I laugh at people like you who throw around the word "fascism" at people who point out the actions of an overreaching state that are actually characteristic of fascism.
You do not seem to understand fascism very well. It does not inherently require an "overreaching state" as you claim, it requires only a massive imbalance of unchecked power. The likes of roman_mir (or his sock puppet udachny) are themselves huge advocates of fascism as they want not only an executive of the states with unchecked power but also for people to have unchecked power over other people. He advocates for the stripping of many individual rights in the name of "freedom" or "liberty".
In other words, his religion advocates fascism for the people.
It's all about economics. Women went into the work force in the late seventies, that's what allowed the economy to restructure and prolong itself
You want productivity, right? You want the country producing more stuff, don't you? Putting more people into jobs is a way to do that. More people working == more stuff produced, which is your net productivity. Now, it might not increase your per capita productivity, but it does increase your net productivity.
people have to work more to get less, but you can thank the government for that, with all the inflation, taxes, regulations, which pushed productive jobs elsewhere
Oh, that's right. I forgot that you want to pay employees nothing for their time. You want to be able to buy and sell them like cattle or cord wood on the open market. You want all workers to be "at-will" so that they can be hired and fired on a whim without any avenues for recourse. You want to ensure that power is concentrated in the hands of the very few and kept away from working class people at all costs.
For some reason you call this freedom. Thinking people see this as fascism for the people.
The problem is that it discourages work by removing a benefit obtained through employment.
Except that when employers are the only source of health insurance, it forces people into a relationship of unequal power with their employer. It discourages employees from doing things like working part time so they have time for school or family, because they won't have health insurance under that situation. It also forces employees who might be frugal enough to get by on part-time wages to pursue full-time work.
Now if you want to make it so that you aren't forced to be a contract worker as a condition of employment (like Right to Work), then you might have a point.
As more states establish right-to-work, more workers find themselves in that situation as well. Every year more people find themselves working "39.5" hours per week - although soon the cut off for full-time will be much higher so that won't matter much either.
But my point though is that free-market hypocrites like roman_mir are parading about claiming that robbing workers of any kind of rights or abilities to seek retributions when they are abused is a good thing. Anyone with a brain can tell that his plans are terrible. He claims to be selling freedom but his deliverable is fascism for the people.
Roman empire fell due to expansion of its government policies, destruction of the Republic, which by the way, was quite advanced in terms of property ownership and adherence to contracts once upon the time.
Wrong. The Roman Empire fell due to infighting and unsustainable expansion. It covered too much territory for the infrastructure and technology of the day. A small war could erupt and conclude in less time than it would take just to get notice of said war to Rome and have someone there make a decision (let alone act on said decision) about it. The concentration of power in the empire - which is very much parallel to the kind of power concentration you frequently preach for - was a big part of what killed the Roman Empire.
I'm sorry that you failed history when you were an undergraduate at a state run school in a socialist-leaning country.
It was the constant expansion of the government due to reduction of the Republic to tyranny of one dictator after another
Why then should anyone support the dictatorship that you want to see installed in the US?
since property rights don't mean anything once you have a dictatorship
But yet somehow, the dictatorship you want to see installed in the US won't cause erosion of property rights? And yet you try to claim that other people don't understand history...
Don't go trying to claim that you have a deep understanding of historical politics when you fail to acknowledge that you are attempting to bring fascism for the people.
I know when I was contracting (since 2000 until mid 2009, now I build my own software) I couldn't imagine myself ever wanting to get a 'permanent job' ever again. It would have been a huge step backwards for me, but of-course I was in a circle of other contractors but at work it always looked to me that permanent employees were sort of jealous of the contractors and wanted to switch to contracting positions.
And why does it work so well to be a contract employee in Canada? Because the government takes care of workers of all stripes, permanent or not. In the states, contract workers who are fired on the drop of a hat are left to scramble to get health insurance and other basic necessities that other countries consider to be critical functions and civil rights.
In other words, the runaway capitalism in the US has made it impossible for most people to get by as contract employees. It also has given more power to the employers because they hold the trajectory of the employees' lives in their hands. Workers who go without health insurance for a single day in the US can see huge increases in premiums and decreases in coverage as a penalty for it - that translates directly to power for the employer.
And now you want to strip the employees of what few rights they have left. You want to make it easier for employers to can employees without fear of anything resembling recourse. You are preaching that this somehow brings freedom when it really leads to serfdom. You are aiming to concentrate more power in the hands of fewer, while claiming the opposite in spite of reality.
In other words, you are aiming to bring fascism to the people.
I've never met this Darvin character. Was he a whirling Dervish perhaps?
survival of the fittest ideas and implementations given free market principles, which are necessarily based on individual freedoms.
That is the pretty window dressing for what actual happens when your proposals are implemented. You propose to strip all workers' rights and give all powers to employers. You similarly propose to strip all powers from the courts and instead represent peoples' interests in a court that is for sale. On top of all that you propose to strip people of their power to take action against corporations and business owners who directly harm the populace in actions (or inactions).
You claim that your proposal would increase individual freedoms, but in reality it accomplishes exactly the opposite of that. Your plan concentrates power into the hands of very very few and legalizes the abuse of the rest.
In other words you sell freedom, but you produce fascism for the people.
Slashdot Mirror
I laugh at people like you who throw around the word "fascism" at people who point out the actions of an overreaching state that are actually characteristic of fascism.
You do not seem to understand fascism very well. It does not inherently require an "overreaching state" as you claim, it requires only a massive imbalance of unchecked power. The likes of roman_mir (or his sock puppet udachny) are themselves huge advocates of fascism as they want not only an executive of the states with unchecked power but also for people to have unchecked power over other people. He advocates for the stripping of many individual rights in the name of "freedom" or "liberty".
In other words, his religion advocates fascism for the people.
It's all about economics. Women went into the work force in the late seventies, that's what allowed the economy to restructure and prolong itself
You want productivity, right? You want the country producing more stuff, don't you? Putting more people into jobs is a way to do that. More people working == more stuff produced, which is your net productivity. Now, it might not increase your per capita productivity, but it does increase your net productivity.
people have to work more to get less, but you can thank the government for that, with all the inflation, taxes, regulations, which pushed productive jobs elsewhere
Oh, that's right. I forgot that you want to pay employees nothing for their time. You want to be able to buy and sell them like cattle or cord wood on the open market. You want all workers to be "at-will" so that they can be hired and fired on a whim without any avenues for recourse. You want to ensure that power is concentrated in the hands of the very few and kept away from working class people at all costs.
For some reason you call this freedom. Thinking people see this as fascism for the people.
The problem is that it discourages work by removing a benefit obtained through employment.
Except that when employers are the only source of health insurance, it forces people into a relationship of unequal power with their employer. It discourages employees from doing things like working part time so they have time for school or family, because they won't have health insurance under that situation. It also forces employees who might be frugal enough to get by on part-time wages to pursue full-time work.
Now if you want to make it so that you aren't forced to be a contract worker as a condition of employment (like Right to Work), then you might have a point.
As more states establish right-to-work, more workers find themselves in that situation as well. Every year more people find themselves working "39.5" hours per week - although soon the cut off for full-time will be much higher so that won't matter much either.
But my point though is that free-market hypocrites like roman_mir are parading about claiming that robbing workers of any kind of rights or abilities to seek retributions when they are abused is a good thing. Anyone with a brain can tell that his plans are terrible. He claims to be selling freedom but his deliverable is fascism for the people.
Roman empire fell due to expansion of its government policies, destruction of the Republic, which by the way, was quite advanced in terms of property ownership and adherence to contracts once upon the time.
Wrong. The Roman Empire fell due to infighting and unsustainable expansion. It covered too much territory for the infrastructure and technology of the day. A small war could erupt and conclude in less time than it would take just to get notice of said war to Rome and have someone there make a decision (let alone act on said decision) about it. The concentration of power in the empire - which is very much parallel to the kind of power concentration you frequently preach for - was a big part of what killed the Roman Empire.
I'm sorry that you failed history when you were an undergraduate at a state run school in a socialist-leaning country.
It was the constant expansion of the government due to reduction of the Republic to tyranny of one dictator after another
Why then should anyone support the dictatorship that you want to see installed in the US?
since property rights don't mean anything once you have a dictatorship
But yet somehow, the dictatorship you want to see installed in the US won't cause erosion of property rights? And yet you try to claim that other people don't understand history...
Don't go trying to claim that you have a deep understanding of historical politics when you fail to acknowledge that you are attempting to bring fascism for the people.
I know when I was contracting (since 2000 until mid 2009, now I build my own software) I couldn't imagine myself ever wanting to get a 'permanent job' ever again. It would have been a huge step backwards for me, but of-course I was in a circle of other contractors but at work it always looked to me that permanent employees were sort of jealous of the contractors and wanted to switch to contracting positions.
And why does it work so well to be a contract employee in Canada? Because the government takes care of workers of all stripes, permanent or not. In the states, contract workers who are fired on the drop of a hat are left to scramble to get health insurance and other basic necessities that other countries consider to be critical functions and civil rights.
In other words, the runaway capitalism in the US has made it impossible for most people to get by as contract employees. It also has given more power to the employers because they hold the trajectory of the employees' lives in their hands. Workers who go without health insurance for a single day in the US can see huge increases in premiums and decreases in coverage as a penalty for it - that translates directly to power for the employer.
And now you want to strip the employees of what few rights they have left. You want to make it easier for employers to can employees without fear of anything resembling recourse. You are preaching that this somehow brings freedom when it really leads to serfdom. You are aiming to concentrate more power in the hands of fewer, while claiming the opposite in spite of reality.
In other words, you are aiming to bring fascism to the people.
economic Darvinism
I've never met this Darvin character. Was he a whirling Dervish perhaps?
survival of the fittest ideas and implementations given free market principles, which are necessarily based on individual freedoms.
That is the pretty window dressing for what actual happens when your proposals are implemented. You propose to strip all workers' rights and give all powers to employers. You similarly propose to strip all powers from the courts and instead represent peoples' interests in a court that is for sale. On top of all that you propose to strip people of their power to take action against corporations and business owners who directly harm the populace in actions (or inactions).
You claim that your proposal would increase individual freedoms, but in reality it accomplishes exactly the opposite of that. Your plan concentrates power into the hands of very very few and legalizes the abuse of the rest.
In other words you sell freedom, but you produce fascism for the people.