| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|||
|
|||
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
In article > ,
"Michael Price" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens. > > > > > > > > > > > > The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In > the US > > > > > > there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving > from > > > one > > > > > > city to another. > > > > > > > > > > Which is because if there were the poor would move there until > wages > > > > > dropped and raised in the better and worse cities respectively. > > > > > > > > I am sorry, can you reword this sentance? > > > > > > > The wages would rise in the cities with lower wages and lower in the > > > cities > > > with higher wages. > > > > Yes, the wages in the US would lower, and they do, but what about in > > Mexico? > > Not what I was talking about. I was talking about the wages in cities in > the US > relative to other cities, not relative to Mexico.. Oh, can you cite some evidence? I have been looking any I cannot find data one way or the other. > > > > > > > > > > Your claim was that "The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not > true > > > for > > > > > most of the working poor.". Now feel free to show how it's > impossible > > > for the > > > > > working poor to move interstate. > > > > > > > > I did not say it was impossible for the working poor to move. I said > it > > > > was not true for MOST of the working poor. > > > > > > And you're wrong. Even at minimum wages the cross country bus fares > > > aren't that much. > > > > Move a family of three on a greyhound bus. You're funny. > > > It's not much fun, but it can be done. U-hauls exist. Oh, so now it is a uhaul. what happened to the bus? Uhaulas cost alot more money then a bus, I know. I use both. > > > > > > > > I think Nickled and Dimed goes into it a bit. Anyway, it happens. I > > > > don't have the numbers on hand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For a mexican family, they can send half their salary > > > > > > home and feed their families. They separate from their families > for > > > > > > years for this opporitunity. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not see how that would help our society. > > > > > > > > > > > Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the > > > only > > > > > reason they seperate from their families is because of US > immigration > > > controls. > > > > > Since there are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary > within > > > the US. > > > > > > > > I mean if it happened just in the US. In fact I do no think that could > > > > happpen in the US cause of the difficulty in holding two houses. > > > > > > > Who says you have to hold one? It's called renting. > > > > I was thinking renting. A working poor family renting two apartments? > > C'mon. > > > Ok, you've lost me, why the hell would they need to keep the old > apartment? We talking about how mexican families have a father leave to come to the states. They have two homes. If someone in the sates tried that it would be more difficult to have two apartments. > > > > > > > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences > > > keeping > > > > > you > > > > > > > in, > > > > > > > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing > that > > > > > (leaving) > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some > time > > > > > > > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but > let's > > > focus > > > > > on > > > > > > > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you > seriously > > > > > telling me > > > > > > > that you can't discern the difference between the two? > > > > > > > > > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation? > > > > > > > > > > > The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation. > But > > > given > > > > > the choice > > > > > between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose > the > > > > > company > > > > > because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies > have > > > to > > > > > preserve their > > > > > realtionship by consent, government do it by force. > > > > > > > > Some choice, one authoritarian company or another. > > > > > > It's more choice that the government gives you. > > > > =^o > > > > >And actually it is a good choice. It's a choice that gives you the > > > chance to achieve your potential and be treated as well as it's > > > worth treating you, which is quite well if you're at all competent. > > > > Oh, that's what it is like in corporations. What have I been witnessing > > all these years? > > I'd say what you deserve. Oh, yer assumiong I was compliaining about myslef? HE! No, I am compasionate and I saw people getting screwed who were well under me. > > > > > If you prefer working for yourself, go for it, but > > > propriators are under stricter controls than workers are. You are > > > whinning about how workers spend 1/3 of their life doing things others > > > want them to instead of what they want, but that is the inevitable > result > > > of any work, not just wage labour. Work by definition is what has to > > > be done, not what you want done. > > > > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...work&x=15&y=15 > > > > But I think the UNSPUN definition is widely accepeted as : activity in > > which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something > > > > You make it so one has to aquiese to the owner. > > No I don't, you can as I say work for yourself. Can everone work for themselves at the same time? > > > > Anyway, do you think most things produced to day are things that HAVE to > > be produced? > > No, and thank god for it. But work is what you have to do to get > something else, > not what you do because you like it. So, work for things? > > > > > > > > > What a way to spend over 1/3 of your life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at > > > > > > > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they > realize > > > that > > > > > wal > > > > > > > > > > mart is the only business left in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause > > > > > busniesses > > > > > > > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a > good > > > > > thing. > > > > > > > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell > > > products to > > > > > > > Wal-Mart) to prosper. > > > > > > > > > > > > wal mart lowers wages in the area, > > > > > > > > > > By employing people, neat trick. > > > > > > > > No, because of it's anti-union beleifs > > > > > > > In other words because it doesn't hire people for more than they're > worth. > > > > So Wal Mart determines that worth? > > > Well if someone else had a higher opinion of that worth they'd work > somewhere > else wouldn't they? But didn't you start this off by saying that wal mart lowers wages by emoploying people? > > > > > > > > > The fact is that real wages go up if > > > > > Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the > workers > > > > > of it's direct competitors go down. > > > > > > > > Please provide some statistics. > > > > > > > I don't need to. Fact one, Wal Mart reduces prices, > > > > I do not deny that they do. Did I? > > > > > fact two only a small > > > proportion of the communities wage earners work at Wal Mart or it's > > > competitors and therefore have their wages reduced. > > > > One 1999 study reported that 1.5 jobs had been lost for every job that > > Wal-Mart created. A recent projection by the University of Illinois at > > Chicago¹s Center for Urban Economic Development concluded that the > > proposed West-Side Chicago store likely would yield a net decrease of > > about 65 jobs after that Wal-Mart opens, as other retailers in the same > > shopping area lose business. A study cited in Business Week as showing > > modest retail gains after Wal-Marts open actually reported net job > > losses counting effects on warehousing and surrounding counties. > > > Which doesn't actually bear on my point, even if we assume the studies > weren't > biased. why? > > > Wages are low at notoriously anti-union Wal-Mart > > hour for full-time workers, around $8 for the roughly 45 percent of > > ³associates² working less than 45 weeks a year. But Wal-Mart also helps > > hold down wages throughout the retail industry, with a few exceptions > > like the partly-unionized Costco (where wages average $16 an hour) or > > more heavily unionized grocery stores. A 1999 study for the Orange > > County Business Council forecast that the entry of grocery supercenters > > such as Wal-Mart operates could cost southern California $2.8 billion in > > lost wages and benefits each year as grocers cut the jobs or wages and > > benefits of a quarter million largely unionized grocery workers. No comment? > > > > > Which of these > > > facts is not obvious? > > > > The second one. > > The fact that only a smal proportion of the community works at Wal Mart or > it's competitors? That's not obvious? So do they create a lot of jobs or a few jobs? > > > > Do you really think that becasue they offer "lower" prices that you can > > ignore anything else about the company? > > > I think that because the offer lower price (no scare quotes) you have to > prove your point. I don't have to prove mine. Lower prices are good. But you say that wal mart proviodes lower prices. And it looks like they bait and reel. > > > > > > > forces stores to close (it buys from > > > > > > larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief, > > > > > > > > > > No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops, > you > > > > > can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer > > > > > doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart. > > > > > > > > But the other magazine stores are closed cause they can't compete with > > > > the efficiency of walmart. > > > > > > > In other words nobody wanted what they were selling enough to pay the > > > economic cost for it. > > > > Yes, thank you for shopping at wal mart. > > So because they don't provide everything you want it's their fault that > nobody > else does. When they kill other competion is is their fault. > > > > > > > not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly. > > > > > > > > > > > It treats them better than the unemployment line does. > > > > > > > > So employment is not voluntary. > > > > > > > Oh yes, I forgot Wal Mart rounds up Africians and ships them to > America. > > > > NO, they just keep them overseas. > > > Where they are voluntarily employed. No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gues if that what you want, fine. > > > > > > > > > > > What I want is cheap stuff. > > > > > > > > There arre two companies. They sell the same type of shirt. > > > > A=$5 > > > > B=$1 > > > > > > > > Which would you buy? > > > > > > > Which do you think? > > > > Since you did not answer the question I will have to guess the $5 one. > > > No the $1 one. Why would you think otherwise? I specifically said I > wanted > cheap stuff. So, I guess your ok that the $1 shirt was made using a slave laborer. But it was made in the Daewoosa Factory, where 230 workers, mostly young women from Vietnam and China, worked under conditions of indentured servitude. According to records, they were cheated of their meager wages, beaten, starved, sexually harassed, and threatened with deportation if they complained. On Feb. 21, 2003, in a court in Hawaii, the proprietor of the factory, Kil Soo Lee, was found guilty of 14 of 18 counts brought against him for indentured servitude. This factory sewed clothing for Wal-Mart, under Wal-Mart's "Beach Cabana" label (as well as producing for other retailers). But I guess you are fine with the low prices. Me? I would pay the $5. ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
... > In article > , > "Michael Price" > wrote: > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > ... > > > In article > , > > > "Michael Price" > wrote: > > > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > > > ... > > > > > In article k.net>, > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > In article > > k.net>, > > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > In article > > et>, > > > > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > s.com... > > > > > > > > > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the > > > > business. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the > > > > business do > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this > > > > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want. > > > > > > > > > > > > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for > > them to > > > > be > > > > > > the same type of organization, since they exist for different > > purposes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under > > a > > > > > > > > > totalitarian corporation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be > > > > > > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. > > You > > > > are > > > > > > free > > > > > > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a > > fair > > > > deal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of > > the > > > > > > > working poor. > > > > > > > > > > > > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and > > otherwise) > > > > who > > > > > > are able to relocate to find work... > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens. > > > > > > > > > > The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US > > > > > there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from > > one > > > > > city to another. > > > > > > > > Which is because if there were the poor would move there until wages > > > > dropped and raised in the better and worse cities respectively. > > > > > > I am sorry, can you reword this sentance? > > > > > The wages would rise in the cities with lower wages and lower in the > > cities > > with higher wages. > > Yes, the wages in the US would lower, and they do, but what about in > Mexico? Not what I was talking about. I was talking about the wages in cities in the US relative to other cities, not relative to Mexico.. > > > > > > > Your claim was that "The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not true > > for > > > > most of the working poor.". Now feel free to show how it's impossible > > for the > > > > working poor to move interstate. > > > > > > I did not say it was impossible for the working poor to move. I said it > > > was not true for MOST of the working poor. > > > > And you're wrong. Even at minimum wages the cross country bus fares > > aren't that much. > > Move a family of three on a greyhound bus. You're funny. > It's not much fun, but it can be done. U-hauls exist. > > > > > I think Nickled and Dimed goes into it a bit. Anyway, it happens. I > > > don't have the numbers on hand. > > > > > > > > > > > > For a mexican family, they can send half their salary > > > > > home and feed their families. They separate from their families for > > > > > years for this opporitunity. > > > > > > > > > > I do not see how that would help our society. > > > > > > > > > Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the > > only > > > > reason they seperate from their families is because of US immigration > > controls. > > > > Since there are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary within > > the US. > > > > > > I mean if it happened just in the US. In fact I do no think that could > > > happpen in the US cause of the difficulty in holding two houses. > > > > > Who says you have to hold one? It's called renting. > > I was thinking renting. A working poor family renting two apartments? > C'mon. > Ok, you've lost me, why the hell would they need to keep the old apartment? > > > > > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences > > keeping > > > > you > > > > > > in, > > > > > > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that > > > > (leaving) > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time > > > > > > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's > > focus > > > > on > > > > > > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government? > > > > > > > > > > > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously > > > > telling me > > > > > > that you can't discern the difference between the two? > > > > > > > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation? > > > > > > > > > The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation. But > > given > > > > the choice > > > > between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose the > > > > company > > > > because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies have > > to > > > > preserve their > > > > realtionship by consent, government do it by force. > > > > > > Some choice, one authoritarian company or another. > > > > It's more choice that the government gives you. > > =^o > > >And actually it is a good choice. It's a choice that gives you the > > chance to achieve your potential and be treated as well as it's > > worth treating you, which is quite well if you're at all competent. > > Oh, that's what it is like in corporations. What have I been witnessing > all these years? I'd say what you deserve. > > > If you prefer working for yourself, go for it, but > > propriators are under stricter controls than workers are. You are > > whinning about how workers spend 1/3 of their life doing things others > > want them to instead of what they want, but that is the inevitable result > > of any work, not just wage labour. Work by definition is what has to > > be done, not what you want done. > > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...work&x=15&y=15 > > But I think the UNSPUN definition is widely accepeted as : activity in > which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something > > You make it so one has to aquiese to the owner. No I don't, you can as I say work for yourself. > > Anyway, do you think most things produced to day are things that HAVE to > be produced? No, and thank god for it. But work is what you have to do to get something else, not what you do because you like it. > > > > > > What a way to spend over 1/3 of your life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at > > > > > > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize > > that > > > > wal > > > > > > > > > mart is the only business left in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause > > > > busniesses > > > > > > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor: > > > > > > > > > > > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good > > > > thing. > > > > > > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell > > products to > > > > > > Wal-Mart) to prosper. > > > > > > > > > > wal mart lowers wages in the area, > > > > > > > > By employing people, neat trick. > > > > > > No, because of it's anti-union beleifs > > > > > In other words because it doesn't hire people for more than they're worth. > > So Wal Mart determines that worth? > Well if someone else had a higher opinion of that worth they'd work somewhere else wouldn't they? > > > > > > The fact is that real wages go up if > > > > Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the workers > > > > of it's direct competitors go down. > > > > > > Please provide some statistics. > > > > > I don't need to. Fact one, Wal Mart reduces prices, > > I do not deny that they do. Did I? > > > fact two only a small > > proportion of the communities wage earners work at Wal Mart or it's > > competitors and therefore have their wages reduced. > > One 1999 study reported that 1.5 jobs had been lost for every job that > Wal-Mart created. A recent projection by the University of Illinois at > Chicago¹s Center for Urban Economic Development concluded that the > proposed West-Side Chicago store likely would yield a net decrease of > about 65 jobs after that Wal-Mart opens, as other retailers in the same > shopping area lose business. A study cited in Business Week as showing > modest retail gains after Wal-Marts open actually reported net job > losses counting effects on warehousing and surrounding counties. > Which doesn't actually bear on my point, even if we assume the studies weren't biased. > Wages are low at notoriously anti-union Wal-Mart > hour for full-time workers, around $8 for the roughly 45 percent of > ³associates² working less than 45 weeks a year. But Wal-Mart also helps > hold down wages throughout the retail industry, with a few exceptions > like the partly-unionized Costco (where wages average $16 an hour) or > more heavily unionized grocery stores. A 1999 study for the Orange > County Business Council forecast that the entry of grocery supercenters > such as Wal-Mart operates could cost southern California $2.8 billion in > lost wages and benefits each year as grocers cut the jobs or wages and > benefits of a quarter million largely unionized grocery workers. > > > Which of these > > facts is not obvious? > > The second one. The fact that only a smal proportion of the community works at Wal Mart or it's competitors? That's not obvious? > > Do you really think that becasue they offer "lower" prices that you can > ignore anything else about the company? > I think that because the offer lower price (no scare quotes) you have to prove your point. I don't have to prove mine. Lower prices are good. > > > > > forces stores to close (it buys from > > > > > larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief, > > > > > > > > No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops, you > > > > can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer > > > > doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart. > > > > > > But the other magazine stores are closed cause they can't compete with > > > the efficiency of walmart. > > > > > In other words nobody wanted what they were selling enough to pay the > > economic cost for it. > > Yes, thank you for shopping at wal mart. So because they don't provide everything you want it's their fault that nobody else does. > > > > > not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly. > > > > > > > > > It treats them better than the unemployment line does. > > > > > > So employment is not voluntary. > > > > > Oh yes, I forgot Wal Mart rounds up Africians and ships them to America. > > NO, they just keep them overseas. > Where they are voluntarily employed. > > > > > > > > > > > I gues if that what you want, fine. > > > > > > > > > What I want is cheap stuff. > > > > > > There arre two companies. They sell the same type of shirt. > > > A=$5 > > > B=$1 > > > > > > Which would you buy? > > > > > Which do you think? > > Since you did not answer the question I will have to guess the $5 one. > No the $1 one. Why would you think otherwise? I specifically said I wanted cheap stuff. > > ---------------------------------------------- > Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! > http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
... > In article > , > "Michael Price" > wrote: > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > ... > > > In article > , > > > "Michael Price" > wrote: > > > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > > > ... > > > > > In article k.net>, > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > In article > > k.net>, > > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > In article > > et>, > > > > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > s.com... > > > > > > > > > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the > > > > business. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the > > > > business do > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this > > > > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want. > > > > > > > > > > > > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for > > them to > > > > be > > > > > > the same type of organization, since they exist for different > > purposes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under > > a > > > > > > > > > totalitarian corporation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be > > > > > > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. > > You > > > > are > > > > > > free > > > > > > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a > > fair > > > > deal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of > > the > > > > > > > working poor. > > > > > > > > > > > > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and > > otherwise) > > > > who > > > > > > are able to relocate to find work... > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens. > > > > > > > > > > The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US > > > > > there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from > > one > > > > > city to another. > > > > > > > > Which is because if there were the poor would move there until wages > > > > dropped and raised in the better and worse cities respectively. > > > > > > I am sorry, can you reword this sentance? > > > > > The wages would rise in the cities with lower wages and lower in the > > cities > > with higher wages. > > Yes, the wages in the US would lower, and they do, but what about in > Mexico? Not what I was talking about. I was talking about the wages in cities in the US relative to other cities, not relative to Mexico.. > > > > > > > Your claim was that "The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not true > > for > > > > most of the working poor.". Now feel free to show how it's impossible > > for the > > > > working poor to move interstate. > > > > > > I did not say it was impossible for the working poor to move. I said it > > > was not true for MOST of the working poor. > > > > And you're wrong. Even at minimum wages the cross country bus fares > > aren't that much. > > Move a family of three on a greyhound bus. You're funny. > It's not much fun, but it can be done. U-hauls exist. > > > > > I think Nickled and Dimed goes into it a bit. Anyway, it happens. I > > > don't have the numbers on hand. > > > > > > > > > > > > For a mexican family, they can send half their salary > > > > > home and feed their families. They separate from their families for > > > > > years for this opporitunity. > > > > > > > > > > I do not see how that would help our society. > > > > > > > > > Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the > > only > > > > reason they seperate from their families is because of US immigration > > controls. > > > > Since there are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary within > > the US. > > > > > > I mean if it happened just in the US. In fact I do no think that could > > > happpen in the US cause of the difficulty in holding two houses. > > > > > Who says you have to hold one? It's called renting. > > I was thinking renting. A working poor family renting two apartments? > C'mon. > Ok, you've lost me, why the hell would they need to keep the old apartment? > > > > > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences > > keeping > > > > you > > > > > > in, > > > > > > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that > > > > (leaving) > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time > > > > > > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's > > focus > > > > on > > > > > > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government? > > > > > > > > > > > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously > > > > telling me > > > > > > that you can't discern the difference between the two? > > > > > > > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation? > > > > > > > > > The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation. But > > given > > > > the choice > > > > between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose the > > > > company > > > > because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies have > > to > > > > preserve their > > > > realtionship by consent, government do it by force. > > > > > > Some choice, one authoritarian company or another. > > > > It's more choice that the government gives you. > > =^o > > >And actually it is a good choice. It's a choice that gives you the > > chance to achieve your potential and be treated as well as it's > > worth treating you, which is quite well if you're at all competent. > > Oh, that's what it is like in corporations. What have I been witnessing > all these years? I'd say what you deserve. > > > If you prefer working for yourself, go for it, but > > propriators are under stricter controls than workers are. You are > > whinning about how workers spend 1/3 of their life doing things others > > want them to instead of what they want, but that is the inevitable result > > of any work, not just wage labour. Work by definition is what has to > > be done, not what you want done. > > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...work&x=15&y=15 > > But I think the UNSPUN definition is widely accepeted as : activity in > which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something > > You make it so one has to aquiese to the owner. No I don't, you can as I say work for yourself. > > Anyway, do you think most things produced to day are things that HAVE to > be produced? No, and thank god for it. But work is what you have to do to get something else, not what you do because you like it. > > > > > > What a way to spend over 1/3 of your life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at > > > > > > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize > > that > > > > wal > > > > > > > > > mart is the only business left in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause > > > > busniesses > > > > > > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor: > > > > > > > > > > > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good > > > > thing. > > > > > > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell > > products to > > > > > > Wal-Mart) to prosper. > > > > > > > > > > wal mart lowers wages in the area, > > > > > > > > By employing people, neat trick. > > > > > > No, because of it's anti-union beleifs > > > > > In other words because it doesn't hire people for more than they're worth. > > So Wal Mart determines that worth? > Well if someone else had a higher opinion of that worth they'd work somewhere else wouldn't they? > > > > > > The fact is that real wages go up if > > > > Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the workers > > > > of it's direct competitors go down. > > > > > > Please provide some statistics. > > > > > I don't need to. Fact one, Wal Mart reduces prices, > > I do not deny that they do. Did I? > > > fact two only a small > > proportion of the communities wage earners work at Wal Mart or it's > > competitors and therefore have their wages reduced. > > One 1999 study reported that 1.5 jobs had been lost for every job that > Wal-Mart created. A recent projection by the University of Illinois at > Chicago¹s Center for Urban Economic Development concluded that the > proposed West-Side Chicago store likely would yield a net decrease of > about 65 jobs after that Wal-Mart opens, as other retailers in the same > shopping area lose business. A study cited in Business Week as showing > modest retail gains after Wal-Marts open actually reported net job > losses counting effects on warehousing and surrounding counties. > Which doesn't actually bear on my point, even if we assume the studies weren't biased. > Wages are low at notoriously anti-union Wal-Mart > hour for full-time workers, around $8 for the roughly 45 percent of > ³associates² working less than 45 weeks a year. But Wal-Mart also helps > hold down wages throughout the retail industry, with a few exceptions > like the partly-unionized Costco (where wages average $16 an hour) or > more heavily unionized grocery stores. A 1999 study for the Orange > County Business Council forecast that the entry of grocery supercenters > such as Wal-Mart operates could cost southern California $2.8 billion in > lost wages and benefits each year as grocers cut the jobs or wages and > benefits of a quarter million largely unionized grocery workers. > > > Which of these > > facts is not obvious? > > The second one. The fact that only a smal proportion of the community works at Wal Mart or it's competitors? That's not obvious? > > Do you really think that becasue they offer "lower" prices that you can > ignore anything else about the company? > I think that because the offer lower price (no scare quotes) you have to prove your point. I don't have to prove mine. Lower prices are good. > > > > > forces stores to close (it buys from > > > > > larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief, > > > > > > > > No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops, you > > > > can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer > > > > doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart. > > > > > > But the other magazine stores are closed cause they can't compete with > > > the efficiency of walmart. > > > > > In other words nobody wanted what they were selling enough to pay the > > economic cost for it. > > Yes, thank you for shopping at wal mart. So because they don't provide everything you want it's their fault that nobody else does. > > > > > not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly. > > > > > > > > > It treats them better than the unemployment line does. > > > > > > So employment is not voluntary. > > > > > Oh yes, I forgot Wal Mart rounds up Africians and ships them to America. > > NO, they just keep them overseas. > Where they are voluntarily employed. > > > > > > > > > > > I gues if that what you want, fine. > > > > > > > > > What I want is cheap stuff. > > > > > > There arre two companies. They sell the same type of shirt. > > > A=$5 > > > B=$1 > > > > > > Which would you buy? > > > > > Which do you think? > > Since you did not answer the question I will have to guess the $5 one. > No the $1 one. Why would you think otherwise? I specifically said I wanted cheap stuff. > > ---------------------------------------------- > Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! > http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:45:55 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: >And when you become a Supreme Court judge or can afford to buy one then your >"rights" might become reality. Until then you are only stating opinions >versus the reality I speak of . > Ah, so if the Supreme Court were to rule that you have no freedom of speech, rite to vote, right to a trial, etc, you would say "it's the law and any argument is just stating opinions"? Hey, why bother with voting for silly things like congressional and presidential races? It's a devine USSC dictatorship, right? Whatever the life appointed judges say is fact, huh? Just let them make all the laws and skip all the meaningless nonsense in the other two branches. Sound good to you? William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:45:55 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: >And when you become a Supreme Court judge or can afford to buy one then your >"rights" might become reality. Until then you are only stating opinions >versus the reality I speak of . > Ah, so if the Supreme Court were to rule that you have no freedom of speech, rite to vote, right to a trial, etc, you would say "it's the law and any argument is just stating opinions"? Hey, why bother with voting for silly things like congressional and presidential races? It's a devine USSC dictatorship, right? Whatever the life appointed judges say is fact, huh? Just let them make all the laws and skip all the meaningless nonsense in the other two branches. Sound good to you? William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
> >> They are evil by virtue of the fact that they cannot function without
> >> infringing on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in > >> reality, they can't. It would have to involve virtually unamamous > >> public support in order to because they have no legitimate tools to > >> enforce anything. If government didn't assist them in stepping on the > >> rights of business owners to trade elsewhere, and if government didn't > >> look the other way when they commit crimes against those who refuse to > >> honor their strikes, they would be entirely powerless. > >> > >> So choose. Do we have them remain evil, or fix the laws to match the > >> constitution and leave them powerless and irrelevant? (G*rd*n) wrote: > >Oh, so this is a theological thing. Well, no one can argue > >with the True Faith. I thought you were going to do something > >weird like introduce evidence from the material world and reason > >about it. Heh -- how silly I am. : > Ok, I agree it's silly to post an argument without anything to refute > what I said. So yeah, how silly you are. > > Do you have something, anything, to refute my point that if business > owners' rights are as respected as anyone else's, the unions would > have no power? Guess not... It's not a "point" which is developed from axioms or evidence by logic, just an assertion of faith, so it's impossible to refute, just as any other profession of faith is impossible to refute. I suppose one could say that the widespread support of business owners for "right to work" laws and other restrictive legislation are evidence that the business leaders themselves believe they require government intervention against unions to keep them down -- but as I say this has nothing to do with your "argument", which is carried foward on another plane, that of pure assertion. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Wm James" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:45:55 GMT, "Michael Legel" > > wrote: > > >And when you become a Supreme Court judge or can afford to buy one then your > >"rights" might become reality. Until then you are only stating opinions > >versus the reality I speak of . > > > > Ah, so if the Supreme Court were to rule that you have no freedom of > speech, rite to vote, right to a trial, etc, you would say "it's the > law and any argument is just stating opinions"? > > Hey, why bother with voting for silly things like congressional and > presidential races? It's a devine USSC dictatorship, right? Whatever > the life appointed judges say is fact, huh? Just let them make all > the laws and skip all the meaningless nonsense in the other two > branches. Sound good to you? > > William R. James Look BOZO, the Supremes already crowned King George ... and I didn't think the had the RIGHT to do that ... but they did. Unless you can figure out a way to change things they do indeed get be a "devine USSC dictatorship". Where have you been you idiot? As I told you before, it is not a matter of what you or "think ought to be" ... but what is reality. You summed it up nicely with a side order of snide. You do know the facts of reality evidently. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Wm James" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:45:55 GMT, "Michael Legel" > > wrote: > > >And when you become a Supreme Court judge or can afford to buy one then your > >"rights" might become reality. Until then you are only stating opinions > >versus the reality I speak of . > > > > Ah, so if the Supreme Court were to rule that you have no freedom of > speech, rite to vote, right to a trial, etc, you would say "it's the > law and any argument is just stating opinions"? > > Hey, why bother with voting for silly things like congressional and > presidential races? It's a devine USSC dictatorship, right? Whatever > the life appointed judges say is fact, huh? Just let them make all > the laws and skip all the meaningless nonsense in the other two > branches. Sound good to you? > > William R. James Look BOZO, the Supremes already crowned King George ... and I didn't think the had the RIGHT to do that ... but they did. Unless you can figure out a way to change things they do indeed get be a "devine USSC dictatorship". Where have you been you idiot? As I told you before, it is not a matter of what you or "think ought to be" ... but what is reality. You summed it up nicely with a side order of snide. You do know the facts of reality evidently. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
> "Dan Clore" > wrote...
> > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT > > June 1, 2004 > > Contact: > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of? > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community > > members across the country have condemned repeated attempts > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union. > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth chain. > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks, > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent > > place to work. > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being forced to > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized, spoiled > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life. > We didn't have Starbucks when I was in college so I flipped burgers, 8 hours a day, six days a week. It sure felt like sweat shop conditions to me. That's what kept my butt in college. I support the right of workers to negotiate with one voice. I also support the right of workers to choose not to join the union if they don't want to. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
> "Dan Clore" > wrote...
> > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT > > June 1, 2004 > > Contact: > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of? > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community > > members across the country have condemned repeated attempts > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union. > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth chain. > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks, > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent > > place to work. > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being forced to > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized, spoiled > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life. > We didn't have Starbucks when I was in college so I flipped burgers, 8 hours a day, six days a week. It sure felt like sweat shop conditions to me. That's what kept my butt in college. I support the right of workers to negotiate with one voice. I also support the right of workers to choose not to join the union if they don't want to. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:02:23 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: >Nobody has any quarrel with you stating your opinions or wishes, but you try >to make your opinions and wishes sound like fact and reality ... and they >aren't. You have made it quite clear you think unions suck and you don't want >to have to live with them. I feel the same about Wal-mart and George Bush. >The difference is I also understand reality. No you don't. You're just naive class warrior. Typically this sort of people think that some sort of classist fiction justifies their actions and think that if government legalizes this fiction it is all OK. By this token of illogic, obviously any illegitimate and unjust action by any state or government cannot be questioned, if government/state is the one and only source of legitimacy. This is stance called legal positivism and it is naive and obsolete. You understand nothing from the reality. You are merely what Lenin described as "useful idiot" - increasing mindless power of state so you could paint your petty theft in nice colors. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:02:23 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: >Nobody has any quarrel with you stating your opinions or wishes, but you try >to make your opinions and wishes sound like fact and reality ... and they >aren't. You have made it quite clear you think unions suck and you don't want >to have to live with them. I feel the same about Wal-mart and George Bush. >The difference is I also understand reality. No you don't. You're just naive class warrior. Typically this sort of people think that some sort of classist fiction justifies their actions and think that if government legalizes this fiction it is all OK. By this token of illogic, obviously any illegitimate and unjust action by any state or government cannot be questioned, if government/state is the one and only source of legitimacy. This is stance called legal positivism and it is naive and obsolete. You understand nothing from the reality. You are merely what Lenin described as "useful idiot" - increasing mindless power of state so you could paint your petty theft in nice colors. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:20:14 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: >> Hey, why bother with voting for silly things like congressional and >> presidential races? It's a devine USSC dictatorship, right? Whatever >> the life appointed judges say is fact, huh? Just let them make all >> the laws and skip all the meaningless nonsense in the other two >> branches. Sound good to you? >> >> William R. James > >Look BOZO, the Supremes already crowned King George ... and I didn't think the >had the RIGHT to do that ... but they did. Unless you can figure out a way to >change things they do indeed get be a "devine USSC dictatorship". Where have >you been you idiot? As I told you before, it is not a matter of what you or >"think ought to be" ... but what is reality. You summed it up nicely with a >side order of snide. You do know the facts of reality evidently. Again, you definitely show yourself as not only ignorant and complete idiot, but also to be guilty of what some call "cynicism of the unworldly" - Supreme Court in USA is supposedly highly sensitive to whatever political trends are current at the time, but to say that judges are "bought" is pile of idiocy. It is hallmark of the naive who take their simpleton's imagination for recognition of grim reality. In reality, courts are POWER. One of the three branches of power and more restricted than lawmaking or executive, but still power. They do not have to be bought or sold, since they are about power first, and not really mainly about money. The power doesn't have to buy anything. It just mandates whatever can be politically defined as legitimate and takes it. It is somewhere between what Hume called as public opinion being the only thing behind the government and pure dictatorship. In banana republics power is bought and sold precisely because it is not real power. Your definitions of what is right and what is not is clearly limited to current legal code supported by thin argument of the childish class warrior. A political naiviete combined with a thug. In reality, you're a disgusting creature, a parasite on us all. I just think that developments in science and politics will allow people to get rid of parasites like you like we did get rid of guilds and thuggish clan apparatchiks having rule over their tribes before. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:20:14 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: >> Hey, why bother with voting for silly things like congressional and >> presidential races? It's a devine USSC dictatorship, right? Whatever >> the life appointed judges say is fact, huh? Just let them make all >> the laws and skip all the meaningless nonsense in the other two >> branches. Sound good to you? >> >> William R. James > >Look BOZO, the Supremes already crowned King George ... and I didn't think the >had the RIGHT to do that ... but they did. Unless you can figure out a way to >change things they do indeed get be a "devine USSC dictatorship". Where have >you been you idiot? As I told you before, it is not a matter of what you or >"think ought to be" ... but what is reality. You summed it up nicely with a >side order of snide. You do know the facts of reality evidently. Again, you definitely show yourself as not only ignorant and complete idiot, but also to be guilty of what some call "cynicism of the unworldly" - Supreme Court in USA is supposedly highly sensitive to whatever political trends are current at the time, but to say that judges are "bought" is pile of idiocy. It is hallmark of the naive who take their simpleton's imagination for recognition of grim reality. In reality, courts are POWER. One of the three branches of power and more restricted than lawmaking or executive, but still power. They do not have to be bought or sold, since they are about power first, and not really mainly about money. The power doesn't have to buy anything. It just mandates whatever can be politically defined as legitimate and takes it. It is somewhere between what Hume called as public opinion being the only thing behind the government and pure dictatorship. In banana republics power is bought and sold precisely because it is not real power. Your definitions of what is right and what is not is clearly limited to current legal code supported by thin argument of the childish class warrior. A political naiviete combined with a thug. In reality, you're a disgusting creature, a parasite on us all. I just think that developments in science and politics will allow people to get rid of parasites like you like we did get rid of guilds and thuggish clan apparatchiks having rule over their tribes before. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On 30 Jun 2004 13:02:18 -0500, Wm James
> wrote: >If government didn't assist them in stepping on the >rights of business owners to trade elsewhere, and if government didn't >look the other way when they commit crimes against those who refuse to >honor their strikes, they would be entirely powerless. It is evident that the idiots here subscribe to combined notions of naive class warfare mixed with legal positivism. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On 30 Jun 2004 13:02:18 -0500, Wm James
> wrote: >If government didn't assist them in stepping on the >rights of business owners to trade elsewhere, and if government didn't >look the other way when they commit crimes against those who refuse to >honor their strikes, they would be entirely powerless. It is evident that the idiots here subscribe to combined notions of naive class warfare mixed with legal positivism. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
(Mark Fox):
> ... > I support the right of workers to negotiate with one voice. I also > support the right of workers to choose not to join the union if they > don't want to. The second right is as free as any other condition in capitalism-as- it-is: you may have to to work somewhere, but you need not work in any particular place if you don't like the pay, the conditions, the location, or anything else about it. However, the first is rather restricted by a considerable body of law which prohibits many of the natural outcomes of self-interest operating with the rights of association, contract and representation. You can't, for instance, contract with your fellow workers and the employer to establish a closed shop, nor can you engage in a secondary boycott or a jurisdictional strike. So the negotiating with one voice part is in fact pretty doubtful. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
(Mark Fox):
> ... > I support the right of workers to negotiate with one voice. I also > support the right of workers to choose not to join the union if they > don't want to. The second right is as free as any other condition in capitalism-as- it-is: you may have to to work somewhere, but you need not work in any particular place if you don't like the pay, the conditions, the location, or anything else about it. However, the first is rather restricted by a considerable body of law which prohibits many of the natural outcomes of self-interest operating with the rights of association, contract and representation. You can't, for instance, contract with your fellow workers and the employer to establish a closed shop, nor can you engage in a secondary boycott or a jurisdictional strike. So the negotiating with one voice part is in fact pretty doubtful. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
:
>>>>> They are evil by virtue of the fact that they cannot function without >>>>> infringing on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in >>>>> reality, they can't. It would have to involve virtually unamamous >>>>> public support in order to because they have no legitimate tools to >>>>> enforce anything. If government didn't assist them in stepping on the >>>>> rights of business owners to trade elsewhere, and if government didn't >>>>> look the other way when they commit crimes against those who refuse to >>>>> honor their strikes, they would be entirely powerless. >>>>> >>>>> So choose. Do we have them remain evil, or fix the laws to match the >>>>> constitution and leave them powerless and irrelevant? (G*rd*n) wrote: >>>>Oh, so this is a theological thing. Well, no one can argue >>>>with the True Faith. I thought you were going to do something >>>>weird like introduce evidence from the material world and reason >>>>about it. Heh -- how silly I am. : >>> Ok, I agree it's silly to post an argument without anything to refute >>> what I said. So yeah, how silly you are. >>> >>> Do you have something, anything, to refute my point that if business >>> owners' rights are as respected as anyone else's, the unions would >>> have no power? Guess not... (G*rd*n) wrote: >>It's not a "point" which is developed from axioms or evidence >>by logic, just an assertion of faith, bulba >: > Nonsense. wrjames seems to merely hammer on the point > that to muddleheaded people seem as unclear: the > origin of rights. He seems to see them as spelled out in > the US Constitution and hence everything unconstitutional > being plain illegitimate. > > This is NOT some "theological" faith thing. This is > about real people in real courts fighting over real > interests. > > This is pure thought stuff, I concede. But so is yours > or unionization "collective rights" - a notion that I > find bogus, a mere rhetorical device to sugarcoat the > rule of mob. You're welcome to point out any logical development which leads from the liberal rights to wrjames's (apparently self-contradictory) contention that "[Unions] are evil by virtue of the fact that they cannot function without infringing on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in reality, they can't." I don't see it. He acknowledges that "theory", that is, axioms, evidence and logic point the other way, so I take it "reality" is an appeal to mystical knowledge, but it might be connected to _something_ -- who knows? Do you? As for "collective rights", I never said anything about collective rights that I can recall -- I don't know what it is you're talking about. Labor unions rest on _individual_ rights -- of expression, contract, association, and representation. (G*rd*n) wrote: >>so it's impossible to >>refute, just as any other profession of faith is impossible >>to refute. I suppose one could say that the widespread support >>of business owners for "right to work" laws and other restrictive >>legislation are evidence that the business leaders themselves >>believe they require government intervention against unions >>to keep them down bulba >: > Well, obviously, if that is the legal environment. What > did you expect? If it is regulated and the state is > the only source of legitimate rights, how can you > not regulate everyone in this particular issue? > > This is the stance that EU takes. Yes, I was merely noting there was some evidence that many business leaders do not share wrjames's profession of faith, but it is not possible to prove anything against that faith. As I also just said. (G*rd*n) wrote: >>-- but as I say this has nothing to do with >>your "argument", which is carried foward on another plane, >>that of pure assertion. bulba >: > Rubbish. When you can't summon evidence and reason to justify your obvious class prejudice, by all means resort to bad language. It sets off my position very nicely. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
:
>>>>> They are evil by virtue of the fact that they cannot function without >>>>> infringing on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in >>>>> reality, they can't. It would have to involve virtually unamamous >>>>> public support in order to because they have no legitimate tools to >>>>> enforce anything. If government didn't assist them in stepping on the >>>>> rights of business owners to trade elsewhere, and if government didn't >>>>> look the other way when they commit crimes against those who refuse to >>>>> honor their strikes, they would be entirely powerless. >>>>> >>>>> So choose. Do we have them remain evil, or fix the laws to match the >>>>> constitution and leave them powerless and irrelevant? (G*rd*n) wrote: >>>>Oh, so this is a theological thing. Well, no one can argue >>>>with the True Faith. I thought you were going to do something >>>>weird like introduce evidence from the material world and reason >>>>about it. Heh -- how silly I am. : >>> Ok, I agree it's silly to post an argument without anything to refute >>> what I said. So yeah, how silly you are. >>> >>> Do you have something, anything, to refute my point that if business >>> owners' rights are as respected as anyone else's, the unions would >>> have no power? Guess not... (G*rd*n) wrote: >>It's not a "point" which is developed from axioms or evidence >>by logic, just an assertion of faith, bulba >: > Nonsense. wrjames seems to merely hammer on the point > that to muddleheaded people seem as unclear: the > origin of rights. He seems to see them as spelled out in > the US Constitution and hence everything unconstitutional > being plain illegitimate. > > This is NOT some "theological" faith thing. This is > about real people in real courts fighting over real > interests. > > This is pure thought stuff, I concede. But so is yours > or unionization "collective rights" - a notion that I > find bogus, a mere rhetorical device to sugarcoat the > rule of mob. You're welcome to point out any logical development which leads from the liberal rights to wrjames's (apparently self-contradictory) contention that "[Unions] are evil by virtue of the fact that they cannot function without infringing on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in reality, they can't." I don't see it. He acknowledges that "theory", that is, axioms, evidence and logic point the other way, so I take it "reality" is an appeal to mystical knowledge, but it might be connected to _something_ -- who knows? Do you? As for "collective rights", I never said anything about collective rights that I can recall -- I don't know what it is you're talking about. Labor unions rest on _individual_ rights -- of expression, contract, association, and representation. (G*rd*n) wrote: >>so it's impossible to >>refute, just as any other profession of faith is impossible >>to refute. I suppose one could say that the widespread support >>of business owners for "right to work" laws and other restrictive >>legislation are evidence that the business leaders themselves >>believe they require government intervention against unions >>to keep them down bulba >: > Well, obviously, if that is the legal environment. What > did you expect? If it is regulated and the state is > the only source of legitimate rights, how can you > not regulate everyone in this particular issue? > > This is the stance that EU takes. Yes, I was merely noting there was some evidence that many business leaders do not share wrjames's profession of faith, but it is not possible to prove anything against that faith. As I also just said. (G*rd*n) wrote: >>-- but as I say this has nothing to do with >>your "argument", which is carried foward on another plane, >>that of pure assertion. bulba >: > Rubbish. When you can't summon evidence and reason to justify your obvious class prejudice, by all means resort to bad language. It sets off my position very nicely. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"bulba" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:02:23 GMT, "Michael Legel" > > wrote: > > >Nobody has any quarrel with you stating your opinions or wishes, but you try > >to make your opinions and wishes sound like fact and reality ... and they > >aren't. You have made it quite clear you think unions suck and you don't want > >to have to live with them. I feel the same about Wal-mart and George Bush. > >The difference is I also understand reality. > > No you don't. You're just naive class warrior. Typically this sort of > people think that some sort of classist fiction justifies their > actions and think that if government legalizes this fiction it is > all OK. > > By this token of illogic, obviously any illegitimate and unjust > action by any state or government cannot be questioned, > if government/state is the one and only source of legitimacy. > > This is stance called legal positivism and it is naive and > obsolete. > > You understand nothing from the reality. You are merely what > Lenin described as "useful idiot" - increasing mindless power > of state so you could paint your petty theft in nice colors. > And I should argue with a scumbag who quotes Lenin to me. I think laws should be questioned. I think people should work to change laws. But I also think it is sheer stupidity to say a law one disagrees with doesn't exist or won't be enforced. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"bulba" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:02:23 GMT, "Michael Legel" > > wrote: > > >Nobody has any quarrel with you stating your opinions or wishes, but you try > >to make your opinions and wishes sound like fact and reality ... and they > >aren't. You have made it quite clear you think unions suck and you don't want > >to have to live with them. I feel the same about Wal-mart and George Bush. > >The difference is I also understand reality. > > No you don't. You're just naive class warrior. Typically this sort of > people think that some sort of classist fiction justifies their > actions and think that if government legalizes this fiction it is > all OK. > > By this token of illogic, obviously any illegitimate and unjust > action by any state or government cannot be questioned, > if government/state is the one and only source of legitimacy. > > This is stance called legal positivism and it is naive and > obsolete. > > You understand nothing from the reality. You are merely what > Lenin described as "useful idiot" - increasing mindless power > of state so you could paint your petty theft in nice colors. > And I should argue with a scumbag who quotes Lenin to me. I think laws should be questioned. I think people should work to change laws. But I also think it is sheer stupidity to say a law one disagrees with doesn't exist or won't be enforced. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"bulba" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:20:14 GMT, "Michael Legel" > > wrote: > > >> Hey, why bother with voting for silly things like congressional and > >> presidential races? It's a devine USSC dictatorship, right? Whatever > >> the life appointed judges say is fact, huh? Just let them make all > >> the laws and skip all the meaningless nonsense in the other two > >> branches. Sound good to you? > >> > >> William R. James > > > >Look BOZO, the Supremes already crowned King George ... and I didn't think the > >had the RIGHT to do that ... but they did. Unless you can figure out a way to > >change things they do indeed get be a "devine USSC dictatorship". Where have > >you been you idiot? As I told you before, it is not a matter of what you or > >"think ought to be" ... but what is reality. You summed it up nicely with a > >side order of snide. You do know the facts of reality evidently. > > Again, you definitely show yourself as not only ignorant and complete > idiot, but also to be guilty of what some call "cynicism of the > unworldly" - Supreme Court in USA is supposedly highly sensitive to > whatever political trends are current at the time, but to say that > judges are "bought" is pile of idiocy. It is hallmark of the naive who > take their simpleton's imagination for recognition of grim reality. > > In reality, courts are POWER. One of the three branches of > power and more restricted than lawmaking or executive, but > still power. They do not have to be bought or sold, since they > are about power first, and not really mainly about money. > > The power doesn't have to buy anything. It just mandates whatever can > be politically defined as legitimate and takes it. It is somewhere > between what Hume called as public opinion being the only thing behind > the government and pure dictatorship. In banana republics power is > bought and sold precisely because it is not real power. > > Your definitions of what is right and what is not is clearly limited > to current legal code supported by thin argument of the childish > class warrior. A political naiviete combined with a thug. > > In reality, you're a disgusting creature, a parasite on us all. > > I just think that developments in science and politics will > allow people to get rid of parasites like you like we > did get rid of guilds and thuggish clan apparatchiks having > rule over their tribes before. > You do have a reading comprehension problem don't you? Who said anything about the Supremes being "bought" (except you of course). I simply said I disagreed with their decision. My disagreement in no way changes the outcome. You certainly are excitable with all your crude insults and ridiculous aspersions. Maturity may never be a personal outcome for you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"bulba" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:20:14 GMT, "Michael Legel" > > wrote: > > >> Hey, why bother with voting for silly things like congressional and > >> presidential races? It's a devine USSC dictatorship, right? Whatever > >> the life appointed judges say is fact, huh? Just let them make all > >> the laws and skip all the meaningless nonsense in the other two > >> branches. Sound good to you? > >> > >> William R. James > > > >Look BOZO, the Supremes already crowned King George ... and I didn't think the > >had the RIGHT to do that ... but they did. Unless you can figure out a way to > >change things they do indeed get be a "devine USSC dictatorship". Where have > >you been you idiot? As I told you before, it is not a matter of what you or > >"think ought to be" ... but what is reality. You summed it up nicely with a > >side order of snide. You do know the facts of reality evidently. > > Again, you definitely show yourself as not only ignorant and complete > idiot, but also to be guilty of what some call "cynicism of the > unworldly" - Supreme Court in USA is supposedly highly sensitive to > whatever political trends are current at the time, but to say that > judges are "bought" is pile of idiocy. It is hallmark of the naive who > take their simpleton's imagination for recognition of grim reality. > > In reality, courts are POWER. One of the three branches of > power and more restricted than lawmaking or executive, but > still power. They do not have to be bought or sold, since they > are about power first, and not really mainly about money. > > The power doesn't have to buy anything. It just mandates whatever can > be politically defined as legitimate and takes it. It is somewhere > between what Hume called as public opinion being the only thing behind > the government and pure dictatorship. In banana republics power is > bought and sold precisely because it is not real power. > > Your definitions of what is right and what is not is clearly limited > to current legal code supported by thin argument of the childish > class warrior. A political naiviete combined with a thug. > > In reality, you're a disgusting creature, a parasite on us all. > > I just think that developments in science and politics will > allow people to get rid of parasites like you like we > did get rid of guilds and thuggish clan apparatchiks having > rule over their tribes before. > You do have a reading comprehension problem don't you? Who said anything about the Supremes being "bought" (except you of course). I simply said I disagreed with their decision. My disagreement in no way changes the outcome. You certainly are excitable with all your crude insults and ridiculous aspersions. Maturity may never be a personal outcome for you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
bulba wrote: [big snip] > Your definitions of what is right and what is not is clearly limited > to current legal code supported by thin argument of the childish > class warrior. A political naiviete combined with a thug. You seem to be confusing moral and legal rights. I don't think anyone anywhere believes that "what is right and what is not is clearly limited to current legal code". That only determines what is legal -- or what you have a "legal right" to do, if you will. Moral rights are entirely different, and everyone understands that; no one in the thread has argued differently. You're throwing out a red herring here. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
bulba wrote: [big snip] > Your definitions of what is right and what is not is clearly limited > to current legal code supported by thin argument of the childish > class warrior. A political naiviete combined with a thug. You seem to be confusing moral and legal rights. I don't think anyone anywhere believes that "what is right and what is not is clearly limited to current legal code". That only determines what is legal -- or what you have a "legal right" to do, if you will. Moral rights are entirely different, and everyone understands that; no one in the thread has argued differently. You're throwing out a red herring here. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:12:38 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: >You do have a reading comprehension problem don't you? Who said anything >about the Supremes being "bought" (except you of course). I simply said I >disagreed with their decision. My disagreement in no way changes the outcome. >You certainly are excitable with all your crude insults and ridiculous >aspersions. Maturity may never be a personal outcome for you. Here's what you wrote, scumbag: "And when you become a Supreme Court judge or can afford to buy one then your "rights" might become reality. " And again, you evaded the problem of union collective "rights" being unconstitutional as a child would. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:12:38 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: >You do have a reading comprehension problem don't you? Who said anything >about the Supremes being "bought" (except you of course). I simply said I >disagreed with their decision. My disagreement in no way changes the outcome. >You certainly are excitable with all your crude insults and ridiculous >aspersions. Maturity may never be a personal outcome for you. Here's what you wrote, scumbag: "And when you become a Supreme Court judge or can afford to buy one then your "rights" might become reality. " And again, you evaded the problem of union collective "rights" being unconstitutional as a child would. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"bulba" > wrote in message ... > > And again, you evaded the problem of union collective "rights" being > unconstitutional as a child would. > I didn't evade anything. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and they have decided unions have a right to exist. You, on the other hand, get to decide very little ... evidently including your own thought processes ... without interjecting the word "scumbag" every several sentences. As I said before, maturity is not your strong suit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"bulba" > wrote in message ... > > And again, you evaded the problem of union collective "rights" being > unconstitutional as a child would. > I didn't evade anything. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and they have decided unions have a right to exist. You, on the other hand, get to decide very little ... evidently including your own thought processes ... without interjecting the word "scumbag" every several sentences. As I said before, maturity is not your strong suit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:53:57 -0400, johnebravo836
> wrote: > > >bulba wrote: > >[big snip] > >> Your definitions of what is right and what is not is clearly limited >> to current legal code supported by thin argument of the childish >> class warrior. A political naiviete combined with a thug. >You seem to be confusing moral and legal rights. I make mental shortcuts to cover large swaths of problems, true, but rest assured I have no problem of distingushing moral and legal rights. This is actually more complicated problem of legitimacy of laws. This is not academic problem - were various clearly unjust laws made in Soviet Union or by Saddam Hussein legitimate or not? If not, how it happens that this law is legitimate and this law is not? If one of them is illegitimate, how can we see other laws necessary to maintain social order as legitimate and how do we distinguish between them? Which laws to follow and which laws not to follow? Nobody follows all the laws and the police is not that stupid to enforce some clearly ridiculous or totally socially unacceptable laws. The theory is simple, the practice is not. There has to be more solid basis for that than the side of political fence we are on. There are various legal theories of what is it that makes a law legitimate, from legal positivism to "judge sovereignty" to tomism (legal doctrines developed from St Thomas Aquinnas) to natural rights. >I don't think anyone >anywhere believes that "what is right and what is not is clearly limited >to current legal code". This clearly seems to me as the assumption behind Legel's stance: to hell with US Constitution, to hell with freedom of association, current govt bureaucracy says my union is legal, so implicitly it is _legitimate_. I'm not arguing that his unionized thuggish behavior is not _legalized_ by government. I'm not that simpleminded. I'm arguing it is _illegitimate_, parasitic and socially destructive, in the way that law forbidding you to question the commie party actions in the Soviet Union was. >That only determines what is legal -- or what >you have a "legal right" to do, if you will. Moral rights are entirely >different, and everyone understands that; no one in the thread has >argued differently. You're throwing out a red herring here. Not really, it's just an issue is complicated. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:53:57 -0400, johnebravo836
> wrote: > > >bulba wrote: > >[big snip] > >> Your definitions of what is right and what is not is clearly limited >> to current legal code supported by thin argument of the childish >> class warrior. A political naiviete combined with a thug. >You seem to be confusing moral and legal rights. I make mental shortcuts to cover large swaths of problems, true, but rest assured I have no problem of distingushing moral and legal rights. This is actually more complicated problem of legitimacy of laws. This is not academic problem - were various clearly unjust laws made in Soviet Union or by Saddam Hussein legitimate or not? If not, how it happens that this law is legitimate and this law is not? If one of them is illegitimate, how can we see other laws necessary to maintain social order as legitimate and how do we distinguish between them? Which laws to follow and which laws not to follow? Nobody follows all the laws and the police is not that stupid to enforce some clearly ridiculous or totally socially unacceptable laws. The theory is simple, the practice is not. There has to be more solid basis for that than the side of political fence we are on. There are various legal theories of what is it that makes a law legitimate, from legal positivism to "judge sovereignty" to tomism (legal doctrines developed from St Thomas Aquinnas) to natural rights. >I don't think anyone >anywhere believes that "what is right and what is not is clearly limited >to current legal code". This clearly seems to me as the assumption behind Legel's stance: to hell with US Constitution, to hell with freedom of association, current govt bureaucracy says my union is legal, so implicitly it is _legitimate_. I'm not arguing that his unionized thuggish behavior is not _legalized_ by government. I'm not that simpleminded. I'm arguing it is _illegitimate_, parasitic and socially destructive, in the way that law forbidding you to question the commie party actions in the Soviet Union was. >That only determines what is legal -- or what >you have a "legal right" to do, if you will. Moral rights are entirely >different, and everyone understands that; no one in the thread has >argued differently. You're throwing out a red herring here. Not really, it's just an issue is complicated. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:09:00 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: >> You understand nothing from the reality. You are merely what >> Lenin described as "useful idiot" - increasing mindless power >> of state so you could paint your petty theft in nice colors. >> > >And I should argue with a scumbag who quotes Lenin to me. I think laws should >be questioned. I think people should work to change laws. But I also think >it is sheer stupidity to say a law one disagrees with doesn't exist or won't >be enforced. Oh but there are lots of laws that are made and then not enforced by the police, from silly like Scottish law treating someone's private toilet as public toilet to impractical laws like American telecom laws forcing three parties to cooperate in setting up digital subscriber's line (it doesnt' really work). It is reality of situation, largely but not only social reality of situation, that makes this law reasonable or unreasonable, legitimate or illegitimate. In your case, you commit what French economist Frederic Bastiat called "legal plunder". -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:09:00 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: >> You understand nothing from the reality. You are merely what >> Lenin described as "useful idiot" - increasing mindless power >> of state so you could paint your petty theft in nice colors. >> > >And I should argue with a scumbag who quotes Lenin to me. I think laws should >be questioned. I think people should work to change laws. But I also think >it is sheer stupidity to say a law one disagrees with doesn't exist or won't >be enforced. Oh but there are lots of laws that are made and then not enforced by the police, from silly like Scottish law treating someone's private toilet as public toilet to impractical laws like American telecom laws forcing three parties to cooperate in setting up digital subscriber's line (it doesnt' really work). It is reality of situation, largely but not only social reality of situation, that makes this law reasonable or unreasonable, legitimate or illegitimate. In your case, you commit what French economist Frederic Bastiat called "legal plunder". -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Celebrating Six Months of IWW Starbucks Workers Union in the TwinCities | Coffee | |||
| Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card | Coffee | |||
| Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card | Recipes | |||
| JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. | Beer | |||
| JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. | Beer | |||
Linear Mode
