Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Servants?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 1:53:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Should people be allowed to "work" for other people in a personal capacity?

For example, as maids, nannies etc.

I was thinking if such things were not possible, it'd be hardly practical to have a huge house. Imagine cleaning all those rooms by oneself! Use technology if you want, but operate it by yourself, you know.

I know there are many people who do not have many skills and this is better than not having a job at all, but somehow, it seems to me that having people work for one in such capacities does not promote "equality".

I know this is a bit vague, but I somehow feel that having "servants" leads to lots of wastage or resources.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 1:56:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Equality can go bugger itself.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 1:58:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In a capitalist society resources are replaced by the concept of money, so long as it's spent things work. The more evenly it is spread about the less you need to worry about poverty, I can't see any benefits from ending the practice of hiring servants.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:02:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 1:56:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Equality can go bugger itself.

I meant political equality :)

It's hard to think of someone who cleans my house as my equal, you know. I'm not saying everyone does it, but you can see how it can be so.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:04:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 1:53:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
I know this is a bit vague, but I somehow feel that having "servants" leads to lots of wastage or resources.

Being a servant is voluntary, so it benefits both parties; the servant receives an income and sometimes a residence, while his or her employer saves time, a valuable resource. From a more objective viewpoint, the time of the employer is much more valuable than the time of the employee in this situation, so the exchange is also efficient.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:05:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:02:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 1:56:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Equality can go bugger itself.

I meant political equality :)
Political equality (1 person 1 vote you mean or...?) can go bugger itself, and depending on definition may be impossible


It's hard to think of someone who cleans my house as my equal, you know.
So?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:06:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 1:58:21 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
In a capitalist society resources are replaced by the concept of money, so long as it's spent things work. The more evenly it is spread about the less you need to worry about poverty, I can't see any benefits from ending the practice of hiring servants.

But you can see the flaw in replacing resources by money, right. Some resources are not renewable. This blind substitution can lead to destruction of such resources.

Just as an example. How large a house does a person need? If there were no servants that could be hired, would people buy large houses? Remember, large houses = large parcels of land. Land is not renewable.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:07:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Land is not destroyable either.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:08:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:07:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Land is not destroyable either.

How so? If you think of it as just a physical space, it may not be. Although there are still ways in which it can be destroyed even as a physical space.

But destruction can occur as to the value of that land.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:11:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
it's not a blind substitution.
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:13:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:08:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
But destruction can occur as to the value of that land.

Land can be improved, so its value is never destroyed, but modified.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:14:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:08:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:07:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Land is not destroyable either.

How so? If you think of it as just a physical space, it may not be. Although there are still ways in which it can be destroyed even as a physical space.

But destruction can occur as to the value of that land.

By building a large dwelling on it?
Last I heard there's more demand for land with a large dwelling on it than blank land. Otherwise people wouldn't go to the expense of building large dwellings.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:15:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:13:06 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:08:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
But destruction can occur as to the value of that land.

Land can be improved, so its value is never destroyed, but modified.

Well, if you insist on calling destruction as modification, of course it can never be destroyed. Chernobyl, for instance.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:15:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:02:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
It's hard to think of someone who cleans my house as my equal, you know. I'm not saying everyone does it, but you can see how it can be so.

You can think of anyone anyway you want, but it doesn't make their profession something to end. A lot of people look down upon the profession of garbage pickup.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:18:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:15:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Chernobyl, for instance.

That damage isn't permanent, and for the right price, it can be removed.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:19:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:14:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:08:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:07:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Land is not destroyable either.

How so? If you think of it as just a physical space, it may not be. Although there are still ways in which it can be destroyed even as a physical space.

But destruction can occur as to the value of that land.

By building a large dwelling on it?
Last I heard there's more demand for land with a large dwelling on it than blank land. Otherwise people wouldn't go to the expense of building large dwellings.

I'm sure there are some misplaced assumptions there.

The demand for land IS for building large dwellings. Actually there's more demand for land with many services near it. Not just with large dwellings on it.

If there was such demand for land with large dwellings on it, all anyone has to do is build a large dwelling in the desert :)

According to you, a family of 4 living in a 100 acre space is not wastage?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:22:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:19:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:14:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:08:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:07:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Land is not destroyable either.

How so? If you think of it as just a physical space, it may not be. Although there are still ways in which it can be destroyed even as a physical space.

But destruction can occur as to the value of that land.

By building a large dwelling on it?
Last I heard there's more demand for land with a large dwelling on it than blank land. Otherwise people wouldn't go to the expense of building large dwellings.

I'm sure there are some misplaced assumptions there.

The demand for land IS for building large dwellings. Actually there's more demand for land with many services near it. Not just with large dwellings on it.
You don't build what's near your land, you build what's on your land, by definition.

According to you, a family of 4 living in a 100 acre space is not wastage?
Not if it motivates them to produce value, which it does as such living is expensive :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:22:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:18:25 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:15:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Chernobyl, for instance.

That damage isn't permanent, and for the right price, it can be removed.

As long as it's not worth it, the land value can be said to be destroyed. Otherwise, you can say for the right price, even the ocean floor can be made valuable as land.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:25:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:22:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:19:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:14:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:08:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:07:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Land is not destroyable either.

How so? If you think of it as just a physical space, it may not be. Although there are still ways in which it can be destroyed even as a physical space.

But destruction can occur as to the value of that land.

By building a large dwelling on it?
Last I heard there's more demand for land with a large dwelling on it than blank land. Otherwise people wouldn't go to the expense of building large dwellings.

I'm sure there are some misplaced assumptions there.

The demand for land IS for building large dwellings. Actually there's more demand for land with many services near it. Not just with large dwellings on it.
You don't build what's near your land, you build what's on your land, by definition.

Don't undestand this. I buy a parcel of land in a desert. I can build what the heck I want on it, even a large dwelling. It's not going to increase the value of that land. But according to you, land with large dwellings on it increase the value of that land. How?

According to you, a family of 4 living in a 100 acre space is not wastage?
Not if it motivates them to produce value, which it does as such living is expensive :P

Ahh, I can burn all the coal I want, to say, heat my house, as long as I produce value?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:25:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:22:37 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:18:25 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:15:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Chernobyl, for instance.

That damage isn't permanent, and for the right price, it can be removed.

As long as it's not worth it, the land value can be said to be destroyed. Otherwise, you can say for the right price, even the ocean floor can be made valuable as land.

Both are still land. Land isn't destroyed with damage, it is only damaged. At no point does land become unsalvagable. And yes, the ocean floor could be made valuable as land, but it's typically held hostage by the government.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:28:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:25:47 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:22:37 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:18:25 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:15:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
Chernobyl, for instance.

That damage isn't permanent, and for the right price, it can be removed.

As long as it's not worth it, the land value can be said to be destroyed. Otherwise, you can say for the right price, even the ocean floor can be made valuable as land.

Both are still land. Land isn't destroyed with damage, it is only damaged. At no point does land become unsalvagable. And yes, the ocean floor could be made valuable as land, but it's typically held hostage by the government.

Right. So, I can hold any piece of land hostage and not allow anyone to do anything on it. Isn't that reducing its value?

The potential will always be there. But the practicality is what I'm talking about.

Even the potential can be destroyed by blasting it out to space, you know :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:29:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:25:37 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:22:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:19:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:14:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:08:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:07:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Land is not destroyable either.

How so? If you think of it as just a physical space, it may not be. Although there are still ways in which it can be destroyed even as a physical space.

But destruction can occur as to the value of that land.

By building a large dwelling on it?
Last I heard there's more demand for land with a large dwelling on it than blank land. Otherwise people wouldn't go to the expense of building large dwellings.

I'm sure there are some misplaced assumptions there.

The demand for land IS for building large dwellings. Actually there's more demand for land with many services near it. Not just with large dwellings on it.
You don't build what's near your land, you build what's on your land, by definition.

Don't undestand this. I buy a parcel of land in a desert. I can build what the heck I want on it, even a large dwelling. It's not going to increase the value of that land.
But according to you, land with large dwellings on it increase the value of that land. How?
In the real world people building large dwellings don't do it in the desert (unless they are also building casinos or something :) )
What's important is real world large dwellings, not imaginary ones.


According to you, a family of 4 living in a 100 acre space is not wastage?
Not if it motivates them to produce value, which it does as such living is expensive :P

Ahh, I can burn all the coal I want, to say, heat my house, as long as I produce value?
As long as you produce value sufficient to get someone to trade you the coal for it, sure :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:32:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:29:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:25:37 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:22:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:19:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:14:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:08:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:07:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Land is not destroyable either.

How so? If you think of it as just a physical space, it may not be. Although there are still ways in which it can be destroyed even as a physical space.

But destruction can occur as to the value of that land.

By building a large dwelling on it?
Last I heard there's more demand for land with a large dwelling on it than blank land. Otherwise people wouldn't go to the expense of building large dwellings.

I'm sure there are some misplaced assumptions there.

The demand for land IS for building large dwellings. Actually there's more demand for land with many services near it. Not just with large dwellings on it.
You don't build what's near your land, you build what's on your land, by definition.

Don't undestand this. I buy a parcel of land in a desert. I can build what the heck I want on it, even a large dwelling. It's not going to increase the value of that land.
But according to you, land with large dwellings on it increase the value of that land. How?
In the real world people building large dwellings don't do it in the desert (unless they are also building casinos or something :) )
What's important is real world large dwellings, not imaginary ones.

Right. Then, in that case, the value you speak about is because of other things near your land. The demand for that land, say in the middle of Manhattan, is not because you built a large dwelling on that land. It's because, well, it's Manhattan.


According to you, a family of 4 living in a 100 acre space is not wastage?
Not if it motivates them to produce value, which it does as such living is expensive :P

Ahh, I can burn all the coal I want, to say, heat my house, as long as I produce value?
As long as you produce value sufficient to get someone to trade you the coal for it, sure :)

I can, but wouldn't that be wastage? Is there no wastage according to you?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:33:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's hard to think of someone who cleans my house as my equal, you know. I'm not saying everyone does it, but you can see how it can be so.

It shouldn't stop you from viewing them as an equal though, unless you view it purely from an economic standpoint. Couldn't you say the same thing about a boss and his employees? Where do you draw the line between servant and employee? I don't know of any successful societies with complete economic equality.
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:35:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
ireland to become europe's vegas by the way: http://www.breakingnews.ie...

...with mention of casinos. i really hope it goes ahead. they only thing they were refused planning for was a theater. hardcore gamblers lol.
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:43:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Right. Then, in that case, the value you speak about is because of other things near your land. The demand for that land, say in the middle of Manhattan, is not because you built a large dwelling on that land. It's because, well, it's Manhattan.
And presumably I paid a higher price to get it in the middle of Manhattan, hence, the profit margin is because of the large dwelling.

I can, but wouldn't that be wastage? Is there no wastage according to you?
There is agent-relative waste. Which agent do you believe to be wasting their resources?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:47:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:33:16 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It's hard to think of someone who cleans my house as my equal, you know. I'm not saying everyone does it, but you can see how it can be so.

It shouldn't stop you from viewing them as an equal though, unless you view it purely from an economic standpoint. Couldn't you say the same thing about a boss and his employees? Where do you draw the line between servant and employee? I don't know of any successful societies with complete economic equality.

It's not an economic perspective. It's a social one. There will always be professions that will be looked down upon, and it's not hard to know what those are. It's nothing to do with economics.

The line between a servant and an employee is, well, a servant is one who takes care of your personal effects.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:51:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:06:03 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 1:58:21 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
In a capitalist society resources are replaced by the concept of money, so long as it's spent things work. The more evenly it is spread about the less you need to worry about poverty, I can't see any benefits from ending the practice of hiring servants.

But you can see the flaw in replacing resources by money, right. Some resources are not renewable. This blind substitution can lead to destruction of such resources.

Not really no, by adopting the conceit of money we are able to more efficiently make use of resources. It is very rare for resources to be truly destroyed.

Just as an example. How large a house does a person need? If there were no servants that could be hired, would people buy large houses? Remember, large houses = large parcels of land. Land is not renewable.

But large houses consume greater amounts of resources, which leads to a greater generation and deployment of money. Also the land is not truly 'used up',
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:52:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:47:17 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/12/2011 2:33:16 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It's hard to think of someone who cleans my house as my equal, you know. I'm not saying everyone does it, but you can see how it can be so.

It shouldn't stop you from viewing them as an equal though, unless you view it purely from an economic standpoint. Couldn't you say the same thing about a boss and his employees? Where do you draw the line between servant and employee? I don't know of any successful societies with complete economic equality.

It's not an economic perspective. It's a social one. There will always be professions that will be looked down upon, and it's not hard to know what those are. It's nothing to do with economics.

The line between a servant and an employee is, well, a servant is one who takes care of your personal effects.

Don't we often look down on our employees socially? If you think looking down socially on these people is bad, do you have a solution that involves actual change apart from a dispositional one? You can obviously say "don't look down on your butler" and I have no problem with that, but if then suggest banning the service what do we do about low level employees? Do we fire the people who work in fast food?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 2:53:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 2:19:05 PM, Indophile wrote:

According to you, a family of 4 living in a 100 acre space is not wastage?

What is being wasted, and how is this wastage bad?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.