"Liberals" in Europe are classical liberals who would be labeled libertarians in the US. This is classical definition of liberalism. These people are social liberals and econonomic liberals (free market).
"Liberals" in the US are social liberals in the classical sense who generally have a lot of economic positions close to democratic socialists, such that the right wing conflates "liberalism" with socialism.
... is that it lumps the 22-yr old guy who has consensual sex with a 16-yr old girl in with the child molesters and child rapists. You may find it unsavory and you may not believe that a 16-yr old can "legally" consent (whatever the hell that means), but it's not in the same league as "touching" a child.
How is it that hardline Communism is never characterized as "socialism", but invariably totalitarian state capitalism with myriad social and economic regulations is held up as the gold standard of "free-market" capitalism?
You want to know what is a crime? I'll tell you what is a crime. It's a crime that these large organisations reap the profits from pressed pieces of plastic onto which are recorded hideous noises that sound like gang-warfare in Harlem and Watts, and then use this money to harass families and children for every last red cent so they can line their pockets.
So yeah, copying a CD is not a crime.
No, the crime is that the government subsidizes some imaginary entity called 'intellectual property'. They hold that even when you own a CD or bytes of mIRC on a hard drive, you don't own the data or music... you must abide by the conditions of the 'owner'. Our tax money supports policing the 'theft' of this imaginary property. This is a crime.
People spending their money their way, as they please, no matter how stupid anyone else believes it to be... that's not a crime.
Putting the squeeze on employees exposes your own company to competitors (potential and actual) who will not put the squeeze on. Same goes for a group of companies who collude to lower working conditions. The more valuable and less plentiful the labor, the greater the motivation to provide better working conditions to get an edge in hiring labor. Companies compete for the best workers just as employees compete for the best jobs.
Collective bargaining - violates the freedom of workers. Workers should organize and act as individuals, not being represented by some vanguard of the proletariat that presents itself whenever a majority vote occurs.
Laws that set minimum wage or working condition standards violate the rights of workers who would tolerate a lower wage or "worse" working conditions. Minimum wage laws inflate the cost of labor, which discourages companies from creating jobs.
Socially-conscious companies that find it in their self-interest to provide generous benefits and excellent working conditions (whether to gain a labor advantage or otherwise) are free to do so. But if they don't find it in their self-interest, then they are not required to do so.
The most important thing to remember is that it is the company that is providing the wage for a job because they expect some benefit for themselves. Workers do not receive jobs because they are human beings or because they are entitled to a job, but because of a mutually-agreed transaction of wages for labor. This free and mutual interaction between two rational self-interested parties can only be fair by definition. Thus, government invention into such a relationship can only degrade freedom.
There's nothing wrong with unions per se. If a group of people can stick together and are valuable enough to negotiate for better wages, good for them. But to use the government to coerce companies to overpay for labor or to set up an arbitrary standard of "conditions" is immoral.
40 hour week/8 hour day (35 hours in much of Europe)
Overtime pay
Paid holidays, Weekends
Health, life, and dental benefits
Expectation of a safe work environment (OSHA in the US)
So if I want to work 50 hours a week at a normal wage to undercut some other prospective employee, I'm out of luck. Some freedom. These things can be negotiated by two rational parties. If the conditions are too oppressive, the company will not find labor to perform under it.
Child labor laws
Child labor was vastly obsolete by the time these regulations were passed in the US. The efficiency of machines were such that parents made more and did not feel the need to force their children to work.
In England, child labor laws forced children into less efficient out-of-the-way shops where conditions were even worse.
Equal pay for equal work
Right to a living wage
These are not rights. They are governmental subsidy for the less-competent and theft from the more competent. Why excel in your field when you will make the same regardless? Why pay a less competent worker the same as your star? Proposing these solutions demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand the nature of work and value. There is no such thing as a right to a certain level of compensation. The level of compensation should be determined on agreement between employer and employed, not the government.
Right to quit your job (it was not unheard of for employment contracts to be as strict as today's cellular agreements)
This is a basic right... if union thuggery was required to secure it then that's a failure of government more than union virtue.
Protection from unwarranted dismissal (can't be fired without reasonable cause)
You should be able to be fired for any reason under the sun. The government should have no say on whom the employer may hire or fire or for what reason. They are paying a wage for some expected benefit for themselves from the labor done, not out of the goodness of their hearts. You are being paid for the value that you provide, not because you are entitled to it as a human being.
All right-to-work legislation does is protect for workers the freedom to work independent of the union. They are not FORCED to work through the union if their shop votes to join a union. To oppose right-to-work laws is to support FORCING everyone in a shop to join the union.
Jobs are created by employers and when the government sets conditions on employment, they become squeamish to create jobs. When you are unable to fire an inefficient worker or forced to pay them an outrageous wage that far exceeds the value they provide to you, the job gets neither made nor done. And the economy suffers. This is why socialist paradises like France have double-digit unemployment.
There's nothing wrong with unions per se. If a group of people can stick together and are valuable enough to negotiate for better wages, good for them. But to use the government to coerce companies to overpay for labor or to set up an arbitrary standard of "conditions" is immoral.
> 40 hour week/8 hour day (35 hours in much of Europe)
> Overtime pay
> Paid holidays, Weekends
> Health, life, and dental benefits
> Expectation of a safe work environment (OSHA in the US)
So if I want to work 50 hours a week at a normal wage to undercut some other prospective employee, I'm out of luck. Some freedom. These things can be negotiated by two rational parties. If the conditions are too oppressive, the company will not find labor to perform under it.
> Child labor laws
Child labor was vastly obsolete by the time these regulations were passed in the US. The efficiency of machines were such that parents made more and did not feel the need to force their children to work.
In England, child labor laws forced children into less efficient out-of-the-way shops where conditions were even worse.
> Equal pay for equal work
> Right to a living wage
These are not rights. They are governmental subsidy for the less-competent and theft from the more competent. Why excel in your field when you will make the same regardless? Why pay a less competent worker the same as your star? Proposing these solutions demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand the nature of work and value. There is no such thing as a right to a certain level of compensation. The level of compensation should be determined on agreement between employer and employed, not the government.
> Right to quit your job (it was not unheard of for employment contracts to be as strict as today's cellular agreements)
This is a basic right... if union thuggery was required to secure it then that's a failure of government more than union virtue.
> Protection from unwarranted dismissal (can't be fired without reasonable cause)
You should be able to be fired for any reason under the sun. The government should have no say on whom the employer may hire or fire or for what reason. They are paying a wage for some expected benefit for themselves from the labor done, not out of the goodness of their hearts. You are being paid for the value that you provide, not because you are entitled to it as a human being.
All right-to-work legislation does is protect for workers the freedom to work independent of the union. They are not FORCED to work through the union if their shop votes to join a union. To oppose right-to-work laws is to support FORCING everyone in a shop to join the union.
Jobs are created by employers and when the government sets conditions on employment, they become squeamish to create jobs. When you are unable to fire an inefficient worker or forced to pay them an outrageous wage that far exceeds the value they provide to you, the job gets neither made nor done. And the economy suffers. This is why socialist paradises like France have double-digit unemployment.
There is nothing wrong with unions. There is also nothing wrong with their employers firing all their asses and replacing them with non-union labor.
If my pay ever gets down to the prevailing wage in India and China, I will be looking for another field just like every other American who would have trouble supporting himself on $3 USD/hr. For this reason there will never be Americans working for Indian wages. Just my dumb luck for picking a profession that Indians and Chinese can kick my ass in.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes I make fun of people who are dependent on Alexa by asking, "Alexa, wipe my ass."
am i the only one who thought they were testing a bacon system...
Me too. I had envisioned this whole system where the smell of bacon leads them to their seat on the plane.
"Liberals" in Europe are classical liberals who would be labeled libertarians in the US. This is classical definition of liberalism. These people are social liberals and econonomic liberals (free market). "Liberals" in the US are social liberals in the classical sense who generally have a lot of economic positions close to democratic socialists, such that the right wing conflates "liberalism" with socialism.
elitist museum nerd fight!
... is that it lumps the 22-yr old guy who has consensual sex with a 16-yr old girl in with the child molesters and child rapists. You may find it unsavory and you may not believe that a 16-yr old can "legally" consent (whatever the hell that means), but it's not in the same league as "touching" a child.
How is it that hardline Communism is never characterized as "socialism", but invariably totalitarian state capitalism with myriad social and economic regulations is held up as the gold standard of "free-market" capitalism?
No, the crime is that the government subsidizes some imaginary entity called 'intellectual property'. They hold that even when you own a CD or bytes of mIRC on a hard drive, you don't own the data or music... you must abide by the conditions of the 'owner'. Our tax money supports policing the 'theft' of this imaginary property. This is a crime.
People spending their money their way, as they please, no matter how stupid anyone else believes it to be... that's not a crime.
Putting the squeeze on employees exposes your own company to competitors (potential and actual) who will not put the squeeze on. Same goes for a group of companies who collude to lower working conditions. The more valuable and less plentiful the labor, the greater the motivation to provide better working conditions to get an edge in hiring labor. Companies compete for the best workers just as employees compete for the best jobs.
Collective bargaining - violates the freedom of workers. Workers should organize and act as individuals, not being represented by some vanguard of the proletariat that presents itself whenever a majority vote occurs.
Laws that set minimum wage or working condition standards violate the rights of workers who would tolerate a lower wage or "worse" working conditions. Minimum wage laws inflate the cost of labor, which discourages companies from creating jobs.
Socially-conscious companies that find it in their self-interest to provide generous benefits and excellent working conditions (whether to gain a labor advantage or otherwise) are free to do so. But if they don't find it in their self-interest, then they are not required to do so.
The most important thing to remember is that it is the company that is providing the wage for a job because they expect some benefit for themselves. Workers do not receive jobs because they are human beings or because they are entitled to a job, but because of a mutually-agreed transaction of wages for labor. This free and mutual interaction between two rational self-interested parties can only be fair by definition. Thus, government invention into such a relationship can only degrade freedom.
There's nothing wrong with unions per se. If a group of people can stick together and are valuable enough to negotiate for better wages, good for them. But to use the government to coerce companies to overpay for labor or to set up an arbitrary standard of "conditions" is immoral.
So if I want to work 50 hours a week at a normal wage to undercut some other prospective employee, I'm out of luck. Some freedom. These things can be negotiated by two rational parties. If the conditions are too oppressive, the company will not find labor to perform under it.
Child labor laws
Child labor was vastly obsolete by the time these regulations were passed in the US. The efficiency of machines were such that parents made more and did not feel the need to force their children to work.
In England, child labor laws forced children into less efficient out-of-the-way shops where conditions were even worse.
These are not rights. They are governmental subsidy for the less-competent and theft from the more competent. Why excel in your field when you will make the same regardless? Why pay a less competent worker the same as your star? Proposing these solutions demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand the nature of work and value. There is no such thing as a right to a certain level of compensation. The level of compensation should be determined on agreement between employer and employed, not the government.
This is a basic right... if union thuggery was required to secure it then that's a failure of government more than union virtue.
Protection from unwarranted dismissal (can't be fired without reasonable cause)
You should be able to be fired for any reason under the sun. The government should have no say on whom the employer may hire or fire or for what reason. They are paying a wage for some expected benefit for themselves from the labor done, not out of the goodness of their hearts. You are being paid for the value that you provide, not because you are entitled to it as a human being.
All right-to-work legislation does is protect for workers the freedom to work independent of the union. They are not FORCED to work through the union if their shop votes to join a union. To oppose right-to-work laws is to support FORCING everyone in a shop to join the union.
Jobs are created by employers and when the government sets conditions on employment, they become squeamish to create jobs. When you are unable to fire an inefficient worker or forced to pay them an outrageous wage that far exceeds the value they provide to you, the job gets neither made nor done. And the economy suffers. This is why socialist paradises like France have double-digit unemployment.
There's nothing wrong with unions per se. If a group of people can stick together and are valuable enough to negotiate for better wages, good for them. But to use the government to coerce companies to overpay for labor or to set up an arbitrary standard of "conditions" is immoral. > 40 hour week/8 hour day (35 hours in much of Europe) > Overtime pay > Paid holidays, Weekends > Health, life, and dental benefits > Expectation of a safe work environment (OSHA in the US) So if I want to work 50 hours a week at a normal wage to undercut some other prospective employee, I'm out of luck. Some freedom. These things can be negotiated by two rational parties. If the conditions are too oppressive, the company will not find labor to perform under it. > Child labor laws Child labor was vastly obsolete by the time these regulations were passed in the US. The efficiency of machines were such that parents made more and did not feel the need to force their children to work. In England, child labor laws forced children into less efficient out-of-the-way shops where conditions were even worse. > Equal pay for equal work > Right to a living wage These are not rights. They are governmental subsidy for the less-competent and theft from the more competent. Why excel in your field when you will make the same regardless? Why pay a less competent worker the same as your star? Proposing these solutions demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand the nature of work and value. There is no such thing as a right to a certain level of compensation. The level of compensation should be determined on agreement between employer and employed, not the government. > Right to quit your job (it was not unheard of for employment contracts to be as strict as today's cellular agreements) This is a basic right... if union thuggery was required to secure it then that's a failure of government more than union virtue. > Protection from unwarranted dismissal (can't be fired without reasonable cause) You should be able to be fired for any reason under the sun. The government should have no say on whom the employer may hire or fire or for what reason. They are paying a wage for some expected benefit for themselves from the labor done, not out of the goodness of their hearts. You are being paid for the value that you provide, not because you are entitled to it as a human being. All right-to-work legislation does is protect for workers the freedom to work independent of the union. They are not FORCED to work through the union if their shop votes to join a union. To oppose right-to-work laws is to support FORCING everyone in a shop to join the union. Jobs are created by employers and when the government sets conditions on employment, they become squeamish to create jobs. When you are unable to fire an inefficient worker or forced to pay them an outrageous wage that far exceeds the value they provide to you, the job gets neither made nor done. And the economy suffers. This is why socialist paradises like France have double-digit unemployment.
There is nothing wrong with unions. There is also nothing wrong with their employers firing all their asses and replacing them with non-union labor. If my pay ever gets down to the prevailing wage in India and China, I will be looking for another field just like every other American who would have trouble supporting himself on $3 USD/hr. For this reason there will never be Americans working for Indian wages. Just my dumb luck for picking a profession that Indians and Chinese can kick my ass in.
I suspect it is due to the fact that "NetSaint" is offensive to those of us that are atheists.
Mmmk... how old are you? Things are not changed because they are offensive to atheists. If anything they are made more conspicuous.