I don't see why the police should have any additional rights above that of a citizen. They should be subject to the same laws. They should be allowed to detain someone but in order to search need a warrant. The person being detained should be allowed to sue for kidnapping if the officer can't prove there was a reason for the stop in front of a jury.
Seems like an argument for doing away with brick and mortar schools since you can't really concentrate. I agree. After I graduated with a BS in Mechanical Engineering in 1996. I really don't have a news for a graduate degree but I have taken about 15 graduate level credits over the years in subjects of interest. I have learned much more this way than when I was a full time student taking 18 credits a semester.
It might have been more productive to work full time as a drafter/designer while going to school part time.
Profit is extremely important in an economy. It's sends a signal that there is a bit untapped demand that is not being met. You can only make a huge profit when there are few or no competitors. In a free economy people will notice those fat profits and want in on the game. They will undercut your prices and make production more efficient to get a hold of those profits.
I read the article and I disagree with most of it. The main point seems to be that a person has to have a job therefor the employer has much more power over the employee. That just isn't true, especially in the US. Anyone is free to be their own boss. You can mow lawns, clean houses, or even move to the woods and live off the land.
The reason having a job is preferred by many people is in a well managed company the specialization of labor allows everyone to be much more productive then they could be on their own. This means they will all be better off working together than if they tried to survive by themselves. The one place I agree with the article is where they say you do give up some of your freedom to be an employee. But we do that all the time and it is fine as long as it's voluntary. If I want to stay married to my wife I give up my freedom of calling her names or sleeping with other women. I still have the legal right to do these things, ie I can't be put in prison. But she doesn't have to put up with it. It's the same with an employer and employee. An employer might require you have sex with someone, pimps are known to do this from time to time. But most people choose not to be prostitutes.
Now don't take this to mean I approve of employers acting like scumbags or mistreating employees. Being a libertarian is like being an ACLU spokesman. Sometimes you end up defending the rights of scumbags.
Yes. It is the logical conclusion of the freedom to associate. You have to first realize that all laws are backed by the threat of the use of force. So using force to make people join a union is bad. But a company that makes it a condition of employment that you must join a union is fine since no force is used. They are making an offer to either not work for them or if you work for them you join the union.
There was a time in which many trade unions provided all of the training in their field. People actually wanted to hire union welders and electricians because these were the people that knew what the heck they were doing.
It's difficult to have a conversation when we can't agree on the meaning of words. The definition of force that I use is "to use violence or the threat of violence to make someone do something they wouldn't do voluntarily."
I'm not sure what you mean by economic force. Can you explain?
I was trying to use reductio ad absurdum and I may have ventured into the straw man category. I was trying to get them to think about why they claim to have the right to make someone do something they don't want to do or prevent two consenting people from doing something they want to do.
There is naturally an advantage in negotiations that lies with the employer (owners). The reason for that is because it is their capital at risk. The owners of the company have their savings(capital) tied up in the company. Everything there to help you do your job like computers, machines, air conditioning, pencils, ect are all provided by the company. You just show up. If the company folds tomorrow you may be out of a job but the owners of the company will be out much more.
Also you expect to get paid at the end of your pay period. If you aren't paid you will most likely sue or quit. But the owners have no payday. If the company doesn't make a profit they don't get paid. You expect to get paid at the end of the week regardless of the companies profit.
That's two people that didn't respond to the question. Why do you think you have the right to interfere in the voluntary association between an employee and employer?
Homosexuality is wrong so me and my buddies beat the crap out of those queers. Ah, so you are a Republican. The GP was right.
Wow. Were you not able to keep the statement "Your argument could be applied to all types of criminals that use force to get their way. Examples:" in your head while reading the examples?
The question that I always ask myself when dealing with charities is what is the end goal?
There are certain causes that are temporary. A storm or natural disaster struck an area and they need help to recover. I see that as worthy since the people already had a certain standard of living they achieved and you are helping them to restore it.
But does it really help truly primitive cultures to introduce modern medicine? I don't think so. Their culture has only advanced to support a certain population density. Disease and death are natural results of their culture. Saving lives due to illness does nothing to improve their ability to sustain this population and makes it worse. The aid in these cases should solely be voluntary education programs to improve their culture.
I see that you didn't even answer any of the questions I posed most importantly why do you think you have the right to interfere in the voluntary association between an employee and employer?
Your argument could be applied to all types of criminals that use force to get their way. Examples:
There is no way that hot chick would sleep with a bunch of slobs like us so we gang raped her.
I'm lazy and have no self control and I can't save any money. So me and some guys got together and robbed some rich guy. He didn't need the money anyway.
Homosexuality is wrong so me and my buddies beat the crap out of those queers.
Unions aren't social clubs; they exist so that labor can deal with management on a level playing field in the process of collective bargaining.
Fine. Do it without the use of force.
The purpose of "right to work" laws is not to promote "freedom" from association for workers, as the name suggests. Those laws exist to destroy unions by permitting workers to benefit from collective bargaining without contributing to the process. If you look at who promotes them, you'll find precious little evidence that they were motivated by any concern for the rights, welfare, or safety of working people.
I am against "right to work" laws as well, I had a typo in my original post. You are right as to their purpose. They are a violation of the employers rights to hire who they want to. If an employer wants to only hire union members they should be free to do so. If the employees in a company organize a voluntarily union and negotiate a contract with an employer that states they will only hire union members that is a voluntary contract and should be upheld. But in that negotiation an employer should not be forced to bargain with the union. If they want to fire everyone and start over with new hires that is their right as well unless it violates an existing contract.
Let me get this straight. There are non union members that want to work for a company and the company wants to hire them. This is a two way voluntarily exchange. You somehow claim you have a superior right to a job with that company so you initiate the use of force to prevent those workers from working and prevent the company from hiring. And you claim this is good?
I think you missed my point. I wasn't attempting to excuse the fact he was a slaveholder. I was stating the fact that slavery is as old as humanity and that I wouldn't be too quick to judge someone that lived hundreds of years ago. You can condemn slavery as the abomination it is and still respect some the philosophical contributions to freedom that a slaveholder made. It is interesting that in the hundreds of thousands of years of human history the abolition of slavery started to gain hold in this time period because of the modern thoughts of liberty.
As with almost every problem the answer comes down to liberty. Unions are great IF they don't have laws written to give them special rights. A union should exist as a group of people freely associating to promote their self interests. But when laws are written to force people to join if they want to work in an industry that leads to corruption. This goes the other way too. There are some laws which prohibit employers from basing hiring on union status. That violates the employees rights as well. If there is a free union of electricians and they provide member training and other benefits and their members have a reputation of excellence an employer should be allowed to require employees join that union.
Problems always arise when you take something that is good when it's done voulentarily and use force.
In 300 years fertility will be like a light switch. Turn it on and off as needed. People will look back at abortion as an unbelievable horror because they won't be able to understand the concept of an unwanted pregnancy.
It isn't like slavery was invented in the US. People were held in slavery since the beginning of time and still are in certain parts of the world. Heck even the 13th amendment allows it as a punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why the police should have any additional rights above that of a citizen. They should be subject to the same laws. They should be allowed to detain someone but in order to search need a warrant. The person being detained should be allowed to sue for kidnapping if the officer can't prove there was a reason for the stop in front of a jury.
They are guilty of VVS in the worst way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA
Seems like an argument for doing away with brick and mortar schools since you can't really concentrate. I agree. After
I graduated with a BS in Mechanical Engineering in 1996. I really don't have a news for a graduate degree but I have taken about 15 graduate level credits over the years in subjects of interest. I have learned much more this way than when I was a full time student taking 18 credits a semester.
It might have been more productive to work full time as a drafter/designer while going to school part time.
Profit is extremely important in an economy. It's sends a signal that there is a bit untapped demand that is not being met. You can only make a huge profit when there are few or no competitors. In a free economy people will notice those fat profits and want in on the game. They will undercut your prices and make production more efficient to get a hold of those profits.
The powers that be have both of their choices lined up. It's a win-win for them and a lose-lose for us.
Putting rhetoric aside, can anyone tell me what real policy differences there are? From what I've seen it's a matter of degree not direction.
So am I using economic coercion if I tell a store I'm taking my business elsewhere if they don't change something I disagree with?
I read the article and I disagree with most of it. The main point seems to be that a person has to have a job therefor the employer has much more power over the employee. That just isn't true, especially in the US. Anyone is free to be their own boss. You can mow lawns, clean houses, or even move to the woods and live off the land.
The reason having a job is preferred by many people is in a well managed company the specialization of labor allows everyone to be much more productive then they could be on their own. This means they will all be better off working together than if they tried to survive by themselves. The one place I agree with the article is where they say you do give up some of your freedom to be an employee. But we do that all the time and it is fine as long as it's voluntary. If I want to stay married to my wife I give up my freedom of calling her names or sleeping with other women. I still have the legal right to do these things, ie I can't be put in prison. But she doesn't have to put up with it. It's the same with an employer and employee. An employer might require you have sex with someone, pimps are known to do this from time to time. But most people choose not to be prostitutes.
Now don't take this to mean I approve of employers acting like scumbags or mistreating employees. Being a libertarian is like being an ACLU spokesman. Sometimes you end up defending the rights of scumbags.
What if you don't pay the dues?
Yes. It is the logical conclusion of the freedom to associate. You have to first realize that all laws are backed by the threat of the use of force. So using force to make people join a union is bad. But a company that makes it a condition of employment that you must join a union is fine since no force is used. They are making an offer to either not work for them or if you work for them you join the union.
There was a time in which many trade unions provided all of the training in their field. People actually wanted to hire union welders and electricians because these were the people that knew what the heck they were doing.
It's difficult to have a conversation when we can't agree on the meaning of words. The definition of force that I use is "to use violence or the threat of violence to make someone do something they wouldn't do voluntarily."
I'm not sure what you mean by economic force. Can you explain?
I agree. A corporation should have no rights above what the individual owners have.
If you are curious here is a paper by Walter Block and J.H. Huebert on the subject that is really some infighting on the subject.
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf
I was trying to use reductio ad absurdum and I may have ventured into the straw man category. I was trying to get them to think about why they claim to have the right to make someone do something they don't want to do or prevent two consenting people from doing something they want to do.
There is naturally an advantage in negotiations that lies with the employer (owners). The reason for that is because it is their capital at risk. The owners of the company have their savings(capital) tied up in the company. Everything there to help you do your job like computers, machines, air conditioning, pencils, ect are all provided by the company. You just show up. If the company folds tomorrow you may be out of a job but the owners of the company will be out much more.
Also you expect to get paid at the end of your pay period. If you aren't paid you will most likely sue or quit. But the owners have no payday. If the company doesn't make a profit they don't get paid. You expect to get paid at the end of the week regardless of the companies profit.
Yes, it's an oldie but a goodie.
And true.
That's two people that didn't respond to the question.
Why do you think you have the right to interfere in the voluntary association between an employee and employer?
Homosexuality is wrong so me and my buddies beat the crap out of those queers.
Ah, so you are a Republican. The GP was right.
Wow. Were you not able to keep the statement "Your argument could be applied to all types of criminals that use force to get their way. Examples:" in your head while reading the examples?
A union using force to stop someone that wants to work for an employer that wants to hire them is exactly like rape.
Using force to either make someone do what you want or prevent them from doing something voluntarily with another consenting person is all the same.
I consider it an honor to try to spread the message of liberty.
The question that I always ask myself when dealing with charities is what is the end goal?
There are certain causes that are temporary. A storm or natural disaster struck an area and they need help to recover. I see that as worthy since the people already had a certain standard of living they achieved and you are helping them to restore it.
But does it really help truly primitive cultures to introduce modern medicine? I don't think so. Their culture has only advanced to support a certain population density. Disease and death are natural results of their culture. Saving lives due to illness does nothing to improve their ability to sustain this population and makes it worse. The aid in these cases should solely be voluntary education programs to improve their culture.
Ah. The old free rider effect argument.
I see that you didn't even answer any of the questions I posed most importantly why do you think you have the right to interfere in the voluntary association between an employee and employer?
Your argument could be applied to all types of criminals that use force to get their way. Examples:
There is no way that hot chick would sleep with a bunch of slobs like us so we gang raped her.
I'm lazy and have no self control and I can't save any money. So me and some guys got together and robbed some rich guy. He didn't need the money anyway.
Homosexuality is wrong so me and my buddies beat the crap out of those queers.
Unions aren't social clubs; they exist so that labor can deal with management on a level playing field in the process of collective bargaining.
Fine. Do it without the use of force.
The purpose of "right to work" laws is not to promote "freedom" from association for workers, as the name suggests. Those laws exist to destroy unions by permitting workers to benefit from collective bargaining without contributing to the process. If you look at who promotes them, you'll find precious little evidence that they were motivated by any concern for the rights, welfare, or safety of working people.
I am against "right to work" laws as well, I had a typo in my original post. You are right as to their purpose. They are a violation of the employers rights to hire who they want to. If an employer wants to only hire union members they should be free to do so. If the employees in a company organize a voluntarily union and negotiate a contract with an employer that states they will only hire union members that is a voluntary contract and should be upheld. But in that negotiation an employer should not be forced to bargain with the union. If they want to fire everyone and start over with new hires that is their right as well unless it violates an existing contract.
Let me get this straight. There are non union members that want to work for a company and the company wants to hire them. This is a two way voluntarily exchange. You somehow claim you have a superior right to a job with that company so you initiate the use of force to prevent those workers from working and prevent the company from hiring. And you claim this is good?
Damn Auto-correct and my failure to proofread.
You are correct.
Should have read. - There are some laws which prohibit employers from basing hiring on union status. That violates the employers rights as well.
I think you missed my point. I wasn't attempting to excuse the fact he was a slaveholder. I was stating the fact that slavery is as old as humanity and that I wouldn't be too quick to judge someone that lived hundreds of years ago. You can condemn slavery as the abomination it is and still respect some the philosophical contributions to freedom that a slaveholder made. It is interesting that in the hundreds of thousands of years of human history the abolition of slavery started to gain hold in this time period because of the modern thoughts of liberty.
As with almost every problem the answer comes down to liberty. Unions are great IF they don't have laws written to give them special rights. A union should exist as a group of people freely associating to promote their self interests. But when laws are written to force people to join if they want to work in an industry that leads to corruption. This goes the other way too. There are some laws which prohibit employers from basing hiring on union status. That violates the employees rights as well. If there is a free union of electricians and they provide member training and other benefits and their members have a reputation of excellence an employer should be allowed to require employees join that union.
Problems always arise when you take something that is good when it's done voulentarily and use force.
In 300 years fertility will be like a light switch. Turn it on and off as needed. People will look back at abortion as an unbelievable horror because they won't be able to understand the concept of an unwanted pregnancy.
It isn't like slavery was invented in the US. People were held in slavery since the beginning of time and still are in certain parts of the world. Heck even the 13th amendment allows it as a punishment.