• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?

  • Yes, their power has waxed and now it shall wane.

    Votes: 40 62.5%

  • Unions will respond and their power will grow.

    Votes: 14 21.9%

  • It depends on November.

    Votes: 10 15.6%
  • Total voters
    64
Henrin said:
Why do you think the amendments would of never came into being without the idea of self ownership? Is it perhaps that they are connected? Isn't this all but too obvious?
Click to expand...

No - it is not. And you are doing a really really really bad job of putting such a concept forward.
 
MoSurveyor said:
In the desert with the only source of water being that well then of course dying is a given. Even you can't be that dense.
Click to expand...

Wait, we are talking about the desert? Don't you believe that property rights don't exist? Why don't you just take the well? I mean you aren't in society and property rights are bull****, right?
 
MoSurveyor said:
I never said they renounced or even claimed any land at all.
Click to expand...

The problem is you did say they claimed land.

Tribes (and, no, this is not necessarily about American Indians) did migrate from place to place. It wasn't just for a "day or something similar". Sometimes they wouldn't return to an area for more than a year. (Sometimes they never returned.) Maybe while they were gone another tribe used the area - and so what? If they came back and another tribe was there they went somewhere else. Not everything over all of time was controlled by property rights.
Click to expand...

So they didn't fight for it? Hmm..well that is a decision they could make. Still, your statement seems odd considering what you said earlier to me. Who exactly did we take land from if it not the Indians? Are the Indians today that claim their land was stolen are they telling tall tales? Were all those Indians that died fighting for their land imaginary? For example, did the Hopi never fight for their land like the history books tell?

There is nothing innate or natural about property rights. Property rights are man-made constructs.
Click to expand...

I will be sure to tell animals they are doing it wrong. Hey ants! You're doing it wrong!
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Wait, we are talking about the desert? Don't you believe that property rights don't exist? Why don't you just take the well? I mean you aren't in society and property rights are bull****, right?
Click to expand...
In your hypothetical little world it would be my civic duty to die for the sake of the well owner's property rights - or become his slave if I wanted to live.
 
Henrin said:
The problem is you did say they claimed land.
Click to expand...
No, I said they defended from use by others.

I know in your little world where everything MUST BE property that there is no other result than for you to say they claimed it because they stopped others from using it. That does not make it the ONE TRUE BELIEF.

Henrin said:
So they didn't fight for it? Hmm..well that is a decision they could make. Still, your statement seems odd considering what you said earlier to me. Who exactly did we take land from if it not the Indians? Are the Indians today that claim their land was stolen are they telling tall tales? Were all those Indians that died fighting for their land imaginary? For example, did the Hopi never fight for their land like the history books tell?
Click to expand...
I don't know about the Indians and their LEGAL claims to land.

Europeans "took" land from all over the world because in many instances the cultures they took the land from had no real concept of property rights. So the Europeans assumed there was no ownership and claimed the "unowned" land for their own. Many indigenous people were willing to share the land and it's bounty but that wasn't enough for the Europeans, who only believed in ownership. They couldn't wrap their head around the idea of no ownership.

Henrin said:
I will be sure to tell animals they are doing it wrong. Hey ants! You are doing it wrong!
Click to expand...
I have no clue what you're going on about here.

Trying to impose your beliefs on others seems to be very common in Western cultures. We have fought many wars and millions have people have died because of our insistence that our beliefs are the only TRUE BELIEFS.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
In your hypothetical little world it would be my civic duty to die for the sake of the well owner's property rights - or become his slave if I wanted to live.
Click to expand...

Civic duty? What part of you're not in society did you not get?

Regardless, I was just having fun with your absurd example of being stuck out in the middle of the desert and some random guy owns a well.
 
MoSurveyor said:
No, I said they defended from use by others.

I know in your little world where everything MUST BE property that there is no other result than for you to say they claimed it because they stopped others from using it.
Click to expand...

That is what it means, lol.

I don't know about the Indians and their LEGAL claims to land.
Click to expand...

Legal claims? Who said anything about legal claims? You?

Europeans "took" land from all over the world because in many instances the cultures they took the land from had no real concept of property rights. So the Europeans assumed there was no ownership and claimed the "unowned" land for their own.
Click to expand...

So that is why the Indians fought for their land. Hey dead Hopi, you did it wrong! You were apparently not doing what you were!

I have no clue what you're going on about here.
Click to expand...

Animals and their claims?? Ants are a beautiful example of it.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I get your 'context'.

And I get your goals.

And I get which side you are on.

You come across loud and clear.
Click to expand...

I am on the side of fiscal survival. I would rather not violate contracts, but if it it comes down to fire departments or COLA increases, government's primary duty is to the citizenry, not it's employees.

I look at the views you push as no different than a rabble rouser standing outside myself giving directions to people to loot my house of everything I worked for simply because they do nto ant me to have it and they feel they need it more. I know how I would deal with such a person and I suspect you would deal with them exactly the same way.
Click to expand...

:lol: well. now you know how Turtledude feels :).

I told you in a post this morning that I would indeed answer your question in detai later today. And I intend to do that.
Click to expand...

:) looking forward to it.
 
Henrin said:
That is what it means, lol.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm aware of the legal principles. LOL!

Henrin said:
Legal claims? Who said anything about legal claims? You?
Click to expand...
No, you're the one that keeps bringing up American Indians and you've been doing it for pages on end. I assumed, since it was you, it was some legal claim. If it isn't a legal claim then I have no clue what you're going on - and on - about.

Henrin said:
So that is why the Indians fought for their land. Hey dead Hopi, you did it wrong! You were apparently not doing what you were!
Click to expand...
Back to the American Indians again!!!! LOL!

Do you believe there were never any other tribes in the world - or anywhere else in time???

Henrin said:
Animals and their claims?? Ants are a beautiful example of it.
Click to expand...
Like I said - your beliefs are obviously the ONE TRUE BELIEF. I don't argue religion so we're done.


/conversation
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Yes, I'm aware of the legal principles. LOL!
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what they are. We are talking about OUTSIDE of the government/modern society.

No, you're the one that keeps bringing up American Indians and you've been doing it for pages on end. I assumed, since it was you, it was some legal claim. If it isn't a legal claim then I have no clue what you're going on - and on - about.

Back to the American Indians again!!!! LOL!
Click to expand...

Who in the hell did we steal land from then? Were you just saying I lied for no reason what so ever?

Do you believe there were never any other tribes in the world - or anywhere else in time???
Click to expand...

Why does that matter? You are looking for an example outside of modern society and the Hopi work wonderfully.

Like I said - your beliefs are obviously the ONE TRUE BELIEF. I don't argue religion so we're done.
Click to expand...

Religion? Are you aware of the behavior of animals in the wild? Have you ever actually looked into it?

/conversation
Click to expand...

I accept your defeat, I guess.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
What you seem to be unwiling to accept is that I have considered your argument and compared it with the data from Lafer and I have concluded that Dr. Lafer makes a far more compelling case based on a far more thorough and detailed presentation of data that you have done.

Perhaps your ego does not allow that reality to sink in?

You are like a chid you keeps crying "but I want it I want it I want it" and will not take NO for an answer. Which is your right. But it is also mine to examine the evidence and conclude that the Dr. Lafer evidence is accurate and far more compelling that your objections to it.
Click to expand...

Wait, so if I haven't convinced you, then I have lost the debate.

Who has a big ego again? I am just pointing out that you refuses to even answer the flaws I pointed out in his research, and you keep being unable to understand that our aims are different. Or maybe you do understand, but trying to misunderstand is the only argument you got left.
 
Henrin said:
Religion? Are you aware of the behavior of animals in the wild? Have you ever actually looked into it?
Click to expand...
The way you see "property rights" is very similar to the way many people see God. To devout Christians God is everywhere and provides all. These people not only say such things by rote or because it's expected of them, they actually believe it and see it in the simple, everyday things all around them. When they eat they pray and truly thank God for the food. When unexplained things happen it is God's Will. You and your religion of Property Rights is no different.

Yes.

Assuming that "it" is "the way animals behave in the wild" - yes.

Henrin said:
I accept your defeat, I guess.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the lesson.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The way you see "property rights" is very similar to the way many people see God. To devout Christians God is everywhere and provides all. These people not only say such things by rote or because it's expected of them, they actually believe it and see it in the simple, everyday things all around them. When they eat they pray and truly thank God for the food. When unexplained things happen it is God's Will. You and your religion of Property Rights is no different.
Click to expand...

Hmm...

Yes.

Assuming that "it" is "the way animals behave in the wild" - yes.
Click to expand...

I noticed you never really explained to me what animals do when they show similar behavior patterns except saying its my religion that is making me see it. That doesn't really seem like an argument, sorry. Just like you never really explained to me why Indians would fight for something they didn't take claim of. Its a bit, how can I say, weak.

Thank you for the lesson.
Click to expand...

You're welcome??
 
haymarket said:
Property rights are rights. They are important rights. All rights people have are important rights. Property rights are not elevated above all else or at the expense of all else.
Click to expand...

my property rights don't interfere with your valid rights in any way Not allowing others to take what I have is not an infringement on their rights
 
teachers_unions.png
 
Who is saying that public unions destroyed the economy? We're just saying that they are wrecking State and Local governments' fiscs.
 
Catawba said:
teachers_unions.png
Click to expand...

Dumbest thing I have read for a long time.

People tend to say Republicans are stupid, but this dumb cartoon is proof that many Democrats are stupid as well. First off, none of them has anything to do with why people dislike teachers unions, and secondly Republicans have never accused teachers unions for causing the crisis. So this guy used hours making a cartoon that is not even relevant.

I guess it doesn't matter when you only want to appeal to dumb democrats.
 
Camlon said:
Dumbest thing I have read for a long time.

People tend to say Republicans are stupid, but this dumb cartoon is proof that many Democrats are stupid as well. First off, none of them has anything to do with why people dislike teachers unions, and secondly Republicans have never accused teachers unions for causing the crisis. So this guy used hours making a cartoon that is not even relevant.

I guess it doesn't matter when you only want to appeal to dumb democrats.
Click to expand...


:lamo You have used many of these reasons yourself! :lamo
 
libertarian_freedom.png
 
Camlon said:
Wait, so if I haven't convinced you, then I have lost the debate.

Who has a big ego again? I am just pointing out that you refuses to even answer the flaws I pointed out in his research, and you keep being unable to understand that our aims are different. Or maybe you do understand, but trying to misunderstand is the only argument you got left.
Click to expand...

In you last few posts, you spend more time attacking me personally than you do defending your position. How does that give credibility to your position?

Dr. Lafer and the studies he cites compare workers of like categories in union and non-union states. When they do that, they find that the unionized states worker of similar kind makes $1500 more than the non unionized worker of the same kind.

I call that excellent research.

You call it flawed.

Lafer compares a middle aged female high school educated secretary with ten years experience in a metropolitan area in a unionized state with a middle aged female high school educated secretary with ten years experience in a metropolitan area in a non unionized state and discovers the unionized state worker makes $1500 more. The study he uses makes 40 such comparisons adjusting for these real world factors.

He is comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You want to compare apples to cinderblocks.

I do not see how you can defend shorthand studies, slipshod research and fly-by-night comparisons that fail to make such adjustments.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
my property rights don't interfere with your valid rights in any way Not allowing others to take what I have is not an infringement on their rights
Click to expand...

Do you have a quote from me where I said otherwise?

I have no idea what this statement is suppose to refute.
 
Camlon said:
Dumbest thing I have read for a long time.

People tend to say Republicans are stupid, but this dumb cartoon is proof that many Democrats are stupid as well. First off, none of them has anything to do with why people dislike teachers unions, and secondly Republicans have never accused teachers unions for causing the crisis. So this guy used hours making a cartoon that is not even relevant.

I guess it doesn't matter when you only want to appeal to dumb democrats.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not approve of seeing your own intellectual prejudices exposed and made fun of in this manner. Thats okay. Few do.

The cartoon contains much truth that I have seen displayed over and over and over again through many years by those who bash both public education and the men and women who are professional educators in public education. It is an excellent cartoon and does a fine job at getting the point across.
 
Catawba said:
:lamo You have used many of these reasons yourself! :lamo
Click to expand...
Lets see
10. Nope
9. Never said teacher vacations caused the economic crisis.
8. Nope
7. I didn't mention finance. I mentioned poor people. And again, I didn't link it to economic crisis.
6. Nope
5. Certainly not. It is actually the opposite.
4. Nope
3. Nope
2. Nope
1. Nope

So another dishonest, dumb comment from Catawba. What you didn't talk about is why it is relevant.
 
MoSurveyor said:
LOL! Start here - but there's plenty more.
Inaugural Article: The evolution of lethal intergroup violence
Click to expand...

This is hilarious. You have cited an article that demonstrates my position.

...These data provide grounds for evaluating Wrangham's preliminary conclusion that “current evidence supports the hypothesis that selection has favored a hunt and kill propensity in chimpanzees and humans, and that coalitional killing has a long history in the evolution of both species” (ref. 6, p. 1).

The crux of Wrangham's explanation of the evolution of coalitionary killing is that fitness is closely correlated with access to food resources and that territorial enlargement thus enhances fitness. In short, “fitness is correlated with territory size” (other factors being equal) (ref. 6, p. 15). Unprovoked attacks on members of a neighboring community thus convey a selective advantage, provided that the costs to the attackers are low. The mechanism by which aggression is rewarded is intercommunity dominance. “If raiding leads to the wounding or death of a neighboring male, the neighboring community's competitive ability is substantially reduced” (ref. 6, p. 15). The dominant community can thus freely encroach on the territory of its neighbor whenever food resources within its own territory are in short supply. The dominant community also may have an advantage in recruiting reproductive females. However, the capacity to translate additional females into increased fitness would be contingent on the commensurate expansion of food resources.† Thus, although intercommunity dominance “tends to lead to increased fitness of the killers through improved access to resources such as food, females, or safety” (ref. 6, p. 12), territorial gain is the critical ingredient for the realization of this fitness enhancement....
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom