• 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
Then let the owner produce whatever he wants without labor.

Or let him do the labor himself, in which case he also becomes the worker - I have no problem with that. :)

We already went over who owns what is produced and why so either refute it as a fact, make a case for why it is not justified or drop this.

Second, you're already getting paid for your labor to assist the owner in their business. You simply DO have to include yourself in another transaction and make a claim to property that is clearly already owned.
 
No, you accused me of back-tracking (or contradicting myself), which I did not do.

I did? I guess you could take it that way, but I was implying you didn't understand ownership.

Obviously you interpreted that phrase to mean something specific so I'd like to know what it was. I can't fix it if I don't know what's wrong. So, once again:

What do YOU think "... ancient tribes "owned" the land only in so far as they stopped other tribes from using it" means???

They owned and protected property that they claimed as their own. You don't appear to understand what that means is all.
 
They owned and protected property that they claimed as their own. You don't appear to understand what that means is all.
And when they moved away from that area?
 
We already went over who owns what is produced and why so either refute it as a fact, make a case for why it is not justified or drop this.

Second, you're already getting paid for your labor to assist the owner in their business. You simply DO have to include yourself in another transaction and make a claim to property that is clearly already owned.
A worker could just as easily decide to accept part of the profit as to accept wages - or a little of both, some wages and some profit.

You're acting as if workers simply have no choice in the matter, though I happily admit that workers are pretty much forced into the wage-slave contract much like a man in the dessert is forced to play by whatever rules the local owner of the well writes.
 
ThWhich nation has had unbelievable economic growth the last ten years? That would be China.

China is slowly but consistently adopting the policies of the west though. If we look at them, looking at us, it will be a loop and our brains will explode!

Seriously, they are consistently moving more and more towards capitalism/free market, with state involvement in order to support a strong economy and social welfare...just like western style nations.
 

Logic, by looking at what the market produces in every area.

Parents? Ok. Conservative? Ah..what? As for the rest that is an assumption.

Yes, Parents who demand that students get 52% credit for assignments they did even do at all (real rule pushed for and passed by Parents here). Conservatives support that silly NCLB. They assult teachers regularly. No assumptions here. Again, all one has to do is pay attention.


It sure it is. It will drive educational levels.

No, it won't. Profit, especially in poorer areas will be achieved much easier by skipping the actual work of educating. I refer back to parents and th3 52% for doing nothing.


That is you saying that.

It is the logical conclusion. Look out at the market today.


Lets be clear this new line of discussion is so that you can avoid the question I put out from the start. "How does have a degree in whatever field mean a certain wage is deserved and anything else is unacceptable?" This discussion of a private school system in which I believe in has nothing to do with that question.

It means you are more qualified. It is simple. And it is comon practice in all feilds that require a degree to do. Doctors can do more and thus make more when they are properly credentialed. There is nothing unusual in this, and the degrees show that you have learned and mastered concepts required.

How exactly does that show a mastery of the field?

How does knowledge show mastery? You really don't understand the connection between the two?


Many younger doctors will use the Internet regularly when they see a patient. Ask people that go to the doctor all the time and they will testify to this.

I'll have to see support for that. My young doctor uses a computer, to record and save my lab values and patient history, so he has imediate access and can print off reports for me. But that is not using the internet. I think you're full of **** on this.
 
A worker could just as easily decide to accept part of the profit as to accept wages - or a little of both, some wages and some profit.

A worker can't decide anything on the property of someone else.

You're acting as if workers simply have no choice in the matter, though I happily admit that workers are pretty much forced into the wage-slave contract much like a man in the dessert is forced to play by whatever rules the local owner of the well writes.

They have no justifiable reason to have access to profits. Workers have agreed to an arrangement of labor for payment by the owner. Their choices are limited by the alignment of the transaction and who owns what. This is all things I have said before.

As for the last bit about wage-slave contracts you should be aware that is an oxymoron.
 
So basically what you are saying is that the amendments don't exist or is now obvious what I meant by my question that you called me playing prosecutor with you?

I have no idea what you are attempting to ask me in that post.

But despite me answering your question, you still seem to be utterly incapable of answering mine.

Is this so called right of self ownership listed in the US Constitution?
 
Last edited:
They have no justifiable reason to have access to profits. Workers have agreed to an arrangement of labor for payment by the owner. Their choices are limited by the alignment of the transaction and who owns what. This is all things I have said before.
They have "agreed" simply because they are seldom given a real choice. They do always have the right to refuse work under those conditions, which would eventually lead to death. Not what I call a real choice.

As for the last bit about wage-slave contracts you should be aware that is an oxymoron.
See above.


But I understand why people like you must believe it to be so. The pain of reality is too much for you to bear. This is where personal property has taken us. Those who have property dictate terms to those who don't have property.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what you are attempting to ask me in that post?

But despite me answering your question, you still seem to be utterly incapable of asking mine.

Is this so called right of self ownership listed in the US Constitution?

Its the same question I was asking you before but in a different way. The answer of my question will give you my answer to yours.
 
That is because you lack any form for logic, and to compensate for your lack of understanding you decide to act like an immature jerk.

You seem to be completely incapable of understanding the difference between.
1. To show what the average household income is in RTW states and non-RTW states. (adjusted for costs)
2. To evaluate if RTW states or non-RTW states are better.
When I say my aim and the aim of this random professor are not the same. I mean, my aim is 1. His aim is 2. To evaluate number 1, you only need to find income adjusted for living costs. For evaluating number 2, you need to evaluate multiple factors, and he fails because he correlates for factors like unemployment and the age of the state.

Also, again. I see no response to the holes I pointed out in his research, and this is the fourth time. Why should I trust his research if you are incapable of defending it? The only argument you seem capable of expressing is the failed argument above, and appeal to authority. Except no one here apart from you know who he is.

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.
 
Last edited:
They have "agreed" simply because they are seldom given a real choice. They do always have the right to refuse work under those conditions, which would eventually lead to death. Not what I call a real choice.

No one has to work or work for someone else in this country and you wouldn't necessarily die because of that choice.

See above.

What you said above is not slavery.
 
Last edited:
Its the same question I was asking you before but in a different way. The answer of my question will give you my answer to yours.

BS. I have heard that before FROM YOU and it never ever ever does. You simply are gone with the wind when your game is not played the way you want to play it by the rules you want to play by.

Is there something about a straight answer to a direct question which is foreign to you?
 
BS. I have heard that before FROM YOU and it never ever ever does. You simply are gone with the wind when your game is not played the way you want to play it by the rules you want to play by.

Is there something about a straight answer to a direct question which is foreign to you?

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?
 
As usual you dodged instead of answered.

Well what I get out of it is if they left the land they have no interest in the land any further renouncing their claims. In the context given that appears to be accurate, but I'm assuming you meant something else.

How is that a dodge? The first sentence is my answer.
 
I love reading the comments from these so called "Conservatives" that are all in favor of taking away the voice of the worker and giving complete authority to the government in terms of neogtiating employment wages and benefits.

I guess "Conservative" today means pro big government.
 
How is that a dodge? The first sentence is my answer.
Well what I get out of it is if they left the land they have no interest in the land any further renouncing their claims. In the context given that appears to be accurate, but I'm assuming you meant something else.
So people that have second homes or whatever renounce their claims to the land because they don't occupy it? That's interesting.
 
Contributing labor to production could just as easily attach rights to product/inventory.

I suppose the government could enact legislation to this effect. Is this something you are recommending?
 
What you said above is not slavery.
Yes, being forced to do whatever the well owner desires is very much slavery. Again, unless you consider dying an "option".
 
So people that have second homes or whatever renounce their claims to the land because they don't occupy it? That's interesting.

In your scenario what I got from it is that the Indians left for good and renounced their claims. If you meant they left for the day or something similar that changes it since the claims have not changed.
 
Yes, being forced to do whatever the well owner desires is very much slavery. Again, unless you consider dying an "option".

You have free will to not accept their orders if that is what you decide and no dying is not a given if you decide such.
 
You have free will to not accept their orders if that is what you decide and no dying is not a given if you decide such.
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.
 
Last edited:
In your scenario what I got from it is that the Indians left for good and renounced their claims. If you meant they left for the day or something similar that changes it since the claims have not changed.
I never said they renounced or even claimed any land at all. 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.

There is nothing innate or natural about property rights. Property rights are man-made constructs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom