To enrich is completely different from "to be rich". Either way, enrich was the wrong word to use. He should have used the word "benefit", so that pedantic assholes like you wouldn't detract from the actual conversation by bickering over inconsequential details.
Neither one is okay to do... The real problem is the fact that both the union and the company are allowed to lobby the state for special favors. THAT's your real problem...
Open dictators have learned a long time ago how to deal with those sorts of people. There are many people out there willing to die for the causes they believe in. However, very few are willing to do anything that will cause their loved ones pain, no matter the cause or reward involved. Luckily, the majority of western and/or civilized countries haven't had the need yet to resort to such open cruelty.
I fully agree with you that companies as well shouldn't be allowed to lobby. The mere fact that we identify lobbying, of any sort, as bad is a very good thing. And leads to some rather peculiar realizations regarding democracy, assuming you follow the implications to their logical conclusions.
And what would you suggest as an alternative? So much for your "welfare of his fellow-men" when you have to force people to give to charity via socialism, because that is eventually what happens when you and the rest of the collectivists decide on things.
The fact that you can't see the moral implications and the moral hypocrisy of what you preach staring you in the face is quite disturbing.
You don't need unions to protect you from that. You need enforcement of the contracts that you signed with your employer. That's something, you know, that we all expect the "government" to do. If your government is not doing that, then I suggest you call them out on it.
Or better yet, just quit. And make it well known why you quit. You're already 1 month behind in pay... How bad does it have to be before you are actively forced to do something about your problem? 4 months? 8? When you're starving and can't pay rent? If a company gets a reputation for not paying employees on time, no one will want to work there, not even for the first month. Watch how quickly their opinion changes when that happens.
And the first thing you need to get in your head is: The "State" is not the only damn system to take care of the needy. The free market may or may not be better at taking care of the needy, but it sure frees up the rest of us to have a choice in the matter. That's the rub that most statists don't like to hear. They claim people are good, but then they for some odd reason need enforce this goodness.
You can't have it both ways. You claim taxation is voluntary then prove it. Give people the freedom to choose.
Unions are all fine and dandy, mostly. They should be allowed, as they probably allow workers to have collective bargaining power against a company/group of companies.
The problem arises when unions decide that that collective bargaining power is not enough, and that they need to resort to lobbying the state/government to give them protection/favors. It not only complicates tax law, regulations, but it makes it unfair for workers NOT to be in a union, despite the private sector probably giving higher wages.
Leave unions be, just don't let them lobby the state in any way. Or at least reduce it, because you can never hope to outlaw union lobbying.
Aren't those precisely the people we SHOULD be monitoring? I mean, they are in public office. We scrutinize every single other piece of their vein lives, why not their office-life? Oh, that's right, because it'll expose the broken system of supposed Democracy(TM) we think we have. They'll just find a myriad of underhanded deals, office-politics, lies, lobbying favors and all sorts of things we would not like. And that's assuming the NSA would divulge that information instead of using it in their own little government power-plays.
So it's not pre-emptive, it's retaliatory, is that supposed to make it alright? Either way, you're drawing the line of responsibility at a spot that is convenient to justify your actions. I will not defend the people that kill others, including the 911 attackers. It doesn't take any gymnastics to see the moral implications of an invasion, just a bit of nationalist/patriotic propaganda.
At what point did the population of the countries that trained those terrorists become valid targets of retaliation? Because, yes, that's exactly what happened. Similarly, at what point does the American populace become a valid target of retaliation for the relatives of the civilians killed from drone strikes ordered by Obama? The fact is, you're trying to justify taking an entire country/populace to war because you felt threatened.
Did you know that more people have died from American drone strikes than did on the 911 attacks? Did you know that more american/coalition soldiers died in the iraq war than civilians on the 911 attacks? Did you know that the death toll in the Iraq war is sometimes estimated as over a million people? Guilty or not, that is an unacceptable loss of life, and completely disproportionate to the death doll done by the "911" attacks and various anti-american bombings around the world.
At the end of the day, people like you will use whatever twisted sense of fear/morality they can think of to sleep at night with a clear conscience. Me, I want no part of your murder, and that goes for both sides.
The very definition of a "free market" implies lack of regulation. I'm too lazy to search for some proper authoritative source, but here is the description from the wikipedia article on it: "A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies."
Emphasis mine.
Now fine, I take it you want to argue that you can't have a "free fair market", for lack of a better term. You want it both free and fair. Those aren't necessarily orthogonal concepts, but they seldom coincide when you have more than one party involved.
You want make driving a car fair? Sure, slap on a 3rd party insurance requirement, just in case someone has an accident without insurance. That's fair for you because you're scared of that reckless uninsured driver, but it's unfair for the little guy down the street that can barely scrape by to buy that tire he so badly needs for the coming rains. Nor is it fair for that guy who missed the payment and yesterday his insurance expired, and gets stopped on his way to the DMV to pay for his 3rd party insurance because he's all too happy to pay the extortion fee. The real reason is because he needs a car to go to work, and can't afford to go to jail if he has an accident without insurance, even if it is for one day.
Speaking of tires. Tires in America are apparently quite overpriced due to some recent Obama-proud trade tariffs. It sure is fair for those 1000 or so jobs that were not lost due to cheap Chinese imports, and the unions that the workers pay fees to. Not so fair on the Chinese business man who innovated and probably lowered costs on his side by hiring underage workers. You know, workers that need jobs to pay to feed their families or whatever.
Care to name one example of this supposed "stifling [of] the free market and controlling the complete chain" you mention? I'm genuinely curious, because to me, a monopoly/oligopoly can mostly only be caused specifically by government regulation. Before you answer, please think about all the current monopolies/oligopolies that are present in the market. The market that the government is supposedly protecting from the evil companies.
The government is itself an abusive monopoly. Try and manufacture a car and then sell it directly to a customer and tell me how that works out for you.
They are going over there, to kill them, in their country. To say that that is justified because they are GOING TO try kill us over something stupid is irrelevant. That's not self-defence, that's a pre-emptive strike/war/whatever. And to think that I have anything to do with it, or that it was done in my name, just plain disgusts me to the bone.
The only reason he could have "Saved thousands" is if there was a murderer on the other side. If neither side is allowed to have these paid murderers, then the problem is irrelevant.
You get programmers that do exactly that which you described, metaphorically. Rather than sitting down, reading the requirements, planning a design, and finding the over-arching concepts/requirements, they instead choose to take the path of least resistance first. They then proceed to piece-meal construct a solution after many many try-run-fail-alter tests. When the solution finally "works" they sit and refactor a little bit, after which they proclaim victory over that particular problem/requirement. A few days down the line, they repeat the same damn process when a relatively change is requested, as if they learnt nothing.
I'd argue that if you have to dig through lots of small functions, then someone is doing something wrong. Either you are in not looking in the appropriate place, or you're wanting to understand the entire codebase instead of the relevant parts. Or the initial writer of the code didn't name his methods/functions appropriately.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever considered _why_ people work in the underground economy to avoid taxes?
To enrich is completely different from "to be rich". Either way, enrich was the wrong word to use. He should have used the word "benefit", so that pedantic assholes like you wouldn't detract from the actual conversation by bickering over inconsequential details.
Neither one is okay to do... The real problem is the fact that both the union and the company are allowed to lobby the state for special favors. THAT's your real problem...
Apparently you're the one not familiar with humor... Seeing as none of your posts on this matter are found funny.
Open dictators have learned a long time ago how to deal with those sorts of people. There are many people out there willing to die for the causes they believe in. However, very few are willing to do anything that will cause their loved ones pain, no matter the cause or reward involved. Luckily, the majority of western and/or civilized countries haven't had the need yet to resort to such open cruelty.
I fully agree with you that companies as well shouldn't be allowed to lobby. The mere fact that we identify lobbying, of any sort, as bad is a very good thing. And leads to some rather peculiar realizations regarding democracy, assuming you follow the implications to their logical conclusions.
And what would you suggest as an alternative? So much for your "welfare of his fellow-men" when you have to force people to give to charity via socialism, because that is eventually what happens when you and the rest of the collectivists decide on things.
The fact that you can't see the moral implications and the moral hypocrisy of what you preach staring you in the face is quite disturbing.
You don't need unions to protect you from that. You need enforcement of the contracts that you signed with your employer. That's something, you know, that we all expect the "government" to do. If your government is not doing that, then I suggest you call them out on it.
Or better yet, just quit. And make it well known why you quit. You're already 1 month behind in pay... How bad does it have to be before you are actively forced to do something about your problem? 4 months? 8? When you're starving and can't pay rent? If a company gets a reputation for not paying employees on time, no one will want to work there, not even for the first month. Watch how quickly their opinion changes when that happens.
And the first thing you need to get in your head is: The "State" is not the only damn system to take care of the needy. The free market may or may not be better at taking care of the needy, but it sure frees up the rest of us to have a choice in the matter. That's the rub that most statists don't like to hear. They claim people are good, but then they for some odd reason need enforce this goodness.
You can't have it both ways. You claim taxation is voluntary then prove it. Give people the freedom to choose.
Unions are all fine and dandy, mostly. They should be allowed, as they probably allow workers to have collective bargaining power against a company/group of companies.
The problem arises when unions decide that that collective bargaining power is not enough, and that they need to resort to lobbying the state/government to give them protection/favors. It not only complicates tax law, regulations, but it makes it unfair for workers NOT to be in a union, despite the private sector probably giving higher wages.
Leave unions be, just don't let them lobby the state in any way. Or at least reduce it, because you can never hope to outlaw union lobbying.
Aren't those precisely the people we SHOULD be monitoring? I mean, they are in public office. We scrutinize every single other piece of their vein lives, why not their office-life? Oh, that's right, because it'll expose the broken system of supposed Democracy(TM) we think we have. They'll just find a myriad of underhanded deals, office-politics, lies, lobbying favors and all sorts of things we would not like. And that's assuming the NSA would divulge that information instead of using it in their own little government power-plays.
So it's not pre-emptive, it's retaliatory, is that supposed to make it alright? Either way, you're drawing the line of responsibility at a spot that is convenient to justify your actions. I will not defend the people that kill others, including the 911 attackers. It doesn't take any gymnastics to see the moral implications of an invasion, just a bit of nationalist/patriotic propaganda.
At what point did the population of the countries that trained those terrorists become valid targets of retaliation? Because, yes, that's exactly what happened. Similarly, at what point does the American populace become a valid target of retaliation for the relatives of the civilians killed from drone strikes ordered by Obama? The fact is, you're trying to justify taking an entire country/populace to war because you felt threatened.
Did you know that more people have died from American drone strikes than did on the 911 attacks? Did you know that more american/coalition soldiers died in the iraq war than civilians on the 911 attacks? Did you know that the death toll in the Iraq war is sometimes estimated as over a million people? Guilty or not, that is an unacceptable loss of life, and completely disproportionate to the death doll done by the "911" attacks and various anti-american bombings around the world.
At the end of the day, people like you will use whatever twisted sense of fear/morality they can think of to sleep at night with a clear conscience. Me, I want no part of your murder, and that goes for both sides.
Lol, you try so hard, grasshopper. Just leave it, you've been pwned enough for one day by the guy you're responding to. Just, let it go, statist.
If you murder the murderer, then you are no better than the murderer himself.
The very definition of a "free market" implies lack of regulation. I'm too lazy to search for some proper authoritative source, but here is the description from the wikipedia article on it:
"A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies."
Emphasis mine.
Now fine, I take it you want to argue that you can't have a "free fair market", for lack of a better term. You want it both free and fair. Those aren't necessarily orthogonal concepts, but they seldom coincide when you have more than one party involved.
You want make driving a car fair? Sure, slap on a 3rd party insurance requirement, just in case someone has an accident without insurance. That's fair for you because you're scared of that reckless uninsured driver, but it's unfair for the little guy down the street that can barely scrape by to buy that tire he so badly needs for the coming rains. Nor is it fair for that guy who missed the payment and yesterday his insurance expired, and gets stopped on his way to the DMV to pay for his 3rd party insurance because he's all too happy to pay the extortion fee. The real reason is because he needs a car to go to work, and can't afford to go to jail if he has an accident without insurance, even if it is for one day.
Speaking of tires. Tires in America are apparently quite overpriced due to some recent Obama-proud trade tariffs. It sure is fair for those 1000 or so jobs that were not lost due to cheap Chinese imports, and the unions that the workers pay fees to. Not so fair on the Chinese business man who innovated and probably lowered costs on his side by hiring underage workers. You know, workers that need jobs to pay to feed their families or whatever.
Care to name one example of this supposed "stifling [of] the free market and controlling the complete chain" you mention? I'm genuinely curious, because to me, a monopoly/oligopoly can mostly only be caused specifically by government regulation. Before you answer, please think about all the current monopolies/oligopolies that are present in the market. The market that the government is supposedly protecting from the evil companies.
The government is itself an abusive monopoly. Try and manufacture a car and then sell it directly to a customer and tell me how that works out for you.
They are going over there, to kill them, in their country. To say that that is justified because they are GOING TO try kill us over something stupid is irrelevant. That's not self-defence, that's a pre-emptive strike/war/whatever. And to think that I have anything to do with it, or that it was done in my name, just plain disgusts me to the bone.
You do realize that there are thousands of different opinions on Slashdot? But don't let that stop you from karma-whoring.
You can't have a free market with ANY government meddling/laws/regulations/rules/existence being present.
The only reason he could have "Saved thousands" is if there was a murderer on the other side. If neither side is allowed to have these paid murderers, then the problem is irrelevant.
That's horrible, man. This person helped murderers to kill countless people, some of which were definitely innocent.
Or directly supported/helped those that do the killing. As such I'm NOT hiring you, no matter what you put on your resume.
You get programmers that do exactly that which you described, metaphorically. Rather than sitting down, reading the requirements, planning a design, and finding the over-arching concepts/requirements, they instead choose to take the path of least resistance first. They then proceed to piece-meal construct a solution after many many try-run-fail-alter tests. When the solution finally "works" they sit and refactor a little bit, after which they proclaim victory over that particular problem/requirement. A few days down the line, they repeat the same damn process when a relatively change is requested, as if they learnt nothing.
The real question is, what do we do about them?
I'd argue that if you have to dig through lots of small functions, then someone is doing something wrong. Either you are in not looking in the appropriate place, or you're wanting to understand the entire codebase instead of the relevant parts. Or the initial writer of the code didn't name his methods/functions appropriately.
Python has inner functions. Ugly little bastards they are, but they are there none the less.