• 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?


  • Total voters
    64
Property rights is crafted out of the natural order. Don't let that stop you though as it sure didn't stop marx from making an ass out of himself.
That's horse crap! In the "natural order", that wild state we lived in for the past 200,000 years of our evolution, there was no "property" at all. People worked together as a tribe for the good of the tribe.

Didn't Hitler also say that Aryan domination was the natural order? His use of the term was just as artificial as yours.
 
Last edited:
I don't really care what the IRS thinks. It is their property and that is that.
Let's see how much dust it "creates" with no one to operate it.


In actuality it won't create dust, either, it will only accumulate dust. Much like many rich people accumulate wealth but seldom create it.
 
Last edited:
That's horse crap! In the "natural order", that wild state we lived in for the past 200,000 years of our evolution, there was no "property" at all. People worked together as a tribe for the good of the tribe.

Didn't Hitler also say that Aryan domination was the natural order? His use of the term was just as artificial as yours.

Oh so we didn't take land from the Indians. I like how you use arguments when they work for you. :roll:
 
Let's see how much dust it "creates" with no one to operate it.

And that means what to me exactly?

In actuality it won't create dust, either, it will only accumulate dust. Much like many rich people accumulate wealth but seldom create it.

And?? I'm assuming there will be ignorance that follows so please just get it over with.
 
I don't want a flat tax. :)
I misspoke, I should have said the conservatives should be all over it.


I know, you want a government that works for nothing - or maybe a government run on voluntary contributions. In any event, good luck getting that to work in the modern world.
 
Last edited:
I misspoke, I should have said the conservatives should be all over it.


I know, you want a volunteer government and military. Good luck making that work in the modern world.

You know so much about me. :roll:
 
People influencing the government have no power over me. The government has power over me, which is why they are trying to influence the government.
Yes, I know, you have been indoctrinated well. That doesn't change the facts.
 
In order to produce goods to be sold, a business purchases factors of production, namely land labor and capital. The fact that one purchases inputs in order to produce products does not mean that one's inventory of finished goods belongs to anyone else.
The "ownership" (as you call it) of product depends on the laws of society. There is nothing innate or natural about property rights.

Inventory is the exclusive property of the business. Do you dispute this? Then, when the business sells its inventory, the proceeds are the exclusive property of the business. Do you dispute this?
Yes. Yes. All property in America is subject to law.
 
Last edited:
Oh so we didn't take land from the Indians. I like how you use arguments when they work for you. :roll:
I don't believe I ever said anyone took land from the Indians. YOU made that assumption and said it, not me.

That particular argument was left at how far back in time you wanted to go to find this "original owner" of yours. It was also in that little discussion that I mentioned the same thing as I did here, explaining that ancient tribes "owned" the land only in so far as they stopped other tribes from using it. I'm sure you won't remember any of that, though. Your selective memory has been noted many times.
 
I don't believe I ever said anyone took land from the Indians. YOU made that assumption and said it, not me.

That particular argument was left at how far back in time you wanted to go to find this "original owner" of yours. It was also in that little discussion that I mentioned the same thing as I did here, explaining that ancient tribes "owned" the land only in so far as they stopped other tribes from using it. I'm sure you won't remember any of that, though. Your selective memory has been noted many times.

Do you know what you bolded means? I don't think you do.
 
true but those of us who attended private schools and/or send our kids to private schools tend to be those with large property tax bills meaning we are paying for the education of others as well as tuition for our own kids--and guess what, I don't have a real problem with that since I have the option of sending my son to the excellent but very large public school in our prosperous town. I don't. But I don't really have a problem with some tax dollars (I don't know if they do) helping the school junior attends.

Private schools also have something public schools often do not-parents who really care. that is worth a ton when it comes to achievement test scores etc.

and thankfully, my son's school can hire those who have actually expertise in a given subject rather than wasting their time on getting the BS M Ed degrees the teachers unions demand in our public schools. Every teacher I had at that school save maybe 1-3 had masters, 2 had doctorates. My AP biology teacher had a masters in that subject from Williams. My English teacher-a Masters from Columbia, History-PhD Harvard, Math-U of Penn and so on

Are you suugesting that having an educated populace doesn't help you at all?

Yes, private schools have advantages, which make them look better. What do you think happens to them if they lost those advantages and had to deal with the general populace?
 
If the fire department was private yes.

Not so much.

Quality matters to everything. Don't try to separate certain fields like fire and education.

Does it? then why do we sell so many things of low quality in the market?



What does this have to do with what you said above?

It's fairly obvious. If we go the route of the market place, crap will be sold, and a profit will be made off of that crap. But it would not improve education.

Tell me, why is a doctor paid so much? Do you really think it is the degree? Or it perhaps the skill and the rarity and value of such a skill? However none of what I just said matters when talking about public school teachers.

Yeah, I think his degree matters. The degree shows he has shown mastery of his field. Yes, it matters. But please, feel free to go to someone without one. I'm sure your hairdresser will do just fine.
 
Does it? then why do we sell so many things of low quality in the market?

The market has been known to have crappy products, so what?



It's fairly obvious. If we go the route of the market place, crap will be sold, and a profit will be made off of that crap. But it would not improve education.

You're pretending I'm hiding the fact that the market sells crap and its a bit pathetic. You're also pretending that the government doesn't sell crap. Tell me, which is better? The crap you can get away from or the crap you can't? You tell me. Competition DOES improve education and the existence of crap is exactly why. I have nothing to hide from or not admit, sorry.


Yeah, I think his degree matters. The degree shows he has shown mastery of his field. Yes, it matters. But please, feel free to go to someone without one. I'm sure your hairdresser will do just fine.

It doesn't show he has a mastery of his field. What kind of nonsense is that? Tell me the last time someone came out of college and had a mastery of their field? Oh right, it never happens. Regardless, you are still not answering the important question that is needed to be answered. How does have a degree in whatever field mean a certain wage is deserved and anything else is unacceptable?

And you don't really want to go to doctors for being masters of their craft since many rely on the Internet these days.
 
Last edited:
Today's quiz ~

tumblr_lrditlj8yg1qguulqo1_500.jpg
 
The market has been known to have crappy products, so what?

It's important because that is what you are sure to get in the open market. Those most likley to suffer will be the most needy among us. This will widen the gap even more.



You're pretending I'm hiding the fact that the market sells crap and its a bit pathetic. You're also pretending that the government doesn't sell crap. Tell me, which is better? The crap you can get away from or the crap you can't? You tell me. Competition DOES improve education and the existence of crap is exactly why. I have nothing to hide from or not admit, sorry.

Actually, considering what they have to contend with in parents and conservative, they do a better job by far than the low end will get in the market. Competition will improve some areas, but too often the competition is for profit and not quality. This is important. Only those who can afford first class will see any improvement, though very little as most of them already have first class. The rest will get cheapened scaled down versious, and will be very hit and miss, largely miss.

BTW, not sure where you got hiding. I merely figure you don't see the point.




It doesn't show he has a mastery of his field. What kind of nonsense is that? Tell me the last time someone came out of college and had a mastery of their field? Oh right, it never happens. Regardless, you are still not answering the important question that is needed to be answered. How does have a degree in whatever field mean a certain wage is deserved and anything else is unacceptable?

And you don't really want to go to doctors for being masters of their craft since many rely on the Internet these days.

Sure it does. Have you seen what doctors go through?

ANd it ahppens all the time in nearly all professions. Sure, some have to get some practical experience behind them, but take a nurse, a four year nurse 5 years down the road will be twice the nurse of the 2 year grade. the 2 year grade knows the practical, start the IV, whatever skill, the four year knows why and what to look for much better. Those years taught her things that gave her a better foundation.

And I don't know a doctor who relys on the internet. And I know some doctors. Not sure where your getting some of this silliness.
 
don't you people who are the reactionary far left get tired of the same silly comments over and over such as the stupid hammer crap and calling anyone who doesn't believe in hating the rich "far right"

If it fits as perfectly as it does - it will be used whenever possible.
 
What part of Our aims are not the same, is difficult for you to understand? Do you have some kind of mental problem I should know about? His aim is to check if RTW states are better. My aim is to check who earns more. They are not the same, hence I do not need to adjust for the same amount of factors.

I do not know how many factors he adjusted for. If he actually adjusted for all of these factors, then how exactly do you adjust household income with the age of the state. To be honest I hardly think he adjust for any other factors than cost of living and demographics. If he really adjusted for age of the state and unemployment rate, then his study is just pure BS.

I have also pointed out holes in his research, I have stated them 3 times now. You have pretended like I didn't write it 3 times. So you are pretty much trying to be an ass, because you are unable to argue for your points.

His study clearly states that AFTER ADJUSTING FOR COST OF LIVING right to work states have workers earning $1,500.00 less and decreased benefits.

You have said there are things wrong with his research. You have not shown what is wrong with his research other than rather general and vague pontifications. I will give this more time later today.
 
from cp will - his convenient excuse to ignore honoring pensions that workers earned over thirty or forty years of service

Contracts negotiated in bad faith by both actors should not be held as binding by current state and local governments when doing so would effectively destroy those governments' solvency.

There was no such thing ever done. Those contracts were negotiated by the parties involved - both of whom were the legal representatives with full power to do so - in complete good faith.

You are making a completely irresponsible and unsubstantiated charge that covers a half decade or more of multiple contracts, negotiated by multiple persons. Making such a serious charge demands the highest level of evidence possible.

You have presented none.

This can only be viewed as a right wing attempt to screw workers out of their rightful benefits that they earned over decades of work for the people.

It is sad that you would take such a position in the face of the conservative claim of the value of contracts.

This is blatant and utter hypocrisy of the worst sort.

For you and the right to push this defines you as the enemy of the people. I view you no differently that someone who provides a map to my home and urges people to break in and loot it because I have something that they want. And I know how most would deal with that sort of theft.
 
What do you think happened when the philosophy of Marxism was proven a failure? I will give you hint, you believe in the latest version.

Perhaps you can provide the details of that? When and where did this happen?
 
from cpwill to me

Given that when offered the option, it seems that half to a majority of public union members prefer to opt out, and given that the movement to limit Public Unions is coming from both parties, how do you justify your vote that Public Unions will end up stronger? What social, political, or economic force do you see driving that result?

That is a serious question. I will give it proper time and consideration later in the day - got to run off to work now.
 
Yes, I know, you have been indoctrinated well. That doesn't change the facts.

What facts are those? You continue to hint that the rich are able to exercise power over me, yet continue to provide any example of this. Your earlier claim that the wealthy have some sort of special power remains unproven.
 
The "ownership" (as you call it) of product depends on the laws of society. There is nothing innate or natural about property rights.

I notice that you put the work ownership in quotes, and I wonder why.

Under our legal system, the business is the exclusive owner of its inventory. Are you suggesting some change to this long-standing legal principle? If so, how would you like to see the ownership of the inventory divided up?

Yes. Yes. All property in America is subject to law.

Of course it is. If you're proposing a change in the law, then what is it?
 
His study clearly states that AFTER ADJUSTING FOR COST OF LIVING right to work states have workers earning $1,500.00 less and decreased benefits.

You have said there are things wrong with his research. You have not shown what is wrong with his research other than rather general and vague pontifications. I will give this more time later today.
You quoted him previously saying this
Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socio-economic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.

You are just making a fool out of yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom