Post #259,850
6/23/06 9:28:09 PM
|
They aren't that over the edge
they do realize and accept that there are some social services that need to be funded socially, through taxes.
They don't think that government should own land, redistribute wealth, fund research, etc...in other words...they don't think the government >needs< the level of taxation it currently enjoys because it shouldn't be involved in most of the things its involved in.
I think you're mixing libertarians with objectivists.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #259,885
6/24/06 1:13:29 AM
|
What the H... is an Objectivist now?
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #259,891
6/24/06 4:46:56 AM
|
What's a "H..."?
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
|
Post #259,938
6/24/06 10:25:00 PM
|
Ayn Rand...who is John Gault...you know them.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #260,124
6/27/06 10:03:54 AM
|
over the edge
yeah
no social security
no national parks
no unions
just a bunch of free thinkers
uh huh
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #260,133
6/27/06 11:51:08 AM
|
unions?
not so...maybe not in the traditional sense...but they aren't anti-union. Thats a free persons right to assemble.
What they do say is "We support the right of free persons to voluntarily associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of its employees. We oppose government interference in bargaining. Therefore, we urge repeal of the National Labor Relations Act, and all state Right-to-Work Laws which prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts with unions."
National Parks and Soc Security are accurate. However, by the time we get to it we'll be lucky to have anything left....so how bad would it be to get rid of it?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #260,141
6/27/06 1:23:27 PM
6/27/06 1:28:18 PM
|
Social Security && National Parks.....&& more...
National Parks wouldn't disappear (imo)...they would (could?) be transferred off to non-profit corporations. (I think Chimney Rock in NC is set up similar)
Of course, they could also be sold off at a profit. (Anyone want a piece of Mt. Rushmore?)
And I agree with BP on Social Security. It's slowly disappearing anyway. If we continue our present path, SS will grant you enough dollars (by the time I retire) to buy me a hamburger (if I'm lucky).
Where I disagree with liberatians is in governing. Anyone can claim to be a doctor. Be able to buy any drugs. No meat inspections, etc.
|
Post #260,168
6/27/06 3:47:42 PM
|
you mean...
allegedly non-profit corporations
can't have the 'evil government'
expropriating my hard-earned loot
to regulate companies
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #260,170
6/27/06 3:57:51 PM
|
Could you add some punctuation?
I can't make out what you're saying.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #260,226
6/27/06 11:58:22 PM
|
,:;.?
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #260,250
6/28/06 9:00:40 AM
|
~!@#$%^&*()
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #260,251
6/28/06 9:03:41 AM
|
It's a Reggae Haiku.
Play, "Get Up, Stand Up" in your head while you read it.
;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #260,254
6/28/06 9:09:09 AM
|
Regulate!
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #260,169
6/27/06 3:48:51 PM
|
like I said 'no unions'
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #260,193
6/27/06 8:00:01 PM
|
you think the gov't is necessary
for unions to be effective?
Certainly worked for the air traffic controllers, didn't it?
This is not the 20s in WV versus coal mines anymore.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #260,194
6/27/06 8:38:02 PM
|
Depends on the government...
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700944.html|Washington Post]: A federal appeals court delivered another legal blow to the Bush administration's sweeping plan to overhaul the federal employee personnel system, ruling today that the proposed changes would illegally limit the scope of collective bargaining.
The opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said new Homeland Security Department personnel rules dealing with working conditions and employee appeals were illegal. The court upheld two earlier rulings by a U.S. District judge that found the government overstepped the authority given by Congress to rewrite personnel rules when it created the department in 2002.
\t
[...]
Today's Appeals Court opinion, written by Judge Harry T. Edwards on behalf of the three-judge panel, agreed with Collyer's findings on the DHS appeals process and on the proposed ability to unilaterally break negotiated contracts, which was "plainly unlawful."
But the appeals court went further, saying the DHS plan, by limiting collective bargaining to only employee-specific personnel matters, leaves most decisions on working conditions up to management only.
"In no sense can such a limited scope of bargaining be viewed as consistent with the Act's mandate that DHS 'ensure' collective bargaining rights for its employees," the opinion said.
The opinion dismissed the government's contention that the new rules would give the department greater flexibility, calling the argument "specious."
[...] Collective bargaining only works if the collected group has power comparable to management in the negotiation. But freedom of association is also an important principle. Thus, I'm ambivalent about unionized workplaces. I've had a shades-of-gray view of unions for a while, and consequently find the Libertarian [link|http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#uniocoll|view on this issue] to be less than persuasive. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #260,197
6/27/06 8:54:03 PM
|
I don't have a shades of grey view of unions
just look at workplaces before and after unions and try to say they're a bad thing.
I don't give a fuck about ideology, I'm concerned with results, and unions delivered results in spades.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #260,199
6/27/06 9:10:37 PM
|
They did many good things.
Unfortunately, there are many examples of unions going too far in setting work rules and so forth. It's true that these things could not have gotten out of hand without the acquiescence of management, but GM, Ford, the airlines, etc., etc., are all in dire straits in large part because of their union contracts.
I don't think even Microsoft could afford the long term cost of the [link|http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm|Job Bank] that the UAW workers have/had.
Like it or not, economies have to be able to change and adapt to improved processes, brighter employees, and changing demand. Union contracts too often try to preserve the status-quo for the current members at the long-term cost of the company's health and ultimately the employees suffer as well.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #260,203
6/27/06 9:30:47 PM
|
That's nice
Let's compare that to twelve hour days for cents an hour, no sick days, no parental leave, fired for not filling quotas, monster industrial maiming with no compensation due to the horribly dangerous conditions, child labour, etc.
In the overall scheme of things, having the shareholders of a few industrial dinosaurs take a rough ride because of their incompetent management's inability to negotiate or to be willing to take the short term losses to get the contract to ensure the long term survivability of the firm doesn't strike me as a terrible price to pay.
Of course union contracts try to preserve the status quo for the long term empoloyees; just as shareholders demand a steady stream of profit, so do workers. It's their job, fer chrissakes, just as it's the job of management to say no when necessary, and be willing to show the union why they have to say no.
Once again, afaic, history trumps ideology; go read [link|http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=br_ss_hs/102-7962868-6440160?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&keywords=The+Jungle&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go|The Jungle] to get a handle on how bad things were before unions. I don't care what the little system says how it's supposed to work; I'm more interested in seeing what worked before: you know, the scientific method.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #260,210
6/27/06 10:55:17 PM
|
I seem to have struck a nerve.
Sorry about that.
I'm not arguing against the existence unions. You've made your view plainly apparent. I guess I need to do better in making mine, but not tonight.
If you haven't yet, and have the time, Halberstam's [link|http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/15/home/halberstam-reckoning.html?_r=1&oref=slogin|The Reckoning] is a very good read. It's about the post-war auto industry in the US and Japan, with an emphasis on Ford and Nissan. It's just as relevant today, though it came out 20 years ago. Some parts of his thesis don't hold up, but on the whole it's a powerful telling of the rise and fall of the auto industry in the US in the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #260,198
6/27/06 8:56:07 PM
|
Yet without them
we would soon return to the late 19th century - with workers rioting with shotguns.
It's all about balance. And we are now swinging out of it. Businesses cannot make labor laws (can you say 'conflict of interest'?) and lobbying businesses are taking control of everything thanks to the current crop of idiots-in-charge. Like it or not, that leaves unions.
You say 'this is not the WV of the 20s', yet without unions, without the balance of organized workers that are permitted to operate as unions, with the power of unions, it would be like that PDQ.
Those that do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
Unfortunately, the arrogance of our current government does not acknowledge learning at all.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
| |
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
