McDonalds.....Don't Eat the Food!

[dave1949]

As concerns moral philosophy, a non question-begging obligation to selflessness is more difficult to produce.

I'm not sure I can parse the meaning of that as you intended.

Why would someone practice, or feel an obligation to selflessness? Is that the gist?

 

[sld]

Dems and Repubs want the same thing. What separates them is how to get there.

Having the government force the charitable giving / redistribution of wealth is the sticking point.

 

[ddb123]

I'm not sure I can parse the meaning of that as you intended. Why would someone practice, or feel an obligation to selflessness? Is that the gist?

Specifically, I mean that it's more difficult to produce a coherent moral philosophy that requires altruism than it is to produce one that commends rational selfishness, at least in my searching.

Not so much why would someone practice or feel an obligation to selflessness, but whether there IS such an obligation regardless of what someone practices or feels.

 

[dave1949]

Personally, I don't think this " One World Order" has helped us here in the US...I don't think it is helping Europe and the EU nations...Seems to me the world did much better when it was decentralized and peacefully trading with one another. I think the same can be said about the States of the US...Did we not do much better with much less Federal centralization ?

(This is Not Political...non partisan problem here )

I guess it depends on who "we" is. If "we" was livin' in the big house, then yes, "we" were doing better.

The debate about state and federal spheres goes back to well before the Civil War, which was some sort of turning point in history. From a northerner's point of view, the Civil War was fought because The South would not peacefully relinquish an economic foundation made possible only by slavery. The South wished to assert state's rights to continue a morally reprehensible way of life.

Following the Reconstruction period, The South implemented a system of brutal apartheid which persisted until at least the 1960's, 50 years ago. One generation is all that separates us from that history.

Year after year the US Supreme Court strikes down state laws as unconstitutional. Most of those laws are direct assaults on individual freedoms. I wouldn't be expecting miracles for state's rights. History has shown that states don't perform very well in that area. How are states to be able to pursue economic issues when they shoot themselves in the foot on social issues every chance they get?

The dismantling of strong labor unions, The South was instrumental in this, y'all have a genetic dislike for the word "union" , removed one of the few powerful counterbalances to operating on corporate autopilot which amounts to: if it makes money it's good. Note that I'm not saying corporations are inherently evil. They are going about their tasks as expected, but without much in the way of checks and balances relating to the outcomes beyond profitability.

I'm not against profits, I too own a wee slice of corporate America. But there needs to be a balance between the needs of people and profit. I'm not a fan of manufactured poverty; it's morally wrong, and not sustainable in any case.

 

[Soundguy]

My bottom line is.... its too late for America to do anything about it. There are more have-nots with the voting power that will keep electing people to take care of them, as there is no way they can take care of themselves anymore. Its just not possible. We've gone over the cliff.

bingo / dabo

 

[Soundguy]

Firms, regardless of legal structure (sole proprietorship, partnership, LLC, and for-profit corporations), serve society by providing consumers with goods and services. .

that's a fairly non exhaustive definition of the purpose of a 'firm' ( yada/legal structure / your list ).

Clubs and membership based orgs with a ligal entity type structure that provide no goods or services exist.

 

[MossRoad]

Only if they eat all their meals from low-paying restaurants. On a national average, as I posted earlier, people spend about 85 cents eating away from home for every $1 they spend eating at home. Not all of that eating away from home is done at places paying the minimum wage.

But even if that were true, you are seeing only one aspect of what happens in the larger picture. Your $3.21 (including tax) breakfast would cost 64 cents more at a minimum wage of $15/hour. What does that 64 cents accomplish? Will you go broke? Will the recipient become self-supporting and save you money in the long run?

It takes two basic things to fight poverty: effort and money.

Since you, as a moderator, could not resist expounding on your pet political theories, I offer a quote from John Kenneth Galbraith:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

What you are leaving out is that is it not just one meal at McDonalds that will go up 64 cents. Its all three meals every day of every week of every year because ALL minimum wage jobs involved in everything will go up, not just McDonald's employees. Grocery store clerks, Walmart floor employees, retail clothiing storesm all part time jobs. Just in food at 64 cent per meal increase, that's $700.00 more per year out of my pocket and I eat cheap. And that's just me. Add my spouse into that and my food bill increases by $1400. Oh wait, I have a family of 4. That's a $2800 dollar per year increase in my just my food budget. Will I go broke over $2800 dollars more per year in food? Probably not. But I'll also pay more for clothing, household items, etc... so it is significantly more.

So, to answer your question. "Will the recipient become self-supporting and save you money in the long run?" the answer is a resounding NO. My after expenses income will be reduced by thousands of dollars due to the higher cost of living, yet I'll still be paying the same amount of income tax and paying more in sales tax as the prices of goods and services rises to offset the raise in minimum wage.

 

[smstonypoint]

that's a fairly non exhaustive definition of the purpose of a 'firm' ( yada/legal structure / your list ).

Clubs and membership based orgs with a ligal entity type structure that provide no goods or services exist.

I'm used to talking about "the theory of the firm" in which "firm" refers to companies/businesses that provide goods and services in the pursuit of profits and thus I specified for-profit corporations.

There are certainly nonprofit corporations (the 501(c)(3)'s), clubs, etc. that have other objectives.

Steve

 

[timswi]

Not sure the historical facts bear that out. Corporations are responsible for society. As public charters, We The People allow them to exist. As such, they should serve society, not exploit it. We give them the rights of people, to lobby and sue, buy politicians, commit crimes (yet cant be jailed) ; they are not confined to the limits of a mortal life to accumulate wealth and influence and thus have become more powerful than us mortals. And that folks is called Fascism Welcome to the NWO.

I can't believe I just read that. Corporations are in business to do nothing more than serve their customers and make a profit for their owners no matter who they might be, employees are little more than indentured servants..I know this as I am one. It's a one way street for the most part. The more value I provide, the more I get paid..I don't make a good living for having a pulse.

If you actually buy what you stated, open your own company that has no profit motive and also is a community servant..Just don't try to call it a non-profit..Let's see how that works out...Ever taken even one Economics course? Math is hard, but not that hard.

 

[Soundguy]

I'm used to talking about "the theory of the firm" in which "firm" refers to companies/businesses that provide goods and services in the pursuit of profits and thus I specified for-profit corporations.

Steve

I was looking at this line you typed:

Firms, regardless of legal structure (sole proprietorship, partnership, LLC, and for-profit corporations),

since you seperated 'for profit corps' with an and.. that seems to me they were different from the other entities you had listed.