Sorry, no. Taxation has little to nothing to do with the phonemenon of IT and engineering jobs moving overseas. It's all because of the difference in cost of living.
Well, taxes are part of the cost of living.
When the government charges companies an excessive amount of money to do business in a particular country, companies go elsewhere -- and they take their jobs with them.
The real potential for electronic voting is the opportunity to improve the voting system itself.
There are many voting systems possible besides simple "one man, one vote". In fact, "one man, one vote" is probably the worst of all (of course, Arrow proved no perfect voting system is possible).
This would allow vote buying. Currently, even if you give me $100 to vote for your candidate, I can go in and vote however I choose anyway, and you're none the wiser.
Suppose I give you $100 in government money I took from someone else?
Taxing one group and giving the money to another is nothing but vote buying.
Hanging chads aren't really in any way a form a fraud. Fraud usually implies that the incorrect tallying of the votes was purposefully altered. Hanging chads are simply cards where the tiny circular piece of paper hasn't been fully punched out and is hanging from the hole. Actually, in 1996 I believe a house seat was won in Mass. by William Delahunt based on cards with "bulging chads." The cards simply had a little bump and they included that as "voter intent."
People should also consider the number of spoiled punch cards ballots and its ralationship to fraud.
Its really easy to stack these things up and stick a stiff wire through the hole you want. People that voted the way you wanted don't get spoiled ballots. People voting the other way get two holes punched -- and their votes eliminated.
Using moral criterea, it can be universally agreed upon that murder is a crime.
No it can't. What about a premptive strike? Is that right or wrong? Self-defence? The same cannot be said for stealing, as ownership becomes less and less justifiable as the items in question become less and less tangible.
Values are subjective. There are no moral bases for the copyright laws that exist in a country.
How about this one: if someone's work or efforts give us happiness, that someone should be rewarded or shown by us that we value what they did. That's a fair moral/ethical position to take and a good starting point to justify copyright law.
Re:I wonder if they really can make this 'invisibl
on
Foiling Cinema Pirates
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Time to go off-topic. Yes, I can hear the difference between a CD and an MP3. Assuming you're talking about a 192kbps or less mp3 on a decent sound setup. Also, I'm not one of the people who has damaged his hearing by blasting rap-metal in my car so loud that people 3 cars over being vibrated in time with the bass.
If you are someone who has blasted his music at high volume, you *have* damaged your hearing and that does explain why an MP3 sounds "just as good" as a CD to you. It's as if you were color blind and trying to critique monitors for their suitability in color correction work.
Loud bass/rap music can be bad for your hearing in several ways:
(1) Low frequencies tend to move more of the basilar membrane and this means more overall damage. (2) As we age, we tend to loose the ability to detect high frequencies -- someone listening to loud bass music is setting himself up for total hearing loss later on. (3) A lot of percussive sounds generate a large initial pulse which contains all frequencies -- this means the whole basilar membrane gets a jolt and this means potential damage to at all frequencies.
Sounds should be taken in moderation like most everything else.
I don't mean to be insulting, but many managers are twits, and no matter what kind of wonderful software they have access to they still have to use their own brains to interpret, understand, and apply the data presented.
I take university courses in management, and am repeatedly awestruck by the sheer stupidity of some of my peers. Many of them graduate and go on to become rather useless business people.
Always remember, Incompetent People Rarely Know They Are;)
Well, according to the link you gave at the end, at least these stupid people will eventually know that they're stupid.:)
More seriously, I wonder if a lack of education in business is what gives many people the courage to critize business practice. That is, they don't know what they don't know about business.
Of course, if you REALLY know what you're doing, hey, criticize away!
Yeah, but are you making $30k - $40k a year, or are they paying you a real salary?
I've seen many tech ads looking for "highly qualified, senior level positions, 10+ years experience, blah blah blah" that only pay $36k a year. They are banking on someone who got laid off and is desperate to take the position. I don't know about you, but I don't work for peanuts.
The per capita income in the United States in 2000 was 29,469.
The median income in actually even lower. Anyone that starts their career making more money than half the people in the country should be happy.
OT: The doubling in income from 1980 to 1990 is kind of interesting.
I have a difficult time believing there is fixing going on. My skepticism comes from the fact that, as profits rise, the urge to under-cut the competition increases. Higher profits also attract investment and new competition.
Both the urge to under-cut others and the threat of new competitors helps keep prices in check.
If prices seem high, maybe its because most of us aren't in the LCD business. Its easy to complain and critisize when you're on the outside.
Most of the rules that stop competition are local.
What stops you from running your own copper or cable or anything else to people's houses? Your local municipality. They essentially grant a monopoly to your local cable company, local phone carrier, etc.
Of course, they get a cut of the monopoly profits in the form of taxes.
Where I live, it's 5% of the GROSS, not net, of what the cable company takes in. You think your local government is going to give up that kind of money?
Look down at Chart 33-1 From 1998 to '99 funding drops. Then it is back to '98 level in 2000 (but no increase to offset inflation) then it is up in '01 and '02
Compare the dose from a plutonium powered pacemaker with that from smoking one pack of cigarettes a day -- cigarettes give you about 10 times as much radiation as the pacemaker.
Then why didn't you notice the revisions are not due to new scientific evidence, which leads to the question: then why were they revised? The obvious answer is: to please right-wing bible thumpers.
I did notice it and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. The goal is to produce conclusions that are consitent with the science. An alternate obvious answer to your question is that the previous conclusions were themselves there to please radical left-wingers and have been altered to be consistent with the science.
It's just your sort of attitude that has forced me to give up on the political left. Anything that doesn't support your political prejudices is wrong/flawed/unscientific/conservative/motivated by bible-thumpers/motivated by hate/greed/money/power/evil. Well sometimes your political oppenents on the right are correct.
If the left were more liberal-minded they might at least consider the possibility.
How can there be any such thing as liberal or conservative science? If the new conclusions are consistent with scientific principles, then they are scientific. The end.
Oh, you don't like them? BFD. Science doesn't care what you think or what you wish to be true. And guess what -- sometimes science just happens to support the positions of the political right. Anyone who is intellectually honest will just have to accept that.
And I'm not just some right-wing Bible thumper. I happen to be an atheist and a strong advocate of science. But even I can see how the political left in this country has politicized science and it fucking pisses me off. Science isn't about trying to verify your political prejudices and the political left doesn't have a monopoly on science.
"Privilege #1: Exemption from prosecution for union violence. The most egregious example of organized labor's special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.
Privilege #2: Exemption from anti-monopoly laws. The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.
Privilege #3: Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation. Monopoly bargaining, or "exclusive representation," which is embedded in most of the country's labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.
Privilege #4: Power to collect forced union dues. Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 28 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on "exclusive federal enclaves," and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.
Privilege #5: Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering. The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements. Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects. For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms!
Privilege #6: Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations. Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union's collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.
Privilege #7: Right to trespass on an employer's private property. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts) give union activists immunity from injunctions against trespass on an employer's property.
Privilege #8: Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work. Unlike other employees, unionized employees in the private sector have the right to strike; that is, to refuse to work while keeping their job. In some cases, it is illegal for employers to hire replacement workers, even to avert bankruptcy. Meanwhile, union officials demonize replacement workers as "scabs" to set them up for retaliation.
Privilege #9: Union-only cartels on construction projects. Under so-called project labor agreements, governments (local, state, or federal) award contracts for construction on major projects such as highways, airports, and stadiums exclusively to unionized firms. Such practices effectively lock-out qualified contractors and employees who refuse to submit to exclusive union bargaining, forced union dues, and wasteful union work rules. So far, just three states have outlawed these discriminatory and costly union-only pacts.
Privilege #10: Government funding of forced unionism. On top of all of the special powers and immunities granted to organized labor, politicians even pour taxpayer money straight into union coffers. Union groups receive upwards of $160 million annually in direct federal grants. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. In 2001, the federal Department of Labor doled out $148 million for "international labor programs" overwhelmingly controlled by an AFL-CIO front group. Federal bureaucrats spend approximately $2.6 billion per year on "job training programs" that, under the Workforce Investment Act, must be administered by boards filled with union officials. Union bosses also benefit from a plethora of state and local government giveaways."
"I live in an upper-middle class right-wing Canadian Neighborhood. Kids have access to High speed, and many of the teachers do to. My neighborhood was the first to figure out Kazaa and other such things."
Teachers are often middle-class left-wing, wherever they teach.
When the government allows companies to merge into huge monopolies, they are only laying the foundations for socialism -- and that's the last thing we ever want in America.
The terms "fascism" and "socialism" get thrown around here all the time. Please review their definitions.
From Marriam-Websters:
Main Entry: socialism Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m Function: noun Date: 1837 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Main Entry: fascism Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces Date: 1921 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
In both cases, society or nation is emphasized over the individual.
So are the laws that we passed in the 1960's forcing, under penalty of law, the equal treatment of minorities, involuntary servitude?
Some are some are not.
Should the businesses in the south, or anywhere else, be permitted not to serve african american if they wish not to?
Yes. To force them to serve another involuntarily is by definition involuntary servitude.
How about not seling them a house or renting them an appartment?
I think it would be immoral, but not illegal.
How about making them sit in the back of the bus?
Buses are usually run by local government. Governments must treat everyone equally. So, no. But we are talking about business people, not governments.
Should we permit this becuase to force them to do otherwise is a form of "involuntary servitude"?
I think forcing one person to serve another is wrong, don't you? Isn't freedom important? Shouldn't I decide who benefits from my labors? If I'm not allowed to decide, then I don't control the use of my own labor.
I think freedom of association is definately worth protecting. However, if you want to run a business, which is significantly different than simply associating with people you want to be with, then you're going to be saddled with an additional burden.
I'm curious what it is that you think is significantly different. What do you think is the important difference? If I choose to exchange money for another person's labor and they agree, why should anyone interfere?
I really would like to hear what you think is the important difference.
Would you abolish laws on criminal conspiracy and aiding and abetting for violating associational rights?
No, I don't think I would. The laws on criminal conspiracy and aiding and abetting seem more directed towards establishing a sort of transitive property for criminal responsibility.
Like this:
A helps B who then commits a crime C because of A's help.
Therefore, A helped commit crime C.
I don't think this places any limits on A or B's association. Like I said, it merely tries address A's degree of participation in the commision of the crimes. IANAL, of course.
In the one case, government demands that A serve B regardless of A's wishes, or face punishment.
In the other case, government demands that A not go onto B's land regardless of A's wishes, or face punishment.
If slavery is so expansive then objection to it becomes unsupportable unless you're simply advocating anarchy. If you want the rule of law then there's pretty certainly going to have to be a way to force people to comply with those laws even if they don't want to of their own accord.
The difference is that forcing people to comply with the law in the first case means something different then forcing people to comply with it in the second. In the first case, someone is indeed being made to do something for someone else or face punishment. They are being made to comply. In the second case, avoiding punishment is as simple as just doing nothing. You aren't being made to comply or actually being made to do anything.
Consider the former slaves of the south after the civil war. We agree that they were slaves before the civil war and free afterwards. What changed? After the civil war, they were still subject to tresspass laws, laws against theft, etc. There was still a threat of punishment for doing certain things. Does this mean they just changed masters? Did the Union become the master? I don't think so. If the Union of the North had simply taken over the plantations and forced the slaves to continue working, we'd say they had a different master then. But this didn't happen. What changed is that before they were forced to work for another and after they were no longer forced. This shows that the threat of punishment is a necessary, but not sufficient for slavery. Forcing one to serve another is also required.
So the difference seems obvious to me. What makes you think that a regulation on business such as requring them to provide lighted exit signs in event of fire is the same as putting people in chains, treating them as property, and whipping them into submission are similar?
I'm not sure the example of fire exit signs is the same as ADA requirements. Please don't think I'm objecting to all rules and regulations that might be placed on a business. I'm not advocating anarchy. I don't think this is an argument about regulation versus no regulation. Some rules are needed to have a functioning economy. Its the nature of the rules that is important.
I also think your example is a bad one because you're trying to place emphasis on the difference in the degrees of punishment involved. This isn't an argument about the different degrees of punishment. What is common to the ADA requirements and slavery is that one person is being forced to serve another or be punished. This is the very definition of slavery.
Slavery is not JUST involuntarily serving another. I admit; the difference is difficult to articulate.
When you discover what else is necessary to have slavery, please let me know. So far the difference just seems to be a matter of degree.
But I am certain that if you asked a hundred people whether or not ordinary regulation is the same as chattle slavery, you'd get a hundred people telling you you're a fool for even having to ask.
Again, its the type of regulation thats important.
Yes, he is being denied access. He can't access the site because the site doesn't work with his screen reader software.
If we accept your definition of "access", then downloading credit card information and refusing to display it means you haven't "accessed" it.
Somehow I think most people would agree that getting information from another system and storing on your own means it has been accessed. What you do with it from there seems to be up to you.
Maybe the screen reader software needs to be enhanced. Maybe he should complain to the maker of the software.
If you follow the poster's logic here no civil right law would ever be valid! The ADA is a civil rights law, just like the ones passed to enforce equal access to african americans or other minorities. Do you have a right not to serve a black, asian or others if you run a business? No of course not and if you do refuse service to them what happens to you? I'll tell you waht happens you find yourself in court, that's what.
Okay. So you approve of civil rights law. What is it about my arguement that is unreasonable or illogical?
My arguement is really simple: Slavery is involuntary servitude. Such laws as the ADA force one group of people (business owners) to serve another (the disabled) by building ramps for them, etc. Since the ADA forces people to involuntarily serve another, it is a form of slavery by definition.
Now maybe you think thats okay. Maybe it is okay. Maybe a little slavery will do business people good, but what about the arguement do you think is wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, no. Taxation has little to nothing to do with the phonemenon of IT and engineering jobs moving overseas. It's all because of the difference in cost of living.
Well, taxes are part of the cost of living.
When the government charges companies an excessive amount of money to do business in a particular country, companies go elsewhere -- and they take their jobs with them.
The real potential for electronic voting is the opportunity to improve the voting system itself.
There are many voting systems possible besides simple "one man, one vote". In fact, "one man, one vote" is probably the worst of all (of course, Arrow proved no perfect voting system is possible).
There are some alternative systems here.
This would allow vote buying. Currently, even if you give me $100 to vote for your candidate, I can go in and vote however I choose anyway, and you're none the wiser.
Suppose I give you $100 in government money I took from someone else?
Taxing one group and giving the money to another is nothing but vote buying.
Hanging chads aren't really in any way a form a fraud. Fraud usually implies that the incorrect tallying of the votes was purposefully altered. Hanging chads are simply cards where the tiny circular piece of paper hasn't been fully punched out and is hanging from the hole. Actually, in 1996 I believe a house seat was won in Mass. by William Delahunt based on cards with "bulging chads." The cards simply had a little bump and they included that as "voter intent."
People should also consider the number of spoiled punch cards ballots and its ralationship to fraud.
Its really easy to stack these things up and stick a stiff wire through the hole you want. People that voted the way you wanted don't get spoiled ballots. People voting the other way get two holes punched -- and their votes eliminated.
Don't think is hasn't happened.
Your analogy is stupid.
Using moral criterea, it can be universally agreed upon that murder is a crime.
No it can't. What about a premptive strike? Is that right or wrong? Self-defence?
The same cannot be said for stealing, as ownership becomes less and less justifiable as the items in question become less and less tangible.
Values are subjective.
There are no moral bases for the copyright laws that exist in a country.
How about this one: if someone's work or efforts give us happiness, that someone should be rewarded or shown by us that we value what they did. That's a fair moral/ethical position to take and a good starting point to justify copyright law.
Time to go off-topic. Yes, I can hear the difference between a CD and an MP3. Assuming you're talking about a 192kbps or less mp3 on a decent sound setup. Also, I'm not one of the people who has damaged his hearing by blasting rap-metal in my car so loud that people 3 cars over being vibrated in time with the bass.
If you are someone who has blasted his music at high volume, you *have* damaged your hearing and that does explain why an MP3 sounds "just as good" as a CD to you. It's as if you were color blind and trying to critique monitors for their suitability in color correction work.
Loud bass/rap music can be bad for your hearing in several ways:
(1) Low frequencies tend to move more of the basilar membrane and this means more overall damage.
(2) As we age, we tend to loose the ability to detect high frequencies -- someone listening to loud bass music is setting himself up for total hearing loss later on.
(3) A lot of percussive sounds generate a large initial pulse which contains all frequencies -- this means the whole basilar membrane gets a jolt and this means potential damage to at all frequencies.
Sounds should be taken in moderation like most everything else.
I don't mean to be insulting, but many managers are twits, and no matter what kind of wonderful software they have access to they still have to use their own brains to interpret, understand, and apply the data presented.
;)
:)
I take university courses in management, and am repeatedly awestruck by the sheer stupidity of some of my peers. Many of them graduate and go on to become rather useless business people.
Always remember,
Incompetent People Rarely Know They Are
Well, according to the link you gave at the end, at least these stupid people will eventually know that they're stupid.
More seriously, I wonder if a lack of education in business is what gives many people the courage to critize business practice. That is, they don't know what they don't know about business.
Of course, if you REALLY know what you're doing, hey, criticize away!
Yeah, but are you making $30k - $40k a year, or are they paying you a real salary?
I've seen many tech ads looking for "highly qualified, senior level positions, 10+ years experience, blah blah blah" that only pay $36k a year. They are banking on someone who got laid off and is desperate to take the position. I don't know about you, but I don't work for peanuts.
The per capita income in the United States in 2000 was 29,469.
The median income in actually even lower. Anyone that starts their career making more money than half the people in the country should be happy.
OT: The doubling in income from 1980 to 1990 is kind of interesting.
I have a difficult time believing there is fixing going on. My skepticism comes from the fact that, as profits rise, the urge to under-cut the competition increases. Higher profits also attract investment and new competition.
Both the urge to under-cut others and the threat of new competitors helps keep prices in check.
If prices seem high, maybe its because most of us aren't in the LCD business. Its easy to complain and critisize when you're on the outside.
Most of the rules that stop competition are local.
What stops you from running your own copper or cable or anything else to people's houses? Your local municipality. They essentially grant a monopoly to your local cable company, local phone carrier, etc.
Of course, they get a cut of the monopoly profits in the form of taxes.
Where I live, it's 5% of the GROSS, not net, of what the cable company takes in. You think your local government is going to give up that kind of money?
If our space shuttles could bomb Iraq we would be getting new ones all the time.
You're not too far off. I think the idea of the shuttle goes back to the Nixon administration -- they were looking for a low-orbit nuclear bomber.
Look down at Chart 33-1
From 1998 to '99 funding drops. Then it is back to '98 level in 2000 (but no increase to offset inflation) then it is up in '01 and '02
http://www.sdsc.edu/SDSCwire/v1.8/5012.NASA.html
Amazing. Budget cuts under Clinton, but increases under Bush? I thought Bush was against more funding.
Since when do cigarettes give off radiation?
c er.rad.html
Tobacco contains large amounts of polonium-210 which is radioactive.
A smoker who smokes 1 pack a day gets the equivalent of something like 200-500 chest x-rays in a year.
Some links:
http://www.no-smoking.org/may00/05-19-00-1.html
http://www.ringnebula.com/peds_paper.htm
http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/THC/Health/can
If you're interested in estimating your yearly radiation dose, check out:
http://newnet.lanl.gov/main.htm
Compare the dose from a plutonium powered pacemaker with that from smoking one pack of cigarettes a day -- cigarettes give you about 10 times as much radiation as the pacemaker.
Then why didn't you notice the revisions are not due to new scientific evidence, which leads to the question: then why were they revised? The obvious answer is: to please right-wing bible thumpers.
I did notice it and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. The goal is to produce conclusions that are consitent with the science. An alternate obvious answer to your question is that the previous conclusions were themselves there to please radical left-wingers and have been altered to be consistent with the science.
It's just your sort of attitude that has forced me to give up on the political left. Anything that doesn't support your political prejudices is wrong/flawed/unscientific/conservative/motivated by bible-thumpers/motivated by hate/greed/money/power/evil. Well sometimes your political oppenents on the right are correct.
If the left were more liberal-minded they might at least consider the possibility.
How can there be any such thing as liberal or conservative science? If the new conclusions are consistent with scientific principles, then they are scientific. The end.
Oh, you don't like them? BFD. Science doesn't care what you think or what you wish to be true. And guess what -- sometimes science just happens to support the positions of the political right. Anyone who is intellectually honest will just have to accept that.
And I'm not just some right-wing Bible thumper. I happen to be an atheist and a strong advocate of science. But even I can see how the political left in this country has politicized science and it fucking pisses me off. Science isn't about trying to verify your political prejudices and the political left doesn't have a monopoly on science.
Isn't this is taking Homeland security too far? I mean, these guys have been dead for a long time. They can't be much of a threat by now.
The next question is: "How many peer-reviewed papers are actually reviewed?"
And what about the brothers who were awarded PHDs in physics for what looks like a hoax ala the Social Text incident?
http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/001517.html
I'm forming a union.
s .htm)
Anyone want to join?
I can't wait! Look at the benefits:
(from http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privilege
"Privilege #1: Exemption from prosecution for union violence.
The most egregious example of organized labor's special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.
Privilege #2: Exemption from anti-monopoly laws.
The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.
Privilege #3: Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation.
Monopoly bargaining, or "exclusive representation," which is embedded in most of the country's labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.
Privilege #4: Power to collect forced union dues.
Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 28 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on "exclusive federal enclaves," and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.
Privilege #5: Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering.
The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements. Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects. For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms!
Privilege #6: Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations.
Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union's collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.
Privilege #7: Right to trespass on an employer's private property.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts) give union activists immunity from injunctions against trespass on an employer's property.
Privilege #8: Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work.
Unlike other employees, unionized employees in the private sector have the right to strike; that is, to refuse to work while keeping their job. In some cases, it is illegal for employers to hire replacement workers, even to avert bankruptcy. Meanwhile, union officials demonize replacement workers as "scabs" to set them up for retaliation.
Privilege #9: Union-only cartels on construction projects.
Under so-called project labor agreements, governments (local, state, or federal) award contracts for construction on major projects such as highways, airports, and stadiums exclusively to unionized firms. Such practices effectively lock-out qualified contractors and employees who refuse to submit to exclusive union bargaining, forced union dues, and wasteful union work rules. So far, just three states have outlawed these discriminatory and costly union-only pacts.
Privilege #10: Government funding of forced unionism.
On top of all of the special powers and immunities granted to organized labor, politicians even pour taxpayer money straight into union coffers. Union groups receive upwards of $160 million annually in direct federal grants. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. In 2001, the federal Department of Labor doled out $148 million for "international labor programs" overwhelmingly controlled by an AFL-CIO front group. Federal bureaucrats spend approximately $2.6 billion per year on "job training programs" that, under the Workforce Investment Act, must be administered by boards filled with union officials. Union bosses also benefit from a plethora of state and local government giveaways."
"I live in an upper-middle class right-wing Canadian Neighborhood. Kids have access to High speed, and many of the teachers do to.
My neighborhood was the first to figure out Kazaa and other such things."
Teachers are often middle-class left-wing, wherever they teach.
When the government allows companies to merge into huge monopolies, they are only laying the foundations for socialism -- and that's the last thing we ever want in America.
The terms "fascism" and "socialism" get thrown around here all the time. Please review their definitions.
From Marriam-Websters:
Main Entry: socialism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Main Entry: fascism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
In both cases, society or nation is emphasized over the individual.
So are the laws that we passed in the 1960's forcing, under penalty of law, the equal treatment of minorities, involuntary servitude?
Some are some are not.
Should the businesses in the south, or anywhere else, be permitted not to serve african american if they wish not to?
Yes. To force them to serve another involuntarily is by definition involuntary servitude.
How about not seling them a house or renting them an appartment?
I think it would be immoral, but not illegal.
How about making them sit in the back of the bus?
Buses are usually run by local government. Governments must treat everyone equally. So, no. But we are talking about business people, not governments.
Should we permit this becuase to force them to do otherwise is a form of "involuntary servitude"?
I think forcing one person to serve another is wrong, don't you? Isn't freedom important? Shouldn't I decide who benefits from my labors? If I'm not allowed to decide, then I don't control the use of my own labor.
I think freedom of association is definately worth protecting. However, if you want to run a business, which is significantly different than simply associating with people you want to be with, then you're going to be saddled with an additional burden.
I'm curious what it is that you think is significantly different. What do you think is the important difference? If I choose to exchange money for another person's labor and they agree, why should anyone interfere?
I really would like to hear what you think is the important difference.
Would you abolish laws on criminal conspiracy and aiding and abetting for violating associational rights?
No, I don't think I would. The laws on criminal conspiracy and aiding and abetting seem more directed towards establishing a sort of transitive property for criminal responsibility.
Like this:
A helps B who then commits a crime C because of A's help.
Therefore, A helped commit crime C.
I don't think this places any limits on A or B's association. Like I said, it merely tries address A's degree of participation in the commision of the crimes. IANAL, of course.
In the one case, government demands that A serve B regardless of A's wishes, or face punishment.
In the other case, government demands that A not go onto B's land regardless of A's wishes, or face punishment.
If slavery is so expansive then objection to it becomes unsupportable unless you're simply advocating anarchy. If you want the rule of law then there's pretty certainly going to have to be a way to force people to comply with those laws even if they don't want to of their own accord.
The difference is that forcing people to comply with the law in the first case means something different then forcing people to comply with it in the second. In the first case, someone is indeed being made to do something for someone else or face punishment. They are being made to comply. In the second case, avoiding punishment is as simple as just doing nothing. You aren't being made to comply or actually being made to do anything.
Consider the former slaves of the south after the civil war. We agree that they were slaves before the civil war and free afterwards. What changed? After the civil war, they were still subject to tresspass laws, laws against theft, etc. There was still a threat of punishment for doing certain things. Does this mean they just changed masters? Did the Union become the master? I don't think so. If the Union of the North had simply taken over the plantations and forced the slaves to continue working, we'd say they had a different master then. But this didn't happen. What changed is that before they were forced to work for another and after they were no longer forced. This shows that the threat of punishment is a necessary, but not sufficient for slavery. Forcing one to serve another is also required.
So the difference seems obvious to me. What makes you think that a regulation on business such as requring them to provide lighted exit signs in event of fire is the same as putting people in chains, treating them as property, and whipping them into submission are similar?
I'm not sure the example of fire exit signs is the same as ADA requirements. Please don't think I'm objecting to all rules and regulations that might be placed on a business. I'm not advocating anarchy. I don't think this is an argument about regulation versus no regulation. Some rules are needed to have a functioning economy. Its the nature of the rules that is important.
I also think your example is a bad one because you're trying to place emphasis on the difference in the degrees of punishment involved. This isn't an argument about the different degrees of punishment. What is common to the ADA requirements and slavery is that one person is being forced to serve another or be punished. This is the very definition of slavery.
Slavery is not JUST involuntarily serving another. I admit; the difference is difficult to articulate.
When you discover what else is necessary to have slavery, please let me know. So far the difference just seems to be a matter of degree.
But I am certain that if you asked a hundred people whether or not ordinary regulation is the same as chattle slavery, you'd get a hundred people telling you you're a fool for even having to ask.
Again, its the type of regulation thats important.
Yes, he is being denied access. He can't access the site because the site doesn't work with his screen reader software.
If we accept your definition of "access", then downloading credit card information and refusing to display it means you haven't "accessed" it.
Somehow I think most people would agree that getting information from another system and storing on your own means it has been accessed. What you do with it from there seems to be up to you.
Maybe the screen reader software needs to be enhanced. Maybe he should complain to the maker of the software.
If you follow the poster's logic here no civil right law would ever be valid! The ADA is a civil rights law, just like the ones passed to enforce equal access to african americans or other minorities. Do you have a right not to serve a black, asian or others if you run a business? No of course not and if you do refuse service to them what happens to you? I'll tell you waht happens you find yourself in court, that's what.
Okay. So you approve of civil rights law. What is it about my arguement that is unreasonable or illogical?
My arguement is really simple: Slavery is involuntary servitude. Such laws as the ADA force one group of people (business owners) to serve another (the disabled) by building ramps for them, etc. Since the ADA forces people to involuntarily serve another, it is a form of slavery by definition.
Now maybe you think thats okay. Maybe it is okay. Maybe a little slavery will do business people good, but what about the arguement do you think is wrong?