sell well above prevailing retail and don't price (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
