Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Spinkane 11 years, 2 months ago
    Q1 = No, they are following progressive tenants not libertarian ones.
    Q2= Stupid, Supply and demand dictates the “recognition and reward” Good luck trying to be recognized as the best hamburger flipper in the world; and get 100K for doing it.
    Q3= Same stupid question (see air traffic controllers)
    Q4= obvious contradiction.
    Q5= No, Democracy is brutal as 51% wins. A republic allows for a voice of the 49%; their representatives can filibuster and many procedures require a super majority to pass.
    Q6= What? No one says no government except Anarchists and that’s a different subject.
    it just got worse and ,,,I just can’t.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by James628 11 years, 2 months ago
    Posted by iroseland 5 days, 15 hours ago
    "Most of these questions first require you to accept their premise. In every case they were pretty much setups like asking Simone if they have stopped beating their wife."

    I agree. States a premise, then asks a broad question immediately after.

    The main premise is that those with wealth are the libertarian torch lighters (BS). Which is an attempt to discredit the libertarian motive. And keeps insinuating that the libertarian wants the government to protect them. The libertarian wants the liberty of protecting himself. ........
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 11 years, 2 months ago
    This was tough to read. The twisting the spinning. We have to stop calling people hypocrites simply because they think for themselves. I don't agree with everything in the Libertarian playbook but I am OK with that. I don't attack any Republican or Democrat that strays from the party lines. I don't attack a politician who for legitimate reasons changes their stance on a subject. I am sounding like I believe we should all think for ourselves. I think Ayn Rand would agree.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by iroseland 11 years, 2 months ago
    Most of these questions first require you to accept their premise. In every case they were pretty much setups like asking Simone if they have stopped beating their wife.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 2 months ago
    A mishmash, but not without its "hits" on the "target."

    Ayn Rand endorsed labor unions. As warmed-over Republicans, many self-identified libertarians are in favor of "right to work" laws. Like "extra-sensory perception (ESP)" so called "right to work" is a logical fallacy, but self-styled libertarians endorse it on the basis of what it seems to mean.

    The divide between Objectivists and libertarians is centered on the morality of Objectivism. Libertarians argue that you have a political right to become a drug addict. For Objectivists, the distinction between a political right to idiocy and the morality of self-interest needs little discussion.

    For myself, I see the hypocrisy in the claim that corporations have a right to recoup their tax money with "tax abatements" but that a woman with children is a moocher for getting a SNAP Card to buy groceries.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years, 2 months ago
      Right to work means just exactly what it says. Mike, if I choose to apply to work at a place, I should not need the 'blessing' of a bunch of grafting bagmen to do so. Having worked in 'closed shop' states and industries, it galls me to have to pay someone for permission to work, especially when their only interest is the size of their cut. Puts me in mind of the Mafia and its 'protection' rackets, people having to pay for the ability to do business in a certain area. Don't want to pay? 'Sokay. But you ain't gonna have no inventory or no store to sell from
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 2 months ago
        OK. I happen to believe from personal experience and rational conjecture that one person can directly share in the mind of another person. I find it obvious based on the crude experiments and empirical data with EEGs. If you can move a pen, then you can send a thought. You might not agree with that, and that's fine. I mention it because I agree with Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branded that "extrasensory perception" (ESP) is a misnomer: perception is always via the senses.

        So, too, do you really not have any such thing as a "right to work." That is a misnomer.

        But, yes, you do have the right to any agreement that is non-coercive. So, if the workers in a factory hire a team of industrial engineers and lawyers (called a "union") and they bargain with the IEs and lawyers of the employer to work out a contract, then, the employer might say, "John Robert, thanks, but you have to join the union so that I know that you will be safe and productive." Maybe. Maybe not. But either way, it is a contractual situation, not a matter for the government to get involved in. If GM wants all hourly employees to be UAW members, that's the way it is.

        Myself, I often work as a contractor through an agency. So, for me, I am not in their bargaining unit. I get that. And I understand that they have rules for themselves that limit my actions when I am on their site. For instance, I was hired to teach robot operations and programming. But I was not hired to install the robot. They had electricians and riggers for that. They checked my tools when I came in and made sure that I would not do their work. Sort of a hassle, but the rules of the house, really, if you want to be a good guest.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years, 2 months ago
          Okay, I concede the term 'right to work'. However, I argue the employer would not make such a condition UNLESS there was coercion to force him to do so. Your example of being a contractor outside the 'bargaining unit', there to do a specific job, is valid to a certain point. If the contract called for some installation on your part (as part of the instruction package), are the rules against such activity on your part invalidated? If so, then at what point would you be considered a part of the 'bargaining unit'? Would it be on a percentage of the installation to be completed or the number of hours used in that installation?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 2 months ago
            In a complex industrial workplace, I can think of many reasons why an owner would want a union. Ayn Rand said that at least in her day unions were the only moral force operating for capitalism. Remember, also, that she said that even to offer an unsafe workplace should be a crime, whether or not anyone is actually hurt. Once the union puts the work rules in place, the boss can sign off on the safety provisions. We have some studies on fatigue that suggest that the eight-hour day is not magical. On ships, they work four hours on four hours off around the clock.

            What we have here between us JR is an example of why the government should stay out of it. At JR, Inc., there is no union, OK. But a MM, Inc, there is. My choice might not be smart in your view, but it is my right to make that choice, and not the government's business to tell me that I as an owner cannot require union membership of the employees.

            In the case of the robot in the Ford factory, I could not touch the robot until it was installed. Once the riggers and electricians were done, it was mine. It did guarantee them work, but it also ensured the safety of the entire plant, rather than letting a few zillion dollars and the safety of a 1000 people rest on one guy's idea of good enough.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years, 2 months ago
              At MM, Inc., what is the percentage of work which would be performed by employees which would require some type of manual expertise and how much by administrative and support staff? Would the admin and support staff be required union membership as a condition of employment? If yes, why? Could you, as owner/manager, found an employee underperforming on a routine basis, terminate that employee quickly, without a lengthy dispute process and not be apprehensive that employee could appeal that decision and be placed back on your payroll. Now that employee has an attitude of invulnerability, and so do his co-workers. Production now begins to deteriorate as the employees now know that performance is not a requirement to continued employment. Unions, at their inception, were absolutely necessary. It's only when they insisted on being another, unofficial, branch of government they became a nuisance instead of helpful. You have only to witness the abuses of unions in the workplace when they are clearly only fighting to seek to remain relevant to their members. And more and more, those come when the employee was clearly wrong. I am reminded of the recent case at Chrysler where employees were clearly filmed drinking and using drugs during their breaks and lunch. The sophistry of their being 'off-campus' and able to retain their jobs was a travesty of labor jurisprudence.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo