Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 51 of 51

Thread: Jack Ma defends the 'blessing' of a 12-hour working day

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    What does, in your opinion, constitute slavery? Not being able to choose who is your owner? It's a distinction without a difference
    If the owner engages in an act of violent aggression against you to compel you to work for him against your will, that's slavery.

    If you voluntarily take the job, even if you feel you have no choice because you are compelled to take it on account of external needs that are not the result of your employer using violence against you, it isn't slavery.

    It's a crucial distinction. Ethically, the two things are not even remotely similar. To equate the two would be as bad as claiming that refraining from giving someone something that you are not obligated to give them is the same as stealing from them something that is theirs.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 04-18-2019 at 01:23 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Jack Ma is a prime example of what gives “capitalism” a bad name.

    Anyone who works less than 12x6 is a slacker? A slacker is someone who plays video games all day and doesn’t have a job. There are plenty of them. Massive increases in productivity mean that the workweek can and should be reduced, for those who do not care to work more than a standard workweek. The US standard of 40 hours is arbitrary. It could easily be 36 (9x4).

    Those who want to work more would be free to, and as others have pointed out, business owners are on the job (or more accurately “on call”) all of the time.
    There is also a lot of risk when you have a business. Risk that employees do not have to be concerned with. When you start a business you are then tying all your assets together, both the business assets and your all of your personal assets. And if their are any second parties all their assets too. So if the business goes down everyone involved looses everything they own. This is a huge risk most do not realize or consider in the reality of it all. Risk has it's own very high value that is perpetually needing to be protected.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    If the owner engages in an act of violent aggression against you to compel you to work for him against your will, that's slavery.

    If you voluntarily take the job, and feel compelled to take it on account of external needs that are not the result of your employer using violence against you, it isn't slavery.

    It's a crucial distinction. Ethically, the two things are not even remotely similar. To equate the two would be as bad as claiming that refraining from giving someone something that you are not obligated to give them is the same as stealing from them something that is theirs.
    Yep, the primary difference is being able to choose your owner. If all the owners offer the same meager wages when they can invariably afford to pay so much more, the real-world result is indistinguishable from slavery. No wonder there is such a huge problem with worker suicides in East Asia. The system you are defending is hell on earth.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by ATruepatriot View Post
    There is also a lot of risk when you have a business. Risk that employees do not have to be concerned with. When you start a business you are then tying all your assets together, both the business assets and your all of your personal assets. And if their are any second parties all their assets too. So if the business goes down everyone involved looses everything they own. This is a huge risk most do not realize or consider in the reality of it all. Risk has it's own very high value that is perpetually needing to be protected.
    Which would lead to another issue which is the difference between a privately held business and a publicly held company. Risks and rewards are distributed much differently. A CEO and top executives no longer have the risk of an owner, just the risk of a (highly paid) employee. Kind of like government...
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    Yep, the primary difference is being able to choose your owner. If all the owners offer the same meager wages when they can invariably afford to pay so much more, the real-world result is indistinguishable from slavery. No wonder there is such a huge problem with worker suicides in East Asia. The system you are defending is hell on earth.
    This is when you start your own competing business, steal all their best employees by paying and treating them better, and steal all their customers. This is why I always put "signed under duress" on any non-compete contract, or make sure there is a time period. A non-compete is pretty hard to enforce on a "Just Cause" employee. If they don't hire me fine, move on.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Which would lead to another issue which is the difference between a privately held business and a publicly held company. Risks and rewards are distributed much differently. A CEO and top executives no longer have the risk of an owner, just the risk of a (highly paid) employee. Kind of like government...
    Yep, That's when it all changes to Corporatism.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    If someone needs to work 72 hours a week to "make ends meet" while working for a multi billion dollar company, it is no different than slavery. For every dollar of value these workers are providing to their company, they are getting a fraction of a fraction of a penny in return. But god forbid such companies be taxed, that would prevent them from expanding and creating more wageslaves!
    If they expand and create more "wage slaves" then they will tighten the labor market and wages and working conditions will have to improve in order to compete for workers.

    You can make a moral argument that the owners should choose to treat their workers better in the first place and that they would gain increased productivity and loyalty in return but tax and regulations will not help and will make things worse.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    No, you have no understanding whatsoever of the book you claim to be the word of god. You have warped the meaning of its passages to fit your own worldview. It's so obvious it's $#@!ing pathetic.

    This is what the chapter says:

    Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

    For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

    Those in authority are THE SERVANTS OF GOD. What is a servant? "a person who performs duties for others." The procurement of taxes by those in authority is thus done with the explicit endorsement of your god. Even if the one in authority demanded 100% taxation on your every belonging, then it is for your good, because rulers only bring punishment on the wrongdoer.


    The fact that ancap christians exist is honestly hilarious. Your book contains the most opaque endorsement of statism I have ever seen in my life.
    That is not what it says, you can interpret it to endorse taxation for the legitimate functions of government but it does not give unlimited license to the government to take more than is required for those legitimate functions.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is not what it says, you can interpret it to endorse taxation for the legitimate functions of government but it does not give unlimited license to the government to take more than is required for those legitimate functions.
    Normally I would agree with you, but then I read "rulers do not bear the sword for no reason" and realized that there must be a good justification for why the government needs all my belongings.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    Normally I would agree with you, but then I read "rulers do not bear the sword for no reason" and realized that there must be a good justification for why the government needs all my belongings.
    They bear a sword to punish criminals and defend against hostile foreigners NOT to better extort excessive taxes.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They bear a sword to punish criminals and defend against hostile foreigners NOT to better extort excessive taxes.
    They bear the sword for whatever they want, cuz whatever they want is what god wants, according to that chapter.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    They bear the sword for whatever they want, cuz whatever they want is what god wants, according to that chapter.
    That's not what it says.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    They bear the sword for whatever they want, cuz whatever they want is what god wants, according to that chapter.
    The passage doesn't refer to what God "wants." What you're doing is using the word "want" equivocally, where you conflate what God commands with what he ordains. As the Bible portrays God, what he commands (i.e. what he says someone ought to do) and what he ordains (i.e. his works in creation to bring about his plans) are not the same thing. God regularly uses the wicked deeds of those who disobey him to bring about his purposes in spite of them. The Bible speaks of this often, especially with respect to rulers.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    Normally I would agree with you, but then I read "rulers do not bear the sword for no reason" and realized that there must be a good justification for why the government needs all my belongings.
    That's right. They bear the sword to kill people. And if you disobey them, they will use that sword. It's not just for show.

    The same is true of muggers. And God uses muggers as his servants as well in precisely the same way that Romans 13 is talking about. In fact, I would say that the "powers" that the passage mention includes muggers.

    The fact that these powers, whether small-scale muggers, or large-scale emperors, bear the sword not in vain, is a good reason to submit to them, simply as a matter of general practical advice, which is really what that passage is.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    That's right. They bear the sword to kill people. And if you disobey them, they will use that sword. It's not just for show.

    The same is true of muggers. And God uses muggers as his servants as well in precisely the same way that Romans 13 is talking about. In fact, I would say that the "powers" that the passage mention includes muggers.

    The fact that these powers, whether small-scale muggers, or large-scale emperors, bear the sword not in vain, is a good reason to submit to them, simply as a matter of general practical advice, which is really what that passage is.
    Why does your god create people for the explicit purpose of doing terrible things to other people, and then your god punishes those same people for the actions he predestined them to do? Your religion is nonsense

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    Why does your god create people for the explicit purpose of doing terrible things to other people, and then your god punishes those same people for the actions he predestined them to do? Your religion is nonsense
    Whether or not you accept the theology that Paul presupposed when he wrote Romans 13, it's still the case that he did presuppose it, and the passage should be understood in that light, and not as if it had been written with your modern western atheist presuppositions, if you want to understand what he meant.

    I wouldn't put it quite the way you did, but a good passage that illustrates God's sovereignty over a wicked ruler, whom he raised up and put in power, and then used that ruler, and even explicitly used that ruler's disobedience of God's commands, to accomplish his own good purposes, is in Romans 9:17-18, speaking of the Pharaoh of the Exodus. I think it's significant that this passage is in the same letter as Romans, and in fact is the only passage in that letter that mentions a specific example of one of the powers that Romans 13 refers to. The Pharaoh of the Exodus perfectly illustrates Romans 13:1-6 in that God used him as a servant to bring praise to those who did good and shame to evildoers in spite of, and even through, the Pharaoh's own wickedness.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 04-18-2019 at 02:53 PM.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Whether or not you accept the theology that Paul presupposed when he wrote Romans 13, it's still the case that he did presuppose it, and the passage should be understood in that light, and not as if it had been written with your modern western atheist presuppositions, if you want to understand what he meant.
    Anyways, your interpretation of the chapter is complete nonsense. You are only shaping it to fit your world view, as I already mentioned.

    You said the reason for submitting to the authorities is "simply a matter of general practical advice." Yet this can easily be proven false.
    It did not just say "Obey the authorities just so you don't get punished by them." It also says that it is A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE. It says disobeying the leader is rebelling against God. It defines right and wrong in this chapter, not based on the commandments or laws written in the bibles, but whatever the authority asks of you.

    This chapter is just "might is right" bull$#@!, and reading this I can understand why this idiotic country thinks it has the right to bomb or threaten any country on the planet that doesn't play ball.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    Anyways, your interpretation of the chapter is complete nonsense. You are only shaping it to fit your world view, as I already mentioned.

    You said the reason for submitting to the authorities is "simply a matter of general practical advice." Yet this can easily be proven false.
    It did not just say "Obey the authorities just so you don't get punished by them." It also says that it is A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE. It says disobeying the leader is rebelling against God. It defines right and wrong in this chapter, not based on the commandments or laws written in the bibles, but whatever the authority asks of you.
    There's nothing nonsensical about any of that. Paul gives more than one reason to submit to rulers. One reason is that they wield the sword not in vain. Another is as a matter of conscience.

    Notice how every time you refer to the passage, and try to make some point about it, you put it in your own words, rather than referring to the words it actually uses. It doesn't say that disobeying a ruler is rebelling against God. It says, "whoever resists the powers resists what God has appointed." This is completely in line with everything I've said.

    Notice also how this meshes with the example of Jesus submitting to wicked rulers, all the way to his own death. The crucifixion of Jesus was central to Paul's entire message. It could hardly be something he failed to consider when he wrote Romans 13 or any other passage. The powers that crucified Jesus were sinning when they did so, but they were nevertheless God's servants, even in that very act bringing about praise to Jesus and shame to evil doers. In this example, where submission led to his death, it wasn't a case of submitting to the powers because they bear the sword not in vain as a practical way of avoiding death (though that reason would be perfectly valid on its own in other circumstances), but out of conscience, to accept his role in God's plan who (as Paul says in the same book of Romans) works all things for the good of those who love him.

    Nowhere does Romans 13 define right or wrong based on what the powers command. And it doesn't need to define right and wrong at all, because how right and wrong are defined is already something that Paul and his audience take for granted going into the passage. They're not starting from a blank slate here concerning God's moral law.

    Notice also that the passage doesn't even say to do whatever the powers ask of you, as you claim. It merely says to submit to them and not to rise up against them in insurrection. The words "submit" and "obey" are two different words with overlapping but distinct meanings. You can submit by obeying. To submit is to accept your position under another's power. You can submit by obeying. But even if you disobey, it's possible to do so submissively. Jesus submitted to the Roman Empire, but that didn't mean always obeying them. His crucifixion illustrates both of these things--he submitted to the cross willingly, but the cross itself was a punishment for his failure to conform to that state's demands. The apostles, including Paul, submitted to them, but not always by obeying them. Sometimes their submission involved disobeying them, and accepting being punished for doing so. Sometimes it involved disobeying them and avoiding punishments by escaping them. But by being in submission, they never rose up against them in rebellion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    This chapter is just "might is right" bull$#@!, and reading this I can understand why this idiotic country thinks it has the right to bomb or threaten any country on the planet that doesn't play ball.
    It really isn't. And read in the context of the whole letter (including the immediately preceding verses, which refer to rulers persecuting Christians and command submission to that persecution in trust that God himself will take vengeance) and Paul's entire outlook that he expresses in all his letters, it would make no sense for it to be teaching might is right or that the powers are morally righteous individuals.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 04-18-2019 at 03:37 PM.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Jack Ma is a prime example of what gives “capitalism” a bad name.

    Anyone who works less than 12x6 is a slacker? A slacker is someone who plays video games all day and doesn’t have a job. There are plenty of them. Massive increases in productivity mean that the workweek can and should be reduced, for those who do not care to work more than a standard workweek. The US standard of 40 hours is arbitrary. It could easily be 36 (9x4).

    Those who want to work more would be free to, and as others have pointed out, business owners are on the job (or more accurately “on call”) all of the time.
    Ya , $#@! that guy . I worked hard to get to where now I do not work much and enjoy what I do . Nobody cares what he thinks .
    Do something Danke

  24. #50
    https://996.icu/#/en_US


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system

    China Tech Workers Protest Long Work Hours in Online Campaign https://www.voanews.com/a/china-tech...n/4861553.html



    Ep. 42: To 996, or Not to 996, That Is the Question https://pandaily.com/ep-42-to-996-or...-the-question/

    In Episode 42 of TechBuzz China, co-hosts Ying-Ying Lu and Rui Ma turn their attention to the developer-led movement 996.icu, one of the few viral China tech topics in the past few months that has made it to Western media in real time and gotten a good bit of coverage. The movement is so named because there is a popular saying that to work “996,” or at least 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week — as many tech sector employees do in China — is to end up in the ICU. Listeners will also hear from Arman Zand, a lecturer at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. This episode is dedicated to the latest cohort of students from his international business course on China — who, by the way, are all TechBuzz listeners, debated the concept of 996 incessantly while on a recent immersion trip, and met with Pandaily CEO Kevin Zhou over dinner in Beijing. Thanks, all, for your support!

    Rui and Ying-Ying explain that what has widely been hailed in the West as one of China’s secret weapons to unseating Silicon Valley as the tech hub of the world is actually a contentious topic within China. They begin with the history of the phenomenon: While some companies always had departments that were overworked, the first truly controversial and semi-official adoption of 996 was in September 2016, when it was rumored that the $10 billion online classifieds company 58.com decided to institute the 996 schedule across its then 20,000 employee base. However, it was not until January of this year that an ecommerce software as a service (SaaS) company named Youzan officially announced that it was moving to a 996 schedule. That was the first time the practice, which had only been tacitly acknowledged, became actual, enforced policy.

    Listen to find out: What has happened since? Within the Chinese blogosphere, what are the stated pros and cons to adhering to a 996 schedule? What is the role of the government and of China’s legal code? Have Chinese people always just worked a lot — and what about in other sectors outside of tech? How did the 996.icu movement start, and how did it go viral? What are the sentiments from both sides of the table within the developer community in China? What do Rui, Ying-Ying, and guest commentator Arman think — is this all just part of the startup hustle, or is it worthy of regulatory scrutiny and change? Will things change? How does this one quality relate to China’s innovation — in other words, why is 996 so relevant, and is it a competitive advantage for China?

  25. #51
    I am always amazed when I fly over big cities in China. Massive Apartment buildings and other lands. Almost no traffic or persons in sight, even during the long ride from the airport to the downtown hotel looking out at the neighborhoods as we pass by.

    Are they all working?
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-12-2017, 03:04 PM
  2. Tom Woods defends Jack Hunter
    By Warlord in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 07-11-2013, 06:29 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-30-2010, 01:39 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-29-2009, 09:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •