If you think you are abused at one employer, it is your absolute right to quit and find another job and this has absolutely nothing to do with government, but what you do fail to realise is that your employment opportunities are very limited because of all of the things I mentioned in the comment you are replying, because there is so few employment opportunities, and that has everything to do with government, that kills opportunities with inflation, taxes, regulations.
If something is really worth doing, it is worth doing it without the profit motive.
- and how would you know that it is 'worth doing' without the profit? Giving things to people without asking for anything, putting them into a position of them being in your debt, enslaving them this way by turning them into dependants, giving them incentives to stay in their predicament for the fear that they would lose that charity if they started relying on themselves.
Yeah, that is what you regard as 'moral' but I see as evil.
I don't support charity, if something is worth doing, it's worth doing it right, as a business. Charity is never sustainable, it's a self defeating enterprise, business has to be at least sustainable.
As to healthcare, here is my take on ACA (and there is something about income taxes there too, you may learn something useful for free, first time in your life)
I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Rights are a construct that is only meaningful as a relationship between individuals and the collective.
You don't have rights in a monarchy, you are a slave, property.
People had to get away from monarchy and set up a government that had limits to its power, and the limits to the power of government is what allows people to have their so called 'rights'. The law that limits government power is the Constitution and by abusing the Constitution and allowing all kinds of unconstitutional decisions to be upheld by courts, the government removes your rights, takes them away, because the only thing that a 'right' is, it is the barrier between the force of government violence and your life.
This is absolutely not the dynamic found in relationship between any number of individuals that are not each other's government.
Yes, an individual can kill you, no that does not mean it's a violation of any right, it is only violence directed towards you, and we authorise the government to deal with individuals, to take away their rights if they direct violence against other individuals.
Society came up with the idea of rights when it decided that the people will not be ruled by monarchs, they will not be property. This required people to set the law above the government, otherwise this would never have happened on its own.
The law above the governments sets the LIMITS TO AUTHORITY for what government can do, and those limits to authority stop where your 'rights' begin, but your rights are a meaningless construct outside of that situation.
Your 'rights' only mean something when there is a law above government, that prevents it from abusing you in ways that are unauthorised, that's what really a right is - limits to the government that it cannot abuse you unless it is specifically authorised, the reasons and the manner in which this can be done to you anyway (depriving you of property, liberty, life).
If you think that concept of 'rights' exists between 2 people, then you clearly don't understand what this concept means and where it came from. Between 2 people there are no rights, there are only guidelines and feeling of self-preservation, that's all. --
Society came up with the idea of rights when it decided that the people will not be ruled by monarchs, they will not be property. This required people to set the law above the government, otherwise this would never have happened on its own.
The law above the governments sets the LIMITS TO AUTHORITY for what government can do, and those limits to authority stop where your 'rights' begin, but your rights are a meaningless construct outside of that situation.
Your 'rights' only mean something when there is a law above government, that prevents it from abusing you in ways that are unauthorised, that's what really a right is - limits to the government that it cannot abuse you unless it is specifically authorised, the reasons and the manner in which this can be done to you anyway (depriving you of property, liberty, life).
If you think that concept of 'rights' exists between 2 people, then you clearly don't understand what this concept means and where it came from. Between 2 people there are no rights, there are only guidelines and feeling of self-preservation, that's all.
You personally didn't, but the Constitution is the document that was signed when the original colonies joined the union.
Think about this: in a monarchy you don't actually have rights, you are property of the state or of the king, whatever.
In a society without any government, there are no rights, that who has more guns wins.
In a society that decided to put together a lawful government with limited authority over you, you do have right, specifically because the authority of the government is limited.
Now think about this: with the latest developments in USA about the ACA (also ironically known as the Affordable Care Act, ironically, because every name of every legislation passed by government can only be correctly understood by totally reversing it, so the care will become unaffordable), so with the ACA many people believe that the court ruled that government has unlimited taxing authority. BUT unlimited taxing authority literally gives government unlimited power over people, and thus all rights are gone. Why? Because gov't can tax you into anything it wants, so it doesn't have to legislate.
Is that what people want - to have all rights removed? And when I say 'rights', I totally mean the power of the individual under law not to be abused by government in any way that is unauthorised by the Constitution.
-
Now, the people who believe that SCOTUS gave the unlimited taxing authority to the Congerss are WRONG. I will have to write a journal entry on this later, but here are the main points:
1. The majority opinion stated that the only reason that the Mandate is Constitutional is because it is a tax, but also because it is a SMALL tax, so small that it does not force anybody to change behaviour AND because this tax is NOT enforced in the law (so far IRS has no power to enforce the collection of this tax by any means, like garnishing your wages or throwing you to jail).
This means that in principle if the tax (fine) is raised from its current level (and it will have to be raised, otherwise ACA is completely unworkable, everybody who has to pay for insurance under the ACA will cancel insurance and only 'buy' it when they absolutely need to and then cancel again, once done with the bills) so if the tax is raised, the mandate becomes IMMEDIATELY unconstitutional and ACA has to go back to the supreme court!
Of-course in practice it's not going to happen, the lower courts will misinterpret what this is and will rule that raising the tax is constitutional and the SCOTUS will deny hearing it again, so in practice this doesn't matter anymore, they found a loophole to pass ACA and now they won't bother with what they have to do technically to keep it legal, just like how they implemented the income tax (which is still illegal today, it is only legal as a tax on corporate profits, not an 'income' tax and not a personal tax).
2. Majority opinion stated that the mandate tax (fine) is NOT a direct tax based on a completely faulty notion that it only applies to a small number of people who are currently uninsured and will not buy insurance in the future. This is wrong on many points. First, direct tax means a tax that is forced upon a person directly and that person pays directly to the government. The direct tax must be apportioned to be legal though, that's why Roberts said that this tax is not direct, which makes it something else - excise tax or a duty or import. It's not a duty or import, so it's an excise. BUT how can this tax be an excise, like a sales tax, if the person who is forced to pay it, is only forced because he is NOT participating in commerce, he is NOT buying something (insurance)?
3. The other point is that SCOTUS found that the commerce clause doesn't apply to make mandate legal. That's interesting, because simultaneously the majority opinion stated that the mandate tax (fine) is not a direct tax, while stating that the commerce clause doesn't apply.
So that's a contradiction, either the commerce clause applies, and thus the excise t
the population is getting older and poorer, the latter mainly due to the current recession.
- nope. The population is becoming poorer not because of a recession, the recession is only a systematic response to the problem of poverty.
Poverty is lack of production, do you understand that? Not lack of money, money (as in paper) you can print. Production is something you can't print.
But in fact the reason for the lack of production is the fake money that is being printed - the inflation is what caused the real savings to move out or disappear, and investment capital is savings, it's not fake money. Investment capital was driven out by inflation and other government policies (regulations, taxes).
In fact recession is only a free market response to the bubble that was inflated with the fake money. Sure, while the bubble was inflating the people FELT like they were wealthy - they could flip homes and extract equity.
It is always funny to read or watch about somebody "losing" a house, where they have 0 equity. Everybody reacts to it as if the house is stolen from them.
Ha!
Nothing could be further from the truth! The money was stolen from the people, whose savings went to finance those ever increasing mortgages over and over, all the refinancing and equity extraction went into the pockets of those so called 'home owners'. Of-course they felt wealthier than then today, than they had crazy credit available with no questions asked, today they actually can no longer buy on credit and are required to repay.
The system destroyed productivity of the people by driving out investment capital, that's what made them poor, not the recession. Recession is only a symptom of the problem, the system attempting to fix the problem.
If you kill me, you have deprived me of my right to life.
- wrong. If I kill you I am not depriving you of any 'right' to life, because between you and me, we never had any such agreement, I didn't sign a contract, neither did you, that we have any such agreement.
If gov't kills you without a fair trial and all, that means the government has violated the law, which is in the Constitution. Well, it's not really supposed to be in Constitution, it's your right that government cannot violate by default, but the concept of a 'right' only is meaningful when you are talking about an individual and his relationship to government (the collective).
But unfortunately they decided to come up with all these amendments, that really confused a lot of people, making them believe that your rights are actually listed, but they are not, they are everything that the government is not explicitly allowed to do to you.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So that's the contract and the Federal government is only legitimate as long as it is not in violation of the contract.
That is why the US federal government is no longer legitimate, hasn't been in a long time.
It is running out of money because of the combination of a baby boom and a poor economy
- which only shows that Medicare is a ponzi scheme, it's a pyramid without any assets behind it, the money isn't actually there, it's all spent on cold and hot wars, space race, arms race, etc., none of it exists.
Medicare and SS are bankrupt, there are no assets, they depend on an ever increasing population, well Madoff's scam also depended on an ever increasing client base and hope that clients don't start pulling their money out too quickly.
Next you'll tell us war is good for the economy, so we should have more of what ruins us.
- if I prove you to be 180 degrees wrong, would you write a retraction of this statement??
On more than one occasion I have shown that it is in fact the ideas of morons like Krugman who believe that war is good for economy, I always said that war is destructive to economy. You don't understand first thing about Austrian school of economics, do you? War is detrimental to the economy, even if it necessary because it's a defensive war, it's still detrimental and destructive to the economy.
He's violating my rights the same whether he's a police officer, a store detective or a drunken beggar. Only one of those is p[art of teh gubmint.
- wrong. The drunken beggar is not violating your right, he can't do it, because there is no such relation between you and the beggar as a right.
If the drunken beggar was a government employee while conducting official government business, then yes, you'd be correct.
Other than that, both of you have exactly the same rights under the law, and none of you can commit a criminal violent act against each other without the justice system getting involved, that is correct.
A right is the power of the individual against the collective, without such power, the individual has nothing and government - the collective has everything.
If a drunken beggar tries to physically harm you, you can protect yourself, it's legal and it should be, and if you kill him in the process, that's self defence.
If government officials try to stop you and you try to use self defence, they will likely kill you, but if they don't and instead you hurt or kill some of them, then self defence will NOT apply UNLESS the government officials actually were proven to be criminals while on duty (it's possible, rogue cops are nothing new).
Running a charity as a business ensures that the money that goes to charity is pretty steady and doesn't depend on a few wealthy one time donors. I thought this place liked charity? I don't even support charity and I have more sense about how to run it than anybody here.
The people who are housed and fed are not unproductive in themselves, they become unproductive by being housed and fed because they don't have to do anything to achieve these basic necessities.
More importantly, once a person starts doing something and is able to be on his own, he'll lose this welfare of being housed and fed for free by somebody.
Welfare creates the problem of lack of productivity among groups of people. People are productive when they are not put into that position, people are productive when they have to be productive.
And that is what I am talking about, if you build an entire business out of charity, you should make it profitable, you should be able to show that your management costs are very low and that the money that the charity is providing is mostly making it to the actual recipients of whatever the benefit is, and if you can show that, then you can run the charity as a business by hiring people and advertising the fact that you are a very efficient charity and those who want to donate to that cause should do it through you rather than through other charity groups, because you are the most efficient in it.
Only donating your own money is one thing and it always ends, one person's resources are not limited. Creating a steady stream of donations by running a successful charity business is another.
There are some laws which prohibit employers from basing hiring on union status. That violates the employees rights as well.
- you can't violate somebody's right if you are not a government. Rights are a meaningless concept outside of the relationship between an individual and the collective (gov't). How does a person violate your right? For example how can a person (or a business), that is not government violate your right to free association?
That person or business cannot prevent you from associating with anybody by creating a law, that person or business cannot throw you to jail or fine you based on a law for associating with somebody?
Saying that a business or an individual who refuses to hire you because you are associated with somebody is a violation of your right completely mises another point. If you can force a person to hire somebody that the employer doesn't want to associate with, then you are violating the right of an employer to free association as well.
Whenever government creates a law that gives these supposed 'rights' to groups of people, it ends up putting obligations upon other people and it steal their right to freedom.
You MUST be able to freely associate with anybody you want and GOVERNMENT shouldn't prevent you from it, shouldn't fine you for it, shouldn't imprison or kill you for it.
But the same rule must apply to all individuals and your employer is an individual, even if there is a corporate fictitious front to that, you can't force an employer to associate with your union if he doesn't want to, it's violation of his right to association and to private property.
If a charity is worth running, it is worth running well as a business, otherwise the gravy train stops. Where is the money supposed to come from, tooth fairies?
Right, so use a government solution to the problem that is created by the government, the problem of lack of savings, lack of investment and thus lack of competition. The problem of barriers to entry into business, problem of licensing, problem of taxing, problem of regulating... you are going to solve that problem with more of the same.
Do you know what one of the definitions of insanity is? Doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes.
How about legalising freedom again, legalising competition?
Legalising freedom, as in freedom from government in business and money? How about shutting down the Federal reserve and thus allowing the people to set interest rates, so people can build up real savings and look for opportunities to invest into actual productive businesses?
How about allowing the market to regenerate by writing off the bad debts and not bailing out the companies that failed? How about not crowding out all investments by printing fake money that go towards banks, which then lend to the only entity that is capable of a nominal return in this market - the Treasury, because the interest rates are fake and no business and no startup can get a loan from a bank, because all real money is gone and there is only fake money and it goes from the Fed to the failed banks and from the banks to the Treasury?
How about getting rid of regulations and all income and corporate taxes that prevent people from investing, seriously downsizing the government to the point where it is actually affordable and can do only a couple of small things that really a society needs from its government (occupying the space that tyranny wants to occupy, while setting the checks and balances that would prevent the tyranny from actually growing again)?
Too hard I guess, the real fundamental change is too hard and it will not be brought upon by a conscious decision, it will only result from a complete collapse of the current system.
Remember, these are people who, by your words, unproductive
- NO.
These are not people who are by my words unproductive (that is the mistake the OP was making, when he implied I am pro-genocide), these are people that OP WANTS TO MAKE UNPRODUCTIVE.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think you are abused at one employer, it is your absolute right to quit and find another job and this has absolutely nothing to do with government, but what you do fail to realise is that your employment opportunities are very limited because of all of the things I mentioned in the comment you are replying, because there is so few employment opportunities, and that has everything to do with government, that kills opportunities with inflation, taxes, regulations.
If something is really worth doing, it is worth doing it without the profit motive.
- and how would you know that it is 'worth doing' without the profit? Giving things to people without asking for anything, putting them into a position of them being in your debt, enslaving them this way by turning them into dependants, giving them incentives to stay in their predicament for the fear that they would lose that charity if they started relying on themselves.
Yeah, that is what you regard as 'moral' but I see as evil.
We just had a thread on that here.
I don't support charity, if something is worth doing, it's worth doing it right, as a business. Charity is never sustainable, it's a self defeating enterprise, business has to be at least sustainable.
As to healthcare, here is my take on ACA (and there is something about income taxes there too, you may learn something useful for free, first time in your life)
And it is a good thing that he can avoid taxes, it should be applauded. For the deaf: plenty of hand waving.
By the way, if you can read through my latest journal entry you just may learn something about what income taxes are.
I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Rights are a construct that is only meaningful as a relationship between individuals and the collective.
You don't have rights in a monarchy, you are a slave, property.
People had to get away from monarchy and set up a government that had limits to its power, and the limits to the power of government is what allows people to have their so called 'rights'. The law that limits government power is the Constitution and by abusing the Constitution and allowing all kinds of unconstitutional decisions to be upheld by courts, the government removes your rights, takes them away, because the only thing that a 'right' is, it is the barrier between the force of government violence and your life.
This is absolutely not the dynamic found in relationship between any number of individuals that are not each other's government.
Yes, an individual can kill you, no that does not mean it's a violation of any right, it is only violence directed towards you, and we authorise the government to deal with individuals, to take away their rights if they direct violence against other individuals.
No, he is not violating my right.
Society came up with the idea of rights when it decided that the people will not be ruled by monarchs, they will not be property. This required people to set the law above the government, otherwise this would never have happened on its own.
The law above the governments sets the LIMITS TO AUTHORITY for what government can do, and those limits to authority stop where your 'rights' begin, but your rights are a meaningless construct outside of that situation.
Your 'rights' only mean something when there is a law above government, that prevents it from abusing you in ways that are unauthorised, that's what really a right is - limits to the government that it cannot abuse you unless it is specifically authorised, the reasons and the manner in which this can be done to you anyway (depriving you of property, liberty, life).
If you think that concept of 'rights' exists between 2 people, then you clearly don't understand what this concept means and where it came from. Between 2 people there are no rights, there are only guidelines and feeling of self-preservation, that's all.
--
Here is for the slow-witted. The only tripe here is written by the likes of you.
you should read this comment I made, it applies
Society came up with the idea of rights when it decided that the people will not be ruled by monarchs, they will not be property. This required people to set the law above the government, otherwise this would never have happened on its own.
The law above the governments sets the LIMITS TO AUTHORITY for what government can do, and those limits to authority stop where your 'rights' begin, but your rights are a meaningless construct outside of that situation.
Your 'rights' only mean something when there is a law above government, that prevents it from abusing you in ways that are unauthorised, that's what really a right is - limits to the government that it cannot abuse you unless it is specifically authorised, the reasons and the manner in which this can be done to you anyway (depriving you of property, liberty, life).
If you think that concept of 'rights' exists between 2 people, then you clearly don't understand what this concept means and where it came from. Between 2 people there are no rights, there are only guidelines and feeling of self-preservation, that's all.
You personally didn't, but the Constitution is the document that was signed when the original colonies joined the union.
Think about this: in a monarchy you don't actually have rights, you are property of the state or of the king, whatever.
In a society without any government, there are no rights, that who has more guns wins.
In a society that decided to put together a lawful government with limited authority over you, you do have right, specifically because the authority of the government is limited.
Now think about this: with the latest developments in USA about the ACA (also ironically known as the Affordable Care Act, ironically, because every name of every legislation passed by government can only be correctly understood by totally reversing it, so the care will become unaffordable), so with the ACA many people believe that the court ruled that government has unlimited taxing authority. BUT unlimited taxing authority literally gives government unlimited power over people, and thus all rights are gone. Why? Because gov't can tax you into anything it wants, so it doesn't have to legislate.
Is that what people want - to have all rights removed? And when I say 'rights', I totally mean the power of the individual under law not to be abused by government in any way that is unauthorised by the Constitution.
-
Now, the people who believe that SCOTUS gave the unlimited taxing authority to the Congerss are WRONG. I will have to write a journal entry on this later, but here are the main points:
1. The majority opinion stated that the only reason that the Mandate is Constitutional is because it is a tax, but also because it is a SMALL tax, so small that it does not force anybody to change behaviour AND because this tax is NOT enforced in the law (so far IRS has no power to enforce the collection of this tax by any means, like garnishing your wages or throwing you to jail).
This means that in principle if the tax (fine) is raised from its current level (and it will have to be raised, otherwise ACA is completely unworkable, everybody who has to pay for insurance under the ACA will cancel insurance and only 'buy' it when they absolutely need to and then cancel again, once done with the bills) so if the tax is raised, the mandate becomes IMMEDIATELY unconstitutional and ACA has to go back to the supreme court!
Of-course in practice it's not going to happen, the lower courts will misinterpret what this is and will rule that raising the tax is constitutional and the SCOTUS will deny hearing it again, so in practice this doesn't matter anymore, they found a loophole to pass ACA and now they won't bother with what they have to do technically to keep it legal, just like how they implemented the income tax (which is still illegal today, it is only legal as a tax on corporate profits, not an 'income' tax and not a personal tax).
2. Majority opinion stated that the mandate tax (fine) is NOT a direct tax based on a completely faulty notion that it only applies to a small number of people who are currently uninsured and will not buy insurance in the future. This is wrong on many points. First, direct tax means a tax that is forced upon a person directly and that person pays directly to the government. The direct tax must be apportioned to be legal though, that's why Roberts said that this tax is not direct, which makes it something else - excise tax or a duty or import. It's not a duty or import, so it's an excise. BUT how can this tax be an excise, like a sales tax, if the person who is forced to pay it, is only forced because he is NOT participating in commerce, he is NOT buying something (insurance)?
3. The other point is that SCOTUS found that the commerce clause doesn't apply to make mandate legal. That's interesting, because simultaneously the majority opinion stated that the mandate tax (fine) is not a direct tax, while stating that the commerce clause doesn't apply.
So that's a contradiction, either the commerce clause applies, and thus the excise t
the population is getting older and poorer, the latter mainly due to the current recession.
- nope. The population is becoming poorer not because of a recession, the recession is only a systematic response to the problem of poverty.
Poverty is lack of production, do you understand that? Not lack of money, money (as in paper) you can print. Production is something you can't print.
But in fact the reason for the lack of production is the fake money that is being printed - the inflation is what caused the real savings to move out or disappear, and investment capital is savings, it's not fake money. Investment capital was driven out by inflation and other government policies (regulations, taxes).
In fact recession is only a free market response to the bubble that was inflated with the fake money. Sure, while the bubble was inflating the people FELT like they were wealthy - they could flip homes and extract equity.
It is always funny to read or watch about somebody "losing" a house, where they have 0 equity. Everybody reacts to it as if the house is stolen from them.
Ha!
Nothing could be further from the truth! The money was stolen from the people, whose savings went to finance those ever increasing mortgages over and over, all the refinancing and equity extraction went into the pockets of those so called 'home owners'. Of-course they felt wealthier than then today, than they had crazy credit available with no questions asked, today they actually can no longer buy on credit and are required to repay.
The system destroyed productivity of the people by driving out investment capital, that's what made them poor, not the recession. Recession is only a symptom of the problem, the system attempting to fix the problem.
If you kill me, you have deprived me of my right to life.
- wrong. If I kill you I am not depriving you of any 'right' to life, because between you and me, we never had any such agreement, I didn't sign a contract, neither did you, that we have any such agreement.
If gov't kills you without a fair trial and all, that means the government has violated the law, which is in the Constitution. Well, it's not really supposed to be in Constitution, it's your right that government cannot violate by default, but the concept of a 'right' only is meaningful when you are talking about an individual and his relationship to government (the collective).
But unfortunately they decided to come up with all these amendments, that really confused a lot of people, making them believe that your rights are actually listed, but they are not, they are everything that the government is not explicitly allowed to do to you.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So that's the contract and the Federal government is only legitimate as long as it is not in violation of the contract.
That is why the US federal government is no longer legitimate, hasn't been in a long time.
It is running out of money because of the combination of a baby boom and a poor economy
- which only shows that Medicare is a ponzi scheme, it's a pyramid without any assets behind it, the money isn't actually there, it's all spent on cold and hot wars, space race, arms race, etc., none of it exists.
Medicare and SS are bankrupt, there are no assets, they depend on an ever increasing population, well Madoff's scam also depended on an ever increasing client base and hope that clients don't start pulling their money out too quickly.
Next you'll tell us war is good for the economy, so we should have more of what ruins us.
- if I prove you to be 180 degrees wrong, would you write a retraction of this statement??
On more than one occasion I have shown that it is in fact the ideas of morons like Krugman who believe that war is good for economy, I always said that war is destructive to economy. You don't understand first thing about Austrian school of economics, do you? War is detrimental to the economy, even if it necessary because it's a defensive war, it's still detrimental and destructive to the economy.
He's violating my rights the same whether he's a police officer, a store detective or a drunken beggar. Only one of those is p[art of teh gubmint.
- wrong. The drunken beggar is not violating your right, he can't do it, because there is no such relation between you and the beggar as a right.
If the drunken beggar was a government employee while conducting official government business, then yes, you'd be correct.
Other than that, both of you have exactly the same rights under the law, and none of you can commit a criminal violent act against each other without the justice system getting involved, that is correct.
A right is the power of the individual against the collective, without such power, the individual has nothing and government - the collective has everything.
If a drunken beggar tries to physically harm you, you can protect yourself, it's legal and it should be, and if you kill him in the process, that's self defence.
If government officials try to stop you and you try to use self defence, they will likely kill you, but if they don't and instead you hurt or kill some of them, then self defence will NOT apply UNLESS the government officials actually were proven to be criminals while on duty (it's possible, rogue cops are nothing new).
Running a charity as a business ensures that the money that goes to charity is pretty steady and doesn't depend on a few wealthy one time donors. I thought this place liked charity? I don't even support charity and I have more sense about how to run it than anybody here.
In an inflationary environment created by the government the real return on interest is negative.
What is lacking is your comprehension.
The people who are housed and fed are not unproductive in themselves, they become unproductive by being housed and fed because they don't have to do anything to achieve these basic necessities.
More importantly, once a person starts doing something and is able to be on his own, he'll lose this welfare of being housed and fed for free by somebody.
Welfare creates the problem of lack of productivity among groups of people. People are productive when they are not put into that position, people are productive when they have to be productive.
one person's resources are not limited
- I hope I don't have to explain where the typo is in that.
And that is what I am talking about, if you build an entire business out of charity, you should make it profitable, you should be able to show that your management costs are very low and that the money that the charity is providing is mostly making it to the actual recipients of whatever the benefit is, and if you can show that, then you can run the charity as a business by hiring people and advertising the fact that you are a very efficient charity and those who want to donate to that cause should do it through you rather than through other charity groups, because you are the most efficient in it.
Only donating your own money is one thing and it always ends, one person's resources are not limited. Creating a steady stream of donations by running a successful charity business is another.
Running health care as a business worked out really well for USA before the government got involved, I don't want to repeat it, so here is the argument I wrote down some time ago. Of-course same thing applies to SS, etc.
There are some laws which prohibit employers from basing hiring on union status. That violates the employees rights as well.
- you can't violate somebody's right if you are not a government. Rights are a meaningless concept outside of the relationship between an individual and the collective (gov't). How does a person violate your right? For example how can a person (or a business), that is not government violate your right to free association?
That person or business cannot prevent you from associating with anybody by creating a law, that person or business cannot throw you to jail or fine you based on a law for associating with somebody?
Saying that a business or an individual who refuses to hire you because you are associated with somebody is a violation of your right completely mises another point. If you can force a person to hire somebody that the employer doesn't want to associate with, then you are violating the right of an employer to free association as well.
Whenever government creates a law that gives these supposed 'rights' to groups of people, it ends up putting obligations upon other people and it steal their right to freedom.
You MUST be able to freely associate with anybody you want and GOVERNMENT shouldn't prevent you from it, shouldn't fine you for it, shouldn't imprison or kill you for it.
But the same rule must apply to all individuals and your employer is an individual, even if there is a corporate fictitious front to that, you can't force an employer to associate with your union if he doesn't want to, it's violation of his right to association and to private property.
If a charity is worth running, it is worth running well as a business, otherwise the gravy train stops. Where is the money supposed to come from, tooth fairies?
Right, so use a government solution to the problem that is created by the government, the problem of lack of savings, lack of investment and thus lack of competition. The problem of barriers to entry into business, problem of licensing, problem of taxing, problem of regulating... you are going to solve that problem with more of the same.
Do you know what one of the definitions of insanity is? Doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes.
How about legalising freedom again, legalising competition?
Legalising freedom, as in freedom from government in business and money? How about shutting down the Federal reserve and thus allowing the people to set interest rates, so people can build up real savings and look for opportunities to invest into actual productive businesses?
How about allowing the market to regenerate by writing off the bad debts and not bailing out the companies that failed? How about not crowding out all investments by printing fake money that go towards banks, which then lend to the only entity that is capable of a nominal return in this market - the Treasury, because the interest rates are fake and no business and no startup can get a loan from a bank, because all real money is gone and there is only fake money and it goes from the Fed to the failed banks and from the banks to the Treasury?
How about getting rid of regulations and all income and corporate taxes that prevent people from investing, seriously downsizing the government to the point where it is actually affordable and can do only a couple of small things that really a society needs from its government (occupying the space that tyranny wants to occupy, while setting the checks and balances that would prevent the tyranny from actually growing again)?
Too hard I guess, the real fundamental change is too hard and it will not be brought upon by a conscious decision, it will only result from a complete collapse of the current system.
Self employment.
Remember, these are people who, by your words, unproductive
- NO.
These are not people who are by my words unproductive (that is the mistake the OP was making, when he implied I am pro-genocide), these are people that OP WANTS TO MAKE UNPRODUCTIVE.
There is a difference.